"Autonomous museums: here's what would be the real change to consider": interview with Lorenzo Casini

Icom in Prague provided a new definition of what a museum should mean. But from a purely legal point of view, how should the spearheads of the state museum system be framed? The reference is to autonomous museums. On them the Meloni government continues to invest. If you will, it is surprisingly the promotion of the Franceschini Reform coming from a right-wing government, after having been subjected to the friendly fire of criticism for almost two lustra. The seventeen new museums with special autonomy that have been added to the existing 44 and the advancement to the first tier, a sort of series A of Italian museums, of some autonomous museums already wanted by Franceschini, such as the Galleria dell’Accademia and the Bargello Museums (merged) in Florence, are confirmation of the goodness of the course set by the longest-serving culture minister in the history of the Italian Republic, starting in 2014, under both the Conte and Draghi governments. So, in this scenario of continuity, the need for normative framing of special autonomy museums is confirmed even with the new reorganization of the Ministry, descending from Prime Minister’s Decree 57/2024. The latter, leaves intact, in fact, an ambiguity regarding their legal nature, which has already been observed for the archaeological parks of the Sicilian Region at the Conference on the subject held at the University of Messina in 2022. Like the latter, autonomous museums are not instrumental public bodies, but organizational structures of the Ministry (where parks are of the Assessorato dei Beni Culturali e dell’Identità Siciliana), albeit with different profiles of autonomy. This legal distinction between state museums is, moreover, confirmed by the 2014 ministerial decree on the “Organization and Operation of State Museums,” which provides for the case of museums endowed with legal personality, such as museum foundations or consortia, defined precisely as “entities,” distinguishing them, therefore, from museums endowed with special autonomy. We take stock in this interview-conversation with Lorenzo Casini, rector and full professor of administrative law in the IMT Alti studi Lucca School. Casini was chief of staff of the Ministry of Culture from 2019 to 2022 and legal adviser to Minister Franceschini from 2014 to 2018.

MS. Autonomous, but not entities. What is the legal status of autonomous state museums?

LC. For a long time, state museums have been offices of superintendencies, lacking organizational autonomy and without the proper traits of any museum institution. This is an old and well-known issue, well described by Franco Russoli in the 1970s. Starting in the late 1990s, a path of reform directed at catching up with this backwardness of Italy compared to other countries began. It began with the special superintendency in Pompeii in 1997, followed by the 2001 act of address, the special superintendencies for museum poles in Florence, Naples, Rome and Venice, and then culminated with the Franceschini reforms of the years 2014-2022. As a result of these interventions, today we have precisely several state museum hypotheses. First, there are the 60 autonomous institutes. These museums, archaeological parks or complexes are not public entities, because they remain offices of the Ministry of Culture. However, they have managerial status (of general or non-general level, with differences, therefore, in salary for the director and relations with respect to the central ministerial structures) and, above all, they have technical-scientific, organizational and accounting autonomy: they have their own statute, their own bank account, a director, a board of directors, a scientific committee, a board of auditors. Second, there are the Regional Museum Directorates, recently renamed National Regional Museum Directorates. These offices are peripheral management structures of the General Directorate of Museums and are responsible for organizing and managing the nonautonomous museums attached to them. They have also been given the same autonomy as autonomous museums under the new regulations. The reasons for this autonomy are mainly accounting and cash, but it is not yet clear how their bodies will actually be constituted. Thus, the regional directorates are “hubs,” which should not be run as museums, but as instruments to ensure the operation of the nonautonomous museums under their responsibility. Third, there are the nonautonomous museums and places of culture, These offices retain the status that state museums have traditionally had. The difference from the past, as a result of the Franceschini reforms, is that these museums now belong to peripheral structures dedicated to museums (regional directorates, precisely, and no longer superintendencies), they must still have a director and a statute, and they are included in the national museum system. Fourth, there are the “state” museums outside the Ministry, that is, those structures, mostly foundations, that have been established by law (this is the case of the Egyptian Museum or MAXXI) or through enhancement agreements with other entities (such as Villa Reale in Monza or the Ginori Museum in Doccia). On these museums the Ministry exercises a supervisory power, as well as funding them in a more or less important way.

Let us remain on autonomous museums. Can their legal regime, which we might call “hybrid,” be explained, perhaps, by the need to hold together the greater autonomy granted to them and the maintenance of centralized powers of control and supervision? Do economic reasons also play a role, since no museum would be able to shoulder the burden of staff salaries, as is the case with public instrumental bodies?

