Proposition 53K2840

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 7 mai 1999 portant création du Palais des Beaux-Arts sous la forme d'une société anonyme de droit public à finalité sociale et modifiant la loi du 30 mars 1995 concernant les réseaux de distribution d'émissions de radiodiffusion et l'exercice d'activités de radiodiffusion dans la région bilingue de Bruxelles-Capitale.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

May 29, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

arts appointment of staff

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo ∉ N-VA LDD

Party dissidents ¶

• Bernard Clerfayt (MR) abstained from voting.
• Alexandra Colen (VB) abstained from voting.
• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.
• Olivier Maingain (MR) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

July 4, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

by Mr. Joseph George, the rapporteur, refers to his written report.

Mr. President, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, the present bill has already been extensively discussed in the committee. The draft law ensures that the mandate of the Director-General, whose term of office expires on 31 December and cannot be legally renewed, is still eligible for renewal. With this, the government also wants to balance the management structure with the other federal institutions, for example the Muntschouwburg, which we find positive. We naturally want to ensure that the planned open procedures, as announced, are also properly followed.

At the same time, in addition to the general director, a mandate position for the financial director is also provided. Until now, the Financial Director was appointed by the Board of Directors on the proposal of the Director-General. The upgrading of this financial control is also positive. We wonder why it is only implemented now. After all, since 1999, the Palace for Fine Arts has been a non-profit company. What we would like to warn about is the political influence that, by opening a second mandate, is yet to be reinforced.

During the vote on this draft law, despite the positive elements, we will still abstain, because there are some persistent uncertainties, which I would like to summarize here. The questions that we have already cited in the committee remain standing here too.

With two mandate functions side by side, namely the general director, who deals with the artistic, and the financial director, who deals more with the financial, some discussions can arise. How do we avoid these discussions? How do we prevent those discussions from being taken to the board of directors without providing for politicization or, worse yet, a paralysis of the institution?

There is also no clarity about the current role of financial director. Does this function continue to exist under the mandate of the financial director? Is this an exhaustive function? Will this function be removed? There was no response in the committee.

What happens if the current Chief Financial Officer does not attend or fails to pass the exams that are opened for the mandate position?

Will the remuneration of the financial director change when it comes to a mandate position? If no, then there is a difference between the remuneration of the general director and the remuneration of the financial director, while in both cases it is a mandate position at the same level. If there is an increase in the remuneration of the position of financial director, this is equalized between the mandate functions but then I have to return to my question what happens with the position of financial director as it is now.

One last question to which we have not been answered is the question of language balance. A legal language balance has been established for the Management Committee. The chairman and the general director must also differ in language roles. However, there is no provision that the two mandate functions of language role to be appointed must be different.

Mr. Minister, will you guarantee that both functions in the same language role or just not in the same language role? Will the choice of the best candidate continue to prevail? What about the language role of the non-mandatory directors, if they both exchange language roles with a mandate?

Therefore, a number of questions have not been answered, so we will abstain from voting on this bill for caution.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. This is why I am speaking in the plenary session.

Mr. Minister, you know our commitment to these quality cultural institutions located in Brussels and which remain within the competence of the federal power, which is ⁇ important.

The project that has been submitted to us effectively enables the unlimited renewal of the Director-General while, for now, the latter can only fulfill, at the maximum, two six-year terms. This point concerns us. Indeed, this kind of leadership requires creativity, to know how to open doors, to be able to innovate. As is the case in most cultural institutions around the world, a rotation is therefore necessary so that the programming and artistic direction of large cultural institutions can be provided by new people. Therefore, I do not understand the intention underlying the project to be examined. If behind this is the desire to want to keep a certain person in place, it should be known that the change of the law implies a generalization of the new device.

That said, there is a question of the appointment of a financial director. It can actually be a good thing to join the CEO with a person in charge of short and long-term management, responsible for accompanying the programming and trying to manage the available budgets as well as how to self-finance more and better these institutions. However, it must be acknowledged that this bill is ⁇ thin in terms of the description of the function, combinations and interactions that would exist between the Director-General in charge of programming and the artistic dimension and this Financial Director.

Moreover, daily management should remain within the competence of the Director-General. We asked you in the committee on this subject, in particular asking you to give us a description of the functions.

How are the interactions between these two directions organized? How can we ensure that programming retains sufficient autonomy to meet the cultural objectives of this institution? What arrangements will be put in place to avoid systematic conflicts? How can we avoid that the Board’s infinite interventions are settled on the basis of untagged assessments?

To all these questions, we did not get an answer. The only reaction obtained is the willingness to realize the same thing at the Palais des Beaux-Arts as at the Monnaie. It is a bit short. If it is like the Money, it would be possible to answer us about the organization, about the responsibilities of each, about how and with whom.

Mr. Minister, I would like this plenary session to be an opportunity to receive answers to these few questions so that we can appreciate this bill at its proper value.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker

We submitted a resolution on the same subject in this Parliament several years ago, calling on the government to proceed with a comprehensive mapping of all federal scientific and cultural institutions, both in terms of objectives, activities, powers and personnel statistics.

