First they were museum-focused membership organisations, then strategic bodies covering museums, libraries and archives, and now they could become the regional offices of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA).
The future of the nine English regional museum, library and archives councils is again under review - as is the future of the MLA, itself less than five-years-old.
The impending review, announced by the MLA just before Christmas, is the result of three factors: an MLA peer review conducted by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) in the summer (but only just published); a scheduled review of regional agencies three years after they were set up; and pressure from the DCMS to implement the Gershon review.
The latter factor is arguably the most profound - the demand by Sir Peter Gershon, backed by the Treasury, that all departments and their sponsored bodies must find 'efficiency savings' of 2.5 per cent year-on-year, to redistribute to front-line services.
The DCMS has had to pass these targets on to its sponsored bodies, including MLA - which funds the regional agencies. In the financial year 2005/6, MLA will receive £13.7m, of which around £8.5m is passed to the regional agencies. Using the Gershon formula, almost £350,000 a year will have to be redistributed.
The favoured model of the MLA board (the 'single, integrated option'), is to reduce MLA's presence in London, moving staff into the regions and merging MLA with the regional agencies. Already this has been nicknamed 'the Arts Council option', though both MLA and the regional agencies are trying to distance themselves from the term.
In 2001, the Arts Council, England abolished the regional arts boards, and turned them into regional branches of the ACE, while reducing the central London office. That led to 100 redundancies, efficiencies such as reducing 100 different grant streams to five, and to date £5.5m in savings. It is possible that redundancies and relocations will be part of the MLA's integrated option.
It also appears that the regional agency chief executives - or their boards - may put forward alternative plans, though all have welcomed the idea of greater efficiency in principle. The timetable for implementing any restructure, or what it may mean, is unclear.
Mark Wood, the chairman of MLA, said: 'We are trying to find how to achieve greater efficiency and coordination, while retaining the benefits of the current structure.'
The future of the nine English regional museum, library and archives councils is again under review - as is the future of the MLA, itself less than five-years-old.
The impending review, announced by the MLA just before Christmas, is the result of three factors: an MLA peer review conducted by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) in the summer (but only just published); a scheduled review of regional agencies three years after they were set up; and pressure from the DCMS to implement the Gershon review.
The latter factor is arguably the most profound - the demand by Sir Peter Gershon, backed by the Treasury, that all departments and their sponsored bodies must find 'efficiency savings' of 2.5 per cent year-on-year, to redistribute to front-line services.
The DCMS has had to pass these targets on to its sponsored bodies, including MLA - which funds the regional agencies. In the financial year 2005/6, MLA will receive £13.7m, of which around £8.5m is passed to the regional agencies. Using the Gershon formula, almost £350,000 a year will have to be redistributed.
The favoured model of the MLA board (the 'single, integrated option'), is to reduce MLA's presence in London, moving staff into the regions and merging MLA with the regional agencies. Already this has been nicknamed 'the Arts Council option', though both MLA and the regional agencies are trying to distance themselves from the term.
In 2001, the Arts Council, England abolished the regional arts boards, and turned them into regional branches of the ACE, while reducing the central London office. That led to 100 redundancies, efficiencies such as reducing 100 different grant streams to five, and to date £5.5m in savings. It is possible that redundancies and relocations will be part of the MLA's integrated option.
It also appears that the regional agency chief executives - or their boards - may put forward alternative plans, though all have welcomed the idea of greater efficiency in principle. The timetable for implementing any restructure, or what it may mean, is unclear.
Mark Wood, the chairman of MLA, said: 'We are trying to find how to achieve greater efficiency and coordination, while retaining the benefits of the current structure.'