As trustees know, museums are complex institutions. At a large museum, especially, there are seemingly thousands of moving parts that enable the institution to carry out its mission, engage audiences, navigate changes happening in the field and in communities, and ensure financial stability, not to mention the daily operations and oversight of staff. The pace of museum work, coupled with the fact that departments can feel somewhat siloed, means that getting a bird’s eye view can be tricky for even the most seasoned trustee. It’s hard to keep track of those thousands of moving parts while focusing on one’s own role in the institution.
 
My recently published book So You Want to Work in a Museum? can help. While written primarily for students, recent graduates, and career changers who want to learn more about the field they are considering or planning to enter, trustees may find it useful as well.
 
The book starts out looking at museums by type and by structure; though I mention university museums, municipal museums, and other governance models, the focus is on board-governed nonprofit museums. Then, it moves on to organizational structure. Because museums are idiosyncratic, no one structure can describe every institution, but the sample organizational chart I created gives an example. In writing about structure, I wanted to focus on the trustee role, something that’s not often introduced to prospective or entry-level staff. Not only do I think it’s important for staff at all levels to know about the various ways in which trustees serve museums, but I also wanted to show that trustees and staff are partners in working toward the museum’s mission. Though junior staff might not have many opportunities to interact with trustees, I discuss ways that staff at all levels can get to know board members and see them in action (while keeping in mind that staff should check with their supervisors to learn about protocols for communicating with trustees).
 
The section of the book that trustees might find most useful is a department-by-department guide. Within each department, I look at three or four specific jobs, covering the main tasks along with the required skills and recommended preparation. Each job also has a section called “keep in mind.” These are aspects of the role that are neither pros nor cons, but rather are points to consider that might not be apparent, like the fact that education jobs require significant weekend work, or that conservators often get the chance to travel with artworks as couriers.
 
Board members at most museums likely have regular interaction with curators, development and membership staff, conservators, and educators (though this will vary by institution). Trustees are much less likely to get a window into other jobs that are not as visible but are still key among all those moving parts. Not only are roles like registrar, facilities manager, shop buyer, mount maker, conservation technician, and prospect researcher important, but they’re also quite interesting to learn about. Staff in those roles are accustomed to constantly having to explain what they do; they would undoubtedly appreciate trustees taking the time to learn more about their responsibilities.
 
For each department, I profiled someone currently working in one of the positions covered in that chapter. These profiles include people from across the country; from history, science, art, college, and specialty museums; from museums with staff that can be counted in the dozens to those with several hundred employees.
 
Former MTA President and Trustee Emerita Mary Baily Wieler graciously provided a profile for the book. She wrote about aspects of her background that prepared her for board work, talked about the ways her museum service differs between institutions, and mentions some of the highs and lows: “My favorite part of the job is tackling the tough issues and making decisions to ensure the financial sustainability of the museum and providing proper governance oversight of the museum director. My least favorite part of the job is chasing donors to renew their memberships.” Mary also gives some excellent advice to prospective staff: “Civic engagement is a rewarding part of one’s professional and personal life. I’ve made life-long friends and enhanced my skills all in support of each museum’s mission. I would highly recommend board service to anyone contemplating joining the museum field.” She also makes an important point about the staff and trustees’ common goals: “Museum staff members need to recognize that board members are their partners in ensuring the long-term sustainability of the museum. They are volunteers, dedicated to the museum’s mission and providing wisdom and oversight for the greater good and in the public trust.”
 
I greatly appreciate Mary’s input, which makes the trustee role more accessible to readers. I hope that book similarly sheds a light on the complex behind-the-scenes realm of museum work, and that trustees find this bird’s-eye view useful.
 
​
-----------
Tara Young is an independent museum consultant based in Massachusetts. She teaches museum studies at Tufts University and has worked in and with museums for more than 20 years. Visit her website at www.tarayoungconsulting.com.

The Cultural Property Policy Environment

Over the past several years, the debate over how best to protect the World’s cultural heritage has taken a turn.  Although no evidence of any significant problem has been found, fear of terrorist funding from trade in cultural objects has replaced genuine concern for cultural heritage preservation as the driving force for new regulations.  [1] [2]  Unsupported claims that trade in objects of cultural heritage, mainly antiquities, is a major source of terrorist funding have prompted a politically driven rush toward legislative imposition of civil and criminal penalties and have encouraged aggressive enforcement.  In spite of numerous studies and policy recommendations to the contrary, dissenting voices are being scolded into silence for being soft on terrorism.  All methods of fighting terrorism should be considered, but we must not let fear or political agendas drive us to adopt measures that do more harm than good.  If policy making continues in the current direction the impact on museums, their staffs, donors, trustees and, ultimately, their ability to serve the public will be permanent and severely damaging.   It is time for Museums and their Boards to take action.
 
Initial claims of billions of dollars in terrorist funding from sales of artifacts have been discredited, but this has not prevented these claims from being used to justify stricter regulation and enforcement such as the new German law and the European Treaty of Nicosia.  However, recent evidence and studies [3] suggest revenue to ISIS may be no more than a few hundred thousand from sale of “excavation permits” within their now rapidly shrinking territory. Nevertheless, these exaggerated claims of terrorist funding[4] have now been repeated so often that they are accepted as fact [5], and are having a profound effect on policy making.   The US has passed into law new restrictions on Syrian artifacts and created a new investigatory committee.[6]  A new EU treaty [7]  (Nicosia, May 2017), justified largely by these discredited claims that antiquities sales are providing funding for terrorists, recognizes the laws of source countries as the exclusive means of determining an object’s legal status.  The treaty provides for enforcement and criminal penalties based on these foreign laws regardless of whether they have been shown to be valid or constitutional within the EU or whether they are even enforced in the source country.  Once codified into law it will create substantial legal risks for museums, their staffs and the trade. 
 
Germany has enacted a controversial law[8] [9] requiring export licenses and proof of legal source country exportation and declares anything without proper documentation to be presumptively illegal.  The Terrorism Art and Antiquity Revenue Prevention Act of 2016 (S.3449, TAAR Act) introduced in the US Senate, but now tabled, would classify as stolen any cultural property removed in violation of the local laws of the source country and would empower the Dept. of Homeland Security to create a database and labeling system for Syrian and Iraqi artifacts. [10]  Trump’s Presidential Memos and Executive Orders targeting ISIS and terrorism[11] [12] [13] have encouraged proposals for more regulation, new enforcement initiatives and more criminal prosecutions.  
 
Recent testimony before Congress and Homeland Security[14] [15] also continues to cite sale of artifacts as a major source of terrorist funding claiming that individual objects sell for, “…as much as $1 Million…” and implying that terrorists are directly participating at the highest levels of the antiquities market despite a complete lack of evidence.  Since 2015 the US Department of State has offered a $5 million reward for information that disrupts these alleged activities . [16] No one has yet claimed the reward.[17]

 
Museum’s Ability To Serve The Public: At Risk?
 
