Sir Christopher Frayling reveals a sensitivity to recent accusations of ?inefficiencies? at Arts Council England (ACE) in his recent RSA address (p1). It isn?t entirely clear whether his reference to ?what?s been written in some quarters lately? refers specifically to Charles Morgan?s scepticism about ACE?s claims to have become a ?leaner and more effective? operation (AP issue 90, 31 January), the follow-up letters in AP issue 91, The Stage?s subsequent coverage of the story, or indeed to Tessa Jowell?s pre-Christmas outburst, where she described herself in The Guardian as having been mugged by Arts Council spin doctors, and implied that ACE was a bureaucracy that was in danger of losing its edge. No wonder Sir Christopher is feeling a little frayed at the edges.
Judging by the size of the AP postbag and other informal feedback (mainly from irate arts professionals who, for fear of retaliatory funding cuts, are not keen to place their views on the record) there is widespread concern among those who work in the arts at ACE?s stewardship of funds in the years since the re-structuring of the Arts Council. This money was hard won from the DCMS in the first place and, with standstill funding in place for the next three years, is now in danger of shrinking unless some significant economy measures are put into place.
Of course, it may be that Charles Morgan is wrong; his interpretations of ACE?s financial statements may be flawed, and his conclusions about ACE?s husbandry may simply be misplaced. However if this is the case, might we not have expected the aforementioned spin doctors to be beating a path to ArtsProfessional?s door to set the record straight? Does silence signify a quiet admission of facts? What public response there has been from ACE to date has included Frayling?s extraordinary assertion that the savings are in fact £7m - not £5.6m as previously stated - this being the difference between current spending and projected levels of expenditure, had ACE not made the organisational changes ? surely a bit like buying something you didn?t really need in the
sales, and declaring that you?ve saved money because it was a bargain!
In making significant and controversial organisational changes four years ago amidst a fanfare of bullish promises about cost and staff savings, ACE was always going to be keenly watched to see if delivery matched the rhetoric. One significant public voice has now laid a charge of mission failure at ACE?s door. Its ability to continue to credibly undertake its role as advocate and custodian of arts funds (and often judge and jury of arts organisations? own efficiency too) may be severely hampered if it chooses not, or is unable to, respond fully to those criticisms.