Rotterdam culture alderman tells independent advisory body off. Based on biased investigation. 

'We met only pleasant, committed people with their hearts in the right place for Rotterdam culture.' So reads the last sentence of a report by Utrecht-based consultancy Rijnconsult on the future of Rotterdam's Arts and Culture Council (RRKC). Based on that study, alderman Said Kasmi (D66) decided this week to abolish the RRKC from 1 January 2023.

In an initial reaction, the RRKC and the board of the Rotterdamse Kunststichting (RKS) let it be known ''deeply regret this proposed decision'. One states: 'In our view, the said 'Out of the groove' evaluation report does not provide sufficient grounds to take such a weighty decision. The decision ignores the scenarios outlined in the report and has been taken while a new college is being formed.'

No space

The situation is remarkable, to say the least. First of all, it is strange, that an alderman, soon to be out of office, should take such a sweeping decision on the future of his city's cultural sector. Next, it is downright bizarre that the research report, on a careful reading, leaves no room for the RRKC to survive. The only really valid reason given by the consultancy firm: the disturbed relationship with the alderman of culture and the municipal cultural affairs department.

On the face of it, it does not appear so. The not too thick report contains all sorts of ambitious phrases, stemming from the title "Out of the groove": the researchers argue that the RRKC has fallen into a groove and can no longer get out of it. They paint a picture of an independent advisory body that is very insistent on its own independence. The researchers see that - with the alderman and Cultural Affairs officials - as a problem. That problem has apparently been around for longer, which is not surprising in a city that has continued to make draconian cuts in the arts and culture budget in recent years.

Angry officials

Not literally so mentioned, but clearly visible in the text, is the anger of politicians and civil servants about the fact that the RRKC, like its great example, the national Council for Culture, sometimes issues unsolicited advice. The councillor, for instance in the cultural corona policy, had no appetite for that. He appointed his own 'think tank', thus bypassing his own advisory board. That responded by exercising the right to participation. Which of course produced a scandalous display in the City Council.

The Rhine consultants formulate it as an 'all-inclusive approach':  'This phenomenon also manifests itself in moments when the RRKC bypasses its client, the college. For example, the RRKC turned directly to the city council for the advice around the Rotterdam Cultural Base (RCB). The RRKC also prepared an unsolicited opinion on corona and culture. While the RRKC knew that the alderman had asked a think tank to advise him, in the course of that process it came up with its own advice that was pretty much a copy of the think tank's initial output. These are curious manoeuvres, seemingly manifestations of a power play that takes energy worthy of a better cause.'

That's not going to work out, and Rijnconsult apparently did its best to speak to all the 'stakeholders' and not criticise the client (Alderman Kasmi) before coming up with eyebrow-raising recommendations. But first, let us take a closer look at some sentences from the text. For instance, we read: 'Part of the delay in carrying out this research was caused by expectations and even demands that existed at the RRKC regarding our approach. There was a lot of pressure and a lot of lobbying for the character of the research to be 'factual'.'

Disliking facts

The not-so-independent consultants felt pressured to be 'factual'. Read that again. And what should they do with those independent art experts with enormous baggage and ditto constituencies? It gets even stranger, with that independence: 'The RRKC insists on its independence. It is all about independence from politics, from administrative lucre. The RRKC sees this independence as its raison d'être. In line with the findings on positioning and systemic action of the RRKC, it is relevant to note that this cherished independence is the motivation for the RRKC's doings.'

The consultants, working on behalf of the municipal government, find 'independence' very odd. Because with such an independent advisory body, the civil service and lawmakers have to listen to noises that ingana against their own plans. And of course you don't hire Rijnconsult for that: 'However, the sector moderately recognises the added value of that independence of the RRKC, with the exception of its role in the Culture Plan process. That such independence actually leads to better and easier-to-implement advice is highly questionable. The independence of the RRKC may be the foundation of its existence and operations for the RRKC itself, but the sector needs more profile in this area. They make little or no connection.'

Relationship with portfolio holder has 'aspects'

The last sentence is not supported by any citation, i.e. no source. Indeed, the only citation-like support is not actually a confirmation of the Utrechters' point: 'The RRKC is a louse that should not sting.' So linguistically this does not say that the RRKC does not sting, but not may stabbing. So the person who gave this quote was criticising the councillor, not the RRKC. Anyway. Reading is not what it used to be, even among consultants.

What the consultancy must recognise, however, is that personal relations with the city's administrators are uncomfortable. 'The relationship with the portfolio holder has a number of aspects. Firstly, the contact is fairly direct. The (previous) chairman of the RRKC stipulated that, qualitate qua, he always has direct access to the alderman. The previous chairman also took full advantage of this, which sometimes worked out well for the RRKC's position (for example, in the course of this investigation). Second, the councillor has been displeased and irritated with the RRKC's actions on several occasions during this college term (see, for example, the course of events surrounding the aforementioned RRKC speaking engagement). Third, there are serious questions around the RRKC's added value for the cultural sector, in line with the findings of this report.'

'In short, from the college's perspective, there is room for rethinking the role and position of the RRKC. But here too, some respondents observe a groove, a repetition of moves. They observe a cycle of a nice start in a portfolio holder's tenure with the RRKC, but a cooled relationship at the end of it. Perhaps the very beginning of a college term is a good time for choices. So now, this spring, could be the time. Choices that a new college must make for itself, in which the scenarios we propose may help.'

City council's move

The six scenarios - we mention them anyway - are broadsides, and not meant seriously. They range from 'do nothing' through 'divide and rule' to 'diaspora', none of which are headlines that make you happy right now. Those scenarios: a self-respecting consulting firm would be deeply ashamed of them, especially since the most serious option: a supra-local advisory body, comes completely out of the blue.

The people of Rijnconsult nowhere address their own role in this story, there is no room for self-reflection, with has only carried out the college's order to 'get out of the groove', anyway. And then the penny drops: 'A motion was recently tabled expressing a desire for direct advice from the RRKC to the council. This has now been passed and constitutes an additional consideration in the follow-up to this enquiry.'

So the principal, the councillor who sees himself bypassed by his own Council, decides on the basis of this 'research' that the RRKC should disappear. Because the City Council values the RRKC more than its own officials. That's called power politics. And no city should accept that.

Read the whole report here:

Out of the groove report Evaluation RRKC Rijnconsult 22-2-2022