Museums should be an essential part of any international effort to protect the world’s cultural heritage.  But, as the focus of regulators has turned almost solely to defeating terrorism, museums have been marginalized and the goal of actually preserving world cultural heritage for future generations seems to be receding into the background.
 
The risks are real.  By imposing retroactive requirements for source country export documentation, the new EU Treaty and German laws instantly create millions of orphaned objects already in the EU which, after implementation, cannot be legally exported, sold, gifted or, in Germany, owned.  What will happen to all those objects?  How will museums or families feel about suddenly being deemed criminals simply for owning them?  Should the US revive the TAAR Act, the same thing could happen here.
 
Criminal penalties mandated by the EU Treaty probably sound good to voters worried about terrorism or concerned about cultural heritage preservation but does it really make sense to threaten museum staffers with jail time if they made a mistake in their provenance research?  The new EU Treaty requires laws that say it’s a crime to make a mistake if you “should have known”. [18] Will museums decide to make no accessions at all rather than that take that kind of risk?  And, who will be willing to serve as a Trustee when it exposes them to the possibility of criminal prosecution?
 
In the absence of strong voices from the museum community we are permitting the creation of a world with less transparency, more cultural property abuses, millions of refugee objects and enormous risks for museum staff, trustees and collectors.  We are in real danger of permanently damaging the ability of the museum system to serve the public and eliminating the opportunity for our society to view, understand and appreciate the World’s many diverse artistic traditions. 
 
In such an environment, no set of internal policies will completely protect an institution from cultural property disputes or accusations.  We can, however, operate transparently with clear ethical guidelines that support both the protection of cultural heritage and our ability to pursue our public mission.  We must also fight for a seat at the policy making table and become an integral part of the process rather than being victimized by it.

About the Author

Matthew Polk is a trustee of the Walters Art Museum and a former trustee of the Baltimore Museum of Art.  He currently serves on the Collections and Finance Committees of the Walters and on the AAAPI Accessions committee of the BMA. He is also a board member of the Committee for Cultural Policy and a co-founder of the Global Heritage Alliance, organizations dedicated to formulation of cultural property policies which serve both the need for preservation and the public interest. In 2009 he and his wife, Amy Gould FAIA, established the Historic Textile Research Foundation (HTRF), a 501 c(3) dedicated to radiocarbon dating of historically significant textiles for research purposes.

Mr. Polk is a graduate of the Johns Hopkins University, Dept. of Physics and Astronomy (’71) and serves on the department’s advisory board and executive committee. In 1971 he co-founded Polk Audio and served as Chairman and head of product development until 2006. In 2009 he began developing a new method for high intensity acoustic vibration testing of spacecraft and in 2016 co- founded MSI DFAT Services, LLC, the leading provider of direct field acoustic testing services for aerospace. 

Note: The Museum Trustee Association views its mission of enhancing the effectiveness of museum trustees as educational and collaborative. As a group of past and current museum board members, we do not see ourselves as a policy-setting organization but rather as a source of information to equip Museum Trustees as they implement field-wide best practices in all of their governance affairs. The article above is intended to provide an opportunity for open dialogue.
 

Footnotes
[1] “Legislators seem to be very busy with drafting laws to combat cultural property crimes, combat IS and specifically the ways IS earns money. Legislators seem to be more occupied with the topic than law enforcement, but no unequivocal proof of huge revenues of the illegal trade in cultural property is found that could support such an active legislative role – besides political reasons. Large amounts of plundered items have not surfaced on Western (art) markets”  Dutch Survey on Cultural Property War Crimes, Sept. 2016, section 14.2.3 page 65, http://iadaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Cultural-Property-War-crimes-and-Islamic-State-2016.pdf
[2]  Excellent discussion in the New Yorker, Dec. 2015 , https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-real-value-of-the-isis-antiquities-trade
[3] Dutch study most comprehensive yet. “Based on this study it can be concluded that the topic is ‘hyped’. It is a strategic political topic that is presented bigger than it is in reality.” Pg. 6,http://iadaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Cultural-Property-War-crimes-and-Islamic-State-2016.pdf  See page 63-65 for summary and conclusions.
[4] Inside ISIS’ Looted Antiquities Trade: “…why $7 billion fell to $4 million in public discussions about the ISIS antiquities trade.”  https://theconversation.com/inside-isis-looted-antiquities-trade-59287
[5] Q&A on proposed EU regulations, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-1954_en.htm “Another study [reference not provided] suggests that the total financial value of the illegal antiquities and art trade is larger than any other area of international crime except arms trafficking and narcotics and has been estimated at €2.5 - €5 billion yearly.” For comparison, the 2014 TEFAF market report estimated the entire world-wide antiquities market at $150M to $200M.
[6] H.R.1493 - Protect and Preserve International Cultural Property Act  https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1493
[7] 127th Session of the Committee of Ministers
(Nicosia, 19 May 2017) Council of Europe Convention on Offences relating to Cultural Propertyhttps://search.coe.int/cm/Page/result_details.aspx?ObjectId=0900001680704b30
[8]http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/germany-act-to-protect-cultural-property-passed/
[9] Note that as of 2008 exports of nearly all cultural property to non-EU countries already require licenses,http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:039:0001:0007:en:PDF
[10] TAAR Act  https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/3449/text
[11] https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/plan-defeat-islamic-state-iraq
[12] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13773
[13] Comprehensive Strategy to Destroy ISIS Act of 2017 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1785/text
[14] Hearing: “The Exploitation of Cultural Property: Examining Illicit Activity in the Antiquities and Art Trade” http://docs.house.gov/committee/calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=106166
[15]FOLLOWING THE MONEY: EXAMINING CURRENT TERRORIST FINANCING TRENDS AND THE THREAT TO THE HOMELAND  https://homeland.house.gov/hearing/following-money-examining-current-terrorist-financing-trends-threat-homeland/
[16] http://thehill.com/policy/defense/255442-us-offers-5-million-reward-to-stop-isis-from-plundering-antiquities
[17] In spite of a lack of credible evidence of any significant terrorist funding from cultural objects reaching the US, organisations like the “Antiquities Coalition” continue to argue for the elimination of all trade in antiquities as an effective means of fighting terrorism. https://theantiquitiescoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/rsz_1rsz_1rsz_conflictantiquities_170713-01-1.png ,  As the Dutch study on Cultural Property War Crimes concluded, “It would contribute to effective investigations if  “UNESCO, media agencies and other agencies [would] stop ‘hyping’ cultural property crimes……” section 15.1, page 65, http://iadaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Cultural-Property-War-crimes-and-Islamic-State-2016.pdf
[18] See Chapter II, Article 7-2 and Article 8-2, http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/0900001680710435

We have occupied a front-row seat for seeing the gap between boards that are well run and led and are boons to the organizations they serve, and those that are far less so. We have seen how public agencies and governance activists have sought to close that gap by insisting on tougher rules and tighter regulations. We believe, however, that much of the variance stems instead from a very different source: the human dynamics, social architecture, and leadership of the board itself.
 
