Status and bargaining power ... the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square. Photo: Guardian/Dan Chung
Running the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square is an easy job, comparatively speaking. Its role is clear: according to its constitution, it has "to care for the collection, to enhance it for future generations, primarily by acquisition, and to study it, while encouraging access to the pictures for the education and enjoyment of the widest possible public now and in the future".
The gallery possesses about 2,500 paintings - not an unmanageable number. The density of recognised masterpieces means it will attract visitors. The status of its holding means it can bargain unrestrainedly with the international set to hoover up precious loans for exhibitions, as happened recently with the unfocused but popular Velázquez show.
Why, then, has this very doable job ended in such tears for Charles Saumarez Smith? How can the post of secretary and chief executive officer at the Royal Academy, unfilled for two years, represent an attractive move? The answer lies not with the jobs but with people - and structures.
Rumours of ferment caused by the abrasive manner of the chairman of the board, Peter Scott, have been aired in a number of newspapers. But there are issues broader here than individual personalities. Do we really have the right kinds of boards for our national museums and galleries?
In spite of reforms in the way that trustees are appointed and recurrent internal reviews of governance, the composition of the boards remains much the same as 50 years ago - a mix of heavy-duty professional/business people, civil service/diplomatic types, arty writers, literate journalists and assorted academics. Very few are women.
When I started as a trustee of the National Galleries of Scotland in 1981, the board had a clearly defined non-executive role in partnership with the gallery staff. Senior keepers attended board meetings. An ideal of public service prevailed.
All that was ruptured in the Thatcher years, which saw the replacement of the collegiate atmosphere with business-style conflict and overt parades of self-importance - and undeclared self-interest. On the V&A board, I remember, we openly discussed whether a wealthy donor should be made a trustee because he needed a "bit more" to get a knighthood.
There's a great deal wrong with the present system, beyond questions of composition, membership, behaviour and the relationships of the board with the director and staff. Successive governments have stealthily eroded board independence over the years. A full-scale review is overdue.
