Who's going to run IMMA now?

It looks as if the Irish Museum of Modern Art is going to headhunt its new director. Given the recent flurry of departures from its board, including that of its chairwoman, wouldn't it be better to wait until some of the damage of the past year has been repaired?

After the resignations late last year of Marie Donnelly, its chairwoman, and several other board members - initially Niall Crowley and Terry Prone, subsequently Fiona O'Malley and Felim Egan - the Irish Museum of Modern Art was for the second year in succession left in an odd, limbo-like state. As charges and countercharges about political interference flew thick and fast, it seemed the needs of the institution took second place to the imperatives of the boardroom battlefield.

The departure of Egan, one of the most widely respected artists in the country and a man who clearly put the interests of the museum before any other considerations, was particularly disturbing.

We had seen, meanwhile, the appointment of another board member, Eoin McGonigal, as chairman, and there followed the addition of reinforcements to the board, to make good the significant rate of loss. All the evidence so far suggests that the plan of the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands for IMMA is to back McGonigal's aim of finding and appointing a new director.

This time round, a prospective candidate is to be headhunted, so avoiding the advertising and interview process that went spectacularly awry. It may seem an eminently sensible plan. That a relatively small cultural institution in a small country should become the focus for machinations on such a level of complexity and bitterness must strike those not intensely interested in cultural politics as perplexing, to say the least. Or perhaps it just seems tedious and irrelevant. Surely, what IMMA needs is a return to some semblance of normality after a bruising year.

At the risk of seeming to prolong the agony, the answer to such a suggestion may well be a small yes and a big no. First, there is the question of IMMA itself. The long-term health of the institution is more important than the temporary squabbles that surround it. And IMMA has been functioning - and continues to function - normally; to function very well, in fact.

Despite having to weather a great deal of negative media coverage since the initial controversy became public at the end of 2000, IMMA had a pretty good year in 2001, notching up good attendance figures for a number of exhibitions and events. In fact, the figures represent a three-year peak, surpassed only by the record-breaking numbers for the Andy Warhol exhibition, in 1998.

This is largely because the museum is blessed with an exceptionally dedicated and capable staff. Perhaps it is not generally understood that, in international terms, that staff, like IMMA's budget, is small. So that, given its scale, IMMA's level of activity is ambitious and demanding of those charged with implementing it. Although there was some movement in the curatorial ranks, the staff coped incredibly well, given the atmosphere of uncertainty and distraction that sporadically prevailed.

More than that, the staff members proved they are capable of looking to the functioning and future of IMMA without being slavishly dependent on outside direction. Quite reasonably so, because they have between them notched up an extraordinary measure of experience in the museum's brief, eventful history.

Such developments as the new bookshop and cafe suggest a willingness to respond to public demand. And everyone agrees that Philomena Byrne, who accepted the challenge of moving from her position as head of IMMA's public relations department to serve as acting director, has done exceptionally well.

Speaking just before Christmas, at the launch of a publication to mark IMMA's first decade, McGonigal said: "As we set about the task of seeking a new director, we shall not be inhibited by recent events in seeking out the most dynamic, creative and imaginative candidate for this crucial post in the Irish art world."

The position is indeed the crucial post in the contemporary Irish art world. Ideally, it requires a person who is dynamic, creative and imaginative. Another criterion must be a significant degree of experience of the national and international art and museum worlds. There is, presumably, no point at this stage in pointing out that the board had such a person in line for the job, and managed to lose him in a way that has not been satisfactorily explained.

It is, however, worth pointing out that such individuals are few and far between. And, while the board may not be inhibited by recent events, those capable of taking on the directorship may well feel distinctly inhibited from becoming involved while some of the factors that contributed to the past year's controversies remain unresolved, or while the effects of those controversies continue to colour perceptions of the museum.

The appointment of a compromise or "vertical invader" candidate, in the interests of achieving a speedy resolution to a protracted problem, or so those involved can wash their hands of the tortuous process and move on, might be tempting, but it could well be bad for IMMA.

Any sensible incoming director would have to look critically at the composition of the board they have to deal with, at the way the controversies have impinged on IMMA's profile in relation to potential funding from the private sector - an increasingly vital component of museum management - and at other aspects of the legacy of bitterness bequeathed by the events of the past year or so.

Is there an alternative? It would be unfair to ask Byrne to continue in what is by definition a temporary and demanding role, but it could well be that the best thing for IMMA would be to leave things as they are until the dust has settled and an incoming director can approach the job unimpeded by problems additional to those that normally come with guiding and running one of the Republic's premier institutions.