We seek as a result to focus attention on building more engaged leadership in the boardroom, not just the executive suite. Governing boards should take more active leadership of the organization, whether a corporation, hospital, or museum, not just monitor its management. We expand the working concept of governance from one of arms-length oversight to trustee leadership of the most strategic decisions.
 
Rather than being concerned with whether trustees should serve staggered or limited terms, we worry more about whether the chair can help direct the board in guiding strategy, setting the ethical tone, and gauging risk in concert with the chief executive, and whether the trustees’ talent and collective chemistry make the board a substantive player at the table. This calls for a different kind of vigilance in the boardroom, a deeper kind of relationship between trustees and executives, and a new kind of leadership from both.
 
The emerging governance model is a result of forces not of its own making. In the private sector, increased regulation, ownership pressures, and governance reforms over the past decade have been intended to strengthen the board’s oversight function. Yet as boards have become better monitors, they have also become better leaders, delving into a host of other areas that had been delegated to top management in earlier times.
 
We believe that directors in the private sector and trustees in the non-profit community can and will more actively lead in the years ahead, and on balance we anticipate that this should fortify their organization’s success and performance. But that is not a given. Poorly handled, this new enablement can cause serious damage, resulting in fractured authority and dangerous meddling.
 
A New Model of Collaborative Leadership
 
In a 2002 letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders, Warren Buffett lamented his multiple derelictions of duty as a director of some forty corporations over nearly two decades: “Too often I was silent when management made proposals that I judged to be counter to the interest of shareholders,” Buffett wrote. “In those cases, collegiality trumped independence [and a] certain social atmosphere presides in boardrooms where it becomes impolitic to challenge the chief executive.”
 
A decade later, biopharmaceutical Amgen Inc. CEO Kevin Sharer painted an almost opposite picture of the relationship between the governing body and corner office: “You’re a lion tamer and they’re the lions. Respect them, but if you let them eat you, they will. Working with the board is vital, complex, and beyond your prior experience—unlike anything you’ve done before. It is among the most complex human relationships, especially if you’re the chair, when you’re their boss, and they’re your boss. Get the relationship right, or it will hurt you.”
 
Allow for a little hyperbole on both sides—Warren Buffett was never that neglectful, and Kevin Sharer carried neither whip nor chair to keep his directors at bay. Still, the difference between the two observations illustrates a striking reconfiguration taking place in how boards operate and how directors and trustees work with top management: the emergence, in an extraordinarily short time, of the potential for boards to be a vital partner and new force in governance.
 
But note the qualifier—potential. This leadership capacity has yet to be fully exploited or even realized at many firms. Too often, directors and trustees remain one of the most valuable but least utilized of an organization’s assets. Smart, experienced, and dedicated men and women are ready to serve. They are sworn to protect and advance the enterprise, to ensure that it does what is best for customers, investors, donors, and visitors. Yet their wisdom and guidance are still too often closeted in the boardroom.
 
But the prevailing model is changing, and quickly. At organization after organization, boards and management have been embracing new practices that help define a more directive, more collaborative leadership of the enterprise. They are jointly taking charge of strategic choices, merger decisions, risk tolerance, ethical climate, and other functions that have traditionally been the province of management.

Boards That Monitor, Partner and Take Charge

A company, hospital, or museum’s executives are no less in the driver’s seat. But the way that they steer many organization is now markedly different—a shared or distributed leadership model that is better suited, in our view, for guiding enterprises that are facing more uncertain, more changing, and more complex markets.
 
Each board will want to fashion its own unique blend of the components of direct and collaborative leadership. “Boards should sit down” annually, urged Ford Motor Company’s lead director Irvine Hockaday, “and say, OK, what are we really doing here, what really is our role given the situation of this company at this time, what are we doing to incarnate that role, how are we going to function with the lead director, and what are our priorities?”
 
Finding the right balance among the board’s leadership components—knowing when to lead, when to partner, and when to stay out of the way—has become one of the premier tasks of the board’s leadership of any enterprise.

In Part I of this two-part series, we explored how prospect research through wealth screening can give valuable insight into your museum’s constituent base. Special initiatives such as establishing a collection fund, renovating a museum gallery, building an addition or launching an endowment campaign are exciting opportunities that can only be achieved with careful planning and thoughtful preparation. This article will share several key strategies that are easy to implement that can take your contributed revenue to a new level.  While the following strategies will likely be implemented by the development staff, trustees are key to effective cultivation programs and  should play an important role to maximize donor cultivation potential.

Developing Customized Cultivation Plans
​
Ultimately, not all donors are equal. Some have more capacity than others and are your major donor prospects. Others may love your museum and its work but do not have the ability to give large gifts. Some constituents in your database know your museum well while others may have a cursory knowledge through attendance at occasional events.
 
The matrix below is a simple yet useful way to identify current donors who have the potential to become major donors. This exercise also is an effective way to share cultivation strategies and information with development staff, development committee members, board members, and other stakeholders who are in a position to assist.

​First, determine where individuals/families within your donor pool are within the matrix using donor data and anecdotal information regarding closeness to the museum.
 
Once this data is collected, it can be interpreted using the model below. In Figure 2, sample existing donors have been plotted, showing the typical cluster at the entry point of the giving group, the Low Current Gift/Low Affinity quadrant. Then, apply formal or informal wealth screening information to determine where donors could be – ideally, in a place where they are ready to make a major gift after increased knowledge of and affinity with your museum . The goal is to use this information to strategically move prospects to the High Gift/High Affinity quadrant through increased cultivation.
 
It is also important to recognize that some donors will stay where they are – either in the High Gift/Low Affinity quadrant because they contribute generously but your organization is not their top priority or in the Low Gift/Low Affinity quadrant because they have no further capacity.

The outcome of this exercise will show you who your top cluster of potential major donors are and give you an idea of what needs to happen to move them from where they are today to a place where they are ready to make a major gift. Take the time to understand who each of these donors is and what they like. Do they prefer Old Master paintings or Andy Warhol? Are they more interested in your museum’s Prehistoric artifacts or its planetarium? Make a concerted effort to get to know them through visiting at donor events, exhibition openings, inviting them to lunch, and so on. Do not ask for money during these interactions but rather make it all about understanding what they like about the museum and help them become more emotionally invested and involved.
 
