It's relatively rare that museum trustees make headline news. But put together the Tate (unarguably the most written-about and praised museum in Britain) and a trustee who happens to be a sought-after artist and then throw in a hint of financial scandal, and kerboom!
The newspaper onslaught was so great that the Tate's director, Nicholas Serota, was obliged to use the annual Turner Prize ceremony as an opportunity to defend the institution and one of its trustees, Chris Ofili, against allegations of impropriety. Arguably the more important issue - what and whom our museum boards are for - remained publicly unexplored.
For those of you who missed it, back in 2003 the Tate opened negotiations with art dealer Victoria Miro to buy The Upper Room (pictured), a work by Turner-prize winning artist Ofili.
The piece, which consists of 13 of Ofili's brilliantly coloured, trademark paintings, has attracted critical acclaim and is now one of the highlights of the current display at Tate Britain.
The Tate eventually secured the work, according to press reports, for £600,000, a drop of about 20 per cent on its asking price.
The problem was not ostensibly the sum: prices for Ofili - like many up-and-coming artists in the contemporary art field - have rocketed in the past five years. (In the autumn 2005 round of contemporary art sales, a single painting, Nooca, featuring oil, acrylic, resin, elephant dung and glitter, sold at Sotheby's London for £344,000 while another, Afrodizzia, sold in New York late last year for just over $1m, at the Phillips, de Pury & Co, auction house, according to Artnet magazine.)
The problem is that Ofili is a Tate trustee - and it is all too easy to infer from that an unethically cosy relationship between buyer and board member. The Tate is adamant Ofili was not allowed to take part in board discussions about the purchase and many believe this.
The Tate adds it has always had artists on its board, and since 1955 it has been obliged to do so. But for the past ten years it has only purchased works in 'special circumstances', generally for reasonable or even bargain sums. These have included important pieces by Michael Craig-Martin, Peter Doig and Bill Woodrow.
The Tate is unlucky that the Stuckists, the art group that brought this to the attention of the press, dislike the institution and seem to hate its director. But to the public it must surely look like yet another example of the overly cosy world of the great and the good, the back-scratching of 'jobs for the boys'.
The irony is that after the 1995 Nolan inquiry into standards in public life, the rules on the appointment and conduct of trustees have become considerably stricter, so much so that museums are even starting to complain that high-level appointees are reluctant to go through such bureaucratic procedures. Potential trustees must now complete lengthy applications and undergo a competitive interview process.
In 2001 the cabinet office issued guidance for board members of public bodies in response to criticism from the Committee of Public Accounts, which had said that trustees lacked information on their responsibilities and the full meaning of public accountability.
Trustees have never been clearer about the legal and financial implications of their roles. What is not always clear is some of the 'bigger picture' issues.
Adrian Babbidge, a consultant at Egeria and an expert on trustees, argues that governance issues and the role of trustees 'remains one of the weaker aspects of modern museum management'.
We all notice trustees' big failures - such as the Milwaukee Public Museum, one of the US's important natural history museums, which has used up its endowment and made half its staff redundant - or even the British Museum's reluctance in the late 1990s to face up to its deficit before it had to lay off 10 per cent of its staff.
According to Babbidge there is a huge variance in quality and expertise across British museum boards. 'Most understand their supervisory role in the museum, to be conscious of management and accountability. What they aren't always doing is the strategic role, looking forward on behalf of the museum.'
And that's not the only issue. In national museums, boards and chairs are supposed to be responsible but the directors are the accounting officers so in practice responsibility is confusingly divided.
Meanwhile there are pressures, from the department for culture as well as society in general, to see boards that are more representative of the public at large.
Yet that hints at a dilemma in trustee roles. Are trustees in post to act as experts, like non-executive directors in private business; there to advise and represent the museum - which would make sense in the case of successful artists, financiers and fundraisers?
Or are trustees there on behalf the wider public, to act as scrutineers of the museum, encouraging it to be more representative in terms of gender, ethnicity, age, success and power?
The department for culture has made its mind up about the Tate purchase following a meeting between Serota and the permanent secretary in December. Verdict, not guilty, but a PR own goal.
But the sector has been slower to address the much more serious and material dilemma of the complex roles of trustees. It must do this if boards are to truly tackle the public distrust this incident has so clearly exposed.
