As the general election looms and the next five-year Arts Plan has still not been accepted by the Government, the Arts Council is faced with some very difficult questions.

Why is it that so many clients of the Arts Council, across a range of disciplines, are expressing dissatisfaction (albeit off the record) with its performance, over the last year in particular?

...................

Historically, the relationship between the Arts Council and successive governments has been characterised by one simple issue. Money. For many interested parties, the success or failure of any particular Council can be measured by how many pounds or euro it has managed to extract from the government of the day.

On this level, the Council's relationship with the current administration, and with Minister Síle de Valera, must be accounted a considerable success.

In the lifetime of this Government, the Council has seen an unprecedented increase in the funds made available to it. The same period has also seen the implementation of the latest three-year Arts Plan, and the delivery of a more ambitious five-year plan to the Minister for her consideration. Many new initiatives have been announced, and there have been substantial increases in many grant allocations.

So why is it that so many clients of the Council, across a range of disciplines, are expressing dissatisfaction (albeit off the record) with its performance, over the last year in particular? No doubt some of these criticisms derive in part from the resentment of those who believe they're not receiving the support they deserve. But others are rooted in specific difficulties with the manner in which the Council is discharging its duties.

Of all the strategic measures implemented by the current Arts Council, multi-annual funding was the one most eagerly welcomed by the arts sector.

Short-termism was the bane of arts organisations, it was argued, and it was essential to offer them the opportunity to plan their activities with confidence over more than a 12-month period.

There was some criticism when, after launching its first three-year agreements on a pilot basis in 2000, the Council chose not to wait for an evaluation of those pilot programmes, but extended multi-annual funding to more organisations the next year. Two years on, when the Council received a disappointing three per cent increase in its own budget for 2002, the multi-annual funding policy abruptly ground to a halt. Many organisations, which had been working towards moving to multi-annual funding this year, and had been led to believe they would be successful in doing so, were told late in the day that this would not be the case.

Some of the existing three-year funding arrangements have run into serious difficulties, most spectacularly in the case of Opera Ireland and the Artists' Association of Ireland. While it would be misleading to say that multi-annual funding caused these problems, it's certainly true that the longer-term and more ambitious commitments entered into by organisations have exposed organisational weaknesses in some of them, and that the consequences in a few cases have been disastrous.

Meanwhile, resentment has grown among those who feel excluded by the new arrangements. The perception of a two-tier funding system, with favoured clients - some 10 per cent of the total - receiving multi-annual funding while others must wait indefinitely in limbo, has been in existence since the pilot programme was launched, and can only be exacerbated by the present situation. The Council points out that three-year funding is not absolutely guaranteed and is dependent on each organisation fulfilling its commitments. Some, indeed, have seen their allocations reduced this year.

But the fact remains that those outside the multi-annual loop have been told by the Council that its existing three-year arrangements make any new funding commitments impossible this year.

Multi-annual funding is presented as a central plank of a radically revised relationship between the Council and its clients. The Arts Council, we are told by its director Patricia Quinn, is no longer simply an agency for the disbursement of Government funds, but a developmental partner, working closely with production companies, resource organisations, venues and event organisers to enhance the quality of arts activity and access.

The reality is that, while the Council demands an increasingly professional and focused performance from its clients, it is, by its own admission, incapable of similarly improving its own performance. Restricted by the Department of Finance from altering its staffing structures and salary scales, it is stretched beyond breaking point.

Judging by the accounts of those who deal with it, there is a serious disjunction between the rhetoric of engagement and the reality of unreturned phone calls, deferred meetings and unexplained decisions.

Staff positions in the Council have been left unfilled, and there has been a steady increase in the number of consultants being brought in on contract. The Council makes no secret of the fact that it regards current salary scales as inadequate to attract the calibre of people it needs to develop and implement policy (which must be rather disheartening for the existing staff). As a result, the Council has made plain that its new plan cannot be fully implemented without a new staffing structure.

MEANWHILE, the Council's five-year Arts Plan, delivered last December, is still awaiting a response from the Government. At a media briefing 10 days ago, the chairman and director of the Council expressed confidence that the plan would be adopted in the near future. But, so close to a general election, it's not clear what "adoption" means. Does it mean a collective cabinet decision in advance of the dissolution of the Dáil next month? Or does it imply a commitment to the plan in the impending Fianna Fáil election manifesto?

Arts policy is no vote-grabber, but the Council may be calculating that keeping Fianna Fáil onside is the key to achieving its objectives in the next few years. Certainly, it is studiously avoiding any vocal advocacy which might upset the incumbent Minister. Such advocacy is seen, probably rightly, as the responsibility of the sector itself, rather than of an organ of the State.

As it stands, the Council is currently facing an extended hiatus, waiting for the answers to some very big questions. Will the Department of Finance approve its staff restructuring proposals? Will the next Government, whatever its complexion, be well-disposed towards the Arts Plan? Will the political and economic climate be conducive to a long-term commitment to arts funding? And what if some or all of these questions are answered in the negative? Efficiency, transparency and accountability are core values which many Arts Council clients believe are not upheld, and there is a legitimate concern that the current disjunction between rhetoric and reality could increase.