Role of Board Committees
 
Most museums have a Development Committee as part of their board structure. And many organizations will state that, in some manner, every board member needs to participate in fundraising. This can be done in a variety of ways that can be relatively painless, even for that board member who absolutely will not ask anyone for money.
 
Using the Upgrade/Affinity chart above as an example, we can see that many current donors have the capacity to make larger investments and can be encouraged to do so by drawing them in closer to the organization. This is where board members come in. Development staff can ask their board members who in this prospect pool they know, and then work with individual board members on specific cultivation initiatives. Examples of how board members can assist include hosting small gatherings in their home to enable guests to meet a visiting artist or have a deeper conversation with a curator, or inviting a prospect to be their guest at an exhibit opening with dinner afterward. Peer to peer relationships are key to the solicitation of increased gifts, and board members can play a very important role in bringing the prospective donor closer to the organization and “teeing up” the gift request, even if they choose not to make the ask themselves.
 
The role of the Nominating Committee is another important element of successful fundraising strategies. Whenever ACG conducts an assessment of development operations or a campaign feasibility study, the desire for more board members with both capacity and influence is often articulated. Smart museums will think about this long before a major fundraising initiative is launched. The board, with influence from the development staff, is wise to think about possible board leadership that could enhance its fundraising reach: corporate leaders, potential major donors, and community leaders with spheres of influence are a few examples.
 
Again, valuable information can be gleaned from the wealth screening process. Identifying current patrons who have an affinity for the organization and a greater capacity than previously known are great candidates for board membership, as they already know your organization well and can be inspirational ambassadors.
 
It is important to keep in mind that the nominating process should be a thoughtful and ongoing endeavor. Taking a longer view of the future needs of the museum, particularly in the area of fundraising, will allow time for cultivation, which should increase the probability that a desirable board candidate will be ready to say yes to your invitation. It also allows for a “no, I cannot serve now” to have time to develop into a “yes, I am honored to join” at a later date – hopefully, just when you need them for your next big thing.
 
By using the tools found in this two-part series, your museum will be well on its way to completing a successful campaign.

Vice President Elisabeth B. Galley has more than 30 years of experience as a fundraising and development professional for nonprofit arts and culture organizations. First joining ACG in 1998 as a Senior Consultant, Ms. Galley worked with Tulsa Opera, Nevada Ballet Theatre, Mozart Classical Orchestra, REPRISE! Broadway’s Best, and the Carmel Bach Festival as Interim Development Director. She rejoined the firm in 2015 to open its Dallas office and expand the Revenue Enhancement practice area. Prior to joining ACG, Ms. Galley served as Chief Development Officer at the Perot Museum of Nature and Science, spearheading its $200 million campaign efforts. During her five-year tenure, Ms. Galley expanded the museum’s operating reserves by $26 million and doubled its contributed revenue to $4 million annually. For seven years, she served as Vice President of Development at the AT&T Performing Arts Center, working on the $335 million campaign to build the multi-venue complex. Ms. Galley was also Director of Development for the Colorado Springs Symphony where she was responsible for all components of the annual contributed income, including individual and corporate gifts, foundation and government grants, and special events. Ms. Galley holds a master of business administration with an emphasis in marketing and nonprofit administration from the University of Delaware. ​

Contact ACG for more information on how we can implement
wealth screening services at your organization.
(888) 234.4236
[email protected]
​

Special initiatives such as establishing a collection fund, renovating a museum gallery, building an addition or launching an endowment campaign are exciting opportunities that can only be achieved with careful planning and thoughtful preparation. However, much can be done well in advance of a campaign launch – even before you know what that next big thing will be. In this two-part series, we explore practical strategies your museum can implement now to position the development team, executive leadership, and board for maximum future fundraising success:

• Understand the value of wealth screening to identify potential major donors,
• Develop customized cultivation plans for targeted prospects, and
• Understand the role of the board committees in campaign preparedness.

 
The Value of Wealth Screening
 
Many nonprofit organizations utilize wealth screening as an integral part of their donor prospect research.  As trustees, you may have had members of the development team or executive leadership present proposals to the board for approval of expenditures to conduct this type of research.  Here’s what you need to know in order to make an informed decision regarding investing in wealth screening services.
 
Ideal donors are those who have both an affinity for the museum and the financial capacity to make a significant gift. But how do you get beyond the usual suspects – those families that are the giving pillars of your community? One solution is to look more deeply into your museum’s database. Museums have members. These individuals are valued consumers and have displayed interest by attending exhibits and fundraisers and continuing to purchase  memberships year after year. They are primed and ready to be invited to support your museum in a deeper way. But how do you know who, when, and for how much to ask?
 
Decades ago, before internet research was part of everyday life, development professionals would gather the members of their development committee and review lists of potential donors by gathering information about friends of committee members. While parts of this practice are still valuable, research has come a long way. Today there are several companies that offer wealth screening services for nonprofits, including Donorscape, Wealth Engine, Target Analytics, and iWave. Although the specific information delivered may vary from company to company, the process is essentially the same. 
 
Services provided by these companies help museums electronically screen a large quantity of selected donor records, including lecture subscribers, members, gala ticket purchasers, or other connected individuals, against 14 of the most respected public information databases. When data is matched, the resulting information may report on the prospective donor’s financial position, community connections, board experience, property ownership, age, public and private company ownership and political contributions, among other data points. It also rates the prospect’s propensity to give and affinity for your museum to achieve a balance of connection, commitment, and capacity. This information can be used to determine potential sources of new or increased contributed income from individuals in the form of annual, capital, endowment, and planned gifts.
 
The returned information rates donors from top prospects who have a strong affinity for your museum and significant capacity to give down to those prospects who may love your work but cannot make a major gift. Development teams can use this information to:

• Determine the overall funding capability of your museum’s database.
• Identify a hierarchy of potential major donor prospects to cultivate for higher level gifts.
• Create robust portfolios for each development professional based on the donor prospect hierarchy information, as well as targeted portfolios for the Executive Director/CEO and selected board leadership.
• Develop personalized cultivation strategies and a moves management pipeline to acquire new major donors.
• Understand those donors who will remain core annual fund contributors but do not have the capacity for future major gifts and design appropriate relationship maintenance programs for that group.

 
Using wealth screening services, your development team will be able to segment the donor database to understand where to invest fundraising resources to yield the best results, regardless of the size of the museum’s development department. The costs for this service have become much more affordable in recent years and the return on investment is tremendous. By acquiring just one new major gift, this investment will pay for itself.
 
The information gleaned from wealth screening also helps to shape customized donor cultivation efforts and can inform decisions regarding the identification of ideal members to consider adding to your governing board. These concepts will be explored in Part II of this series next month.

