The art of accounting

Undertaking an organisational review for Arts Council England (ACE) is no easy thing. But neither is it exceptional. Given the speed at which Jeremy Hunt is working to prove that his next promotion is more important than his current post, I can understand that organisations dependent on the DCMS are nervous. But, should ACE be celebrating an exercise in restructuring, giving headline figures on how much is being saved, slashed and streamlined, when verification is yet to be made (due in next year’s annual report)? I’ve little time for what standard procedure in the corporate world might be but, to me, this amounts to disingenuous spin: it can’t be ethical to publish accounts of the past financial year while prematurely heralding the achievements of the one to come.

Yes, as I’m repeatedly made aware, this is a crucially sensitive time for our sector. We’re supposed to be united, showing off impressive number-crunching to prove our economic worth. There’s arguably no room to present conflicting information; Hunt’s philosophy seems to be to remove not improve the arts, hence his swift entry into British rhyming slang. A number of opinion pieces in the press (most notably Christina Patterson’s in The Independent) have listed the numerous shortcomings of Hunt’s methodology, so I’ll save myself the space. However, regardless of the good work the sector – and I’m obviously including ACE – does, it cannot be arrogant. Whatever the political or economic landscape, accountability is still essential. Checks and balances are needed in the arts just as they are elsewhere: to stave off elitism, abuses of power, swelling bureaucracy and deliberate obfuscation. Just ask the BBC.
The problem for ACE (and it’s not alone), is that institutionally, it’s not designed to problem-solve its own weaknesses. I wouldn’t for a moment suggest that the DCMS under Hunt’s leadership is capable instead, but there are flaws in the way the body operates, and po-faced denial and hubris won’t help. Take, for instance, a press release dated 14 July 2009, where ACE stated “[Our] changes will meet the government’s requirement that the Arts Council saves 15% on its grant in aid administration costs by 2010”. One would presume “by 2010” meant by this year’s annual report, no? Plus, Alan Davey wrote a letter (AP220) to say “Arts Council England’s organisational review in fact saved £6.5m in our annual running costs”. (Note use of the past tense.) Yet, grant-in-aid admin costs and staff numbers have both gone up in the 2009/10 financial report. So why is there still so much confusion as to what is being audited and what is being asserted?
Suggesting ways in which ACE could change, rethink its relationship to artists, organisations, government and the public is not a call for its closure. As I said in my first issue at AP, I strongly believe that ACE has an important and valuable role to play in our cultural life. But, considering alternatives to the way it currently operates should be part of its evolving process – not perceived as a revolutionary battle.