MUSEUM TRUSTEE ASSOCIATION
  • Home
  • About us
    • Mission
    • Board of Directors
    • Current Members >
      • Institutional Members
      • Individual Members
    • Contact
  • Membership
    • Benefits
    • Types >
      • Institutions
      • Patrons
      • Friends
    • Member Spotlights >
      • San Angelo Museum of Fine Arts
      • Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
      • Greensboro History Museum
      • Mingei International Museum
      • Virginia Museum of Fine Arts
      • Heard Museum
      • Maryland Center for History & Culture
      • Hillwood Estate, Museum & Gardens
      • Lehigh University Art Galleries
  • News
  • Events
    • Chicago Fall Forum 2023
  • Resources
    • MTA On-Demand
    • Templates for Trustees
    • Tips for Trustees
    • Blackbaud Webinar Series
    • Member Resource Library
    • IDEA Resources & Information
  • Donate
  • Patron Weekend

The Deaccessioning Debate Is Not Going Away

8/22/2017

14 Comments

 

By Mary Baily Wieler

Picture
When I took the helm of MTA in 2014, the travails of The Corcoran and the Delaware Art Museum boards were making headlines. Since then, and drawing on my prior professional experience as a banker, I have been reminded many times that just because someone prints an article about your bank, it doesn’t mean that the piece reflects the reality inside the workplace.

Rather than rush to judgement, I spoke to a variety of museum professionals and board members. These two museums faced very different financial challenges, but a consistent theme presented itself: boards need to be constantly assessing the competitive landscape in which they reside and cannot be complacent when change occurs.

When the Corcoran was established, there was no National Gallery offering free admission, nor did its art school have a rival George Washington University Fine Arts department in its backyard. Facing a structural deficit and declining enrollment at the school, the board of the Corcoran looked to many strategies to boost revenue, all of which proved insufficient.

Likewise, Wilmington, Delaware was a corporate headquarters town in 2003 when the expansion of the Delaware Art Museum began. With plans to include additional gallery space, an education center, and collections care facilities, the campaign financing strategy appeared sound. Like many not-for-profits, the Delaware Art Museum had used credit-enhanced debt instruments, only to suffer substantial losses during the banking crisis in 2008. By 2014, many board classes after the approval of the expansion, the leadership was limited in how to respond to the construction-related debt. To make matters worse, the departure of several corporate entities and the consolidation of others resulted in a changing community landscape. The Delaware Art Museum board was faced with a tough decision.

Both boards deliberated for years on how to resolve these complex problems. Each museum sought the advice of a number of experts: financial, consulting, legal, government, auction houses and appraisers. They then ultimately decided what was best for their community: in one case to liquidate and in the other to sell museum-purchased art and retire the debt.

Being mindful that many of our members have faced financial challenges in their museum marketplaces, MTA has addressed these issues regularly at semi-annual forums over the last 4 years. Some member museums have found success in merging with others, including LancasterHistory.org, the Cincinnati Museum Center, The Perot Museum and The Demuth Museum/Lancaster Museum of Art. We have heard from several museums that restructured away from government ownership: The Oakland Museum, The Detroit Institutes of Art, and the Museo de Arte de Puerto Rico. In 2014, Harry Hopper, the Corcoran Board Chair, spoke candidly about the board dynamic in a crisis and how his museum eventually reached the decision to close and turn their assets over to George Washington University and the National Gallery. In the end, thankfully, none of the museums above were forced to resort to selling donated objects.
​

So when news broke in late July about the Berkshire Museum’s decision to sell prominent works from its collection to fund operational projects, the red flag went up immediately. The Museum is not a MTA member, so I followed the story with the perspective of an outsider and sought to learn more than what was in the press.
​

One surprising comment came from Murray Tarnapoll, MTA 3rd Vice Chair and former Board Chair of The Queens Museum in NYC:

I was born and raised in Pittsfield, Mass. I have very fond childhood memories of spending hours and hours as a preteen in the museum’s weekend educational program, running around the various galleries with a quiz card and returning triumphantly with it all filled out. I’m sure this wonderful experience was one of the driving forces that led me to museum board involvement.
Murray’s story is what every museum board member dreams will happen when a young mind comes to a museum, and why boards devote endless hours of service to their museums’ mission. A childhood visitor grew up to be a museum leader.
​

But Murray moved to New York City as a teenager and has not returned to the Berkshire Museum in a long time. His family’s departure from Pittsfield was one of many. The Pittsfield community no longer resembles the demographics of the time of the Berkshire Museum’s founding in 1903. In the last 30 years, there has been a 25 percent decline in the regional population surrounding the museum. 

