Let’s hope the RSA elections are about issues

May 12, 2009 by
Filed under: The RSA 

In what appeared to be a thinly veiled endorsement of UKIP, Norman Tebbit suggested this morning that the public might show their disgust at the MPs’ expenses saga by voting for minority parties. In the RSA we have our own elections. Our Council elections should be an opportunity to debate key questions about the future of the Fellowship.

Last night I joined a panel of speakers at an event to mark the 20th anniversary of the establishment of Central Saint Martins.  I was rather daunted as the subject was art and design education – not something on which I am an expert (although I am learning).  In fact, as I told a somewhat startled audience, I could think of only one link between me and St Martin’s:  it was while one my girlfriends was attending its foundation course in the early 80s that she chucked me for a boy called Julian, who had electric blue hair.  As she told me at the time, she had come to the conclusion that everything about me was irredeemably uncool – a charge my two sons will confirm has stood the test of time.

Along with Deborah Dawton, Chief Executive of the Design Business Association, the other panellist was Charles Saumarez Smith, the charming and erudite Chief Executive of the Royal Academy, which, he graciously reminded me, was created by the RSA.

The last question posed by the audience was directed both to Charles and me.  ‘What’, we were asked, ‘are the pros and cons of modernising a long established institution as against creating something brand new?’  Charles gave an elegant answer emphasising the importance of history, but he also agreed with me that sometimes the weight of tradition can get in the way of innovation.

This got me to thinking about the elections to our new Fellowship Council, the body charged with representing the interests of Fellows, strengthening the synergies between the RSA and the Fellowship, and helping to shape a more ambitious model for Fellowship activity. Nominations are now open and the elections are in June and July.

Turnout in elections for Trustees has been very low in the past and there it is possible the elections to the new Council are contested on the sole basis of who has the highest profile.  But I hope the elections will be the opportunity for substantive debate inside the Fellowship. RSA staff will, of course, remain impartial, but I think it is legitimate for me to lay out what I see as some of the big issues, and where I personally stand on them.

• Inward versus outward looking
Is the Fellowship largely about providing social and educational activities to the Fellows, or is it about looking outwards and exploring how Fellows can help deliver our charitable mission in society?   

• Regional order versus bottom up organisation
Should the Regional committees effectively act as the sovereign body for activities in their part of the country, with the expectation that any Fellowship activity is organised by and through them, or should we facilitate Fellows to organise in whatever way works best for them, including on a city or a local issue level?

• Tradition versus innovation
Should the model of Fellowship organisation be based on the traditional model of committees, elected officers and close adherence to long established rules, or should the RSA at every level be encouraging new forms of engagement, from on-line social networking to open space events to local collaborations?

• Stand off or mutual accountability
Should we accept that the RSA nationally and the RSA locally have very different agendas and styles of operating, or should we be aiming for HQ to be much more accountable for engaging Fellows in its activities and programmes, while also challenging regional and local groups to get better at engaging Fellows and making an impact? 

In preferring the latter in each of these pairs I am aware that the choices are not always as clear cut and that the way I have described the issues probably favours my view. But my big hope is not that Fellows will agree with me, it is that we use these elections to provoke a lively debate about the kind of Fellowship we want, and as a way of finding a new generation of active Fellows (whether or not they agree with yours truly).

Share

No related posts.

Tags: , , , , ,

Comments

17 Comments on Let’s hope the RSA elections are about issues

  1. Bob Porrer on Tue, 12th May 2009 1:09 pm

    2. It is good to encourage debate and confront some of the issues facing the RSA and its Fellowship. However, making the analysis so black and white may stimulate debate (which is good) but oversimplify the issues. As you say, Matthew, the choices are not usually clear cut. In many cases the response could be “Both …and” rather than “either… or”.

    While recognising that the four issues listed are important, I think that we should start by identifying what we wish to achieve, both across the RSA and nationally/regionally/locally and then look at how we should organise ourselves and support developments, whether through RSA headquarters staff, through Society-wide groups of Fellows or through national, regional and local groupings. It is unlikely that one size will fit all; the context in which we are hoping to have an impact therefore needs careful consideration. For example, “regions” operating within devolved governmental areas (such as Scotland and Wales) may have different needs from other “regions”, and therefore need a different support structure.

    In all this, the relationship between the centre and Fellows needs to be redefined and we must work to ensure that the new Fellowship Council does promote a genuinely two-way dialogue between the Centre and the Fellowship, wherever they are located.

