DISQUS

John_B · 1 year ago

Dave: Bill Pearl makes a lot of sense here.

I’m no accountant but his focus on the debacle that has become the Long Beach Museum of Art has been a sore point of mine for some time now. I corresponded with Mr. DeLong (my Councilmember) on this very issue at the beginning of the month. At the time I was focused upon correcting and saving the museum, but as priorities go I fully agree with Pearl…main library first, museum second. Here are some excerpts from my email correspondence with Mr. DeLong:

John_B to Mr. Delong:
“As to 'who would pay for (mitigations for the discrepancies identified in Laura Doud’s Audit)?', Certainly the (Museum) Foundation should be responsible for the cost of mitigating any discrepancies identified in the audit as being attributed to them. If they do not have the funds they must acquire them. Such is a reasonable consequence of violating their agreement with (the City). They can do this by raising funds through donations or by selling off some of the pieces in the collection they own, or a combination of the two.

As to CLB-attributed discrepancies, CLB-owned pieces in the collection should be sold to fund the mitigations. This would seem rather poetic to this layperson since some of these discrepancies have, either in part or in full, resulted in the loss of some 144 pieces since 1988. The appraised value of these pieces can't possibly be known since they cannot now be appraised (which, I suspect, is a very good reason to conduct annual appraisals and inventories). Selling off part of our collection will permit the museum to continue to operate normally (preventing an interruption in ongoing operations-based income) while shrinking the collection to a size that can be entirely stored on-site (eliminating the need for costly off-site storage). Two birds with one stone.

Selling off part of our collection may seem severe, especially to an art appreciator like myself, but it likewise seems counter-productive to attempt to maintain an art collection of any size unless/until we can assure that it is properly secured. In short, liquidating a portion of our collection, to better secure what remains, seems, to me, a more than acceptable loss. Once the remainder of the collection is properly secured, we can then work on re-building it if such is our goal.”

Mr. DeLong to John_B:
“…nor do I want to give the impression that Museum management has done a good job. They haven't. However, since the past administrator was let go, the new director has reduced staff, balanced the budget, and is turning the Museum around. He is also putting plans in place to address the $3 million payment they owe the City in 2009.

John_B to Mr. Delong:
“I appreciate that the new Foundation leadership has taken affirmative steps to manage our mutual collections more responsibly. I've served on a Board of Trustees of a Charitable Foundation and I understand what a challenge non-profit management and donation-based fund raising can be. Nor am I one to identify a challenge without offering reasonable solutions. I've already shared a museum inventory control technology with Ms. Doud that I found while researching these challenges last week.

As to the funds needed, I would submit that all of the funds necessary to carry out all of the audit-recommended mitigations could be raised in one decent fund-raising event at the museum. You and I have both seen how much money can be raised at the various VIP-attended charitable events held in this city throughout the year. Grand Prix-related charitable events, alone, raise over $160,000 every year.”

Mr. DeLong to John_B:
Should we have the Foundation pay the $3 million they owe the City before incurring any additional expenses? Which is the higher priority? (The Museum will love it if we tell them they can have the new facility for art storage, an annual appraisal and a new inventory system first)

John_B to Mr. Delong:
Must it be one or the other? Can we not walk and chew gum at the same time? Are they mutually exclusive? Were I to prioritize I would say, defer the $3 million and concentrate on correcting the challenges that are costing us, we must surmise, more and more each day. It's sort of like a severe knife wound....stop the bleeding first, get the patient stabilized, then work on collecting on his bill later. But again, I think, if handled correctly, all of this can be addressed concurrently.