Bricks-and-Mortar Morass: Cleveland Desecrates Donor Intent

Not so fast, Tim! Here's what Janet Landay, executive director of AAMD, had to say in response to my queries:

AAMD has received the court filing that we are now reviewing in order to learn more about the Cleveland Museum of Art's proposal. That review should be completed in the next few weeks and AAMD will decide after that review whether or not we will make a statement.

AAMD's response to this breach of good faith with donors will be crucial: Without a swift, forceful corrective, Cleveland's action could make benefactors around the country doubt that museums can be trusted to honor their wishes. Cleveland's second thoughts may well give rise to second thoughts by potential donors.

Interestingly, Stephen Knerly Jr., Cleveland's lawyer in this matter, has been AAMD's legal advisor since 2006. So censuring the museum's actions, should that occur, would put AAMD in the awkward position of censuring the activity of its own counsel. Even more awkward is dressing down one of the association's most venerable, distinguished members. But it must be done.

Litt's article quotes the museum's board president, Alfred Rankin Jr., defending the plan, but the newspaper report doesn't explicitly state that the repurposing of acquisition funds has been fully endorsed by Rub or by the museum's incoming interim director, Deborah Gribbon. I directly inquired about their views, and received this oblique reply from James Kopniski, the museum's communications manager:

This plan was board initiated, in concert with Timothy and the museum's senior management. Gribbon was provided with all the information prior to the court filing, and was aware of this when she was evaluating whether to accept the position of interim director.

It is entirely possible that neither the departing director (with one-and-a-half feet out the door) nor the incoming interim (not there yet) felt comfortable interfering with the board's initiative. This highly irregular action should not have been undertaken during a time of transition in professional leadership.

The only good thing about this is that even if the court approval is granted, the diversion of funds designated by donors for acquisitions is not a done deal. Litt reports:

The museum's board of trustees won't decide until December whether to proceed on schedule with construction, but having access to the art-purchase income would certainly help the project.

Perhaps. But it would certainly hurt the credibility of museums everywhere.

COMING SOON: My complaints about Cleveland's "Complaint for Declaratory Judgment."