Furthermore, in that resolution, we asked the government to take initiatives to determine, as soon as possible and in consultation with the Communities, which federal institutions could be fully de-federalized. We also asked the government to take initiatives for a total and definitive transfer of all possible powers.

Finally, we asked the government for the remaining institutions — institutions that could not be transferred — to take the necessary initiatives to ⁇ a proportionate bicommunal governance, based on the proportionality of the population numbers of Dutch- and French-speakers. This resolution, however, has not been taken into account.

The aim of our resolution, of course, was not to strengthen the federal framework of scientific and cultural institutions, on the contrary. Culture and certain powers of scientific policy have already been transferred to the Communities years ago. For us, this process must be completed and ended. A point should be laid back with the completion of the removal of a number of powers.

In the recent past, several commentators have noted — I mean a few years ago — that there is a clear distinction between the policies of the Communities in the field of arts and heritage and the policies of the federal government with regard to cultural and scientific institutions which are still within its competence.

According to the commentators, a dynamic activity has emerged among the Communities, including the Council for Culture, where human and financial resources are opposed. At the federal level, this dynamic has been absent, according to the Council for Culture, which can be explained, among other things, by the fact that the competence for Culture was transferred to the Communities, except for a few so-called residual competences.

The federal government pays little attention to the residual powers, which can be called almost normal and almost not otherwise; after all, it is residual powers. This was evident, for example, from the deplorable condition in which the National Plant Garden of Belgium, in Meise, was for years.

Ladies and gentlemen, I come to the core of the matter.

In fact, a number of remaining institutions had to be transferred to the Communities for a very long time. In the meantime, the many state reforms have taught our group — hopefully not only ours — that some cooperation agreements, for example on the joint management between the Communities, belong to the package of compromises. In most cases, they are either non-compliant or not enforced, let alone enforceable.

In other words, and in conclusion, Mrs. Minister, the Flemish Interest Group disagrees with the scope of the present bill and cannot find itself in the federal attempt included therein to further strengthen the structure of a residual institution, such as the PSK. It desires, on the contrary, to proceed to a complete transfer of the still existing cultural institutions, in preparation of course for the total division of this country.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, first, let us be very clear: what I want for bicultural institutions is that they can be led by a competent team that allows them to function optimally despite the budgetary difficulties they experience.

The three bicultural institutions, the Monnaie, the Orchestre and the Beaux-Arts, are institutions of very great cultural importance, which also allow a radiation for Belgium and Brussels. They are quite extraordinary.

With regard to the Fine Arts, we say that on the occasion of the opening of the term of Director-General, we will not immediately deny the current Director-General, Mr. Dujardin, the possibility of appearing because of the current law. We remove this restriction linked to two mandates, but nothing says that we will designate mr. Dujardin for a third term.

We have developed, together with the Board of Directors, a procedure involving an international jury. This should just allow to go looking for the highest quality to make live the Beaux-Arts. This institution is experiencing extraordinary success with more than one million visitors per year. This is an absolutely sensational showcase for our country.

We need the best. There is an international jury. At the limit: let the best or the best win. I am waiting for the Board of Directors to propose me the or the candidates suitable for the position.

Then I really wanted to have a financial director at the Beaux-Arts. I think that is indispensable. I followed a little with the budget delegate and the government commissioner some of the difficulties that the Beaux-Arts had to face. It is not normal that an institution of this size, which brings so many resources, supported by the government and the National Lottery, has no financial responsible. I wanted it to professionalize the team.

Independence will be put in place, somewhat like the Currency, which is why it is always referred to. At La Monnaie, the Director of Artistic Programming and Production performs the work under the responsibility of the Director General. In addition, the Finance Director explains the budgetary possibilities. In addition, it also finds the provisions in public/private partnership that allow the Coin to have high-quality productions.

The same goes for the Palace of Fine Arts. You have to be professionalized. It is not normal that an institution of this size does not have a financial director. Alongside the artistic programming director, there will now be a financial director.

The language parity in the board of directors and in the employment of staff shall be respected. However, we believe that competence is the only criterion that matters.

Mrs. Gerkens, I think I have answered all of your questions.

I spoke about language parity, and about the extension of the mandate of the Director-General and the Financial Director.

The [...]

The Board of Directors is responsible for it. To hire a Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and Chief Programme Officer, the Board of Directors will define profiles with specific roles. There will be an international call led by an international jury.

The bill defines in a few lines the tasks of the Director General and/or the Director of Programming (e.g. daily management, programming, etc.). This means that, in a bill, in a law, one can briefly define the competences of both. If you can do it for one, why not do it for the other? This is still a missing element.

Nevertheless, I join you in the need to professionalize and integrate a broader management over the long term and that opens these institutions, given the importance of their activities, given their national and international auras, given the public they breathe and the budgets that are concerned. I regret the fact that I did not take the effort to add four lines to this bill, which would have helped to mark things.

Fortunately, the project provides that the current candidate will represent itself and will not be automatically renewed. I do not understand the interest of not imposing a maximum of twelve years of leadership in an institution such as that to force rotation and creativity. Indeed, this is also part of the wealth of artistic institutions with such an international aura.