  2. David Wilcox on Tue, 12th May 2009 1:43 pm

    3. Matthew – I agree with the directions you advocate: outward-looking, decentralised, innovative, engaging. But how will a 40-strong, traditionally-organised, solely advisory body operating amidst other layers of governance and management make any changes even if “your” slate predominates? I’m really not sniping … and I guess it is difficult for you to say much more. It’s just my hunch is that question – can we really change from within, using old methods – may stand in the way of the candidates you hope for. How about some experimental, parallel-track skunkworks where the non-committee types among the Fellowship can quickly show what’s possible, in collaboration with staff?
    Even if the activists do predominate on the new council, and are taken seriously, the real challenge lies in how far Fellows can/will self-organise for civic innovation. I don’t think experience over the past 18 months has been enormously encouraging: some good examples, but difficult to see ho the approach will scale.
    So my suggestion is try some new models for action as well as new models for governance. Debate is fine, but as you suggest, what’s important is what real difference RSA makes outside.

  3. James Horn on Tue, 12th May 2009 1:45 pm

    4. Thanks for your post, Matthew – I’m trying to resist commenting on the mentioned question about modernising establishments (particularly the RA…) as I could go on forever – I’ll try and focus on your main points:

    Coming from my standpoint, as someone (hopefully still youngish) who is looking seriously at applying for Fellowship at the RSA, I’d say that the attractive qualities of the organisation presently are it’s clear dedication to social issues – actually getting out and helping society rather than inwardly debating it – and it’s openness to progress.

    I love the debates that are going on (often online) about how we engage with new tech within the framework of society, how our art can once again challenge social injustice and environmental issues, and taking time to consider building a better future rather than repeating the mistakes of the past.

    As someone who lives out in ‘the provinces’, I’m all for systems that allow things to go on away from a central HQ but believe it’s important to have a hub which can act as a central resource for those between projects.

  4. Still Hopeful on Wed, 13th May 2009 12:59 am

    5. I was at the event last night by some serendipitous twist of fate. Serendipitous because I had no idea that the ‘inward versus outward looking’ debate took place within the walls of esteemed and ancient institutions like the Royals Academy and the RSA.

    By way of an explanation; three weeks ago I felt like all my stars had collided. The idea was born. I am to paint the gargantuan ugly estate prior to it’s demolition. That of course has now evolved into a three-pronged manifesto – a community inclusion project; a social enterprise scheme; an awareness campaign. All centered around bringing people together to “do art”. So you can imagine my delight when my ears were filled with what spilled from the mouths of the respective CEOs of the aforementioned institutions. That together with a quote from a young man lacking confidence earlier in the week, drives me on (as evil twins beaurocracy and market pressure begin to pull hard on my pigtails):

    Forgive me. I’m forced to paraphrase, my notes were shocking:

    Charles Robert Saumarez Smith CBE, Secretary and Chief Executive of the Royal Academy of Arts – On Art Today
    “Drawing should be taught as a universal skill and not simply reside with artists and deemed as one of life’s differentiators – the acknowledgement of what I could never do ”

    Matthew Taylor, CEO, Royal Society of Arts – On Working Together To Achieve Change
    “There is a gulf between the people’s dream and behaviour change that’s required to realise that dream. How do we enable people to be the people they want to be to create the future they want to create…”

    Francis (21), Unemployed Mechanic – Comments On Painting The Heygate Estate
    “I’ve always thought, like, after a hard day of school or looking for jobs or whatever … going back to a $hithole like that [Heygate Estate] must make you even more fu*king depressed… so yeah, it’s good idea. I can’t paint though.”

    I’ve often thought from the carriage of my train that if you peeled back, sardine-can-fashion, the outer façade of the Heygate Estate, you’d reveal a multitude of microcosms from which we all could learn…and then, if you let them out to play…?

  5. matthewtaylor on Wed, 13th May 2009 7:34 am

    6. Thanks Lindsey. Glad you enjoyed the event. Your project sounds exciting. Tell me more when you have a plan.

  6. matthewtaylor on Wed, 13th May 2009 7:39 am

    7. Thanks so much James. It sounds like you are just the kind of person we need in the Fellowship. I would be very happy be the sponsor of your application.

