When the Arts Council decided last week to "put aside" the Arts Plan 2002-2006, it was effectively a blunt rejection of the vision and convictions of the council's director. It is, therefore, no great surprise that Patricia Quinn's principled response was to resign her position.
A mid-term review of the plan had been anticipated. The budgetary provisions had fallen behind schedule due to cuts imposed for 2003. Some revision of the plan might therefore have been expected but discontent with this blueprint was far more fundamental.
An interview in this newspaper last week with the chairperson of the Arts Council, Ms Olive Braiden, contained a clear signal of the extent of that discontent: "we can't follow the steps of the plan. We've inherited it . we need a new one". Essentially, many arts organisations felt alienated from the Arts Plan, regarding it as a top-down exercise in power. The council's shift in focus from being a funding conduit to a development agency was not welcomed in several quarters.
At its inauguration in 2000, the plan received Government endorsement when it was approved by the previous minister for the arts, Ms Sile de Valera. The present Minister, Mr John O'Donoghue, expressed his position more in deed than in word when he appointed to his new Arts Council a significant number of figures from a wider arts community which had been critical of the plan.
Though her management style had its detractors, it should not be forgotten that Patricia Quinn's success in winning greater resources has left the arts in a far stronger position. There are, too, elements of the plan that will be important to retain in any new formulation - the place of the arts in education, for example.
We are now left with lack of clarity and an Arts Council that was radically restructured to complement the aspirations of the plan. Precise definitions of functions and boundaries need to be restated - but first of all debated. The current situation raises some fundamental questions about the nature of the relationship between council and executive, and their respective roles - as well as the relationship of the Minister with both parties. Who really decides - and who is to implement - policy? And where should the balance of power lie in these matters? Also, after almost six months in office, what exactly are the priorities of the new council?
What is now evident is that the former minister was supportive of the executive, and the present one has indicated he is on the side of the board. It is no wonder the Government seized an opportunity to assume unprecedented policy-making functions in the recent Arts Act.