Jane Morris writes about museums and galleries and is a judge of the European Museum of the Year
The newspaper onslaught was so great that the Tate's director, Nicholas Serota, was obliged to use the annual Turner Prize ceremony as an opportunity to defend the institution and one of its trustees, Chris Ofili, against allegations of impropriety. Arguably the more important issue - what and whom our museum boards are for - remained publicly unexplored.
For those of you who missed it, back in 2003 the Tate opened negotiations with art dealer Victoria Miro to buy The Upper Room (pictured), a work by Turner-prize winning artist Ofili.
The piece, which consists of 13 of Ofili's brilliantly coloured, trademark paintings, has attracted critical acclaim and is now one of the highlights of the current display at Tate Britain.
The Tate eventually secured the work, according to press reports, for £600,000, a drop of about 20 per cent on its asking price.
The problem was not ostensibly the sum: prices for Ofili - like many up-and-coming artists in the contemporary art field - have rocketed in the past five years. (In the autumn 2005 round of contemporary art sales, a single painting, Nooca, featuring oil, acrylic, resin, elephant dung and glitter, sold at Sotheby's London for £344,000 while another, Afrodizzia, sold in New York late last year for just over $1m, at the Phillips, de Pury & Co, auction house, according to Artnet magazine.)
The problem is that Ofili is a Tate trustee - and it is all too easy to infer from that an unethically cosy relationship between buyer and board member. The Tate is adamant Ofili was not allowed to take part in board discussions about the purchase and many believe this.
The Tate adds it has always had artists on its board, and since 1955 it has been obliged to do so. But for the past ten years it has only purchased works in 'special circumstances', generally for reasonable or even bargain sums. These have included important pieces by Michael Craig-Martin, Peter Doig and Bill Woodrow.
The Tate is unlucky that the Stuckists, the art group that brought this to the attention of the press, dislike the institution and seem to hate its director. But to the public it must surely look like yet another example of the overly cosy world of the great and the good, the back-scratching of 'jobs for the boys'.
The irony is that after the 1995 Nolan inquiry into standards in public life, the rules on the appointment and conduct of trustees have become considerably stricter, so much so that museums are even starting to complain that high-level appointees are reluctant to go through such bureaucratic procedures. Potential trustees must now complete lengthy applications and undergo a competitive interview process.
In 2001 the cabinet office issued guidance for board members of public bodies in response to criticism from the Committee of Public Accounts, which had said that trustees lacked information on their responsibilities and the full meaning of public accountability.
Trustees have never been clearer about the legal and financial implications of their roles. What is not always clear is some of the 'bigger picture' issues.
Adrian Babbidge, a consultant at Egeria and an expert on trustees, argues that governance issues and the role of trustees 'remains one of the weaker aspects of modern museum management'.
We all notice trustees' big failures - such as the Milwaukee Public Museum, one of the US's important natural history museums, which has used up its endowment and made half its staff redundant - or even the British Museum's reluctance in the late 1990s to face up to its deficit before it had to lay off 10 per cent of its staff.
According to Babbidge there is a huge variance in quality and expertise across British museum boards. 'Most understand their supervisory role in the museum, to be conscious of management and accountability. What they aren't always doing is the strategic role, looking forward on behalf of the museum.'
And that's not the only issue. In national museums, boards and chairs are supposed to be responsible but the directors are the accounting officers so in practice responsibility is confusingly divided.
Meanwhile there are pressures, from the department for culture as well as society in general, to see boards that are more representative of the public at large.
Yet that hints at a dilemma in trustee roles. Are trustees in post to act as experts, like non-executive directors in private business; there to advise and represent the museum - which would make sense in the case of successful artists, financiers and fundraisers?
Or are trustees there on behalf the wider public, to act as scrutineers of the museum, encouraging it to be more representative in terms of gender, ethnicity, age, success and power?
The department for culture has made its mind up about the Tate purchase following a meeting between Serota and the permanent secretary in December. Verdict, not guilty, but a PR own goal.
But the sector has been slower to address the much more serious and material dilemma of the complex roles of trustees. It must do this if boards are to truly tackle the public distrust this incident has so clearly exposed.
Jane Morris writes about museums and galleries and is a judge of the European Museum of the Year