After considering the Berkshire’s predicament, I had to wonder if there aren’t extenuating circumstances that make deaccessioning objects for operational expenses the best option for a volunteer board. In the Berkshire’s case, its community changed: demographics changed and significant new art museums emerged, making fundraising and earned income a challenge for an eclectic and encyclopedic museum. The board has sought counsel from experts and even surveyed its community stakeholders.

As an Association, we have difficulty condoning the sale of iconic works, but feel that this situation is more nuanced. Are we as a field saying that museums are ethically bound to continue “business as usual” and never change their missions? Should boards’ hands be tied by collections donated decades or even centuries earlier? At what point does the survival of the organization outweigh professional standards?
​

The subject of deaccessioning for operational expenses is not going away. There are many museums boards facing full collection storage areas, limited options for building new galleries, and otherwise wondering how to keep the doors open. Some museums have employed the “Goodwill Dumpster Approach,” to accessions in the past, leaving collection storage full. One trustee panelist at our Spring 2017 Forum in New Orleans expanded, “It can be easy to end up with more personal cast-offs than treasure.” Perhaps it’s time for the industry to create a safe harbor for boards under siege and offer them the resources to succeed. Censure and revoking accreditation may not be the answer, especially when their fiduciary duty is at stake. Could we as an industry create a fiscal SWAT team to help museums in crisis navigate challenging waters? MTA would be happy to be a convener. We have a team of trustee experts ready to participate in helping museum boards.

NOTE (October 12, 2017):
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. While the article above is intended to provide an opportunity for open dialogue, MTA firmly believes that in all matters of deaccessioning, the guidelines of the American Alliance of Museums set the industry-wide standard. For more information on field-wide best practices, we invite you to read “Questions and Answers about Selling Objects from the Collection”, published by AAM on September 23, 2017, and AAM’s 2016 White Paper entitled “Direct Care of Collections”.
14 Comments
Sally Newkirk link
8/23/2017 02:22:10 pm

Thank you, Mary, for such a thoughtful presentation of the very real and thorny issues we face in regard to our collections. There are many issues we need to carefully consider when considering deaccessioning collections (never an easy decision) and I think a fiscal SWAT team is an excellent idea. I look forward to reading more about this topic.

Reply
Steven Miller
8/23/2017 02:29:31 pm

I have been in the museum field as a curator, director, trustee, educator, consultant and critic since 1971. For some reason deaccessioning has become my specialty. I have spoken about it at museum conferences, written extensively on the subject and will have a book putlished in 2018 about it. In my career I have deaccessioned things by sale, transfer to another museum, or, demotion from part of the accessioned collection to hands-on education props. While I have no problem with selling collections, I do note that when it is done simply to raise money to pay operating costs, that indicates a gross stewardwhip failure on the trustee level.

Reply
Lee Langston-Harrison link
8/23/2017 02:43:37 pm

Love the idea of a SWAT team, as this issue is one that will continue to hound museums around the world. It seems especially thorny for small facilities with little storage space. My museum accepted items for years that had nothing to do with the mission, and now we face some real issues with lack of storage space, staff and exhibition/display space.

Reply
Brian Young
8/23/2017 02:50:02 pm

For once, when someone talks about the Corcoran's situation, I wish that they would address the fact that in 2013, the Corcoran sold the Clark Sickle rug for $33.7 million dollars. Where did that money go? Who has it? To summarize, you cannot sell collections to cover operating expenses, but you can sell objects and then give the money to another entity???

Reply
Liza Bethany
8/23/2017 03:35:05 pm

Thank you for this very thoughtful post. Being a resident of Pittsfield and knowing many of the people who have been involved with the Berkshire Museum's process, it has been absolutely discouraging to see the level of animosity thrown at the museum's current staff and board members regarding this issue. I can't fathom the rationale being put forth by some members of our local community (as well as outsiders, national critics, and probably many other leaders in the art field) where they claim that they would rather see the museum close its doors rather than sell the art to create a sustainable endowment and much-needed upgrades.

Berkshire Museum does not have the infrastructure or collection to rival other Art (with a capital A) museums such as The Clark or Mass MoCA. The museum's strength lies in public programming, providing more than 20,000 educational experiences for local school-aged children every year -- some of whom probably experience art for the first time within the museum's walls.

