FOURTH MEETING OF THE MUSEUMS SUMMIT THINK TANK
05 MARCH 2010
DISCOVERY POINT, DUNDEE
Attendees
Members of the Think Tank:
Dr Jim Arnold, New Lanark World Heritage Site; John Leighton, Director General National Galleries of Scotland; Frank Little, Museums Manager Culture and Sport Edinburgh; Dr Gordon Rintoul, Director National Museums of Scotland; Rachel Skene, Head of Tourism H.I.E; Ewen Smith; Jim Tildesley, Director Scottish Maritime Museum; Dr Sharon Webb, Director and Curator Kilmartin House Trust
Apologies
Professor Stewart Brymer; Baillie Liz Cameron, Chair, Culture and Sport Glasgow
Scottish Government
David Seers (Chair), Carole Robinson, Gail Clapton
1. Welcome
David welcomed everyone to the meeting. Apologies had been received from Liz Cameron and Stewart Brymer.
2. Action points recap
All of the action points from the third meeting were now cleared apart from the document on funding streams. This was being worked on and will be issued prior to the next meeting.
3. Update on meetings with Museums Galleries Scotland
It was recognised that there are key functions MGS supply and a discussion was held on the services provided by MGS and whether a membership organisation was the best operating system in the current financial climate. The question of the administration costs involved in processing grants compared to the actual grants was mentioned. It was noted that there had been a change in the last year with the limit for small grants bring raised and MGS have also changed their emphasis on funding streams. MGS have agreed to supply their most recent financial report when it is available.
Having taken stock of what specifics were learned from the MGS events, the Group agreed to move on to look more generally at what was needed by the sector to deliver.
4. Update on work of sub-groups
Working Methods Sub Group
A summary of the meeting held on 19 February was given and discussion followed on the main points arising. Maintaining the status quo was not an option and there was a need to build on the sector's strengths and consider how services could be supported. Questions to consider were:
o What were the key priorities of the sector? These were listed as training, advice and support, advocacy, access, education, tourism and health and well-being. These points were supported by the "Making the Case" paper.
o Role of NMS/MGS
o How the sector could achieve a united voice to determine the priorities. A forum had been suggested which would contain representatives from across the sector. There was a need for a mechanism to inform the forum - regional partnerships were suggested.
o Whether the Think Tank parameters should be based on accredited museums and galleries, recognising the importance of those with recognised collections.
o Distribution of funding and options for the Industrials also needed to be considered.
Forum
The Group agreed that this was generally a good idea and worth further consideration.
- The main benefits were that this could give direct access to the Scottish Government and give the sector a common sense of purpose. The forum could carry weight.
- The Group discussed representation. Having a limited membership (maximum of 12) was favoured. It might be useful to broaden representation beyond museums and galleries, to include Historic Scotland and the National Trust for Scotland for example, but there was a danger that the forum could get too big. It could turn into a heritage forum and end up having fragmented sub groups. HLF representation could mean the body would be better placed to implement priorities, rather than just discussing them. MGS should be part of the forum given their current representative role and the fact that they issue accreditation - this would avoid the need to invite lots of disparate groups. The involvement of National and local museums in the forum would need to be balanced. The Group should consider key external partners that already exist and consider their views. Further consideration was needed on representation.
- The forum or any other representative body would need to be well informed by the sector. A forum is a mechanism but it needs a number of practitioners and not just representatives. The Creative Industries framework is a good document as it brings together various agencies and partners to work towards an agreed set of outcomes. This was considered to be very high level rather than practitioner based. The Think Tank needed to find practical practitioner solutions through partnerships and collaboration.
- A lower level forum could give regional/rural practitioners opportunity to filter up to main forum. This would be a mechanism for communication and reporting. This would offer practical support and knowledge sharing and a way to bring the sector together. The higher level forum would consider the opportunities and strategy and look at brokering higher level partnerships. These 2 tiers would bring the sector together - a lower level forum would allow all views to be expressed. It was also suggested that marketing needs should be considered and it may be useful to have a specific body to assist with advice in this area.
- The forum was only one part of the overall recommendations and one of a number of potential tools for delivering key outcomes and sustaining the sector.
Funding
- There was an opportunity to re-design funding streams, not just MGS. There should be flexibility. There was disparity across Scotland where some accredited sites are getting assistance and some not. The Think Tank could point out the best use and promotion of funding. It could be useful to establish what is core funding and what it costs to deliver preservation along with access, development and marketing etc.
