Ethical debate: Conflict of interest
Recent high-profile cases, such as the Tate’s purchase of works of art by its trustee Chris Ofili, have highlighted how conflicts of interest can occur between trustees and the establishments they serve. Should the Tate appoint living artists, who are also potential sources of work, as trustees? Do the benefits outweigh the risk of conflicts of interest?
The question of whether galleries should appoint artists as trustees, when they are also potential sources of work, should be dealt with in the same way as some museums deal with curatorial staff’s own collecting habits. A museum that collects books by a certain individual may have as a condition of employment the requirement that staff do not privately collect that author’s works.
This then prevents a conflict of interest between the museum and individual if and when that author’s books come onto the market.
Using this model it would have to be understood by both parties that the gallery would not purchase any works by the artist while they are a trustee. Once they cease to be a trustee then the gallery would be able to purchase their works. If the artist wishes to become a trustee of a certain gallery in order to support its work and boost its profile then they should be willing to agree to this. If a potential trustee were to object to such an understanding then it would be fair to assume they were unsuited for the post.
Jason Finch, temporary assistant manager, Elmbridge Museum, Weybridge, Surrey
The Tate is under a statutory obligation to have practising artists as trustees and so it has no choice but to do so. Schedule 2 of the Museums and Galleries Act 1992 requires at least three of the trustees to be practising artists. But even those galleries that are not under a similar statutory obligation should also have practising artists on their boards to ensure that they do not lose this important voice.
Conflicts of interest can be properly managed if appropriate procedures are put in place and adhered to.
Anita Sadler, solicitor, Bates, Wells & Braithwaite
You ask if artists should be appointed as trustees to museums that might well afford them patronage. The answer, clearly, is no — unless a binding (not, as is the case at the Tate, flexible) requirement is put in place to prohibit any patronage from the museum to the artist (or his or her spouse or partner) during, and for a decent interval after, any period of trusteeship.
If this condition were to seem onerous to a professionally ‘hungry’ artist, it would be the best possible indicator of that person’s present unsuitability to serve as a trustee. If no artists of any stature were to be found who would be prepared to serve under such terms, none should be invited.
Michael Daly, director, ArtsWatch
The question of whether galleries should appoint artists as trustees, when they are also potential sources of work, should be dealt with in the same way as some museums deal with curatorial staff’s own collecting habits. A museum that collects books by a certain individual may have as a condition of employment the requirement that staff do not privately collect that author’s works.
This then prevents a conflict of interest between the museum and individual if and when that author’s books come onto the market.
Using this model it would have to be understood by both parties that the gallery would not purchase any works by the artist while they are a trustee. Once they cease to be a trustee then the gallery would be able to purchase their works. If the artist wishes to become a trustee of a certain gallery in order to support its work and boost its profile then they should be willing to agree to this. If a potential trustee were to object to such an understanding then it would be fair to assume they were unsuited for the post.
Jason Finch, temporary assistant manager, Elmbridge Museum, Weybridge, Surrey
The Tate is under a statutory obligation to have practising artists as trustees and so it has no choice but to do so. Schedule 2 of the Museums and Galleries Act 1992 requires at least three of the trustees to be practising artists. But even those galleries that are not under a similar statutory obligation should also have practising artists on their boards to ensure that they do not lose this important voice.
Conflicts of interest can be properly managed if appropriate procedures are put in place and adhered to.
Anita Sadler, solicitor, Bates, Wells & Braithwaite
You ask if artists should be appointed as trustees to museums that might well afford them patronage. The answer, clearly, is no — unless a binding (not, as is the case at the Tate, flexible) requirement is put in place to prohibit any patronage from the museum to the artist (or his or her spouse or partner) during, and for a decent interval after, any period of trusteeship.
If this condition were to seem onerous to a professionally ‘hungry’ artist, it would be the best possible indicator of that person’s present unsuitability to serve as a trustee. If no artists of any stature were to be found who would be prepared to serve under such terms, none should be invited.
Michael Daly, director, ArtsWatch
