Franceschini reform: what went well, what didn't

It seems that the structural reforms of the former Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities, now the Ministry of Culture (MiC) are set to follow one another on a 10-year cadence. Indeed, 2024 will bring us a new organizational structure, replacing that of the 2014 Franceschini reform, which in turn had replaced the organization defined in Presidential Decree 173/2004. I will dwell for a few reflections on just a few parts of the complex Franceschini reform, starting precisely with the 2004 reform, which is all about the decentralized model of the state that matured in the previous decade (the “Bassanini laws” and the 2001 constitutional reform). Presidential Decree 173/2004 affected above all the peripheral articulations of the Ministry (Superintendencies, State Archives, Libraries), which, accustomed for almost a century to operating autonomously on their territory of competence, found themselves attached to the new office of the Regional Directorate for Cultural and Landscape Heritage, headed by a first-ranking executive, in fact a decentralized transversal directorate general on the territory. With the specific competencies of the directorates (taking care of relations with the regions, planning and contracting station, constraints, protection, agreements, personnel, etc.), the 2004 organization considerably strengthened the periphery of the Ministry by committing the offices present in the regional territory to work together, as different moments of the same processes of action, particularly protection. Even with a few subsequent tweaks (first and foremost Presidential Decree 233/2007), until 2014 the Regional Directorates were in those years steadfast interpreters of internal unity and the Ministry’s single voice vis-à-vis the interlocutors in the territory, particularly the Regions.

The system, once tested, worked. The “Franceschini reform,” necessitated by obligations to curb public spending, instead of rationalizing, chooses to depower the previous peripheral system in order to direct the Ministry toward a new challenge: with DPCM 171/2014, the Museums emerge from their centuries-old status as appendages of the Superintendencies to truly become “permanent, nonprofit institutions at the service of society and its development.” We are faced with a cultural leap of truly epochal proportions, which from an organizational point of view (Presidential Decree 23/2014) leads to the establishment of Museums with special autonomy, for which it entrusts the direction through an international selection process, and Regional Museum Poles, to which non-autonomous museums report. In recent years, state museums (those with special autonomy, but also those pertaining to museum poles) have effectively pursued a policy of renewal made up of research, study, outreach to different audiences, and enhancement of collections, sparking the growth of widespread interest in heritage; and, of course, also significantly increasing the number of visitors.

Despite the voices critical of the separation of Superintendence and Museum (between protection and enhancement) in my opinion the part of the reform dedicated to Museums turns out to be positive, especially for those with special autonomy, so much so that on several occasions over the years their number has increased to 44, with plans in the near future for a further increase to 60.

But let us return to the protection part of the Ministry, and, in particular, to the peripheral offices of the MiC. All field offices have returned to reporting directly to their respective central directorates-general, as they did before 2004. In fact, the BCP regional directorates are abolished, and replaced by the regional secretariats, and the Regional Cultural Heritage Commission, chaired by the regional secretary, a collegial body to which most of the issues formerly pertaining to the directorates, particularly those of protection, are submitted. We have returned to that generic formula of “coordination” of the Institutes present in the Region (not very authoritative internally, not very incisive externally) already experimented with less than positive results between 2001 and 2004 with the Regional Superintendencies (Presidential Decree 441/2000): nothing could be further from the simplification of procedures, the acceleration of the timeframe of measures, and true decentralization.

Let me explain with an example: if previously a declaration or verification of cultural interest following the proposal of the Superintendent, having completed the necessary verifications, was directly transformed into a decree of protection by the Regional Director, today it must be submitted to the Regional Commission (composed of the ABAP Superintendents, the Archival Superintendent, and the Director of the Museum Pole) for approval before the decree is issued by the Regional Secretary. The time is getting longer, without achieving any benefit on other fronts.

And then: large, very important national libraries (one for all, the Braidense) merged with autonomous Museums, more than relevant State Archives (Modena, for example) deprived of the direction of a director, Archival Superintendencies and State Archives united in one Institute. And again: first, the merger of the Superintendencies for Historical Artistic Ethno-anthropological Heritage with those for Architectural Heritage and Landscape; then, with Ministerial Decree 23/1/2016 the creation of the Single Superintendencies (ABAP) into which the Archaeological Superintendencies are also merged. A courageous change, appreciable in itself, with a view to developing integrated protection processes.

But a decree is not enough to truly realize the merger of Offices with their own historical identity now centuries old, with their own archives (historical and current) and repositories of materials (think only of the archaeological, and the very numerous repositories of materials from recent excavations); transfers of personnel, offices, archives, and deposits were part of a months- and sometimes years-long settling-in process; thus, even today we find archives of suppressed Superintendencies, merged in the new offices, not consultable; or archives moved only in part, with serious consequences on the daily operations of the Superintendencies. Unfortunately, the metabolization of the new arrangement has not been supported as it should have been with new staff, funds, and training for either the superintendencies or any of the central or peripheral structures of the Ministry. The only exception is for the autonomous museums, which, by contrast, have been strongly supported in a variety of ways, particularly with large allocations of funds.

A final consideration: every reform since 2001 has run up against a puny structure with glaring staffing shortages, all the more so when related to ever-increasing tasks: the Franceschini reform sees the lowest allocation ever: 191 managers, and 19,050 staff, compared with 282 managers and 24,900 staff in 2004. A plea comes to me, which unfortunately we know is already unheeded: no more reforms!

This contribution was originally published in No. 21 of our print magazine Finestre Sull’Arte on paper. Click here to subscribe.

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.