Sponsorship of public cultural organisations

 

Scandals regularly arise around the bodies of public cultural organisations. The most frequent issues are the (lack of) assumption of responsibility, confused decision-making, mutual control of the bodies or dealings with the public purse. Managers and employees of an institution should be aware of the tasks and duties of the respective bodies. Your organisation can only become a beacon if its committees are effectively interlinked.

 

Current scandals surrounding the committees of cultural organisations

 

Committees are the secret clockwork of a cultural organisation. An institution can be successfully managed if the work of the shareholders' meeting, management, supervisory board and advisory board is interlinked. Their interaction creates transparent decision-making, control and the prevention of misconduct. Unfortunately, however, they are only perceived externally when they are dysfunctional or individual wheels come to a standstill.

 

Recently, there have been an increasing number of scandals involving cultural organisations or publicly funded institutions in which the internal control of the committees no longer functioned or the behaviour of individuals got out of hand. From an external perspective, a picture of confused responsibilities emerges. Only one thing is certain: dysfunctional committees distract attention from the organisation's performance. An overview of the various bodies and their functions helps to provide a more differentiated view of the operation of cultural organisations.

 

Theory handbook: Committees

 

Non-profit museums and other cultural organisations are usually legally structured as a foundation or as a "non-profit limited liability company" (gGmbH). Foundations have share capital, the regular income from which is in turn used for selected purposes (e.g. exhibiting art for the public). The gGmbH also offers a high degree of organisational freedom and enables the operation of larger, personnel-intensive institutions.

 

Every cultural organisation must make entrepreneurial decisions and be responsible for the use of the funds it receives. Two bodies are responsible for this: Firstly, the shareholders' meeting, which holds the shares in the gGmbH and determines its activities. Secondly, the management, which implements the decisions operationally and manages the day-to-day running of the organisation.

 

An advisory body (advisory board or board of trustees) can also be set up as an option. Its competences are not regulated by law and allow room for manoeuvre. An added value lies in appointing a committee with persons who have special expertise or experience and thus act as advisors to the shareholders' meeting or the management.

 

From 501 employees, a gGmbH must also have a supervisory board that monitors the management. It monitors the actual use of funds and ensures that neither violations of the rules of procedure nor other ethically questionable actions are carried out.

 

Conflicts between bodies in practice

 

As the basis of the organisation, the shareholders' meeting adopts articles of association (shareholders' agreement) that define the tasks and duties of the bodies as precisely as possible. At the same time, the idealistic purposes must be deliberately kept open and broad in order to allow the organisation room for manoeuvre in the realisation of its projects in the long term. This represents an organisational balancing act and often leads to differences of opinion in practice.

The most frequent points of contention concern the assumption of responsibility, decision-making, mutual control between the bodies and dealings with the public sector. The aspect of responsibility applies to questions such as: What freedoms does a governing body have in its activities? What information must a governing body provide to the shareholders? Decisions must be made regarding investments and the optimal use of funds. Potential points of conflict are also the question of management remuneration or the balance between non-profit status and ensuring economic operation.

 

A certain degree of mutual control is essential for the functioning of the entire organisation. This prevents an individual committee from neglecting its duties or individuals from taking advantage of it for their own benefit. It is also important that no non-transparent decisions or individual misconduct are accepted within the organisation. Control usually ends with the shareholders' meeting. As a decision-making body, it can influence and scrutinise the activities of the management. However, this control is not reciprocal.
Sometimes dealing with the federal government also becomes a point of conflict. Many privately initiated organisations include the federal government in the shareholders' meeting in order to gain (co-)financing, public representation of interests and additional expertise. In return, some control over the direction of the organisation must be relinquished. The danger of the trade-off is that the federal government can also act as a boundary setter. If the shareholders and the public sector pursue different (possibly political) interests, the organisation may, in the worst case, be unable to successfully fulfil its actual purposes.

 

Effective committee work: dos and don'ts

 

In order to enable the committees to work together as smoothly as possible, the following points in particular should be observed:

 

In addition to the articles of association, rules of procedure should be adopted for the respective committees, which set out codes of conduct and catalogs of tasks. They should be as clear and transparent as possible. A compliance officer can also be appointed to monitor compliance with the rules of procedure, division of tasks and responsibilities.

 

Committees work particularly well when their members bring a variety of expertise to the table. Instead of equipping a cultural organization with only academics, for example, it is helpful to set up interdisciplinary committees: Entrepreneurship, politics, law as well as marketing. Running an organization involves a variety of tasks that are not purely technical. These can only be fulfilled if they are also reflected in the skills of the members. It should also be noted that advisory board members in particular work on a voluntary basis and do not always have many years of committee experience. It is therefore advisable to provide advisory boards with selective support through further training. This enables them to meet the constantly changing operational requirements and their positions of responsibility in the long term.

 

It is essential to avoid appointing people to a board of trustees or advisory board whose professional interests are too closely intertwined with those of the organization. Personal interests are always a component, but should be minimized. Of course, it is important that the advisory board members not only identify with the purpose of the organization in an idealistic way, but can also open new doors for the organization. Ideally, the advisory board serves the organization as an additional social figurehead and as a pool of experts from whose experience the management can draw in its work. Otherwise, mutual dependencies or even nepotism can arise.

Cooperation between the committees works particularly well when their competencies complement each other, creating a platform for dialog. If the functions of the committees interact effectively, the organization can become a beacon.