Please don't censure this organization for doing what it needs to do to survive. I'm sure they can help you understand the needs of the Berkshire community, and maybe eventually, new guidelines can be created for institutions that just can't meet this all-or-nothing approach.

Reply
Carol Diehl
8/23/2017 05:55:55 pm

This is not an ordinary deaccession, where the artworks may not fit the collection. Instead the Berkshire Museum is planning to sell the artwork that is the MOST important to the area historically and the MOST likely to draw visitors. This is like the Art Institute of Chicago selling its Impressionism collection to build another wing. According the the museum's press release, it was "thriving" when director Van Shields took over in 2011. What happened in the interim to cause a financial downslide? Why has there been no capital development campaign since 2008? Can we trust those who caused the downslide to manage this new multi-million dollar project properly? Why was the deaccession planned in secret, announced to the public only once the artworks were on the truck? Why were the focus groups called in to respond to the museum's new mission not informed of the plan to deaccession? Many feel they were used to approve something they wouldn't have if they'd known the full story. And making it all even more discouraging, the millions derived from this sale will be used to "renovate" significant architectural attributes of an elegant Gilded Age building. Many questions, no transparency. It is a bigger story than this article indicates.

Reply
Hope Davis
8/25/2017 11:45:21 am

The unanswered questions in Carol Diehl's response above are precisely the issue. It is the process by which this all occurred that has engendered so much suspicion. Implicit is a lack of respect for both the art and the community...one of the Berkshire Eagle pieces indicated Sotheby's actually went through the inventory and CHOSE THE WORKS to be deaccessioned. Unfathomable to me. This indeed appears to be a bigger story.

Reply
Craig Swinson
8/23/2017 06:24:34 pm

My only problem with the analysis is that you accept Van Shield’s description as truths.
The museum was in decent shape prior to his involvement, not great but in decent shape,
Further the demographics of the area haven’t changed that much in the years he’s been there. What really seems to have changed is the approach to fundraising and campaigns (endowment and capital).

I would suggest you take a look at their audited financial statements, revenue lost due to firing a grant writer, revenue lost due to evicerationg the traveling art/exhibit programs, and again no substantive fundraising save the normal annual campaigns and gala nights
In 2011 under Van’s stewardship they took monies raised from a prior art sale (earmarked for new art acquisition) and started using the money to pay operating costs.
That same year he made a point of saying in an interview that the museum was in “very good shape” financially
In the years between 2011 and 2015 (the year they started this mission change study) there was no battle cry for funds, no warning the museum would close in 10 years...and oddly in that same time period they stopped a program that earned the museum $200k a year, then fired a grant writer (note there have been no substantial grants since) .
The only crisis the museum is facing, the crisis of lack of leadership and truthful dealing.
Please contact me if you would like links to the financial statements, the files 990s and some thoughtful analysis of the issues.

Reply
eric rudd link
8/23/2017 06:55:57 pm

Interesting that you bring into this the Corcoran's story. I've known the Corcoran intimately for more than half a century - as a student, as an artist (I had a one-person show there), as a teacher at the Corcoran School of Art, as someone who was very much involved with saving it during the Mapplethorpe crisis, and as someone who was deeply interested in keeping the Corcoran alive. I can basically summarize by stating that the Corcoran was mismanaged for most of those 50 plus years. Yes, they faced a task of operating a paid museum in a city of free admission museums, but they had many options; in the end, they chose the worse. And yes, the artistic community was much aghast at the board's eventual decision to close and give it to the National Gallery. Very very unimaginative.

The Berkshire Museum is so different in history and economics from the Corcoran, I really see few comparisons. The Berkshire Museum has many options. No matter the academics, the question now is -- why the rush? The art value doesn't seem to be near a downturn - so why not discuss options, why not pause the sale, and if in the end some items have to be sold, why not start with non-essential items and not the art crown jewels? I could give you a book's length discussion on how the Corcoran could have survived, and I feel that tragic history, although for much different reasons, is about to repeat itself.

Eric Rudd
Artist and Founder of the Berkshire Art Museum, North Adams

Reply
Florence Mzsln5 link
8/24/2017 07:32:51 am

I oppose the deaccessioning at the Berkshire Museum because for these last few years Van Shields has spent huge sums of museum money lining up lawyers speecifically to find the legal loopholes for this controversial sale.As well as consultations with auction houses. He was well armed before revealing publcally that the 40 works were already at Sotheby's. And he thumbs his nose at the tremendous backlash he admits he anticipated. Guerrilla warfare on valuable and irreplaceable artwork hijacked away. Any outreach to raise money, any hint at the Museum's need for funds... who knew?

