ACE defends decision process

Protests against Arts Council England’s (ACE) proposed funding cuts have gathered momentum, with more than half of the 229 organisations which are set to either have their funding terminated (194) or reduced (35) making formal responses to their funding proposals by the deadline of 15 January. At least two of these, Dedalus Publishing and the Northcott Theatre in Exeter, intend to mount legal challenges if the proposed cuts to their grants are confirmed.

Protesters are now focusing on two major issues: that ACE is not following its own policy for approaching the task of disinvestment from regularly funded clients, and that the information on which ACE has based its funding decisions has in many cases been inaccurate. In response to allegations of its failure to comply with its own guidelines for disinvestment, ACE has told ArtsProfessional that “what has been called the disinvestment policy does not directly apply to the current process”, and added that “It was not written with a full-scale, whole of arts council portfolio review in mind. It was written as internal guidance to cater for disinvestment at the conclusion of a much longer process.” Defending its processes, ACE claims to have “complied with the stages and the fundamental principles” of the policy, and points to a footnote in its guidelines which indicates that exceptions to its policy may arise “where disinvestment is the result of a financial strategy adopted in response to the level of funding the Arts Council is allocated by government”. ACE claims that organisations were “made aware that decisions on funding for 2008–11 have operated on a slightly shorter timeframe than that recommended… as a result of the timing of the Arts Council’s own settlement from government.”

Several organisations have protested about the quality and provision of information on which the Arts Council’s funding decisions were made. Josie Rourke, Artistic Director of the Bush Theatre, who has revealed that ACE underestimated its audience figures by two-thirds, told ArtsProfessional that she believes the methods by which ACE records information and the guidance given by ACE officers are inconsistent across the organisation, resulting in inaccuracies. She also refuted ACE’s assertion that “where documents are requested… they are generally supplied directly where they are not likely to be subject to exemptions under the [Freedom of Information] Act,” and that “we have expediently met requests for further information”. This was not the experience of the Bush, whose lead officer left ACE on 21 December having failed to supply promised information.

A letter expressing “grave concerns” about ACE’s handling of the proposed funding cuts and requesting a meeting with the Minister has been sent to Culture Minister James Purnell by the National Campaign for the Arts, and signed by representative arts bodies including Equity, Bectu, the Association of British Orchestras and Dance UK. The Conservative Party’s Shadow Minister for Culture, Ed Vaizey, has called for a moratorium on the proposed cuts. “It is completely unacceptable to carry out the biggest cull of arts organisations in history in just six weeks,” he writes, calling for ACE to “publish its objective criteria for the cuts”. A group called Stop the Cull has established a national petition of no confidence in ACE on the Government website. At the time of writing, there are just short of 5,000 signatories.

The funding review process will end with a meeting of the National Council on 29 January which will formally approve regional budgets. Final decisions should arrive by letter and email on the morning of 1 February. Only after this may formal appeals against ACE’s decisions be made.