Miami and Cleveland: When the Financial Going Got Tough, the Directors Got Going

Timothy Rub, left, former director of the Cleveland Museum, and Terence Riley, right, former director of the Miami Art Museum

Museum directors know that an important part of their job description is raising big bucks from culturally-minded and civic-minded donors. But few (none that I know of) become directors because soliciting money is their passion. It's a means to an end, but it often ends up taking much (if not most) of their time and energy.

When major capital campaigns are in progress, fundraising exigencies sharply escalate. And when those demands coincide with a major economic recession, this difficult assignment gets much harder.

Such was the case at both the Cleveland Museum and the Miami Art Museum, where the directors, Timothy Rub and Terence Riley, precipitously and surprisingly announced plans to jump ship immediately on the heels of celebrating milestones in their institutions' development---the completion of the first phase of Cleveland's expansion and the unveiling of the design for Miami's new building.

Neither of the congruently initialed TRs said anything about wanting to flee their institutions' financial situations. Rub professed his lifelong, undying love for the Philadelphia Museum, which he now directs; Riley averred that his first love is architecture, to which he will now return.

But the subtext to the departures of the two directors is hard to miss: Riley appears to have been experiencing increased frustration in coping with cuts in government funding and in securing the financial support of Miami's collecting community: In his follow-up article today in the Miami Herald (linked directly above), David Chang quotes major Miami collector Martin Margulies on the subject of Riley's quandaries:

He comes from a New York institution [the Museum of Modern Art, where he was architecture curator], and he's used to seeing big money. And there's no such thing in this community. [No rich Miamians?] And that's why the big collectors are not involved with that institution.

As for Rub, there was the much publicized shortfall of funds (potentially $75 million) for the second phase of Cleveland's expansion, which prompted a decision by the trustees to seek court permission (now granted) to raid the income of four funds that the donors had designated for acquisitions, not bricks and mortar. Rub had participated in and concurred with that decision.

But wait, there's more! I was in Philadelphia just a short time ago, as you may remember. Do you think I set foot in the Philadelphia Museum without requesting some one-on-one time with its director? My art-lings know me better than that!

COMING SOON: Philly's TR speaks softly...and very carefully,