Reply
Peter Dudek link
8/24/2017 12:29:48 pm

The Berkshire Museum has not been forthcoming will information behind the sale. It is clear that they decided to sell the art before they held "study groups". In fact the director admitted that a sell off was part of their "toolbox" (his word).
And they did not consult with their museum peers outside of the area.

Reply
DAN MONROE
8/30/2017 11:42:05 am

I find it exceedingly disturbing that you question the prohibition against selling collections to support operations. This is perhaps the most basic professional standard in the field. The Berkshire Museum's claims about changing demographics and such do not justify selling art to support operations. The Berkshire Museum has mismanaged its finances for an extended period of time. Selling art to support operations compromises public trust in museums and substantially erodes the critical relationship between museums and donors. The notion of 'safe harbor' for Boards and museum leaders who have failed to meet their core responsibilities is an extremely unfortunate idea and especially so by the Director of MTA.

Reply
c tator
1/22/2018 01:59:38 pm

As a collector, trustee and supporter of museums, the orthodoxy of deaccessioning has always been troublesome. Clearly, gifts that were given and accepted with specific stipulations must be treated in manner consistent with the stipulations. However, we have an industry of museums that are overbuilt and often have bulging collections less and less relevant to their contemporary mission/purpose. In a technology forward world with declining visitors, museums find themselves with unsustainable business models. They are forced to respond with staff cuts, changes in focus, new leadership, reduced or modified education programs, etc. Yet somehow, an inventory and balance sheet reconciliation of art assets that align against the forward plan is virtually off limits. Cut off a limb, focus on trying to create relevance and purpose in a contemporary world, blame giving and lack of trustee support but never touch the collection. It makes no sense. A five or ten year strategic plan for the institution should align it's forward plans with the full complement of resources at its disposal, it's staff, and the community it serves. "Professional Standards" reminds me of many arguments with academics where their response is "it's a matter of ethics" not because the matter is in fact unethical but simply a way of shutting down debate. This is a matter for Trustees to debate on an institution specific basis. #NoSacredCows

Reply
MTA Staff link
1/23/2018 12:34:48 pm

Thank you for your comments! This has turned into quite a conversation, both on this post and in the field. We will be tackling the deaccessioning debate and other financial sustainability issues at our San Diego forum this April. For more information, see here: http://www.museumtrustee.org/spring-2018-san-diego.html. We would love to have your voice as part of the conversation.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Categories

    All
    Advocacy
    Art Collection
    Blue Star Museums
    Board Leadership
    Board Orientation
    Cultural Property Policy
    Deaccessioning
    DEAI
    Donor Acquisition
    From The President Of MTA
    Fundraising
    Governance
    Guest Author
    Interview
    Leadership Transitions
    Special Initiatives

    Archives

    December 2022
    August 2022
    June 2022
    August 2021
    June 2021
    June 2020
    November 2019
    July 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    September 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    July 2015
    June 2015
    February 2015

    RSS Feed

SIGN UP FOR MTA E-NEWS

Members of the MTA automatically receive the association's monthly emailed newsletter, MTA E-News, and may also take advantage of access to past issues in our archives here.
Donate

BECOME A MEMBER

Institutional Membership
Patron Membership
Friend Membership

​CONTACT MTA

Museum Trustee Association
211 East Lombard Street, Suite 179
Baltimore, MD 21202-6102
410-402-0954
​
​
Contact Us
© Copyright 2018 Museum Trustee Association. All Rights Reserved.
  • Home
  • About us
    • Mission
    • Board of Directors
    • Current Members >
      • Institutional Members
      • Individual Members
    • Contact
  • Membership
    • Benefits
    • Types >
      • Institutions
      • Patrons
      • Friends
    • Member Spotlights >
      • San Angelo Museum of Fine Arts
      • Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
      • Greensboro History Museum
      • Mingei International Museum
      • Virginia Museum of Fine Arts
      • Heard Museum
      • Maryland Center for History & Culture
      • Hillwood Estate, Museum & Gardens
      • Lehigh University Art Galleries
  • News
  • Events
    • Chicago Fall Forum 2023
  • Resources
    • MTA On-Demand
    • Templates for Trustees
    • Tips for Trustees
    • Blackbaud Webinar Series
    • Member Resource Library
    • IDEA Resources & Information
  • Donate
  • Patron Weekend