I would say yes. If we dwell on autonomous museums, precisely, here a regime was chosen not unlike the one that France adopted at first for the Louvre, before transforming it into a full-fledged public institution. At least at an early stage, the most reasonable choice was to create autonomous institutions that were nevertheless within the Ministry. This entailed some organizational rigidities, related to the fact that autonomous museums are still ministerial management offices. I am referring to staffing, for example, which always depends on the Ministry, as well as all the rules governing the central state administration. Your point about financial autonomy is correct, although greater autonomy does not prevent them from receiving public funding (just think of the case of opera and symphony foundations). In conclusion, the model of autonomy chosen by the Franceschini reform to begin to have Italian state museums recognizable as institutions-a model that originates from updating that of special superintendencies-was a necessary first step, but one that clearly needs to be carefully evaluated a few years later and net of the tragic event represented by the pandemic.

Do you think that regulatory interventions are necessary in order to better define the “autonomy model” of these museums? and if so, which ones?

With regard to the model of autonomy achieved within the Ministry, I do not find it easy to imagine further changes. The real change, which would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, would be to assume a further step toward more autonomous forms, such as that of public entities with legal personality (think of the case of park entities or even universities), or even, but it seems to me more problematic from the point of view of economic-financial sustainability, that of the foundation. Of course, there would need to be a legal norm and, above all, a quantification of costs, which is not insignificant: by way of example, if the Uffizi were to be transformed into a full-fledged public body or a foundation, there would be the immediate problem of transferring tens of millions of euros to the new institution to pay the relevant public staff (assuming that this staff does not choose to remain with the Ministry).

Speaking of the Italian state “model,” it is often “related” (almost ignoring the Sicilian precedent) to the Anglo-Saxon or French model, followed since the 1990s by Germany and Spain as well, with the transformation of museums from public entities to bodies, still predominantly public, but endowed with broad managerial and financial autonomy. Do these levels of autonomy include the hiring of staff? As mentioned, the Italian museums in question do not have this option.

Thank you very much for this question, because it allows us to clarify some misunderstandings that arose after the reform. The Sicilian model was well in our minds, as was the one adopted by some local authorities. From a comparative perspective, the natural reference was France for the whole part concerning the ministerial structure and the Directorate General for Museums (the names of the Italian executive departments were inspired by those of the corresponding French structures). The United Kingdom, on the other hand, was a reference, along with France, for the adoption of the uniform levels of quality needed to build the national museum system. In more general terms, the Franceschini reform has been inspired by the international standards produced by ICOM: in fact, these have been referred to several times in the legislation, the organization regulations and the decree on the organization on the operation of state museums. As for human resources, he hit the nail on the head, namely the limitations for directors of autonomous museums to be able to design personnel policies: this, too, stems from the rules on ministries, and only true entification could solve it at the moment.

In this regard, since we cannot envisage an entification of state museums at the moment, basically for the economic reasons mentioned earlier, would it be legally possible for each autonomous institution to hold open competitions based on its own personnel needs, while remaining in charge of the central administration?

As I said, the road to a possible transformation of state museums into public entities is not fantasy. It is the one followed by the Louvre and would be a natural completion of the path of reform and autonomy. Pending this possible future transformation, ad hoc solutions have been found for temporary staff or experts or consultants. Unfortunately, for permanent staff, the state’s rules are still very strict with respect to competitions, mainly due to spending control requirements. Several times attempts have been made to introduce models of greater flexibility and autonomy, but without success.

Finally, from the legal level to a more exquisitely cultural and social one: could financial autonomy end up jeopardizing the social purpose that a public institution such as a museum must pursue in favor of an eliterization of fruition? The sustainability of such management has led to a significant increase in the cost of admission tickets, in line with the European trend. There is, on the other hand, a real issue of maintenance costs of collections, halls and facilities. Excluding the free conditions already provided for children and young people, as well as the various no-cost access days for all, could one solution be to replace the fixed access cost with a “flexible” one linked to income and resident status? In other words, shouldn’t the empowerment of management linked to autonomy be understood not only in relation to results in financial and accounting matters, but also in holding the democratization of the museum’s mission?

I understand the fears, but they seem largely unfounded. First of all, let us remember that museums are nonprofit institutions and therefore their revenues are not intended to make profits, but to fund interventions and cover costs. I always remember what Martin Roth, well-known director of the Victoria and Albert Museum in London, said in 2014 at a study meeting on museums and Italian reform: museums are nonprofit, but they must be run “business like.” And he gave the example of how the David Bowie exhibition organized by his museum had then allowed others to be programmed that were visited by a very limited audience because they were deemed “niche.” Moreover, policies to include and broaden the class of people interested in museums and cultural heritage-to quote Massimo Severo Giannini-are independent of organizational models and depend on policy choices and overall funding. On the contrary, having autonomous and better organized museum institutions should lead even more to the recognition of museums as those “powerful institutions” dedicated to conservation, education, research and communication capable of promoting the development of culture. In this respect, the case of the Egyptian Museum is particularly striking: it took several years since its creation, but today it represents excellence in the world in every respect.

Warning: the translation into English of the original Italian article was created using automatic tools. We undertake to review all articles, but we do not guarantee the total absence of inaccuracies in the translation due to the program. You can find the original by clicking on the ITA button. If you find any mistake,please contact us.