There is an awful amount riding on the outcome of the disciplinary hearing of the three National Arts Council (NAC) staff members that ended recently. That is besides the awful amount spent on the process, which includes 10 months of salaries and benefits paid to the three, the forensic audit by PricewaterhouseCoopers, the legal teams involved and the salary of the acting chief financial officer, David Janks (contracted through PricewaterhouseCoopers), all of which must consume a sizeable percentage of the NAC’s budget.ÂÂ
The outcomes had better be worth the expensive exercise, or major questions will be asked of the NAC executive that initiated the process, the board that approved it and the Department of Arts and Culture that stood by, watched and then actively encouraged the process.
But the cost to the arts and to the NAC of what has happened over the past 10 months cannot be measured only in monetary terms. The credibility of, and respect for, the institution in which artists had vested so much hope is at an all-time low. Great damage has been done to the NAC’s international standing, with the Swedish and the Flemish governments withdrawing funds that were to be managed by the NAC (now managed by the Department of Arts and Culture).
The suspension of Doreen Nteta was a blow to the image of the NAC and to its participation in the International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies, a global network of the NAC’s peers where Nteta served as vice-chairperson.
It is locally, though, that the NAC has simply become an embarrassment and more of a liability to the sector than a partner. Within little more than a year, the new board has managed to alienate vast sections of its primary constituency. The litany of its destructive decisions and actions is well known, and it includes the executive committee — comprising three or four people with little standing or profile in the arts — overturning recommendations made by advisory panels of experts as well as overturning decisions taken by an appeals committee that it itself had established. ÂÂ
The serious complaints lodged against the chairperson and deputy chairperson of the board by the CEO two days before she was suspended, remain. These include charges of unauthorised expenditure, and charges of plagiarism and conflicts of interest against the deputy chair- person, who allegedly recommended companies in which he has direct interests to a project funded by the NAC as well as to institutions with which the NAC has partnerships. ÂÂ
Notwithstanding the calls from some in the arts sector for an independent investigation into both sets of allegations — those against the board leadership and those against the management — the director general of the Department of Arts and Culture informed Parliament that it would only investigate the allegations against the board members once the disciplinary process against the management was completed.
Now an investigation needs to be conducted into the financial and tendering affairs of the NAC after the suspension of its management, and if it is found that companies were hired, expenses incurred and payments made unprocedurally, then not only must the exco and board be held accountable — as they have done with the suspended staff — but the director general and senior arts department management in charge of ”arts institutional governance” have to be held responsible for failing to ensure that good governance and sound management were in place at the NAC despite the serious complaints lodged with it.
So are the three members of management guilty of corruption, fraud and other illegal activities as alleged publicly by the chairperson and deputy chairperson at the time of their suspension? One would hope so, or the cost to the NAC will be even greater, as individuals whose reputations have been sullied through this inglorious affair take the institution to the cleaners for damages.
But what if they are found not guilty, or guilty of administrative indiscretions that do not warrant dismissal? Will they be able to work at the NAC again, or will they be paid off handsomely as it will be untenable for the board and staff who made the allegations against them to continue to work with them? At more cost to the arts?
One hopes that the disciplinary hearing findings will be made public, and that there will be no cover-ups as happened with the previous minister and the reports into racism at the Playhouse and the Princess Magogo affair that were simply buried.
When announcing the new minister, President Thabo Mbeki conceded that the arts had been neglected in the past. Dealing with the NAC crisis will provide the new political incumbents an ideal opportunity to show that this will no longer be the case.  This, really, is the test case for the new minister.