Vice President Elisabeth B. Galley has more than 30 years of experience as a fundraising and development professional for nonprofit arts and culture organizations. First joining ACG in 1998 as a Senior Consultant, Ms. Galley worked with Tulsa Opera, Nevada Ballet Theatre, Mozart Classical Orchestra, REPRISE! Broadway’s Best, and the Carmel Bach Festival as Interim Development Director. She rejoined the firm in 2015 to open its Dallas office and expand the Revenue Enhancement practice area. Prior to joining ACG, Ms. Galley served as Chief Development Officer at the Perot Museum of Nature and Science, spearheading its $200 million campaign efforts. During her five-year tenure, Ms. Galley expanded the museum’s operating reserves by $26 million and doubled its contributed revenue to $4 million annually. For seven years, she served as Vice President of Development at the AT&T Performing Arts Center, working on the $335 million campaign to build the multi-venue complex. Ms. Galley was also Director of Development for the Colorado Springs Symphony where she was responsible for all components of the annual contributed income, including individual and corporate gifts, foundation and government grants, and special events. Ms. Galley holds a master of business administration with an emphasis in marketing and nonprofit administration from the University of Delaware.

Andrea spoke at MTA’s Forum in Cincinnati on October 28. When asked for her top takeaways, here were her recommendations:

When speaking on the topic of planning for the ultimate disposition of art collections, I offer the following top ten planning tips:
1. Do not leave the ultimate disposition of your collection to chance.  It is surprising how many collectors do not engage in this process and leave the ultimate disposition decisions to their family and advisors, most or all of whom do not have the intimate knowledge of their collection.

2. Use a competent and experienced advisory team. The team should include art experts; such as dealers, gallery owners, curators and restoration experts; risk management professionals; qualified appraisers; private bankers; and attorneys and accountants, all with experience in planning with art. Not only do they need to be on your advisory team, but they need to communicate with one another.

3. Do appropriate risk management. Engage an insurance expert who is specifically experienced with art. You may or may not purchase insurance, but do consider the security of your collection, from theft, fire, water, storm, or other casualties.

4. Prepare and maintain an inventory. This is true for all assets in the form of financial statements, but it is particularly true with respect to art and other collectibles. An inventory is critical to every stage of the planning process, and should be kept as current as possible.

5. Know the value of your collection. Insurance providers and lenders, if any, will require appraisals and periodic updates. Appraisals will be required for income, estate and gift tax purposes.  Even if not required, you should have your collection periodically valued, perhaps every three to five years, depending on how actively you are collecting and on what you are collecting.

6. Maintain records. As part of your inventory, maintain records of ownership and, as the value and significance of the collection grows, further evidence of provenance. This includes all contracts to purchase or sell, actual bills of sale, loan agreements with museums, and so on. Consider title insurance if you have doubts about the provenance of any piece you are considering for purchase.

7. Ask the big question. Involve your family. Do they share your passion for your art? If so, planning should focus on how to transition the art to them, whether that is now or later. If not, and there are other financial assets or you feel they are otherwise provided for, then explore your charitable options.

8. Consider liquidity. Art is by its very nature an illiquid asset.  It does not provide cash flow or income during life, and although it may be sold, that comes with a high tax cost, and perhaps not quickly enough to address estate liquidity needs.  Art lending may be an appropriate solution to address this lack of liquidity.

9. Consider charity. Given the expense of selling, and the opportunity cost of wealth transfer, the “charitable solution” is often the most tax efficient way to keep your collection intact.  And if the “charitable solution” is right for you, consider lifetime donations as this will entitle you to a federal income tax charitable deduction in addition to estate tax savings.  Most important, do not surprise the museum (or other charity), if you are leaving art to them. Not all museums will want your art. It may not fit their collection, or their storage vault. Talk to them now about your wishes, even if they are not carried out until later.

10. No surprises. Give your family, and your personal representative, clear direction on what your estate will include, and clear direction on what you want to happen. And while you are going through the planning process, make sure your advisors know the extent and value of your collection.
Trying as the planning process may seem, try to enjoy the process of planning for the disposition of your collection. It is certainly not as much fun as building the collection, but it is ultimately just as important.

Mr. Slugg has also served as an adjunct professor at Texas Christian University and Texas A&M College of Law.  He is a frequent speaker on tax and financial planning topics, especially as they relate to art and collectibles, and is frequently quoted in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Forbes, Barron’s and other business publications.  He is the author of the Handbook of Practical Planning for Art Collectors and Their Advisors, published by the American Bar Association’s Section of Real Property, Trust and Estate Law.

Mr. Slugg is admitted to practice law in Texas, is a member of the State Bar of Texas, the American, and Tarrant County Bar Associations, the Tax and Estate Planning Section of the Tarrant County Bar (Chair, 1999-2000), the Lone Star Chapter of the Partnership for Philanthropic Planning, and the College of the State Bar of Texas.  He currently serves as Co-chair of the American Bar Association’s Real Property Trust and Estate Law Art and Collectibles Committee, as well as several other leadership positions.  Mr. Slugg received his J.D. degree from the Ohio State University College of Law, and his undergraduate degree from Wittenberg University.

“Collectors aren’t sellers.” It’s long been a maxim that’s defined the philosophical relationship between a collector and their art. This motivation to acquire or commission great works of art has taken many forms since the advent of Renaissance patronage. For the royal courts, it was power and prestige; for the aristocracy, recreation and pleasure; for the great industrialists, cultural refinement; and for the avant-garde, social stratification. Only recently have collectors begun to acquire pictures with at least one eye judiciously fixed on the financial implications. Yet despite increasingly predictable media accounts of the financialization of art, collectors still tend to be quite nuanced in their drive to collect.
To better understand the nuanced and evolving relationship between collector and collection, a 2016 U.S. Trust study surveyed 684 wealthy individuals, 30 percent of whom had greater than $10 million in investable assets. The results revealed an interesting generational divide between more traditional collectors still driven by connoisseurship and aesthetic pleasure and next-gen collectors increasingly concerned with how art behaves as a capital asset.

