Agenda item

To receive the report of the Portfolio Holder for Arts, Culture and Tourism.

The Portfolio Holder for Arts, Culture and Tourism presented his report which was taken as read and responded to Members’ questions in the following terms:

·        RAMM had been a constant source of change and when an officer had left a team had been put in place but this had not been as effective as expected. The independent review had given a way forward and he had been consulted, as Portfolio Holder, on the chosen way forward;

·        there were people employed at the museum with great skills and the curator was a huge loss but he had had individual conversations with staff;

·        benchmarking of ‘staying spend’ was vital and Cambridge, Chester and Norwich were comparable. 79% were satisfied with the museum and other attractions. He would discuss with the Strategic Director, whether any other areas had increased their staying spend, where the Council may be able to learn;

·        there had been an extensive public survey which informed the City of Culture expression of interest. 600 artists and others had responded to the Council however the 14 January deadline to apply had been a quick turnaround;

·        it was disappointing not to make the long list, he hoped it was not home counties centric and would learn from the process and look to apply again in future; and

·        the best event he had attended in the last year was an archaeological dig in Princesshay. 2-300 children were able to enjoy this experience and he was aware that the museum outreach team would go into primary schools which he encouraged having worked in primary education. He hoped that this would attract children to the museum and broaden horizons.

The Strategic Director for Place responded to Members’ questions in the following terms:

·        the independent review had been carried out by an expert in museums and had been commissioned with a broad scope of looking at the museum function and one recommendation was to review the leadership structure. The cost of the study had been £25,000 excluding VAT and was a fixed fee;

·        an organisational change process had been undertaken by the Council. The Culture Service restructure was considered, including all cultural assets. The process had taken several months and detailed consultations had taken place with staff across all cultural assets, in accordance with the organisational change process. As part of that process all staff were consulted, including management within the RAMM and decisions were made by the Strategic Management Board and the Portfolio Holder was aware and unions had been involved in the process; and

·        the criteria for judging City of Culture applications did not include consultation therefore Exeter had been in a good position to express interest given that a review of the Cultural Strategy was already underway.

During discussion the following points were made:

·        a member believed that museum staff had ideas for cost-cutting which they felt had not been given able to be shared within the process’

·        it was sad not to make the long list for City of Culture;

·        Exeter had a lot of interesting cultural projects around slavery as well as a great outreach team at the RAMM, linking with community-builder programme. Outreach officers could do pop-up engagement activities at community events;

·        it was positive read the impact of the Grayson Perry exhibition and the uptick at the Custom House; and

·        retail income generation was impressive.