Regional museums, "the real problem today is planning." Valentina Uras (Museums Sardinia) speaks.

The survey of the new Regional National Museums Directorates, introduced by the latest reorganization of the Ministry of Culture, after the launch with Calabria continues with Sardinia, among the 7 that remain independent, along with Campania, Lazio, Lombardy, Tuscany, Veneto and Calabria itself, while the other 11 are headed by as many already autonomous institutes. The most significant novelty introduced concerns the recognition also to these institutes of the same scientific, financial, organizational and accounting autonomy already enjoyed by museums and archaeological parks. We spoke about this and more with Valentina Uras, since May 16 at the head of the Ministry of Culture’s office that deals with the management and enhancement of the island’s state museums. Born in 1979, a native of Cagliari with a law degree, Uras has served as an official since 2010 in various MiC institutions in Piedmont, Lombardy and, most recently, in Sardinia at the Regional Secretariat. She arrived at the Regional Directorate National Museums Sardinia after being the winner of the I course-competition for technical managers of the Mic.

Uras prefers not to speak of the original former poles, now precisely directorates, in terms of the “weak links” of the Franceschini Reform, although since 2014 and then again in 2019 there has been a hollowing out of these institutes, causing them to lose pieces to the benefit of the “big” autonomous museums. The new measures seem to promise, however, a rebalancing of the game, both because they will finally allow us to talk about planning over the long term, but also to achieve economies of scale and strengthen exchanges in a network perspective. The latter includes the National Archaeological Museums of Cagliari, Sassari, Nuoro and Porto Torres, the National Picture Gallery of Cagliari and the National Picture Gallery of Sassari, the Caprera Museum System, composed of the Garibaldi Compendium and the Giuseppe Garibaldi Memorial, the archaeological areas of Monte d’Accoddi and “Su Nuraxi” in Barumini, recognized by Unesco as a World Heritage Site, the Basilica of San Saturnino in Cagliari, an early Christian monument among the most significant in the Mediterranean basin, the former Royal National Archaeological Museum and the Space of San Pancrazio in Cagliari. All institutions managed and coordinated by the Sardinia Regional Directorate. At this link the first episode

MS. Among the novelties introduced in 2014 by the Franceschini reform, the “regional museum poles” immediately proved to be the weak points of the ministerial reorganization. In your opinion, what were the critical aspects of those structures?

VU. Rather than speaking of the Museum Poles as weak points, I would say that the Poles were the institutes for which some fine-tuning was still needed after 2014; and this was for at least two reasons: first of all because in some cases the number of cultural places that was originally assigned to the Museum Poles was being thinned out, with the most attractive ones being promoted to autonomous institutes. And secondly because the Poles still remained without the pliant tools of autonomy. In this last respect, the latest ministerial reform made a useful corrective.

It will agree, then, that depriving them of the most attractive institutions was in fact a “weakening.” Has anything then changed in 2019 with the “regional museum directorates,” beyond the new wording?

Not much has changed in 2019 with the shift from Poles to Directorates, with the exception that additional autonomous institutes have been created, and thus more cultural venues have left the sphere of management of the Regional Directorates. This, in light of the fact that autonomy allowed for better management, benefited those sites; but that operation, in a sense, deprived the Regional Directorates of an important part of the heritage that was entrusted to them for management. It was at that stage that the National Picture Gallery of Cagliari and the Archaeological Museum of Cagliari came out of the management sphere of the Directorate and became autonomous museums.

What is the reason for the diversification between directorates coinciding with a Region and others aggregated to autonomous institutes? And in what does the difference consist?

I think that the reason for the distinction is not to be found in principled approaches, but in reasoning done on a case-by-case basis: I think that where the creation of an autonomous museum would have depleted the patrimony entrusted to the pre-existing Directorate so much that its permanence was not reasonable, an aggregated Regional Directorate was created. I am thinking, for example, of the case in Piedmont, where the heritage managed by the Pole saw the preponderant role of the Savoy residences, which have now become an autonomous museum. I imagine that reasoning of the same or similar tenor has affected other cases. Then we must not forget that we always reason in terms of the limitedness of the public resource: each executive institute provides for the allocation of a managerial resource, and the creation of new autonomous institutes has contended for a good part of those resources that were originally destined for the regional directorates: it is normal that for some directorates, therefore, there has been an amalgamation. This is the result of a strategic choice, a vision.

The aggregations, then, occur exclusively with museums or parks of non-general management level. Is there a reason why the Regional Directorates of National Museums have not been combined with the “stronger” first-tier autonomous institutes?

I am not sure, but I think it depends precisely on a matter of allocation of second-tier management positions: the management positions of the Regional Directorates are partly absorbed by the second-tier autonomous institutes. Basically, it is a bit like if the previous set-up, the one that saw the creation of the Museum Poles, is recomposed under the aegis of the “mixed” Directorates, but with the important novelty of gaining autonomy.

Will the mergers also be useful in generating economies of scale, with the sharing of services, instrumentation, professional skills?

Certainly. From an administrative point of view, this will enable economies of scale, and also make more efficient use of human resources, especially those assigned cross-cutting tasks, for example those related to the purchase of goods and services.

In this network perspective (if effective) are there moments of exchange, such as technical tables convened with some regularity, among you directors to compare different experiences? Replicate successful ones, solve common problems or share models and planning?

On the one hand, the Directorate General provides for the collection from the territory of reports, whether related to critical issues or related to solutions identified by individuals, and carries out, with its central services, a work of identification, drafting of guidelines that are a big help. It is then also true that the confrontation between us directors is daily, and it has been greatly facilitated by the latest management recruitment methods adopted by MiC. I am referring in particular to the last course-competition for technical directors, from which I myself came, which included a collective training phase, lasting several months, that allowed us to develop relationships with each other, and to get to know each other. It was an experience that needed to be approached with humility, learning from teachers, but also from course colleagues who carried rich professional baggage; this involved questioning ourselves and disposing ourselves to listen and compare, something not taken for granted. Just as it was not always easy to reconcile - throughout the months of the course - family commitments, especially for those who did not reside in Rome. But today - in retrospect - the benefits of this choice made by the Ministry emerge clearly.

What do you think will change with the new autonomy compared to the past? Specifically, from a financial point of view.

I believe, and hope, that it will first of all change the planning profile, which today is the real big problem for the Regional Directorates: ignoring what and how much funds will be allocated for the ordinary operation of the Institute, either at the beginning of each year or in a multi-year perspective, and thus being forced into planning that hardly manages to go beyond the year of duration, and even somewhat blindly, is the biggest obstacle today, and it also forces the offices dealing with procurement to overwork. I also hope that autonomy will improve the ability to better calibrate the types of expenditures that are really needed in each institute.

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.