SECOND MEETING OF THE MUSEUMS SUMMIT THINK TANK
27 NOVEMBER 2009
THE BURRELL COLLECTION, GLASGOW
Attendees
Members of the Think Tank:
Dr Jim Arnold, New Lanark World Heritage Site; Professor Stewart Brymer, Honorary President Dundee Heritage Trust; Baillie Liz Cameron, Chair Culture and Sport Glasgow; John Leighton, Director General National Galleries of Scotland; Frank Little, Museums Manager Culture and Sport Edinburgh; Dr Gordon Rintoul, Director National Museums of Scotland; Ewen Smith, Director Hunterian Museum and Art Gallery; Jim Tildesley, Director Scottish Maritime Museum; Dr Sharon Webb, Director and Curator Kilmartin House Trust
Scottish Government:
David Seers (Chair), Carole Robinson, Gail Clapton
Apologies:
Rachel Skene, Development Officer Strathnaver Museum
Welcome and Recap
The Chair welcomed the attendees and outlined the agenda for the meeting. He advised that most of the action points from the last meeting had been completed. Work would continue on the funding paper- work undertaken so far showed that there were many funding streams which were diverse and uncoordinated. Members were reminded that the Minister for Culture and External Affairs was likely to attend the third meeting and they should give thought on the outcomes to present.
The Group split into two to review the sub group papers. Each group was asked to consider what was good about each paper and consider any points that should be emphasized or were missing,
"MAKING THE CASE"
· It was accepted that this paper was heading in the right direction with some very good examples showing how museums and galleries contributed to Scottish society and the economy.
· A broad range of examples was needed - at present the paper featured too many examples from the National Collections and Glasgow museums.
· It was clear that museums and galleries contributed to other portfolios such as health, education and justice. The point was made that a bid for funds for the sector could be considered from these portfolios given the benefits delivered. A strong case would be essential.
· It was suggested that it might be useful to align the benefits presented to the national performance framework.
· The paper needed to consider advocacy of the sector and who was best placed to undertake this.
· There was a need to make the case to the outside world but not to be overly precious or protective of individual interests.
· The paper should highlight curatorial resources and also the long term storage problems experienced by both the national collections and by smaller collections/galleries/museums. Ministers were not always aware of the issues/effort involved although the end result was appreciated. The Group welcomed the recognition given in the paper to the importance of the collections.
"WORKING METHODS"
· The benefits of regional hubs were recognised. Hubs offered economies of scale, sharing of expertise and offered support for smaller museums. Service delivery could be improved. A regional framework was thought to be sensible given the size and geographical scale of Scotland.
· The model would need to be developed further but there were concerns that it might be expensive to set up given the current financial climate.
· Funding allocation would remain an issue under this model.
· In general, core funding was not being addressed for smaller museums and thought would be needed on funding distribution.
· There is real potential in a regional hub approach, however one size may not fit all so flexibility should be built in. For example city based centres of excellence could exclude regional areas. E.g. a hub based in Inverness may not be beneficial for Argyll and Bute.
· There was an interest in partnership working and the recognised benefits. National Museums of Scotland experience was that it was difficult for them to work in partnerships as there were so many people and groups they could work with. A regional framework would help them to prioritise.
· The Group were asked to consider whether to be upfront about the fact that not all museums and galleries would receive support/survive under a new model.
· Whilst the Group were aware of pressures faced by local authorities, the sector was poor at presenting itself and needed to be better at engaging with key decision takers at national and local level. Visibility of the sector was certainly low within local authorities who did not always place high value on museums and galleries despite the economic contribution they make. Different funding arrangements were an issue and the Group thought that some local authorities may not want to participate in a regional model.
· It was suggested that greater statutory provision might better define the level of delivery required from local authorities.
ACTION POINTS.
· Approach both Mark O'Neill (Culture & Sport Glasgow) and Joanne Orr (Museums Galleries Scotland) for input. Obtain details of what has worked well within a regional framework and hear from Joanne Orr about her experience in the North East of England.
· Useful for the sub group to map out key decision makers.
FURTHER WORK
Industrials
Members would provide a paper produced by the Scottish Museums Council which was considered to be a useful overview for the industrial museum sector.
A minute from the Association of Independent Industrial Museums & Heritage Sites meeting on 30 November would be supplied. The Group would consider convening a sub group if required although distillation of this material might be enough.
Points were raised on what should be preserved and whether other industrials museums beyond the Scottish Mining Museum, Scottish Maritime Museum and Scottish Fisheries Museums should receive similar financial support. It was important that what ever was decided this should relate to the bigger picture and tie in to the overall direction suggested to the Minister.
AP: Papers to be supplied about the industrials.
COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY
The paper was discussed and the Group decided that, given consultation already undertaken at the Summit in June, it would not be beneficial to undertake roadshows or other consultation exercises until concrete proposals were ready. It was agreed that a dedicated mailbox should be set up to gather views from the sector. This would be advertised on the Scottish Government website and the Group would be kept informed about correspondence received.
AP: Scottish Government to set up a mailbox to invite views from the sector.
AOB
Museums Galleries Scotland(MGS)
It was noted that MGS were keen to engage with the work of the Group.
It was agreed that it would be useful for the Group to have a briefing session with MGS to discuss MGS's role. This would be an opportunity to pose questions to MGS and also to invite their views on advocacy. The Group also supported the suggestion that MGS should convene their members to discuss the work of the Think Tank. [Members of the Think Thank will be invited to give a presentation and answer questions at the MGS AGM in February].
MEETINGS
· The third meeting would be held on 19 January 2010 in Glasgow (am). It was hoped the Minister could attend this meeting.
· The fourth meeting would be held on 5 March 2010 (am) in Dundee .
SUMMARY OF ACTION POINTS
· Sub group papers to be further developed to take account of comments raised by the Group.
· Papers to be supplied on the industrials.
· SG to set up a mailbox and advertise on the SG website. Group to receive updates on correspondence received.
· SG to arrange briefing session for the Group with MGS.
· SG to invite MGS to convene members to discuss the work of the Group.
· SG to confirm arrangements for the third and fourth meetings of the Group.
Scottish Government
December 2009