Revised ACE guidance urges 'personal views clarity'

Arts Council England has overhauled its guidance to regularly funded organisations, affirming that individual employees "have the right to express their personal views, within the bounds of the law".

Previously, the relationship framework noted that reputational risk could be generated by both staff and "other individuals associated with the organisation acting in a personal capacity," warning organisations to be wary of "overtly political or activist" statements. However, the new version makes no mention of activism or overt politicism.

The change, which says that grant recipients should maintain an up-to-date social media policy with an "explicit distinction between individuals speaking in a personal capacity and on behalf of your organisation", is one of the dozens of significant additions to the guidelines made just one month after the section on considering reputational risk was added.

READ MORE:

• ACE warns NPOs of 'political statement' dangers
• ACE warned over 'political statements' guidance ahead of outcry

ACE  published the revamped framework today (28 February) following concerns raised by sector figures and the general public that the prompts might cause NPOs to restrict artistic freedoms out of consideration for their funding positions.

Whereas previously, the framework contained a short paragraph on freedom of expression toward the end of the reputational risk section, the updated guidance begins with a new extended section on the value of artistic expression and states unequivocally that ACE "will not remove or refuse funding to an organisation or an individual purely because they make work that is political."

The new guidance says: "Art is often political, and many of the organisations we invest in present work that is thought-provoking and raises uncomfortable questions. We believe this to be a right and proper use of public funding. Freedom of artistic expression is a foundational principle in this country and one that we are committed to champion and defend."

ACE notes that cultural organisations are operating in a "polarised, fast-paced" environment and that NPOs will make work "that engages with contested issues" with "rapid and intense" responses.

The guidance says social and mainstream media responses can be overwhelming for staff and leaders of cultural organisations and can create "significant reputational risk for the organisations themselves."

Reputational risk

ACE records risks at least every three months - or as they arise - and uses this risk level, based on activity, investment principles, governance, financial viability and reputational risk, to determine whether interventions or additional conditions to the funding agreement are needed.

In a list of examples that might increase reputational risk, ACE previously included "issues with artistic and creative output that might be deemed controversial" and "activity that might be considered overtly political or activist and goes beyond your company’s core purpose".

The latest version says that activity or behaviour that leads to reputational risk could include programming, events, public statements, partnerships or management decisions.

It warns that "because of the nature of social media and online interaction", risk can be generated "by the actions of individual staff members" or those who have "an association in the public’s mind" with the organisation, as well as by the organisation itself.

The guidelines caution: "Negative responses can be high-profile and can include protests, social media campaigns, damaging press and, potentially, legal ramifications. 

"Outcomes could involve the cancellation of work, loss of income, loss of partnerships and employment opportunities, and mental health impacts on your staff and others associated with your organisation."

ACE offers public support

ACE says its guidance on reputational risk is "not about shying away from producing challenging work or avoiding difficult subjects". 

Instead, it should "lead you to plan for how your organisation will respond in the event of negative reactions".

In a significant addition, ACE now says that if organisations have a good risk management strategy in place, it will provide them with public support should they need it.

The guidance on "political statements" came in the wake of ACE-funded organisations, including the Collections Trust and Arnolfini, facing criticism over their handling of issues relating to the conflict in Israel and Palestine.

Following a social media backlash against Arnolfini over its decision to withdraw from hosting two planned events as part of the Bristol Palestine Film Festival in November, ACE declined to comment other than to note that its funding recipients are "responsible for their own operations, including artistic programme decisions and day-to-day management of their activities".

Seven steps

ACE has also updated its steps for organisations to take when considering undertaking a potentially risky activity. 

Additions include speaking to other organisations that have faced similar issues, developing a "risk register", and putting in place support for artists and staff involved. 

The final step has been amended from "alerting" ACE about the risk to "talking" to the funding body.

Following a social media debate over the original guidance published on 25 January, ACE made an initial statement attempting to clarify its position on artistic expression on 14 February.

This was followed by a second statement on 15 February in which it acknowledged, “It’s very apparent from what we’ve heard that the language we used in our update was open to misinterpretation.”

“We’re looking again at some of the language we’ve used and will clarify it to fully reflect our original intention," the funding body said.

'Urgent clarity'

Artists' Union England wrote to ACE on 9 February for "urgent clarity" over its relationship framework, highlighting "widespread alarm within the arts community" about the initial updates.

"There is a suspicion that, whether or not they are designed to, these prompts will cause [National Portfolio Organisations] to restrict artistic freedoms out of concern for their funding positions," the letter states.

It added that the union was concerned that the "vaguely phrased additions" would encourage NPOs to be "wary of commissioning artists whose work is even remotely politically engaged".