Priorities
It was suggested that education, tourism and health and well-bring were the key policy "outcomes" that should be focused on. Training, advice and support, advocacy and access, by contrast, were arguably "tools" rather than priorities. These "tools" were described as "engines" feeding and underpinning the "rocket" of the "outcomes".
Supporting the Museums and Galleries Sector Paper
Discussion of the paper tabled by Gordon Rintoul centred on how current resources could be used more efficiently.
Training was a key issue and there was discussion about whether the sector was offering and receiving relevant training. It was recognised that there were gaps. The National Museums and National Galleries of Scotland have been approached mainly be accredited museums and galleries for assistance in the past. MGS offered courses and provided money to enable museums to deliver their own training. It could be difficult for the sector to know who to approach for training and to identify where expertise was based.
There might be potential for a conservation centre of excellence operated by NGS/NMS which could be a first port of call for those looking for advice and help. Training services could be rationalised and a framework set. This could be one of the recommendations. The Group could recommend which organisations were best placed to offer support. The Think Tank could recommend what areas need clarifying - core areas that need to be addressed - and explore and recommend how to plug the gaps as they are vital to museums in delivering their services.
It would be useful if NMS/NGS, MGS and others could sit down to agree current gaps. The paper was worth developing with the key services expanded on. Marketing, partnership working and audience development should be added to the list of key services identified.
It would be worthwhile to consider other assistance that is offered out with the sector and Rachel will document what currently exists. The core services grid could also be developed.
AP: Sub group to refine "working methods" paper, listing the elements of core capacity that need support and development; and then fleshing out one or two key ones (training; conservation) with more details on how support could be better facilitated. (Rachel offered to draft; Jim Tildesley would cover industrial museums).
Research Pooling in the Sector
The paper considered the collaborative approach used by Scottish universities and whether this was worth further investigation.
The challenge was the relative lack of skills and expertise across the sector (there were significant numbers of volunteers). Whilst few organisations were undertaking 'research' there was a huge amount of knowledge exchange of collections happening. The principle behind research pooling was good and it was recognised that it could lead to more partnerships and greater collaboration; however within current resources, Scotland was not best placed to embark on a direct equivalent of the HE model.
AP: DS to relay Group's views to Stewart. [Follow up: DS discussed with SB on 17 March: suggested that after sub group does further work on the "working methods" paper we come back to whether a pooling model could help knowledge transfer; agreed that high value research pooling is a useful model to flag up know, but worth thinking about more in the longer term, perhaps when resources become less restricted.]
To Provide a Sustainable Future for the Industrials
Comments were invited on the discussion paper.
It was clear that maintaining the status quo was no longer an option. The sticking plaster approach of the past has not worked.
- The definition of 'Industrial' was always difficult to establish. It was acknowledged that the current listings of industrial museums is not protected nor is it an exhaustive list.
- There are a few anomalies that might need to be resolved. The Museum of Flight is the only 'Industrial' to be incorporated into NMS and New Lanark, although a member of The Association of Independent Industrial Museums and Heritage Sites of Scotland (AIIMHS), is a World Heritage Site and not a museum.
- The paper suggested a federation partnership to retain and share knowledge and expertise. However, this may not address the fundamental question of establishing what is salvageable and sustainable and what may have to be relinquished.
- Although funding remains an issue, a partnership approach is a good starting point.
- The geographical spread of industrial heritage does make joint working difficult and a separation of the buildings from the collections could be one approach.
- Collaboration is considered a good idea as many sites have very knowledgeable volunteers but no real expertise and skills. Assistance in these areas has often been supplied by NMS and a greater partnership with NMS and HS could maximise efficiency and the sustainability of a museum and its collection.
It was agreed that the Proposal should be refined and Gordon Rintoul offered to meet with Jim Arnold to review the paper.
Next Steps
Refinement of Industrials paper
Further work on 'working methods'
AOB
Mailbox activity - nil so far. Suggested that MGS be asked to re-advertise the mailbox to its members - email to those unable to attend the AGM. Rachael and Sharon offered to act as conduits with MGS AGM information and supply to various Heritage forums. Gordon has networking groups also but these were likely all to be members of MGS.
Next Meeting
11 May 2010 Edinburgh at NMS. The Minister will be attending this meeting.