Cultural big earners: jump through your karma for once

My story about cultural big earners turned out to be the talk of the town in the cultural sector. Not publicly, i.e. mainly behind the scenes, I was approached. One of the few people who did speak out publicly was Henk Scholten. On Facebook, he responded to a column by journalist Aukje van Roessel about the questions the Hague City Council had asked about those big earners, following this article.

Henk Scholten on Facebook

Henk Scholten 'Do you know how much the NS director earns? Over 550,000 euros. I reacted indirectly to Ingrid's 'disclosure' before, then towards councillor Peter Bos. What surprises me most about this whole story is that it is presented as disclosure or, worse, investigative journalism, while newspapers like NRC and Volkskrant regularly publish lists about executive salaries of charities, museums, orchestras, etc. Who does not remember the outcry following such a list that then KCO director Jan Raes earned more than the Balkenende norm. So it is not news at all. Presenting it in Corona time, while the amounts are all about 2018 and 2019, frankly gives it a rather populist tinge.'

'I am retired (like Luuk van Eijk who, as a then board member of Stadsschouwburg Amsterdam and Julidans, probably also earned more than the average dancer on or technician behind the stage), that might make it easier to comment outside 'the corridors'. Of course you can have an opinion and/or debate about executive salaries in arts and culture. But then do it in a well-founded way. For example, look at the average ratio of executive salaries to other staff as is common in all sectors.'

'Don't give the impression that the annual wage bill is the same as a gross monthly salary. Do not say too easily that directors' salaries in culture are paid by the government: certainly at stages, the government contribution is on average less than 50% of the budget. Do not refer to the Theatre and Dance collective labour agreement when talking about stage directors because they are not covered by it. Don't make populist comparisons with Booking or KLM because those directors, just.as at NS or in other (semi)public sectors like healthcare, WO and HBO, broadcasting etc earn (very) much more than directors in culture.'

'Whether people make part of their salary (or in my case aow/pension) available in this situation is their own consideration. I have urged my retired colleagues to do so, but it is their own choice. And again, starting a debate on the level of (executive) salaries in (for example) culture is of course perfectly legitimate, but whether you should use this very Corona period for it (at least if you want a debate and not an easy success) I wonder. By the way, no hard feelings Ingrid (because I think that's what you were afraid of) and if Willemstad is too far you are also welcome in Italy.'

My reply to Henk Scholten

Ha Henk , I welcome your comprehensive response (many people shy away from responding publicly and only contact you behind the scenes). I think it is just a blog, born out of a Linkedin message from the director of the Museum Association not to apply fair pay because it could not be paid from its own budget. Stupéfait was me.

Nowhere do I present it as a thorough investigation: after all, I did not hear and speak out. The headline was by Wijbrand Schaap; as you know, journalists are not about headlines. I don't find the comparison with KLM or Booking very relevant either, except for the mechanism of a financially immobile top.

The shyness to respond publicly is a theme though, as I was working on a new story and the journalistic questions I asked the Nederlands Dans Theater, for example, remain unanswered or come in the form of one evasive sentence. I do get shocked (well) by the lack of transparency, more so than in other sectors in which I often work. The fact that Paul Lightfoot earns more than 100,000 euros from his own company in addition to his artistic directorship, and therefore stays just below Balkenende, can also be traced through other sources.

I am not so much concerned with the numbers as with the ratios of public money to earnings. Benno Tempel of the Art Museum (who fits the list with 150,000 euros), is also 'seconded' in his full-time position to the Escher Museum for almost 60,000 euros (2017). That money flows back to the Art Museum with which he effectively does one and a half jobs in 1 job.

Selling your car to feed your children

The revelation of salary figures may not have had intrinsic news value but in times of corona, I think it is worthy of publication and relevance. I hear stories of musicians who have to sell their instruments, actors who are forced out of their cars to feed their children and pay their rent. They don't fall under any corona scheme due to 'wrong' criteria. So there is something thoroughly wrong in the whole neoliberal system in the culture. And there is a whole layer of administrators and boards that have helped rig the system (I understood from a response I received that there are institutions that have vehemently opposed fair practice/pay).

In my opinion, it is a fallacy to say that my story is mis-timed and populist. Not only do I wear my heart on the left, I actually see the corona crisis as an opportunity to change things; after all, it is a blame-free crisis. We cannot point the finger at politics for doing something to us.

Distressing as it may be, corona is an opportunity - forced by circumstances - to scrutinise everything that is not going well and address systems that can no longer work with an empty wallet. It would show strength and leadership to look at ourselves in the mirror to see what we ourselves can do for a healthy sector. Crisis means time for self-reflection: what can we change from within to survive and continue to prosper as a sector?

Random breakdown

I notice that there are two reactions from the industry: more money needs to be added from the government and, of all the corona victims, we are the saddest victim. All the directors I mention in the story - they had the random bad luck to make their annual reports public - will be able to continue paying their mortgages and car. So will the NS director, and yes, I find his salary perverse (by the way, I believe he is at 4 tonnes). Only the reflex that he only earns a lot seems suspiciously like other big earners like bankers who compare themselves to their colleagues abroad.

This line of argument, which many culture people find abject (there are whole plays about it), is also going on in the culture sector: why can't you earn a Balkenende salary when a director from another sector earns the same? Culture calls itself progressive but once at the top, parlour socialism strikes. There is good earning to the art but not at art. However, the difference with an average bank is that a bank employee also earns a good salary. In the cultural sector, there are few people with decently paid jobs (and if there are, they stay in the managerial layer for years).

