The first public sign of John ArcherŠs imminent departure as formation Chief Executive of Scottish Screen, came on the morning after he met with the agencyŠs board.

It was known to be a crucial meeting, where he would try again to persuade the board to adopt a radical restructuring plan for the organisation. He had tried to get the plan through several board meetings recently, apparently without success.

First In, First Out

Next morning, Friday, Archer did not turn up at his desk, not by 10, not by 2.30.

On Friday evening, at a time when ScotlandŠs newspaper presses are almost ready to roll, a press release from Scottish Screen announced that their Chief Executive, the organisationŠs first ever employee, would be leaving his post.

That creates another vacancy to be filled at ScotlandŠs troubled screen agency, set up with great expectation, but recently plagued by press speculation over its future as ScotlandŠs Executive pledged reform and abolition of 63 of ScotlandŠs quangos.

Given the promise inherent in Scottish ScreenŠs founding, to build a screen industry for Scotland, there have always been grumblings of discontent. Many of these centred around Braveheart, where much of the film action was lost to Ireland and its tax incentives. Press reaction was as if Scotland had lost its national hero Wallace, all over again and they seemed to hold Scottish Screen responsible for what is really a shortcoming that needs to be addressed by the Chancellor in Westminster.

€Dogged By Controversy

Controversy continued to dog the agency in these last months, over failure to persuade government to invest in a new film studio complex at GlasgowŠs Pacific Quay. Meanwhile, there were dark mutterings of cronyism surrounding the agencyŠs film investments. People were beginning to comment publicly about the way some of the agencyŠs spending had gone.

Novelist James Kelman took public issue with the agency after writing the first film draft of his novel, øThe Bus Conductor HinesÓ, when he was told his work was to be assessed for development funding. He accused Scottish Screen of being øa corrupt body, intellectually bankrupt,Ó shunning real writers in favour of sentimentality.

A Little Help From My Friends

The agency last year became the body that dispersed lottery film funds in Scotland, but last month faced accusations in the press that more than a half share of the lottery funds dispersed had gone to friends and relatives of members of the board. Grumblings and mutterings of discontent were turning into a public relations nightmare scenario.

Both Archer and his Chairman James Hill, rebuffed the press attacks. A letter from James Hill to one of the chief protagonists, The Scotsman newspaper, defending Scottish ScreenŠs record, was not only a sound defence of his agency and its work, but a model of diplomacy.

Final Straw

The final shot in the screen agencyŠs newsmedia war seemed to come with the revelation that Chief Executive John ArcherŠs wife, Clara Glynn, had been given an award from the agency of £24,000 to spend on a short film, Unscrew which she was to direct. No-one suggested any impropriety had occurred and Archer declared interest and had no direct involvement in the decision, but it could be said, in allowing such a application to progress, the agency had shot itself in the foot. Against a background of Scottish Executive pledges on quango reform, the press went to town on the agencyŠs decision.

Anyone but a Scot watching this scenario unfold, might see this as an almost self-destructive debate, but in Scotland no-one does, because in film circles, we have been here before. One of Scottish ScreenŠs predecessor bodies, The Scottish Film Production Fund, found itself in a furious debate that resulted in Bill Forsythe, who gave us GregoryŠs Girl and Local Hero, quitting his post on the board of that organisation. He was furious that three of his fellow board members had secured funding for their own films. He went.

Founded On Controversy

The controversy prompted a major shake-up, resulting in the founding of Scottish Screen, charged with building all aspects of filmmaking and raising the profile of the industry at home and abroad.

There is no doubt that Scottish Screen has got close to its remit. Its chairman, James Hill, has been quick to praise departing film chief John ArcherŠs role in getting the agency to where it is.

And it is certainly a high profile organisation. Scottish Screen is constantly in the news because it is making news, though this gets uncomfortable when getting into the news for all the wrong reasons.

ArcherŠs years in the BBC should have prepared him better for the recent chorus of disapproval.

Their one-time drama chief in Scotland has been at the centre of a drama of his own, but he should have been able to read the warning signs before it got that far.

A high profile organisation that courts publicity must have a squeaky-clean image and anything that might tarnish that image is a threat to its continuing viability in the first rank. In an organisation that disperses public money, it is not just crucial, it is vital. Public confidence

and trust must be upheld, or like an unsound structure, it has be tumbled down so the building of something better, stronger, can begin.

The Scottish Screen board are now setting about that task, with some urgency,presumably.

The task force chairman James Hill has announced, has some very knowledgeable -and in their own spheres powerful- potential members.