In a 75-page audit report from the national audit office, ”the Art to control the government’s governance of cultural institutions”, have examined whether the government’s management of authorities and institutions in the cultural field is clear, results-oriented, and corporately adapted.
It is, notes the report.
with the years – the review is based on a survey made by the cultural institutions managers, which is similar to the one carried out in 2010. Over the eight years has been a clear increase in satisfaction occurred: There is a clearer consensus between the ministry of culture and institutions on how the performance and costs should be reported; it considers that there is a reduced risk of ”ministerial” now than before; the availability of contact persons and officers at the ministry of culture is perceived as increased.
“It was a major förvaltningspolitisk change 2009-2010 in order to make the authorities’ basic and long-term assignments more clearly. Then, the Swedish parliament decided on a förvaltningspolitisk bill with the criteria for the governance of the state of business. When the survey was made in 2010, it was new and because of that, we wanted to look at how it looks now, eight years later, ” says Gunnar Myrberg, projektmedarbetare on the examination.
the project Manager Gunilla Lundquist believes that now that the conversion has been established, it has contributed to a feeling of greater clarity.
Our impression is that the changes now put in the institutions, there has been more agreement on what should be reported.
the cultural sector much more satisfied with the state management than other policy areas, primarily with regard to the autonomy, the ability to control their own activities.
But in an area is the national audit office more critical of the government. Many of the institutions that get government funding are operated as corporations, or foundations – as the royal dramatic theatre, the Opera or the Millesgården – however, is controlled by the government, which would be the authorities.
It means that a conflict can occur if the government’s guidelines for how the mission should be run collide with the articles of association or the foundation’s own statutes.
the government’s requirements on what is to be fulfilled in the mission to get the state funds are not being implemented.
” Hypothetically, there may occur a situation where the guidelines do not go together with the statutes, and then, the foundation must legally give priority to the statutes. It can go as far as to the foundation’s board of directors will be liable if it does not comply with the statutes because it must comply with the government’s decision, ” says Gunilla Lundquist.
the national audit office therefore recommends that the government takes over the formal governance of companies and foundations in the area.
” It is important that the government ascertain that the guidelines you decide on does not violate any statutes. Furthermore, the government should consider developing ägaranvisningar to the companies as decided at the annual general meeting in place of the guidelines, ” says Lundquist.
