2004-12-07
Kulture no.5 public Trustees
At the outset one must admit that the following remarks about the performance of trustees of cultural institutions are based on the experience of the writer in Israel, but there is reason to suspect that in other countries the situation may not be all that different...
A few years ago an announcement appeared in the papers about the retirement of three prominent lawyers-each the leader of his field-from the board of one of the theaters. As it was unlikely that a board will let such heavy weights just leave one assumed that their term was up though in Israel there is practically no such custom.
A short time later in a chance meeting with one of them he was asked what happened. What happened he said was that we asked too many tough questions. The General Manager who was there for years did not like the situation and caused the Mayor to drop us.
This in itself is not surprising anymore except may be that the total caliber of the people involved was unusual. It means that the manager has performed or was expected to perform a service to the Mayor which makes it worth his while to give the manager total support. It is the sort of a deal which a politician will do with anyone that agrees to play the game.
What is more difficult to understand is the reaction of the public trustees. Why would, three important persons, who are in no way dependant on the city or the institution, just walk away with out saying a word to the public they are supposed to represent?
The situation in Israel is peculiar: most major cultural institutions in Israel are being financed by the public (through state and city budgets not including grants and donations) to the tune of between 40-60% of their income.
Still the government, and rightly so, is not allowed to send representatives to the board of the institutions it supports.
As far as the cities are concerned the situation is different: if they support a private non profit organization, the organization usually allows a representative of the city to sit in. If it is a city owns the institution the city can appoint a board but the powerful mayors usually prefer to appoint trustees from public.
This way they achieve two purposes: It prevents charges of political intervention but keeps a lot of power with the mayors who can fire members practically at will.
This brings us back to question: why is it that these members of the public succumb to unacceptable behavior?
One of them once said that he will never resign from a certain organization although he knows that the manager does not care much about what the board members think.
The mystification only keeps growing when you listen to a member of the board of the Israeli Opera." I keep telling them that the quality has deteriorated" he says" but the Chairman and the Mayor are interested only in the financial results".
However the improvement in those results was obtained only by cutting the number of productions without a comparable decrease in public support. In the process the Opera dismantled its chorus and now it is nothing more than a production office which imports most of the productions- something private producers do without any public support.
Nothing is being heard from the board members of the public.
Sometimes when you inquire about their behavior you get answers like "the institution is more important than the manager" so?
Sometimes it is embarrassing when you leave a show or an event that is clearly a dismal failure and the head of the Friends organization of the institution will meet you and say: wasn't it beautiful?
May be the answer to the question raised here lies in the fact that you almost always agree with him/her in order not to embarrass the pour soul.
Or may be the answer is in the "honor" that being involved in membership in the board of these institutions, bestow in society. It definitely increases the number of obituaries when you die.
Whatever the case, the number of years a manager and public trustees can stay on the job should be limited in order to prevent these special relations between mangers and trustees.
In additions the trustee-unless they are there for professional expertise- should be forced to support the institution financially and be liable to its performance the way board members of public corporations are.
When these rules will be enforced a new kind of trustee will emerge.
A short time later in a chance meeting with one of them he was asked what happened. What happened he said was that we asked too many tough questions. The General Manager who was there for years did not like the situation and caused the Mayor to drop us.
This in itself is not surprising anymore except may be that the total caliber of the people involved was unusual. It means that the manager has performed or was expected to perform a service to the Mayor which makes it worth his while to give the manager total support. It is the sort of a deal which a politician will do with anyone that agrees to play the game.
What is more difficult to understand is the reaction of the public trustees. Why would, three important persons, who are in no way dependant on the city or the institution, just walk away with out saying a word to the public they are supposed to represent?
The situation in Israel is peculiar: most major cultural institutions in Israel are being financed by the public (through state and city budgets not including grants and donations) to the tune of between 40-60% of their income.
Still the government, and rightly so, is not allowed to send representatives to the board of the institutions it supports.
As far as the cities are concerned the situation is different: if they support a private non profit organization, the organization usually allows a representative of the city to sit in. If it is a city owns the institution the city can appoint a board but the powerful mayors usually prefer to appoint trustees from public.
This way they achieve two purposes: It prevents charges of political intervention but keeps a lot of power with the mayors who can fire members practically at will.
This brings us back to question: why is it that these members of the public succumb to unacceptable behavior?
One of them once said that he will never resign from a certain organization although he knows that the manager does not care much about what the board members think.
The mystification only keeps growing when you listen to a member of the board of the Israeli Opera." I keep telling them that the quality has deteriorated" he says" but the Chairman and the Mayor are interested only in the financial results".
However the improvement in those results was obtained only by cutting the number of productions without a comparable decrease in public support. In the process the Opera dismantled its chorus and now it is nothing more than a production office which imports most of the productions- something private producers do without any public support.
Nothing is being heard from the board members of the public.
Sometimes when you inquire about their behavior you get answers like "the institution is more important than the manager" so?
Sometimes it is embarrassing when you leave a show or an event that is clearly a dismal failure and the head of the Friends organization of the institution will meet you and say: wasn't it beautiful?
May be the answer to the question raised here lies in the fact that you almost always agree with him/her in order not to embarrass the pour soul.
Or may be the answer is in the "honor" that being involved in membership in the board of these institutions, bestow in society. It definitely increases the number of obituaries when you die.
Whatever the case, the number of years a manager and public trustees can stay on the job should be limited in order to prevent these special relations between mangers and trustees.
In additions the trustee-unless they are there for professional expertise- should be forced to support the institution financially and be liable to its performance the way board members of public corporations are.
When these rules will be enforced a new kind of trustee will emerge.
An article by Ronnie Dissentshik, correspondent, Tel Aviv
There are no comments for this content yet.
similar content
