Much has been said and written about Bury Metropolitan Borough Council's decision to sell LS Lowry's work, A Riverbank. Some of it has been reasonable and some of it vitriolic.
That latter strain reached a peak during the recent Museums Association (MA) conference when a media blitz was launched against Bury council, during which we were accused of 'greed' and 'arbitrary cultural vandalism' by various MA luminaries.
The first thing to point out is that nobody at Bury council is happy about the sale of the Lowry - not councillors, officers, or even the borough's director of finance. The decision to sell was only taken after considerable debate in full council, within the council's ruling Labour Group and in the local media.
I fail to see how the MA can call this process arbitrary. I would be very surprised if the decision-making processes of the public bodies that have found strident comment so easy in any way match the democracy and transparency of this council. The decision may have been the wrong one to make, but arbitrary it certainly wasn't.
When setting its 2006/07 budget, the council - having received an appallingly low funding settlement from central government - was faced with a need to significantly reduce its expenditure to comply with legal and financial requirements.
As part of the budget reduction exercise that followed, a whole range of unpalatable options were considered that would have had an impact on every department of the council. Indeed, so serious was the situation that the complete closure of discretionary services was discussed, including the arts and museums service.
In the event, and even accounting for any income raised by the sale of the Lowry, the arts, libraries and adult learning division was still obliged to close the art gallery on Sundays, one main township library on Wednesdays and two full-time adult education centres completely. Jobs were lost and services damaged.
The council took the view that the sale of one painting was preferable to even more swingeing cuts and job losses. It would have seemed perverse to have retained the painting, but effectively closed the gallery, thereby denying access to the rest of our excellent collections.
In short, the council decided that its financial situation was sufficiently drastic for it to suspend its normally rigorous application of art gallery and museum policies regarding disposal.
It did what politicians always have to do and that is 'prioritise'. In this case it prioritised continuing access to the collections and the learning, exploration and enjoyment resulting from that access, over a strict application of the disposal requirements.
Much of the council's correspondence with the MA and some of the media coverage has focused on the question of 'ethics'. But it seems to me that the clear thrust of the code of ethics is that the primary ethical consideration is, or should be, the maintenance of access to the treasures that we and other institutions hold.
Given the choice of maintaining that access (and associated employment) and sacrificing a single painting, I would argue that the ethical option was in fact taken.
Bury is proud of its cultural provision, from its library service to its green flag parks. Culture remains a priority for the council and, despite being relatively small with limited resources, we were rated a four-star authority for cultural provision in the 2004 and 2005 Comprehensive Performance Assessments.
Clearly this issue will have implications for future assessments and inspections, but whatever the outcome, the council is still committed to maintaining high quality art gallery and museum services, including outstanding collections. It would be a pity if Bury's ability to further develop its arts and museums service was damaged by any action the MA wishes to take.
If instead Bury had resolved to further reduce the opening hours of the museum, maybe scrapped its arts development or creative industries functions, or reduced hours at a few more libraries - all actions with consequences for people's jobs as well as the services - we would not have attracted anywhere near the opprobrium we have had heaped upon us. And we would not be threatened with expulsion from various professional associations, or de-registration.
John Carter is the borough arts, libraries and adult learning officer at Bury Metropolitan Borough Council
For the latest on this story visit: www.museumsassociation.org/bury
That latter strain reached a peak during the recent Museums Association (MA) conference when a media blitz was launched against Bury council, during which we were accused of 'greed' and 'arbitrary cultural vandalism' by various MA luminaries.
The first thing to point out is that nobody at Bury council is happy about the sale of the Lowry - not councillors, officers, or even the borough's director of finance. The decision to sell was only taken after considerable debate in full council, within the council's ruling Labour Group and in the local media.
I fail to see how the MA can call this process arbitrary. I would be very surprised if the decision-making processes of the public bodies that have found strident comment so easy in any way match the democracy and transparency of this council. The decision may have been the wrong one to make, but arbitrary it certainly wasn't.
When setting its 2006/07 budget, the council - having received an appallingly low funding settlement from central government - was faced with a need to significantly reduce its expenditure to comply with legal and financial requirements.
As part of the budget reduction exercise that followed, a whole range of unpalatable options were considered that would have had an impact on every department of the council. Indeed, so serious was the situation that the complete closure of discretionary services was discussed, including the arts and museums service.
In the event, and even accounting for any income raised by the sale of the Lowry, the arts, libraries and adult learning division was still obliged to close the art gallery on Sundays, one main township library on Wednesdays and two full-time adult education centres completely. Jobs were lost and services damaged.
The council took the view that the sale of one painting was preferable to even more swingeing cuts and job losses. It would have seemed perverse to have retained the painting, but effectively closed the gallery, thereby denying access to the rest of our excellent collections.
In short, the council decided that its financial situation was sufficiently drastic for it to suspend its normally rigorous application of art gallery and museum policies regarding disposal.
It did what politicians always have to do and that is 'prioritise'. In this case it prioritised continuing access to the collections and the learning, exploration and enjoyment resulting from that access, over a strict application of the disposal requirements.
Much of the council's correspondence with the MA and some of the media coverage has focused on the question of 'ethics'. But it seems to me that the clear thrust of the code of ethics is that the primary ethical consideration is, or should be, the maintenance of access to the treasures that we and other institutions hold.
Given the choice of maintaining that access (and associated employment) and sacrificing a single painting, I would argue that the ethical option was in fact taken.
Bury is proud of its cultural provision, from its library service to its green flag parks. Culture remains a priority for the council and, despite being relatively small with limited resources, we were rated a four-star authority for cultural provision in the 2004 and 2005 Comprehensive Performance Assessments.
Clearly this issue will have implications for future assessments and inspections, but whatever the outcome, the council is still committed to maintaining high quality art gallery and museum services, including outstanding collections. It would be a pity if Bury's ability to further develop its arts and museums service was damaged by any action the MA wishes to take.
If instead Bury had resolved to further reduce the opening hours of the museum, maybe scrapped its arts development or creative industries functions, or reduced hours at a few more libraries - all actions with consequences for people's jobs as well as the services - we would not have attracted anywhere near the opprobrium we have had heaped upon us. And we would not be threatened with expulsion from various professional associations, or de-registration.
John Carter is the borough arts, libraries and adult learning officer at Bury Metropolitan Borough Council
For the latest on this story visit: www.museumsassociation.org/bury
