Real Clear Arts

Judith H. Dobrzynski on Culture

Museum Funding-Fundraising

A Trouble With Museum Boards

When I started writing that headline, above, I wrote “the” trouble with… But I quickly corrected myself because, as financial and other troubles have plagued many art museums of late (not least the Metropolitan Museum of Art*), it’s very clear that many museum boards have more than one fault.

But a press release today from the J. Paul Getty Trust irked me; it announced: Bruce W. Dunlevie joins J. Paul Getty Board of Trustees. I kept reading, looking for the word “art.” As in, perhaps, art collector. The word was nowhere to be seen. Nor did a Google search of his name + art produce anything in the top couple of pages. Previous board service does not appear to include any at arts institutions.

I know–the Getty is more than an art museum. Yet its mission statement uses this description: “a cultural and philanthropic institution dedicated to the presentation, conservation, and interpretation of the world’s artistic legacy.” But I could find no trace of Dunlevie’s interest in art online. I hope he has one.

I did find that he has plenty of money. As the press release says:

…Dunlevie has worked in the early stage technology venture capital industry for 30 years and is a founder and General Partner of Benchmark Capital, based in Silicon Valley. Benchmark is responsible for the early stage funding of numerous successful startups including ebay, Twitter, Uber, Snapchat, WeWork and Instagram.

Prior to co-founding Benchmark Capital, Mr. Dunlevie worked in investment banking at Goldman, Sachs & Co.

Mr. Dunlevie is currently the Chairman of the Board of the Stanford Management Company, the entity which oversees The Stanford University Endowment. He is a former trustee of Stanford University (serving from 2006 to 2016) and of his alma mater, Rice University. He is also a Fellow Benefactor of Trinity College, University of Cambridge.

A quick search did not turn up his net worth, but he was on Forbes’s 2014 Midas List, which annually ranks “the best dealmakers in high-tech and life science venture capital.”

I am sure that Dunlevie has many attributes, aside from financial wherewithal. And perhaps because Getty Trust President James Cuno has an interest in how digital technology can advance the arts and art history, Dunlevie can help out there.

But I would like to see a stronger connection between museum trustees and art; too many nowadays are not looking for collectors or people with other artistic connections. Non-profits and for-profits share some organizational characteristics, of course. But they have different missions with different expectations, different circumstances and different dynamics.

Photo Credit: 2006 photo courtesy of Stanford University

*I consult to a foundation that supports the Met.

 

At the Top of the Met, Salaries Rose During Buyouts & Layoffs

Consider the top two-thirds of this posts as akin to a re-tweet, because I have not confirmed the numbers. Yesterday, the New York Post published a story online headlined “Money-losing Met hands execs hefty raises.” In it, with numbers drawn from a new (or newish?) 2015 federal income tax filing, we learn that four current employees of the Metropolitan Museum*–director Thomas Campbell, president Daniel Weiss and the two top investment officers–all got substantial payouts in the last fiscal year.  According to the Post:

  • Weiss “got a $300,000 bonus for less than half a year on the job” and his “total compensation for six months of work came to $818,112, which included a salary of $327,931 and a housing allowance for his Park Avenue apartment.”
  • “Campbell’s total compensation was $1,428,935, including a salary of $942,287. His salary and “other compensation” of $127,622 was a 7 percent increase over the previous year.”
  • “Suzanne Brenner, the Met’s senior VP and chief investment officer….saw her bonus rise to $624,828 from $570,590. Her total compensation was $1,583,553.”
  • “The salary for chief investment officer Lauren Meserve jumped 14.7 percent and her bonus shot up to $548,723 from $466,847. Her total compensation was $1,451,775.”

OK, I have to ask, who is responsible for such ill-timed, less-than-sensible increases, coming when the Met has laid off and bought off about 85 people?

Well, I traced it back to Daniel Brodsky (at left), who not only is chairman of the Met’s board of Trustees, but also is chair of its Compensation Committee and, of course, of its Executive Committee.

Other members of the compensation committee are Candace K. Beinecke; Russell L. Carson; Richard L. Chilton, Jr.; Hamilton E. James and Lulu C. Wang, according to the Met’s most recent annual report.

As I have hinted here once before, the Met needs a new board chair as well as a new director. Apparently, it could also use some new trustees, some with more common sense and a concern, at bare minimum, about the optics of their decisions. Plus, as a confident of mine added, a sense of honor.

*I consult to a foundation that supports the Met.

Brace For More Bad News From The Metropolitan Museum

It’s coming–possibly Wednesday or Thursday of this week, though I doubt there will be any “announcement.” Rather, employees will learn of the museum’s financial outlook at a town hall meeting in the museum.

