My Friday post about staff shrinkage, from buyouts, at the Metropolitan Museum of Art* set off quite a stir: Emergency meetings were held inside the museum to discuss what was going on and the press office ramped up to get information and interview opportunities to various news outlets with Daniel Weiss (pictured), the Met’s president, and Thomas P. Campbell, the director. In that order, which itself says something.

The upshot, as I predicted, is that not enough people took voluntary buyouts to achieve the necessary cost savings and that therefore there will be involuntary layoffs, starting in the fall. And who would that entail? Weiss gave The Wall Street Journal the most interesting statement: “Nobody is ruled out.”

That is a good thing, probably. Buyouts were available only to those aged 55 and over who had at least 15 years of experience at the museum. Some 56 people signed up, and with them goes a lot of expertise and institutional memory. Some departments, notably technology, apparently escaped unscathed because they have few to no people with 15 years of experience, and these departments will have to slim down, too. The Met is seeking to trim at least 100 people, all told, from its payroll (though some will clearly have to be replaced).

The “nobody” quote, however, raises questions. I presume, for now, that the Met will not fire Campbell (trust me, for a bit). Certainly not as part of the layoffs.

But my sources have frequently mentioned that Sheena Wagstaff, whom Campbell hired in 2012 as chair of the department of modern and contemporary art, is vulnerable. For one, few people consider the Breuer building to be a rousing success. Many have noted that attendance is often mimimal–sometimes the galleries are nearly empty–though the museum told The New York Times  that attendance (185,000 in the first four months) had exceeded its target (155,000).

(That, btw, would make an annual target of just 465,000 people–which is smack in the middle of the Whitney’s experience there. In the late ’90s, the Whitney attracted 650,000 to 670,000 visitors a year, but by the time it announced its move downtown, that had slipped (in 2009) to 322,000.)

The new Diane Arbus show may change that, but it’s a photography show–different department from Wagstaff’s. Maybe the Kerry James Marshall exhibition, which opens in October, will help. Interestingly, the Met in early July changed the Breuer building hours, adding Saturday, and forgoing Thursday, as one of the two nights it is open until 9 p.m., along with Friday–just like the Fifth Avenue building.

But back to Wagstaff: if people are unhappy with her leadership–and they are–she, I’m told, isn’t a happy camper at the Met either. Her husband still lives in London and a A daughter who wanted to live here, near her, could not extend her necessary work permit. UPDATE: Wagstaff’s husband, Mark Francis, now informs me that he lives in New York now. My apologies for using old information.

I’m sure Wagstaff is well paid, but she is not listed on the Met’s tax return as among the highest paid employees either.

On that list for the year ended June 30, 2015, ten of the 20 have already departed or are in the current buyout class. (I am excluding Campbell and Emily Rafferty, Weiss’s predecessor, from the number: They would bring the total to 22–but the percentage gone is the same, as Rafferty left last year, too.)

Let’s keep some perspective, here: 100 cuts from a 2,300-strong workforce is not devastating, in and of itself. It all depends on which people are going.

It was worrisome, though, that Campbell said exhibitions would be cut to 40 per year from 55 to reduce costs. That’s more than a quarter.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of GW Magazine

*I consult to a foundation that supports the Met.

The exodus, and the troubles, continue at 1000 Fifth Avenue: announcement of the departure of Carrie Rebora Barratt (below), a deputy director of the Metropolitan Museum* and longtime close associate of director Tom Campbell, is imminent, I hear. In 2009, Campbell called her “the Director’s right hand.” It will probably come on Monday, my sources tell me–or leaked on Sunday night.

Barrett’s exit won’t be the only one, of course. In April, the museum announced that, as part of a cost-reduction plan, it would offer voluntary buyouts to staff member aged 55 and older with a certain amount of service. The deadline for applying–and hearing back–was this week.

I understand that 50 to 60 people are taking the offers, including many curators. Some feel that they were pushed to take the offers, as the museum’s president (for one), Daniel H. Weiss, has said that layoffs would likely be necessary if not enough people take the current offer. That is standard corporate behavior: take the buyout and get a financial reward or risk not taking it and getting fired with no financial package.

So who, among the curators, is leaving?  Naturally, I could not get official confirmation for any of this. But among the names I hear are Timothy Husband, Peter Barnet, Charles Little (all in the medieval department) and Kenneth Moore (head of the musical instruments department). I also hear that some people in object conservation and, possibly, public relations are going, perhaps Elyse Topalian, the vice president of communications.

Also, probably, Donna Williams, in multicultural audience development, and Linda Sylling, manager for special exhibitions, gallery installations and design.

Remember these are rumors, but these are big losses.

But the most “meaningful,” in one way, is Barrett’s departure. Campbell plucked her from the curatorial ranks in 2009, elevating her to the position of Associate Director for Collections and Administration. It was always a controversial promotion, but Campbell promoted her again in 2014 to Deputy Director for Collections and Administration, when he called her an “essential manager and spokesperson whose expertise lies in the areas of digital media, the collections, and the long-term feasibility of the institution.” She started at the museum in 1984.

You can bet that he did not want her to go. That means that Weiss is in control here, not the CEO. We’ve known that, but this confirms it.

The big question: did enough people volunteer? I understand that there was no “target” number, but also that no one who applied for the buyout was turned down.

But the Met is trying to save on the order of $20 million in expenses annually. This doesn’t seem to do that. How else can the museum save? Have fewer and longer exhibitions is one ploy. Skimp on design, delay maintenance, postpone as many expenses as possible. We’ll see if those things start to happen, too.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum 

*I consult to a foundation that supports the Met.