Waterhead of interest and breanche associations

For instance, I found it striking that no fewer than 111 interest and industry associations, umbrella organisations and federations exist in the cultural sector, whether or not financed by external bodies such as ministries. So there is a huge shell or waterhead of administrators who facilitate art making and often make a very good living from it. Think of it as a Christmas tree (makers) being decorated with the prettiest baubles, angel hair and other ornaments, but the tree itself dies. That Christmas stuff stays. For next year.

The millions the government now gives us keep the system of the have's and have not's maintained. In exchange coor the billion-dollar loan for a KLM, wage sacrifices are demanded by The Hague, a new greener policy, in short, conditions are placed on the bailout. Rogier van Boxtel is sacrificing 10% of his salary at the NS; we all have to laugh about it when tons are involved but he does it. I understood from the corridors that at a consultation, the cultural big earners had smilingly laughed at the idea of giving up some of their top salaries.

Litter-picker

We do not respond transparently to financial issues or to #metoo-issues: on the monkey rock, we keep the taboos to ourselves and that makes for some unsavoury issues that, thankfully, are increasingly coming to the surface.

I have been called a litterbug. In a way, I am, and I can 'afford' it because, like you, I am not (anymore) dependent on the sector. At the same time, I think: it would show real leadership if you enter into a dialogue with people who sound the alarm. In the cultural sector, I have yet to see any systemic movement for a go-ahead. I think it's a missed opportunity. Of all the industries and sectors I move into by the nature of my work, the culture sector is one of the most sectarian. Full of taboos about money and about power.

Well there is hope for a post-corona cultural sector. Hence some systemic considerations here.

Government intervention

How do we solve financial inequality in the sector? The sector itself does not appear to be shrinking. We all think in existing structures. The top sitting at the Balkenende standard, is that necessary? How unfair is it that the institutions that proportionately earn the most themselves outside subsidies (think of a film house) are more likely to perish than a heavily subsidised company like The National Theatre?

So of all the Chinese signs held in the air, it is not the most creative and agile but the most institutional that remain. I argue for a small revolution that I fear is only possible through government intervention. A government that apart from setting limits on top salaries, demands a truly fair distribution of payments, compresses/streamlines the advocacy industry in the sector and redistributes that money for much more guerilla art. Fewer layers of government and jobs and rather smaller-scale initiatives supported by enabling institutions. A sector in which there is literally and figuratively movement. Voltaire wrote: il faut cultiver son jardin. For now, nothing stays the same through corona so change must come.

#metoo and subversion

Those who want to make art depend on institutions and people in power. Companies and institutions often have people in power who themselves once started out as dancers, actors, musicians, visual artists, etc. From a young age, they have fallen into a bubble where things like in-group and out-group thinking, subversion, fear culture and abuse of power were commonplace.

Learned young is done old so an often unhealthy corporate culture lasts for generations. No one holding up a mirror to anyone or daring to hold it up. You don't get good examples. I heard a story about a dancer who finally gathered the courage to write a letter to the Supervisory Board about undermining and groping. To which a member of the SB said: yes but when I see that dancer you just want to hug her, don't you? I heard a story about a student who didn't want to walk down the corridor on her own to go to the toilet because she was afraid of running into 'the one' who said: if you don't do what I require of you, I don't know if you'll get your degree.

Evenings I can fill with them, the harrowing stories in which your ambition to make art is crippled by an unhealthy system. At the top of that system are people who are fused with the system. Select managers and directors on criteria appropriate to that position. An (artistic) director who rises to the top from the bottom is not necessarily a good manager. When I was young and took my first steps on the dramaturgical path at the country's major companies, I dropped out. I saw people being flicked off by people with power and thought: I'm not going to survive such an unsafe environment (mentally).

One way to break unhealthy power is to rotate. In ministries, for example, it is common practice to rotate civil servants in the 3-5-7 model. In this, they are encouraged to think about a new position after three years and change positions after five years, and leave the position after seven years at the latest. At the big institutions, this flexibilisation of the managerial layer (sometimes they have been there for decades), could break that unhealthy power bubble. There will be room for new incentives from 'outside'. This prevents a lot of #metoo-perils, abuses and careers nipped in the bud by undermining and a culture of fear.

Fragmentation and tunnel vision

To avoid compartmentalisation and tunnel vision, everyone in a leadership position should be obliged to take a look outside the sector. Not on a leadership course together with other cultural managers, but by looking outside the door. It is always beneficial to see how things work in other worlds: do a course, a company exchange programme, take a course outside your field of vision, etc. to learn from a completely different (organisational) culture. Exactly like taking a trip through a foreign country broadens your view.

We need heroes to lead the way. We are called elitist by populists, we make randstad art for the happy few and, as in every cliché: there is a grain of truth in it. The mind must be open to new stories and corresponding leaders. We must no longer be immobile.

Supervisory Board

Professionalise supervisory boards. Often they are uniform (the white man who works or worked at another cultural institution) or at the larger institutions they are often corporate people with an art hobby. Make boards diverse in terms of age, profession, origin. Let the government impose strict requirements on the composition of supervisory boards to avoid old boys' networks, monkey rocks and monocultures. So instead of looking for people we resemble, look for people we don't resemble.

I sincerely hope corona is a blessing in disguise is for the system we are in. Throw over structures because the money is no longer there anyway and the creators have, by necessity, all retrained themselves. Don't just hold on to what was. Big earners: jump once by the karma of its own pecuniary interest.

Finally, Henk. I'm not too bad about my friends, fortunately. They think it's funny that I kick some sore shins, especially my friends from the cultural sector. Most of them don't have a house in Italy. Many of them can't even spell the word pension. Or don't have a car to get there. That concerns me.