Six Key Characteristics
We identified six key cultural characteristics of the new breed of collector, each carrying implications for art market and estate planning professionals.
1. An eye on investment: Perhaps because they grew up during one of the greatest art market expansions in history, younger collectors are significantly more financially driven in their collecting and are more likely to view collecting art as a way to build significant wealth. This will require their financial and estate planners to incorporate this asset class into financial modeling and to focus beyond basic estate planning specifically for this asset.
2. Heightened expectations: Younger collectors are less likely to view art as a risky investment and more likely to expect sustainable price appreciation in the future… likely because they haven’t experienced large down-cycles like the early 1990s pullback.
3. More commercially minded: Perhaps because of the rapid expansion of the secondary market, the ubiquity of art advisors and access to lower-cost digital sales channels, millennials are much more comfortable selling their art as they build their collections. The downside is that as transactions increase, so do taxes and transaction costs. As a result, tax and financial advisors will need to be engaged earlier to help mitigate the impact of federal and state taxes.
4. Art as loan collateral: Younger collectors are more willing to use their collection as loan collateral to take advantage of strategic investment opportunities. Though proceeds of art loans may be used to acquire more art, often proceeds are used to accomplish other personal or financial goals.
5. More socially engaged: Millennial and Gen X collectors are very socially engaged within the art world’s new globalized experience economy. Within this community, art collecting has become an important means for social and political advocacy on an international stage. Moving beyond the borders, though, presents additional regulatory issues which planners must be mindful of.
6. A philanthropic mindset: Younger collectors are more apt to gift their art to nonprofit entities, while older collectors are far more likely to gift their art to family.

Effect on Planning Professionals
Art (and other collectibles) are probably the most difficult assets to incorporate into an overall tax and financial plan. They’re by their very nature illiquid, don’t produce cash flow (absent a sale), but most of all, they’re among the most “emotional” assets that a collector owns. Collectors, at least traditionally, are more passionate about their art than they are about their stocks, bonds, real estate and perhaps even a family business. In short, art hasn’t historically been viewed as a financial asset.
As the U.S. Trust study suggests, this mindset may be changing for younger and newer collectors, who consider the financial and investment aspects of owning art much more so than in the past. For planners, this means that conversations about appropriate planning techniques and ownership structures need to take place earlier in the planning conversation. For example, an active collector, who will be both selling as well as buying, may wish to own their art through a family partnership or trust rather than outright. And although record keeping has always been important, it becomes even more important when the collector is viewing their art more as an investment than merely for its aesthetic value.
Both income taxes (federal and state) and transfer taxes become more important than ever, as younger collectors tend to conduct more transactions.
And as younger collectors focus more on this asset class, their advisors need also to broaden their knowledge of the rules unique to this area and to their clients’ increased activity.

Mr. Slugg has also served as an adjunct professor at Texas Christian University and Texas A&M College of Law.  He is a frequent speaker on tax and financial planning topics, especially as they relate to art and collectibles, and is frequently quoted in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Forbes, Barron’s and other business publications.  He is the author of the Handbook of Practical Planning for Art Collectors and Their Advisors, published by the American Bar Association’s Section of Real Property, Trust and Estate Law.
Mr. Slugg is admitted to practice law in Texas, is a member of the State Bar of Texas, the American, and Tarrant County Bar Associations, the Tax and Estate Planning Section of the Tarrant County Bar (Chair, 1999-2000), the Lone Star Chapter of the Partnership for Philanthropic Planning, and the College of the State Bar of Texas.  He currently serves as Co-chair of the American Bar Association’s Real Property Trust and Estate Law Art and Collectibles Committee, as well as several other leadership positions.  Mr. Slugg received his J.D. degree from the Ohio State University College of Law, and his undergraduate degree from Wittenberg University.

When looking at the entire continuum of leadership transition, the responsibilities for Trustees during an Executive Search process start well before the launch of the search (See #’s 1, 2 & 3), and end long after the new Director’s first day on the job. Set your candidates up for eventual hire and success – going from applicant, to candidate, to finalist, to a newly-appointed Director that can hit the ground running. This process begins with the first auto-responder an applicant receives and ends well after the new Director begins, and ensures that you are leading candidates to a “Yes” from your very first interaction with them, and then – just as importantly –- ensuring that they are able to do their best work once they arrive.

Put the museum’s best face forward… while gaining key “intel” on the candidates– From the candidate’s very first moment of contact with your museum via email application or phone call, how candidates are responded to, how they are followed up with, and eventually – how they are hosted at in-person interviews and on-boarded once they start the job – all convey what kind of an organization they will perceive you as being. Treat candidates like potential donors!

When it’s time for in-person interviews, it’s key that you help the candidates visualize working for your museum.  All too often candidates leave after an interview, an offer is made and then the process stops because the candidate hadn’t taken full advantage of being on-site in order to help raise and address some of their (and their partners) questions. Time is lost as the process is delayed, or worse candidates drop out.

-Provide a tour of the facilities, and show them their future office.

-If appropriate, schedule a variety of social events in order for the candidate and the Search Committee to interact in less formal situations; similar to what will occur once hired.

-Set-up a private tour with a real estate agent for all finalists – touring the community, neighborhoods, schools, answering questions that the candidate may not feel comfortable asking the Search Committee. This can be a critical step in helping to ensure that if you end up making an offer, they feel like they have key information needed to make a decision.

-Designate Transition Committee members (that are good ambassadors!) to drive, greet and host – this helps to create opportunities for quiet conversations and personal connections to develop (rather than hiring drivers, Uber, etc.)
​
-If appropriate, schedule meetings for candidates to meet with their future staff – both in groups and 1:1. We recommend that the staff sign confidentiality pledges at this juncture.

-Stay in touch and follow-up – While you may be in negotiations with your top candidate, ensure that you thank all the finalists the week after their visits, and re-convey the planned decision-making timeline. Remember, your top candidate may not accept your offer and you want your finalists to remain engaged, and available (and thinking they are your top choice).

-REMEMBER: Confidentiality, Confidentiality & Confidentiality now includes the entire Board.

-When negotiating, remember that how you conduct yourself reveals to the candidate how it will be to work with you at the Museum. Now is the time to invest in the future of the Museum (appropriately), determine what the candidate values (it’s not only salary), and move forward.

-Once you have an accepted offer, remember to thank the other candidates. Again, you just never know!
​
-CELEBRATE! After the Board votes and the finalist has formally accepted and authorized the information to be made public, plan a full day of activities around the announcement. One museum recently embargoed the Press Release for 2 hours after the vote to allow the Search & Transition Committee members, staff and the new Director to make personal phone calls to key stakeholders and thank them for their input. Even a voice-mail heads-up was greatly appreciated by all.

While the on-site interviews required a great deal of time, after the new Director begins should be the busiest time for Trustees in the transition process! The Transition Committee takes charge and implements their Transition Calendar like the one found in Executive Transitions.

Help the Director adjust to the move and get settled (even if they are local). - For candidates moving from another community to be a part of yours, there are myriad details they are dealing with.  Finding housing, physicians, and schools can be daunting.  Trustees can be a welcoming resource during this time; enabling the new Director to focus on on-boarding rather than the stress of what happens outside the office, and continually feel good about the decision they’ve made to lead your Museum!

