The plan to create two bodies - Culture Scotland and the Culture Fund - to oversee cultural policy and funding was criticised by Ferguson and a string of other Scottish MSPs in a debate on the 500-page report held in late September.
Ferguson said the current model of cultural infrastructure needed 'change - perhaps even a radical overhaul - but I am not convinced that the commission's solution is the right one'.
Other MSPs said the idea was 'a recipe for conflict that simply would not work', and would create a 'convoluted two-quango structure' that would increase bureaucracy.
The rejection of the idea of a new funding body has pleased many museums and galleries, especially the nationals, which have been lobbying hard to retain their direct grants from the Scottish Executive.
Indeed, some Scottish MSPs said direct support for national museums worked well, so opera, ballet and theatre might benefit from a similar arrangement.
Many in the museum sector believe the Cultural Commission report is unfocused and too long. They are now waiting for Ferguson's plans for the cultural sector to be announced before the end of the year.
'I don't think the debate has taken us much further, other than to say what we already knew, that the report was not very good,' said Steve Callaghan, the head of heritage at Orkney Islands Council.
'The brief should have been more focused, but because it was a loose brief, they got a loose report. But the Scottish Executive is going to have to do something, or otherwise it will leave them with egg on their face as they have spent a lot of money on this report.'
Michael Taylor, the head of arts and heritage at Perth and Kinross Council, said: 'I think it is fair to say that we all felt the commission shot itself in the foot to some extent by making the report too long and giving politicians the chance to reject it. But we are relieved that Patricia Ferguson has said she is going to respond by the end of the year.'
Taylor said that while some of the general principles surrounding cultural entitlement and the importance of local authorities were fine, it was still unclear how the framework for delivering culture was going to develop.
Mark O'Neill, the head of arts and museums in Glasgow, believes Scotland needs a funding framework similar to Renaissance in the Regions in England.
'Glasgow still believes it has an unanswerable case for central government revenue funding for its metropolitan cultural services, most notably its museums,' said O'Neill.
'The Cultural Commission did acknowledge this, but, unfortunately, didn't propose an effective structure through which it could be delivered - what was required was an equivalent of Renaissance in the Regions.'
In her speech in parliament, Ferguson refused to give any indication as to how much money the Scottish Executive would give to the cultural sector.
She said: 'Only when we have determined our first response to the review will we know what to cost. A detailed assessment of the financial implications will be necessary.'
Simon Stephens
Ferguson said the current model of cultural infrastructure needed 'change - perhaps even a radical overhaul - but I am not convinced that the commission's solution is the right one'.
Other MSPs said the idea was 'a recipe for conflict that simply would not work', and would create a 'convoluted two-quango structure' that would increase bureaucracy.
The rejection of the idea of a new funding body has pleased many museums and galleries, especially the nationals, which have been lobbying hard to retain their direct grants from the Scottish Executive.
Indeed, some Scottish MSPs said direct support for national museums worked well, so opera, ballet and theatre might benefit from a similar arrangement.
Many in the museum sector believe the Cultural Commission report is unfocused and too long. They are now waiting for Ferguson's plans for the cultural sector to be announced before the end of the year.
'I don't think the debate has taken us much further, other than to say what we already knew, that the report was not very good,' said Steve Callaghan, the head of heritage at Orkney Islands Council.
'The brief should have been more focused, but because it was a loose brief, they got a loose report. But the Scottish Executive is going to have to do something, or otherwise it will leave them with egg on their face as they have spent a lot of money on this report.'
Michael Taylor, the head of arts and heritage at Perth and Kinross Council, said: 'I think it is fair to say that we all felt the commission shot itself in the foot to some extent by making the report too long and giving politicians the chance to reject it. But we are relieved that Patricia Ferguson has said she is going to respond by the end of the year.'
Taylor said that while some of the general principles surrounding cultural entitlement and the importance of local authorities were fine, it was still unclear how the framework for delivering culture was going to develop.
Mark O'Neill, the head of arts and museums in Glasgow, believes Scotland needs a funding framework similar to Renaissance in the Regions in England.
'Glasgow still believes it has an unanswerable case for central government revenue funding for its metropolitan cultural services, most notably its museums,' said O'Neill.
'The Cultural Commission did acknowledge this, but, unfortunately, didn't propose an effective structure through which it could be delivered - what was required was an equivalent of Renaissance in the Regions.'
In her speech in parliament, Ferguson refused to give any indication as to how much money the Scottish Executive would give to the cultural sector.
She said: 'Only when we have determined our first response to the review will we know what to cost. A detailed assessment of the financial implications will be necessary.'
Simon Stephens