  7. matthewtaylor on Wed, 13th May 2009 7:45 am

    8. H David. I agree but I don’t think the two things need to be in conflict. We need a central body with the legitimacy to issue a two way challenge to HQ and to the Fellowship and to work in detail though how we can make the centre-local relationship richer. But this body won’t be the driver of innovation; that relies on the gradually emerging networks and initiatives started by Fellows themselves.

  8. matthewtaylor on Wed, 13th May 2009 7:47 am

    9. Thanks Bob. I agree and indeed I did make some of these points in the last paragraph of the original blog. n terms of overall mission the Fellowship reform process is taking place in parallel with a process of rebradng and alignment so we can be clearer with each other and the world about the RSA’s mission. We will, of course, discuss this with the Council

  9. David Wilcox on Wed, 13th May 2009 8:05 am

    10. Thanks Matthew. I agree about both strands … and said skunkworks in parallel. My main point was that on current evidence civic innovation is unlikely to come from self-organising action by Fellows. RSA needs models for bottom-up social innovation, with systems to match, involving both staff and Fellows.

  10. Krystle on Wed, 13th May 2009 3:31 pm

    11. Matthew if only you were better at managing people! You’d be such an excellent politician…although this kind of rhetoric might be too transparent even for Labour voters.

  11. John Lindley on Wed, 13th May 2009 4:36 pm

    12. With regard to the Fellowship Council and your four points, Matthew, I would like to echo Bob Porrer’s remarks , which express some of my views probably better than I can.

    It concerns me greatly that implict in your points is an apparent assumption that regional committees and RSA centrally are at odds (as words like ‘sovereign’ suggest). Gerry Acher in his opening remarks at the recent Regional Chair’s discussion seemed to echo a simliar feeling. I do not believe this to be the case and the implication is a destructive one..
    RSA does need to think through quite fundamentally what organisations and informal grouping will help it best achieve its aims and have the greatest impact. Meanwhile, if my regional commitee is anythying to go by, I believe I and my fellow committee members are extremely anxious for the whole Society to work together as imaginatively as possible to elucidate further the most relevant role for the Society in this electronic age and how to organise to fulfil it across the whole country and beyond. My committee (I speak personally) is certainly striving to be as imaginative and progressive as possible in all we do in supporting the Society and particularly its Fellows in our area, and in feeeding our ideas and experience more widely within the Society. As a Society we may decide that we do not need Regions or regional committees but while we still have them let’s use them as fully as we can.

  12. James Horn on Thu, 14th May 2009 2:33 pm

    13. Thank you, Matthew.

    You may be seeing my name on a form sometime soon…

  13. matthewtaylor on Fri, 15th May 2009 7:33 am

    14. Thanks John. I am sorry if my wording was clumsy; the aim was to stimulate debate rather than to convince anyone of anything. Some regions do great work, as I’m sure does yours but others are much less effective. And among the less effective there sometimes seems to be much more focus on maintaining control than working constructively with the centre, opening up or being self critical. There is a region, for example, where divisions within the committee have meant there is virtually no activity gong on. Those regions that are committed to fostering Fellowship activity are already having an important impact, creating new networks, getting city groups going etc. So, regions can have a really important role in the future.

  14. matthewtaylor on Fri, 15th May 2009 7:35 am

    15. Hi Krystle. I don’t understand this but I suspect it’s not complementary. Feel free to tell me what you disagree with substantively.

  15. Barbara Hilton on Mon, 18th May 2009 8:23 am

    16. Matthew, as a long-standing RSA Fellow (with roots in education and science) I value the stimulus the RSA provides and its capacity to harness the imagination and efforts of people of a wide diversity of backgrounds and outlooks. Keep up your efforts to make us think!

    I hope there’ll continue to be room in your new arrangements for opening discussion via e-mail, either informally (as this) , or on a more regular basis by e-mail groups or ‘corresponding members’ to extend discussion of issues.

  16. matthewtaylor on Wed, 20th May 2009 12:55 pm

    17. Hi Barbara

    I absolutely agree. In many parts of the country Fellows have established such group and nationally we try to support emerging Fellows networks. Are there any particular types of group you had in mind; local, professional, issue based?

    Thanks for your comment and your support for the RSA

  17. Socialreporter | First video interview with MPs’ expenses leak source on Fri, 5th Jun 2009 10:26 am

    18. [...] will be able to have a positive influence in modernising the 250-year-old institution. Well, that’s the hope of chief executive Matthew Taylor. The general feeling from my conversations was that the RSA, [...]

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!