– Board Roster with business affiliation and expertise. Consider including a photograph of each Board Member.
– Board Minutes for the last year
– Board Committee Structure
– Board Manual

– Staff roster, including photographs
– Staff organization chart
– Position Descriptions
– Employee Policies and Procedures Manual
– Office and Facility Procedures
– Volunteer roster, including photographs
– Volunteer organization chart

– Bylaws
– IRS Form 1023, Application for Exempt Status
– Copy of IRS letter granting 501(c)3 status
– Annual reports for the last two to three years

– Strategic plan and periodic updates on progress
– Current and prior years’ budgets
– Two years of audit reports and management recommendation letters with contact information for the auditor
– Fund-raising event descriptions and dates
– Grant proposals
-Funding documents from foundations, corporations, and government agencies

- Program descriptions, including attendance statistics
– Exhibition schedule
– Recent museum publications, such as member newsletters and program brochures

Position the new Director as a community thought leader and influencer – immediately & continually. The Transition Committee should coordinate with Development & Marketing/PR staff’s Transition Calendar for the new Director – which may include listening tours, town hall–style meetings, donor and member receptions and special events. Create a Trustee-led schedule to introduce the Director throughout the community.  This may include private dinners, non-museum events, and civic meetings.  Every week Trustees should be initiating invitations to the new Director.  In some cases there will be a need for the Director to focus on addressing urgent internal issues.  In all cases, this must be carefully balanced to allow external strategies to occur simultaneously.
Revisit and adapt the Transition Calendar on a quarterly basis. Continue this effort throughout the year.

Invest in their leadership – Ask the Director what they need to be effective in their first 90 days/year.  Some Directors may be comfortable in asking for what they need, while others may hesitate to ask for “help.”  Create an easy dynamic for this kind of discussion to occur frequently, in order to ensure they have the resources, contacts, feedback and Trustee response time they need to do the job well.

It may be a good idea to provide “First 90 Days” leadership coaching whether there is a perceived need or not.  As in other industries, coaching is considered a management tool that successful leaders employ. Like an experienced captain of a ship navigating through the Panama Canal, they are required to hire an expert to Pilot them through those “specialized” waters.  Strong leaders benefit from having an outside expert available to help them successfully navigate their transition (in and outside of work) as they prioritize urgent needs, position themselves in ways to benefit the museum, and lead authentically and boldly.

Build upon the Vision that you conveyed through the interim period.  Create inspiring goals of Impact that the Trustees, Director, Staff, volunteers and community can work together to achieve.
​
And remember:  Navigating transition does not end on Day One of the new Director.  In some cases it can take upwards of five years.

​San Diego-based management transition expert & leadership coach/strategist

Passionate about helping organizations and individuals have the impact they envision, Kathryn R. Martin is a leadership coach & strategist, professional interim leader, and a frequent speaker and author on navigating personal, professional and organizational change. Martin was Vice President at Arts Consulting Group (ACG) from 2003-2015, and she has served in numerous Interim Executive Director roles, including the Linda Pace Foundation in San Antonio to launch the David Adjaye Ruby City building project; ArtPower!, the multi-arts presenter at the University of California San Diego; and Malashock Dance. Martin is currently Interim President & CEO of the Sharon Lynne Wilson Center for the Arts in Milwaukee.  Martin has supervised, trained, and coached more than 20 ACG professional interim executives placed in cultural organizations across the United States. She will be a featured speaker at MTA’s Spring 2016 Forum in San Juan, PR.

​Contact: 858-761-4928
​[email protected]
LinkedIn

​Mary Baily Wieler became The President of The Museum Trustee Association in January of 2014. She  served as Board Chairman of MTA from 2010 to 2013. A resident of Baltimore, MD, Mrs. Wieler is a member of the Board of The Walters Art Museum. She was President of The Board of The Association of Baltimore Area Grant-makers, Secretary of The Board of Greater Baltimore Medical Center and a Vice-President of The Enoch Pratt Free Library. She was honored as one of Maryland’s Top 100 Women in 2006. She holds a B.S. from The Edmund T. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University.

Contact: 410-402-0954
[email protected]
LinkedIn

As a Trustee, when you think about navigating a leadership transition, what comes to mind? For many, it is launching a Search and hiring the next Director. For some, it may be creating a Succession Plan check-list. In reality, navigating a successful leadership transition begins well before launching a Search and goes well beyond the hire! In this four-part series of Tips for Trustees, we’ll look at the full continuum of leadership transition –and how Trustees can prepare in advance, navigate and leverage once a transition is known and ensure that the investment in your new candidate pays off. We’ll look at the two parallel but integrated tracks – preparing for the transition and launching the search.   These moments of organizational change create unique opportunities for clarity, focus and accelerated momentum through reaffirmed vision for and by the Board.
Navigating Leadership Transitions – a Series of Four Tips for Trustees:
#1: Leadership Transitions: Start Preparing…Now!
#2: Leadership Transitions: Employee Dynamics: A Road Map for Trustees
#3: Leadership Transitions: Be Confident – Be the Expert!
#4: Leadership Transitions: Build Relationships with your Candidates – one of them is your new Director


