The Cultural Governance Code, coined in 1998 by serial director and regulator Melle Daamen, and then adapted and amended several times since 2006, has been consigned to the dustbin by the Cultural Council. According to the Council, chaired by Kristel Baele, the code should not be updated but fundamentally reinvented. In the on Tuesday
In the advice "Supervision in the cultural sector: an art in itself" presented on Tuesday 24 September, the Council does not say it in so many words, by the way. The formulations are extremely diplomatic, but if you put them in order, nothing remains of the code that should now be endorsed by everyone who needs money for their cultural work in the Netherlands.
'Not optimal'
'Based on the observation that supervision in the cultural sector could be improved, the conclusion can be drawn that the Governance Code for Culture is apparently not functioning optimally.' states on page 67, for example. Exactly what that 'not optimal' means becomes clear in just about every subsequent paragraph. The code, currently maintained by 'Culture+Enterprise' may then 'help prevent governance and supervision failures and achieve good governance and supervision', but, states the Council: 'Witnessing the casuistry and sometimes weak accountability of the Culture Governance Code, the critical conversation envisioned by the code seems to need a boost'.
The Council observes that too often supervisors are poorly informed about their role and task, and sometimes have little knowledge of how culture-making works. The Council calls the Code's recommendations to pay attention to this too non-committal. The same goes for the comments found in the code on conflicts of interest: 'The current governance code states that conflicts of interest can be useful and necessary and speaks of desirable and undesirable conflicts of interest. The council believes this is an incorrect, confusing message. With short lines of communication between supervisors and key stakeholders, conflicts of interest can indeed seem positive. But conflicts of interest and conflicts of interest are always undesirable and can be major impediments to independent and critical supervision. If they become public knowledge, they directly damage the reputation and output of the institution and overall trust in the sector.'
More than cosmetic
The Council identifies fundamental flaws in the code's design that go beyond cosmetic problems. First, there is the problem of the two governance models, the supervisory board model and the management board model. Although the code purports to apply to both models, one control model is central: the supervisory board model. The subsequently added version for the board+director model the council calls "flawed" because essential elements have been dropped without adequate replacement.
This leads to 'role confusion and task ambiguity' which 'Council not surprised if he looks at the text'. The board in a board-management model has 'do have supervisory duties, but these are not literally named in the code, as they are for the supervisory board' (p. 69). This is not a detail - it goes to the heart of how supervision functions in much of the cultural sector.
Lost your way
According to the Council, the code fails in its communication to users. The preface and explanatory statement are 'omslike and with a lot of information overlapping with the code text itself'. Essential information is in the wrong place, causing users to lose their way in what should be a guide.
This all leads to the code hardly being taken seriously in the field either. The 'apply and explain' principle that applies when ticking the box in your application often leads to remarkably standard explanations and doubts about application.
The Council states: 'Organisations do subscribe to the code and indicate that they apply the principles, but far from always explain how, thus failing to comply with the 'comply and explain' principle" [...] "Many funds and also the board itself feel that accountability on good governance leaves much to be desired. And that's not the only thing: 'Different governments and funds do not appear to deal with this in the same way. Some expect more explanation than others; what is adequate for some, others find meagre'.
Reinventing
The Council then concludes not that the code should be updated, but that it should be completely reinvented. The Council argues that there should be two independent code texts, for which a new code committee should be set up. This should review the whole approach. For instance, the Council suggests using 'best practice provisions' instead of 'recommendations' and making the text much more guiding. This could eventually bring the cultural sector up to par with sectors such as education, healthcare and housing.
The new codes should be drawn up by an alliance of employers and other stakeholders in the sector, and the Council designates the NVTC (Dutch Association of Supervisors in Culture) for that purpose. Only 79 institutions are currently members of that, and the Council suggests making membership of that association compulsory. That association would then also be given the central role for training supervisors. Cultuur+Ondernemen, the institution currently in charge of the code and its training, could play an advisory role in this, according to the Council.
Not to mention all those other recommendations.