I don’t have any numbers, but the gist of the message coming from management–Director Tom Campbell and President Dan Weiss–will be that the museum’s financial difficulties have not been resolved, are unlikely to be in the near future. The original plan announced last spring, for a two-year financial restructuring, created hopes that staff cutbacks, pay freezes, a “soft” hiring freeze and other trims would make up for the revenue lost to lower admissions, poor retail sales, the rebranding campaign, the cost of the Breuer building and other items.

Now, more measures seem likely and the restructuring will last five years, not two.

Morale among the museum’s staff is also very low, I’m told by several sources, and recently got worse.

In December–I have not seen this news anywhere else–the Met cut employee benefits. Specifically, it lowered the contributions it has been making to employees’ 403(b) retirement funds. In the past, the Met had been known for its generosity in matching employee contributions and, I’ve been told, full vesting took only two years. (The museum have also have changed medical benefits; I’m not sure on that one.)

Consequently, an internal group known as the Forum of Curators, Conservators and Scientists, has complained. Currently headed by Soyoung Lee, the curator of Korean Art, the group voted on and then sent a protest letter to Campbell, Weiss and Daniel Brodsky, the board chair. I could not obtain a copy of the letter, however. It was not circulated widely, presumably so that it did not fall into the hands of the press.

For all these woes, though, the exhibits continue to be stellar. Jerusalem, Beckmann, Valentin, Kerry James Marshall are just a few of the best right now. How long this can continue, with staff leaving and going unreplaced, is a big worry.

 

New Year, New Format? Some News!

amoncarterFor some two years now, I’ve been finding it hard to find time to blog here. But I still hear of items of interest to the art world that go little remarked, and I notice other things, announced, that should be remarked on. It is at times like those that I wish there was a short form, like Twitter, but not Twitter. I’ve never tweeted and don’t follow anyone on Twitter either.

So in 2017 I’m going to try posting here more often, but with very short posts. More than 144 characters, but maybe no more than 144 words and, I hope, a picture. When I see something really important and have the time to weigh in in a longer way, I will. If I can break news here, as I did with leavings at the Metropolitan Museum of Art last year, I will still do that.

But mostly I’ll be telling readers about news or trends to applaud or developments in the art world to deplore.

We’ll start now with something to cheer: today the Amon Carter Museum (pictured) in Fort Worth announced an “unprecedented” endowment gift of $20 million, to be paid over five years, by the Walton Family Foundation. It is “the largest in the museum’s history and establishes an endowment to support future exhibition and education initiatives.” More details here.

Oh, I hear the complaints already–a drop in the bucket for the Waltons. Maybe. But it’s not a drop in the bucket for the endowments of most museums. Rejoice and be glad!

 

Met Layoffs Today: About Three Dozen People Were Let Go

Today, the Metropolitan Museum of Art* shed more staff–in the form of involuntary layoffs. As we’ve known for a while, the Met’s financial position has deteriorated: its operating deficit has been placed at anywhere from $10 million to $40 million, depending on various scenarios. I’ve even heard, from informed sources, that it could be larger.

MetGreatHallBy the end of the day, some 34 people had been notified that their employment at the Met was coming to an end.

Supposedly, as this was all happening today–it will not be a drawn-out process, which is a good thing–but it is not yet clear if the dismissals were completed today.

Most of those leaving, I’m told, are not high-level. They worked in development, education. construction and the bulk of the cuts–if there is a “bulk”–were in the digital media department, which in June had 68 people. I’m told that Teresa Lai, the manager of online publications, who was project manager for the Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History, is among those leaving. She deserves credit for that–it’s an amazing resource.

The Met’s earlier attempt to get employees to take buyouts, which in April were offered to those over 55 who had spent at least 15 years at the museum, resulted in just fewer than 60 (I think it’s either 57 or 59, I’ve forgotten) taking the offer. In addition to the other names I’ve listed here, here, here and here, they include Joan Aruz, chair of the department of Ancient Near East art, and conservator George Bisacca, an expert on panel paintings.

So, to reduce the payroll as “needed,” the Met thought it had to lay off about 40 people, according to my sources.

In other, previously announced cost-cutting measures, the Met has trimmed the number of exhibitions it will present and it has trimmed the size/content of some. I understand that some loans to Jerusalem 1000-1400: Every People Under Heaven were cancelled, though it nevertheless is an excellent exhibition deserving of the praise it has received so far.

*I consult to a foundation that supports the Met.