#1 – Leadership Transitions: Start Preparing… Now!
By: Mary Baily Wieler and Kathryn Martin
A leadership transition is in your Museum’s future; it’s a “given”. And yet, even with this awareness and good intentions, few museum boards are prepared when an executive change occurs. As a result, Trustees inadvertently put their institution at risk or, at minimum, lose the opportunity to leverage this moment strategically as they find themselves scrambling, struggling with decision-making, doing damage control in the media, and being re-active.
There are many good resources available on Succession Plans and Check-lists (Listed Below) to help Trustees create the necessary chain-of-command and decision-making protocols to be used. In this Tip, we add the larger context and provide actions that can be taken today to make your Museum strong so that it is prepared when the time for transition arrives.
Here are two areas of action to ensure you have the resources, decision-making protocols and a plan for creating a specific Succession Plan before you need them:
1. Create operational and governance structures, and resources today, which can prepare your museum to withstand (and thrive in) an eventual leadership transition. Invest. Now.
- Invest in a strong professional staff (now). As a trustee: Do you know if operationally, staff must rely on the Director for all key decisions within their area? What do they need to become empowered?   Having a strong “number 2” leader in place can certainly be a part of a strategy, as well as ensuring there are strong staff throughout the organization. Trustees approve the museums’ budget and thus can support the current Director in preparing for transitions by building depth and breadth in the staff, investing in professional development, requiring management and accountability, and providing shared organizational budgets to foster understanding of how each department fits into the overall goals. Museum talent should be assessed annually to accurately identify long-term potential and critical competencies for each position. Are there leadership gaps in your museum now? If so, create a plan to remedy these gaps either through internal mentoring, professional development or external hires.
- Create consensus (now): Where is the Museum going and how are you going to get it there? It’s much easier if the Museum is on an exciting course (which should always be the case!), when a transition occurs. It can give everyone a sense of focus and determination to make the goal happen. It also helps create important context when determining the particular skills and attributes the next Director will need. Having a clear direction will provide opportunities to tell your story of continued momentum and success – including when you’re attracting qualified candidates. Take a three-year outlook- Ideally in the form of a living strategic plan, or at minimum it could be reaching consensus through facilitated annual Board Visioning Retreats.
- Build a strong, effective Board (now). During a time of leadership transition it is the Trustees who implement the Succession Plan. In some cases, this will be a big change in the leadership dynamic. Founders and long-time Directors may, through their successful leadership, have created a board dynamic that is not necessarily fully engaged in solving the challenges of operating the Museum. Practice good governance now, so that when Trustee leadership is needed later, your committees are strong. An objective Trustee self-assessment survey (like the one in MTA Publication “The Leadership Partnership”) can be a helpful way to gauge whether or not your Board is operating according to industry-recommended best practices, so that changes can be implemented.
- Research transition costs (now). Transitions cost money and take time. A lot of time. Prepare by doing your research on what costs you will likely face so the Board knows what it can afford (severance packages, farewell events, candidate recruitment, travel, criminal back-ground checks, hosted receptions and donor events, relocation costs, on-boarding, welcome receptions, and other events geared to introducing the new Director to the community). Talk to colleagues and research Executive Search firms and methodologies, and/or the often hidden costs of doing it on your own. Consider the benefits and costs of hiring a professional interim leader, as compared to other interim scenarios.
NOTE: In an Arts Consulting Group, Inc. (ACG) study(1) of more than 450 arts and culture organizations with CEO-level vacancies conducted during the early 2000s, results echoed what ACG experts throughout North America encounter on a regular basis. Almost 55% of all respondents indicated that the senior management executive gave (or was given) less than six weeks’ notice before their departure — with one-third giving (or being given) less than two weeks’ notice.
The ACG study also revealed that of the organizations that chose an existing staff member or board member to fill the interim role, 84% saw decreases in their contributed income during the transition period.
The instability (or perception of instability) created by the departure of a Director can affect the financial bottom-line, including loss of contributed income. It can also disrupt momentum and tarnish the organization’s relationship among key stakeholders if the gap between permanent leaders is not addressed thoughtfully. The intangible costs of a leadership void, whether planned or unplanned, coupled with the stress placed on the Board and staff, can take a toll that can create substantive challenges for the museum, the Search firm, and the Director who eventually takes the leadership role.
2. Establish an initial framework in which decisions will be made before it becomes necessary. How will decisions be made, by whom, and when? Although it is unrealistic to map out a specific transition plan before the change is known, the decisions you make today, while your team is still in place, will ensure that no matter what you encounter down the road you are as prepared as possible, and can take the swift action that may be needed.
The most crucial part to outline in detail now: What (specifically) do you want to occur in the first 6-24 hours of learning of a leadership change? The urgency in how/what you need to implement beyond the initial steps, will depend on your specific scenario, outlined below.
- Day 1 – 14: Determine what type of leadership transition you have, and choose a relevant response and action plan. Whether planned or unplanned, and whether months or a year from now, this is the moment when leadership roles shift slightly. Trustees have the responsibility, rather than the top executive leader, to collaborate with staff and to create and implement an integrated plan that ensures operational success and addresses the unique internal and external dynamics that exist during transition.
In the museum field, Boards typically face one of three scenarios:
1. A long-serving Executive or Founder announces his or her retirement. Determine how and when the transition will occur, how the Search will be conducted, and how the transition will be messaged.   It is important to not only to honor the outgoing leader but to ensure that the Museum conveys its strong and exciting future!
2. A Director resigns to take a new position elsewhere with adequate notice but not enough time to perform a complete and effective search. Similar strategy to #1; with the additional need for leadership to be addressed during the interim period.
3. An organization’s leader resigns with little or no warning, circumstances require the Board to terminate his or her employment, or there is a sudden death or personal tragedy. This is a scenario where hours, rather than days or week, matter. Depending on the scenario, the Board may need legal representation, and the details leading to the departure may not be able to be made public. Convening an emergency Board or Executive Committee meeting may or may not be possible. Develop a list of the team needed (President, legal counsel, Press/Media professional) to make decisions and create the messages communicating to the Trustees, the staff, Social Media, stakeholders, and the press. The sudden vacancy creates an immediate need for interim leadership1 to fill the roles and responsibilities of the position and maintain organizational effectiveness.
- Day 7 – 14 Appoint and convene the Transition Committee, charged with navigating the time of transition and collaborating with senior staff and other transition specialists.
– Develop and approve the initial and subsequent strategic messaging and communications plan.
– Develop and guide the implementation of a Transition and Interim Strategy & Timeline.
While many Boards feel compelled to begin the executive search process as soon as a departure becomes a reality, others understand that time is required – especially if following a long-time leader – to evaluate both the organization’s strategic direction, resources and leadership attributes necessary to reach its aspirational goals. At a later date, a Search Committee can be formed and charged with finding the successor. This Committee should be ready to work in tandem with the Transition Committee as the search process evolves.


 
Does your Museum Board have a Succession Plan in place? Does it need to create one? Do make sure that you have the chain-of-command decision-making document in place – but don’t stop there. Continue to plan for the future by familiarizing yourself with the dynamics, strategies and resources needed to successfully navigate times of leadership transition. Create operational and governance structures today, to help you withstand (and even thrive in) an eventual leadership transition. Invest. Now.

1 “The Performing Arts in Transition: Executive Leadership on the Move.” Arts Insights. Bruce D. Thibodeau, 2002. http://www.artsconsulting.com/pdf_arts_insights/insights_sept_2002.pdf

Additional Resources
Museum Trustee Association, Executive Transitions.
Order at http://www.museumtrustee.org/category/publications/.

Museum Trustee Association, The Leadership Partnership. Order at http://www.museumtrustee.org/category/publications/.

Korn Ferry, Succession Matters, 2015. http://www.kornferry.com/successionmatters.

Foundation Center, Succession Planning for Nonprofit Organizations: A Resource List, http://foundationcenter.org/getstarted/topical/succession.html.

National Council of Nonprofits, Succession Planning for Nonprofits, https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/tools-resources/succession-planning-nonprofits.

Texas Association of Museums, StEPs Resource: Texas Association of Museums Succession Plan, http://resource.aaslh.org/view/texas-association-of-museums-succession-plan/.

Transition Guides, Stepping Up, Staying Engaged: Succession Planning and Executive Transition Management for Nonprofit Boards of Directors, http://www.transitionguides.com/resources.