Berkshire Museum Case: Now “profoundly accessible”— yikes!

Another day, another statement… Now in the form of an extended release from the board of trustees to the Berkshire Museum community…

In truth, it’s hard not to feel sorry for the PR team at the Berkshire Museum, or whoever has been compelled to compose the blather they have been crafting in their occasional press releases. Rather than honestly and straightforwardly addressing the raft of specific allegations of ethical malfeasance by the board and their enablers, they have resorted to tortuous paeans about community building and securing the future, apparently hoping this might divert attention from further exposing their callous disregard of donor intent and the museum’s founding mission. And yet, even these saccharine bromides fail to conceal the dissonant chords rumbling beneath the rhetorical sheen.

Apparently, they have only one unwavering goal: preserving their most important asset, “open doors.” That is certainly a novel concretion of a mission statement, wherein all other “assets” are now disposable in subservience to this ideal, with frightening implications: if keeping the doors open is the only metric that matters, then why not liquidate the entire collection to fund 24-hour free admission to the empty, windy edifice?

“Reaching that goal has proven more difficult than we could have ever imagined, but it is within reach, allowing the museum to remain the ‘window on the world’ founder Zenas Crane sought to provide this community.”

That “hard work” thing again. It has been an incredibly arduous journey, I am sure, but they can pat themselves on the back now that Arcadia is in sight! While it has been a mighty struggle, the enormous friction they encountered was entirely self-induced, by their wholesale unwillingness to even give a single inch to the major concerns of the museum profession and much of the local community. Please remember, they had multiple options after the judge’s order to abide by his stated wishes that they seek out partners in the public trust first, but they did nothing, zero, to accommodate even that modest compromise. More difficult than they imagined, indeed!

Let’s be clear, selling things at bargain basement prices isn’t difficult at all; remaining obstinately unmoved by the pronounced cries against ethical lassitude, however, may indeed be distressing. But, you have got to hand it to them— they have indeed stood their ground into the headwinds of this almost universal condemnation of their actions, and are indeed almost within reach of their obscene and bloated $55 million windfall, but, of course, at the cost of Mr. Crane’s own original gifts that were donated in fact to provide that ‘window on the world’… That’s rich!—in more ways than one.

“We pulled [Shuffleton’s Barbershop] from auction and agreed to accept a significantly lower price through a private sale that keeps this important work in the public eye. Twelve other works were sold, including two acquired by nonprofits where they will be on public display.”

Oh, come on. Significantly lower than what? They accepted an unsolicited offer at the high end of the pre-sale estimate from the Lucas Museum because they faced a pending lawsuit from Rockwell’s own children! But good for you!

Two works actually BI’ed, thank goodness, because they weren’t saddled with the house reserves they had capitulated to in other cases, including the Calder sculpture, but they belatedly accepted an offer from PAFA after the sale for the Frederick Edwin Church at what must have been significant discount to the reserve, because it failed to sell at auction. 

Why on earth did they not negotiate a private sale to PAFA before the sale then? Apparently, sheer greed at the prospect of a $5-7 million hammer price to whoever the highest bidder might be outstripped any consideration of this museum partner before the sale, because PAFA clearly was not willing to offer that inflated price in advance, despite the mirage of “extended terms.” Congratulations then at your sheer dumb luck in shepherding this back into “the public eye.” Feels more like a poke with a sharp stick…

Do they seriously believe anyone is going to be fooled by this disingenuous hypocrisy?

“We believe it is time to move beyond what has been a contentious and sometimes bitter debate to truly take up the critical work of securing the future of the Berkshire Museum, true to the museum’s mission, respectful of its collection, and responsive to the community it serves. We are committed to doing so, transparently, cooperatively, and thoughtfully, to regain public trust and confidence where it has been lost. We urge others to join us in that spirit.”

Here comes the bold font! Do you think there is any irony in asserting that they wish to be “truly… true to the museum’s mission, respectful of its collection, and responsive to the community it serves,” when they have been patently no such thing in spades, if we are indeed being truthful?

Nevertheless, if they are indeed committed to the spirit of being transparent, cooperative and thoughtful with those who have “bitterly” objected to this disposal plan, then how about answering some of these basic questions, which heretofore they have obstinately failed to answer, in the interest of the transparency they extol?

Who has been paying the museum’s legal fees?

How much, in fact, did the Lucas Museum pay for Shuffleton’s Barbershop? 

When was that offer originally made?

How many museums, in fact, signed up for extended terms, as proposed?

How many museums actually bid but fell short of the reserves?

How much did PAFA offer before the sale for the Church?

