Imagine That

It comes as little surprise that the 12th Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution will be an academician. Lawrence Small, the previous Secretary, held a background in banking, fitting nicely with the trend over the past decade or so of museums moving closer to running according to business principles. This is not in and of itself a bad thing, in fact, it is a move that I personally applaud. However, Small tainted the name of business in the eyes of the museum world through his extravagant spending and compensation. Thanks, Larry, for setting the museum world back a step or two.

But looking at the credentials of G. Wayne Clough, newly appointed Secretary and current President of Georgia Tech University (go Yellow Jackets!), I feel heartened and optimistic for the future of America's Attic. Dr. Clough has both a solid academic background (multiple degrees in civil engineering--a subject near and dear to my own heart since my grandfather was a civil engineer and my father works in that industry as well--and a long professional history of serving as a professor and administrator at top universities around the nation) and administrative and management skills. He has experience serving on national councils such as the President's Council of Science and Technology and the National Science Board. And, given the current state of the Smithsonian and Congress' recent decree that the Smithsonian needed to start raising some of its own money through fundraising, Dr. Clough managed to raise more than $1.6 billion in private gifts during his 14-year tenure at Georgia Tech. Welcome to the museum world, Dr. Clough!

Smugglers and Curators and Oprah--Oh My!

Two news items have the museum world a-buzz today: first, the reported sting operation that resulted in simultaneous raids on four Southern California art museums early this morning and second, Oprah Winfrey touching the Ruby Slippers on her show.

The raids took place at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the Bowers Museum, the Pacific Asia Museum and the Mingei International Museum performed by federal and IRS agents armed with warrants. The raids were the "first public move in a five-year investigation of an alleged smuggling pipeline that authorities say funneled looted Southeast Asian and Native American artifacts into local museums." At the root of the pipeline are Robert Olson and LA gallery owner Jonathan Markell. According to the LA Times, the warrants clearly suggest that officials and curators at some of the museums were aware that the objects brought to them by these two men had been looted.

Meanwhile, Oprah fans seem to be as incensed as the museum community if not more so by Oprah's actions on her national television program earlier this week. Despite having been told by National Museum of American History Director Dr. Brent Glass that she could not touch the famous slippers and even going so far as to tell Oprah that he almost never touched the slippers, even with gloves on, Oprah insisted on not just on touching the Dorothy's ruby slippers but grabbed them and waved them around in the air. While comments on the Museum-L listserv (the listserv for the museum profession) have focused on how the Smithsonian could have been better prepared for Oprah's capricious behavior--as well as more generally how museums can better prepare for and protect against mishandling by celebrities and other VIPS--Oprah's fans simply shamed her for her actions, calling her a "spoiled child" and accusing her of thinking she is above normal codes of behavior.

Follow-Up on the Smithsonian

Last month I wondered what the Smithsonian would do about the huge amount of money it will require in order to address years of building maintenance for its museums and then learned that what the Smithsonian would do is begin fundraising from private sources. Well, now Senator Dianne Feinstein has crafted a plan called the Legacy Fund that would allot an additional $15 million of federal dollars to the Smithsonian, provided that the institution managed to raise $30 million from private sources. Cristian Samper, acting-secretary of the Smithsonian, was hesitant in his response to this proposal, in part because it isn't a one-to-one match.

Stipulations on matching funds and match offers that are not one-to-one are common enough in the world of private funding. It looks as though the Smithsonian's foray into the world of private fundraising will have a bit of a learning curve.

So That's What the Smithsonian Will do!

Interesting. No sooner had I mused on the possible benefits of the privatization of the Smithsonian when the Smithsonian Board of Regents voted to undertake "the first large-scale private fund-raising effort in the organization's history." The capital campaign will seek to raise $2.5 billion in order to improve and repair its buildings. Not only will this be a departure for the federally-funded organization as the NYT points out, but the plan will also present challenges given recent controversy over corporate sponsorships and "turmoil in the institution's governance."

I, for one, support this move. Since Smithsonian Business Ventures has proved to be more news-worthy than revenue-generating and the Regents are understandably loathe to start imposing admission fees on the museums and it has been shown that the Smithsonian's infrastructure is in desperate need of maintenance, a good old-fashioned capital campaign seems like just what the doctor ordered. I also feel that it is appropriate that in conjunction with this move, the Board of Regents is also currently reviewing the way it handles corporate donations. This should help to ensure that all of the funds raised during this process will best serve the nation's largest complex of museums.

Of course, one wonders what this may mean for other smaller museums of natural history, American history and American art that may also be currently undertaking capital campaigns...

What's the Smithsonian to do?

The Smithsonian just can't seem to catch a break. No stranger to controversies surrounding its exhibitions, or to criticism regarding its relationship with corporate sponsors or partnerships, within two days last week the Washington Post ran two articles about the relationship between the National Museum of Natural History, two of its exhibitions and their respective funding.

In the first article, the Smithsonian was criticized for altering the text of the 2006 exhibit on the Arctic in order to introduce a sense of ambiguity to current theories about global warming and extreme climate change. Some scientists are saying that these changes in the exhibit were blatant acts of pandering to certain members of Congress--from whom the Smithsonian receives the vast majority of its funding.

In the second article it was reported that the American Petroleum Institute rescinded its offer of $5 million for a new Ocean Initiative exhibition hall for NMNH. API made the announcement right after the first article had been published (possibly they were afraid of similar backlash?) and just before the Board of Regents were to vote on Monday (today) on whether or not to accept the donation. Two of the Regents had stated that they would vote against the donation, indicating that they were worried that petroleum money would "taint" the exhibition.

It's a tricky situation. On the one hand, the Smithsonian needs a lot of money in order to present exhibitions of the caliber that you would expect from the nation's museum. On the other hand, large sums of money often do require recognition at the least if not outright return on investment (ROI). Then throw in the constant whims of the political climate (since it is a federal agency) and you've got one fine line to walk.

It may be heresy, but honestly it's moments such as these that I wonder what would happen if museums broke away from the nonprofit model. More and more museum managers talk about running museums like businesses (and have been doing so for the past decade or so) and yet everyone still clings to the nonprofit model. As they go through reorganizations and professionalization, are they worried that the coveted 501(c)3 status is the proverbial baby that must not be thrown out with the bath water?

There are a (very) few museums in this nation that have either forgone nonprofit status or have been denied it (the Museum of Sex in New York City was informed by the State of New York that it couldn't possibly have an educational mission and so was denied nonprofit status; personally, I found it very educational) and so far they seem to be doing well. In fact, the International Spy Museum seems to be doing beyond well.

So what would happen if the Smithsonian privatized? Thoughts, anyone?