The decision on how to spend the new Renaissance cash has been delayed for at least another month.
The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council met in January to discuss the breakdown of its allocation from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. A smaller than expected rise in Renaissance funding meant that the MLA board faced a difficult decision.
Two options were put to the board: to elevate two more hubs to phase one status or to give more cash to the six remaining phase two hubs. This would be equal to 60 per cent of full funding.
According to Sue Wilkinson, the director of access and learning at the MLA, the board dismissed the first option but then added one of
its own to the debate: to share the new Renaissance funding equally between each of the nine hubs.
This would mean that while the money already allocated to phase one hubs in 2005/6 would be ring-fenced, all the money for 2006/7 (£32m) and 2007/8 (£45m), would be shared equally between the nine hubs. It is understood that this is not the preferred option of the board and both phase one and phase two hubs have reacted hostilely to the idea.
Alec Coles, the director of Tyne and Wear Museums, told Museums Journal that he would be arguing very strongly that it was not a suitable option. 'The message it sends out is that we got our sums wrong in the first place and that we don't need as much as we originally said we needed to roll out Renaissance,' he said.
He added that the museum service had built local expectations based on its phase one status and that having to backtrack on that would be a 'huge retrograde step'.
It is not only the phase one hubs that are opposed to the so-called equalisation option. Nick Dodd, the chief executive of Sheffield Galleries and Museums Trust (phase two), said it was a politically bad move that would be like 'shooting ourselves in the foot'. He added that there would be no chance of getting any extra money from DCMS in the next spending round if they said they could cope with less than full funding.
Mark Taylor, the director of the Museums Association, said ultimately all regions should be treated equally, but equality now would mean accepting that no extra money was needed to complete the project. Several people in the sector have expressed the fear that this signals a change in priorities for the MLA.
Coles said if the equalisation option was taken it would be like saying it was the end for Renaissance, which would be 'highly regrettable' and 'unambitious'.
But Wilkinson at the MLA said 'The commitment of the board to Renaissance is very clear - its concern is how to get the best value for money out of the programme.' Virginia Tandy, the director of Manchester Art Gallery and a member of the MLA board, said that it was a sensible approach to a difficult situation.
'We all hoped for a better outcome from the spending round but we've got what we've got.' She said that she wanted to see the evidence from the Renaissance review and that it was important not to rush any decision.
The options will be discussed again at the next MLA board meeting on 16 March.
Sharon Heal
The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council met in January to discuss the breakdown of its allocation from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. A smaller than expected rise in Renaissance funding meant that the MLA board faced a difficult decision.
Two options were put to the board: to elevate two more hubs to phase one status or to give more cash to the six remaining phase two hubs. This would be equal to 60 per cent of full funding.
According to Sue Wilkinson, the director of access and learning at the MLA, the board dismissed the first option but then added one of
its own to the debate: to share the new Renaissance funding equally between each of the nine hubs.
This would mean that while the money already allocated to phase one hubs in 2005/6 would be ring-fenced, all the money for 2006/7 (£32m) and 2007/8 (£45m), would be shared equally between the nine hubs. It is understood that this is not the preferred option of the board and both phase one and phase two hubs have reacted hostilely to the idea.
Alec Coles, the director of Tyne and Wear Museums, told Museums Journal that he would be arguing very strongly that it was not a suitable option. 'The message it sends out is that we got our sums wrong in the first place and that we don't need as much as we originally said we needed to roll out Renaissance,' he said.
He added that the museum service had built local expectations based on its phase one status and that having to backtrack on that would be a 'huge retrograde step'.
It is not only the phase one hubs that are opposed to the so-called equalisation option. Nick Dodd, the chief executive of Sheffield Galleries and Museums Trust (phase two), said it was a politically bad move that would be like 'shooting ourselves in the foot'. He added that there would be no chance of getting any extra money from DCMS in the next spending round if they said they could cope with less than full funding.
Mark Taylor, the director of the Museums Association, said ultimately all regions should be treated equally, but equality now would mean accepting that no extra money was needed to complete the project. Several people in the sector have expressed the fear that this signals a change in priorities for the MLA.
Coles said if the equalisation option was taken it would be like saying it was the end for Renaissance, which would be 'highly regrettable' and 'unambitious'.
But Wilkinson at the MLA said 'The commitment of the board to Renaissance is very clear - its concern is how to get the best value for money out of the programme.' Virginia Tandy, the director of Manchester Art Gallery and a member of the MLA board, said that it was a sensible approach to a difficult situation.
'We all hoped for a better outcome from the spending round but we've got what we've got.' She said that she wanted to see the evidence from the Renaissance review and that it was important not to rush any decision.
The options will be discussed again at the next MLA board meeting on 16 March.
Sharon Heal