How much did PAFA pay for the Church? These figures will have to be made public eventually, so why the obfuscation?

Who negotiated the contract with Sotheby’s for the museum?

Did any outside party, including legal counsel, receive an introductory commission or other fees for negotiating that contract?

Were any such commissions contingent on a public auction for the works in question?

What was the “hammer bonus” offered on the redacted contract released by the court? As a public institution, why is that financial accounting redacted at all?

I suppose if the museum truly wished to be transparent in the spirit they emphatically assert here, they could at least begin to answer any number of these questions, or the Attorney General’s Office could make them transparent, but so far, these public servants remain deafeningly mute concerning most of these fundamental fiduciary matters of utmost concern to the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts…

“At extremes, we are wrongly defined as both a ‘fine art’ museum and a ‘community center.’ We are neither; rather we are a museum that treasures fine art and our engagement with the community. It is our community that has asked us to be a vibrant gathering point, profoundly accessible, and a dynamic connector.”

Oh dear, someone needs a copy editor. Are they neither, or both, or some combination of the two?? Actually, it doesn’t really matter, because they are not self-defining at all, but simply, passively responding to the clarion call of the community itself, which emphatically insists they become a “vibrant gathering point.” Huh? I don’t know about you, but given the fickle leadership of this museum, finding them to be “profoundly accessible” just sounds downright icky!

“Proceeds from the sale, in the short term, will be invested with local banks, allowing the museum time to take a fresh and careful review of what is now possible. The board is evaluating and will select an independent consultant to help the board hire an investment firm to inform the museum’s financial strategies. First and foremost, ample proceeds will go into an endowment to generate sustainable operating funds for the museum. Anything more than $55 million will be placed in a designated fund to support our art collection. The remainder will be used for building repairs and exhibit upgrades, to be designed and determined consistent with the integrative goals of our plan.”

Oh boy… So the proceeds of sale will now go into low-interest accounts at local banks, so the museum can first take plenty of time to freshly evaluate what they can now do with this money… So, in fact, there was no urgent need to receive these funds after all, despite their emphatic, panicked claims in court that the May auctions were absolutely, positively the option of last resort given their impending financial collapse… Huh? What happened?… 

On the contrary, they now appear to admit, not only was there no impending financial insolvency after all, but they also have no idea what they are going to use the windfall for, so they are now going to take ample time to ‘explore the possibilities’… and thus they need several layers of expensive paid outside counsel to get them there…

Never fear, though, because they now have plenty of funds to hire an independent consultant, who will then in turn hire a further investment firm, who will then in turn be paid reams of money to figure out what the museum can do with this windfall they frankly don’t know what to do with… Good plan!

But wait, most of it will probably go to the endowment, and then anything over $55 million will be the dregs that can go to support the art collection… But wait! They are only allowed to raise $55 million after all!… Too bad, art collection!

“Fundraising for general operations will continue in earnest. The Museum’s capital campaign will be reinvigorated.”

That’s hilarious. Why these vague passive constructions? Is any fundraising seriously going on “in earnest”? And who in their right mind is going to give money to a museum that destroys its own core collections and then admits it has more money than it knows what do to with as a result, because the courts let them! Good talking points for the development team!

“A timeline for action should be expected in the fall. Informed by community input, supported by a business manager to be named, we will work to create a timeline for major improvements to facilities and experiences before the end of the year. We remain committed to a more interdisciplinary approach to interpreting the museum’s collection.”

Yes, we are going to hire even more highly paid positions to figure out exactly what that New Vision Plan thingy actually means!

“We recognize there are still those in the community relentless in their opposition to the museum, despite the findings of an exhaustive government review and the judgments of two separate courts soundly in support of the museum and the decisions of the museum’s Board of Trustees. We regret that this ongoing opposition continues to divide our community in hurtful and damaging ways. It is our deepest hope that we can at least begin to communicate not as adversaries, but as allies for a community that greatly needs and benefits from all the Berkshire Museum offers.”

So, those who objected to the wholesale disposal of the core collections were in fact “relentless in their opposition to the museum”? You can almost hear the clenched-teeth antipathy underwriting these words. No, there was no opposition to the museum; on the contrary, the aggrieved parties wanted to save the museum from its current leadership. Apparently, they have mostly failed despite the overwhelming concurrence of the museum community, but rather than simply “regret… ongoing opposition,” this current board could indeed demonstrate a scintilla of the cooperation they apparently profess to seek, by immediately ceasing and desisting from any more sales.

Is that a possibility? Isn’t $42 million enough? Since it will be languishing in the local banks for some time, perhaps you could take a breather…