Letter: Trustees failed Royal Academy
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: It is understandable that the Royal Academy's secretary, David Gordon, should seek to play down the magnitude of the institution's recently disclosed financial and managerial predicament. But David Lister's impression ("Why Monet was the root of art evil", 16 December) that help might be coming from the Academy's "multi-millionaire trustees" is surely misplaced: had such support been available, it would not have been necessary, in the first place, to take and use as revenue pounds 1m of trust funds earmarked for capital projects.
Even this, it seems, was insufficient to keep the Academy solvent while funding its present pounds 7m annual administration cost. It was only the simultaneous withholding of pounds 200,000 of pension fund payments that enabled the Academy to stay within its pounds 2.25m overdraft facility.
Perhaps the trustees will now dig into their own pockets. But, as things stand, it must be said that it seems an extraordinary cheek for them and the administrators to use the fact of the crisis they have presided over in secrecy as a justification for an increase in their own powers at the expense of those of the academicians. Quite correctly, the membership has now twice refused to cede authority to the secretary's proposed new governing body, which would be dominated by trustees and salaried administrators.
One would hope that - even if they make no noises of contrition - the secretary and trustees will now have the grace to allow the members themselves to decide, in the wake of the present administrative debacle, how, and by whom, their own house might best be put back in order.
MICHAEL DALEY
Director
ArtWatch UK
Barnet, Hertfordshire
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments