STALIN'S COMMITTEE TO SAVE DEMOCRACY: THE INTERIM REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF THE ROSE MUSEUM COMMITTEE

DATELINE: May 5, 2009, Chicago

As reported earlier this week, we attended a panel discussion on Saturday featuring Michael Rush, the soon-to-be ex-director of Brandeis’s Rose Museum.  Rush’s contract expires next month and there are no plans to renew it, according to Rush and others.  David Itzkoff, Criticism of Interim Report on Brandeis Art Museum, N.Y. Times (May 4, 2009).

The panel discussion at Chicago’s Artropolis focused on the problems of the Rose and other museums in difficult economic times.  You may recall that on January 26 of this year Brandeis’s board of trustees announced their decision to close the Rose Museum and sell some 6,000 works of art with the hope of bringing in $350 million in needed cash.  The trustees' secretive deliberations resulted in a public uproar, forcing Brandeis to reverse course, at least in its public statements.  Plans for the sale have been put on hold and there are claims that the museum will remain open or be repositioned.  

Brandeis constituted a committee (the "Committee") to explore the future of the Rose, aptly named the Future of the Rose Committee.  On April 30, 2009, the Committee...

The Desktop Guide is Quickly Becoming the Must Have Guide for Nonprofit Executives Jack Siegel's new book, A Desktop Guide for Nonprofit Directors, Officers, and Advisors: Avoiding Trouble While Doing Good, has quickly become the go-to guide for nonprofit executives and advisors. So what are people saying about the Guide? In the October 2007 edition of the The Federal Lawyer, New York lawyer George W. Gowen and nonprofit authority, wrote: Jack Siegel knows his way around this backwater...Best of all, he doesn't write like an accountant (in deference to my brothers and sisters a the bar, I avoid adding lawyers to the assessment). His guide is to the point, practical, and readable....Even though the subtitle of this worthy book is Avoiding Trouble While Doing Good, doing good well is the book's operative theme. Some of our readers have followed the link to the Amazon.com Web site, but apparently have not bought the Guide. If they were turned off by the price, they should reconsider. One prominent attorney in the exempt organization field grabbed a review copy of the Guide and couldn't put it down. She has instructed a number of her clients to buy it, pointing out to them that for less than 1/2 hour of her billable time, they receive a lesson (and resource) that tells it like she would like it told. If you are starting a new charity, the Guide could save you thousands of dollars in legal fees by teaching you how to better utilize your legal counsel and framing the issues so you don't spin your wheels at $400 an hour. Buy your copy today at Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble, or John Wiley (the publisher).

issued an interim Report (the "Report").  Jerry Samet, a Brandeis professor of philosophy, chairs the Committee.  Membership includes a student, the assistant provost, the director of the office of arts, a graduate student, a vice-president of the Brandeis Alumni Association, two fine arts professors, and a member of the Rose's board of overseers.  Based on titles, the committee looks representative but when we asked Rush about the Report last Saturday, he was less than complimentary.  He described the committee as equivalent to a committee created by Joseph Stalin to explore the future of democracy in Russia.  His views are shared by Jonathan Lee, the chair of the Rose’s board of overseers, who has also referred to show committees organized by Stalin when describing the Committee.  Rose Committee Votes in Favor of Brandeis Administration, ArtInfo (May 4, 2009).  Lee previously had told the Boston Globe that, "We didn't get to pick who represents us." He called the people selected by Brandeis as, "all hand-picked people by the administration."  Geoff Edgers, Panel Backing Brandeis Officials Formed to Look at Possible Art Sale (Apr. 1, 2009).

After reading the Report, we aren’t sure what the Committee's position is, but the report is strong evidence that the Committee has so far failed to grapple with the core issues.  What is particularly stunning about the report is its meandering tone.   This is not a well-articulated summary of a committee’s actions or preliminary thinking.  It is stream-of-consciousness writing.  Brandeis should be embarrassed by this report.

A.  The Committee Acknowledges Possibility of Sales, But Refuses to Take a Position.  The Report acknowledges the possibility that Brandeis will sell some of the artwork.  The Committee also notes that people have advised that a partial sale of the collection would end the Rose’s viability as a museum.  A statement in the Report clearly infers that some committee members oppose any sales of work.  The Report, however, takes no position on this fundamental issue, stating:

But we understand the responsibility for such a decision to lie with the Board and the Administration.  Our job is to help figure out how best to go on, given that such sales might occur. 

The absence of any dissent by those on the Interim Committee who oppose sales must be particularly galling to Rush.

The seminal question posed by the controversy is whether Brandeis should sell the art.  If the Committee is unwilling to take a position on that issue, then there really is no reason for the committee to exist.  The Committee refrains from even discussing the pros and cons of sales because, according to the Report, the trustees can disregard the Committee’s recommendation.  That always is the case with recommendations from an advisory committee.  Under the Committee’s logic, there is no place for advisory committees in governance.  Boards might as well eliminate the compensation, governance, finance, audit, and gift-acceptance committees when the board retains decision authority.  The Committee apparently sees little value in fact finding.  Contrary to the Committee’s view, an advisory committee can have significant impact.  On a controversial issue, a governing board cannot ignore a well-articulated recommendations supported by facts and sound reasoning without being concerned that someone will accuse the governing board of breaching its fiduciary duties.

B.  The Committee Refuses to Address the Impact of Brandeis’s Financial Issues .  The Report then acknowledges the difficult financial issues faced by Brandeis.  The Committee listened to reports from Brandeis Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Peter French and the budget committee.  Yet the committee once again chooses not take a position, claiming it lacks financial expertise and experience.  We reject this position outright.  

Anyone can understand finances if adequate time and effort is devoted to the task.  Those who refuse to focus on or address financial issues because numbers are objective will lose the policy debate every time.  Everyone involved in any debate has a position on what constitutes the right choice.  Those who choose to leave seemingly objective numbers to the experts gives those who are comfortable with the numbers an unwarranted opportunity shape the debate to support the outcome that the experts (or their handlers) support.  Ceding this ground offers the opportunity for subterfuge.

C.  The Committee’s Reason for Ignoring the Rose’s Board of Overseers is A Non Sequitur.  The Report then offers an explanation as to why the Committee is ignoring the Rose’s board of overseers.  The Report begins by acknowledging that the board of overseers has greatly benefited the museum in the past.  That leads to the obvious question:  So why ignore the board of overseers now?  The Report offers what is a flimsy answer, explaining:

But the Overseers have no fiduciary role and serve in an advisory capacity. The Rose Art Museum Board of Overseers By-Laws make this plain:

The Rose Art Museum Board of Overseers is an advisory body appointed by the President of the University to advise the Director and to provide support with respect to collections, programs, fundraising, and other matters pertaining to the long-term goals and mission of the Museum.

The Rose is a part of the University. The governance and fiduciary responsibilities for the Rose, and for every other unit of the University, rest with the University administration and ultimately with the Board of Trustees.

Following this logic can lead to only one conclusion:  The Committee, itself, has no basis for its existence because, like the Rose’s board of overseers, it isn’t comprised of fiduciaries, either.  By the way, we dispute the fact that members of advisory committees necessarily lack fiduciary duties in all cases.

Brandeis’s trustees and administration made a bad decision when they failed to consult with or prepare stakeholders for what the trustees and administration should have known was going to be a controversial decision.  By ignoring the Rose’s board of overseers now, the Committee is compounding that mistake.  Although Brandeis inevitably would argue that those who might bring legal action lack standing to do so, the decision of the Brandeis trustees has captured the eye of the Massachusetts Attorney General, who does have standing.  If the Brandeis trustees fail to demonstrate that the Brandeis community is behind whatever decision the trustees eventually reach, the Massachusetts Attorney General may be sympathetic to differing points of view.  Even if the right decision is to sell some of the artwork, that action could be delayed for years if the attorney general intervenes at the behest of once loyal overseers, donors, or alumni.  The trustees must build consensus for whatever decision they reach.  The assertion that the board of overseers should be ignored now is a serious tactical mistake on the Committee's part and to the extent they hold a similar view, on the part of the Brandeis trustees.

D.  The Committee is Wasting Everyone’s Time Given Their Assumptions.  In Part II of the six-page Report, the Committee announces that it will assume the Rose will continue to hold some portion of the collection.  Given the January 26, 2009 announcement by the board of trustees and the Committee’s own acknowledgement that the decision rests with the trustees, we don’t see the basis for that assumption.  The Committee therefore is engaged in nothing more than navel gazing when it defines its focus to be determining how the Rose can continue to play a vital role in the life of the university.  The Committee is engaged in speculation.  The threshold question is what assets will the Rose have after the trustees reach a final decision.  There is no point in discussing a role for resources until the Committee can identify the resources that will remain or the reasons they should remain.  The Committee’s formulation of its charge is clear evidence that it is avoiding the difficult questions.

E.  The Committee Ignores Legal Questions. The Report continues by noting that there are important legal issues, but the Report then concludes that those issues are outside the Committee’s charge.  The Report lists three questions and offers “Yes/No” answers from Judith Sizer, university legal counsel.  At this point, the Committee now has side-stepped the financial, legal, and policy issues surrounding the decision to close the Rose.

F.  The Committee Circles Back When It is Convenient: The Budget.  Toward the end of its Report, the Committee turns to the Rose’s budget, which is surprising given the earlier claim that finances were outside the Committee’s realm.  The Committee reports that the Rose has covered direct costs from fundraising and assets allocated to it, but not indirect cost allocations or the cost of insuring the collection. Notice how the language is phrased--the Rose does not own the assets, presumably meaning that they have not been dedicated to a mission or raised based on a dedicated use.  The trustees should be thankful that Brandeis is not a California-based institution.

Because of a projected 30% decline in the Rose’s endowment, the Committee concludes that the Rose most likely will be unable to cover its direct costs.  The Committee also notes that turmoil has hurt fundraising.  That raises a fundamental issue of framing--but not picture framing.  Had the trustees come out and said that the university could no longer support any portion of the Rose’s activities, Brandeis and the Rose could have instituted a campaign to keep the Rose open through an emergency capital campaign.  But who would give to the Rose now, given the January 26 announcement?  In all likelihood, the hasty decision by the Brandeis trustees cost both Brandeis and the Rose a fundraising opportunity.

G.  The Big Contradiction.  Further contradicting earlier statements, the Report states:

We are not yet at the point at which we can articulate options for the future of the Rose. Our thinking is still evolving as we grapple with the nuances and complexities of the issues at hand, as we gather more information and ideas, and as we talk amongst ourselves. But we do understand that, although not desirable, it is possible to sell works of art for budget relief and to remain a public museum. We have been considering how best to go ahead on both these fronts.

The Committee acknowledged early on in the Report that the Committee had been told that sales raised serious questions as to whether the Rose could continue to function as a museum.   The above-quoted passage contradicts what the committee was told.  In the ensuing pages of the Report, the committee offered no evidence that what it has been told is false.  So how can it reach this conclusion?

H.  Conclusion.  After reading the report, we have trouble disputing the assertion by others that the Committee is for show, or in our parlance, window dressing.  The Committee's efforts and the Report certainly don't offer best practices in how to conduct an investigation or write a report.  Grade F.

Internal Revenue Service - Circular 230 Disclosure: As provided for in Treasury regulations, any advice (but none is intended) relating to federal taxes that is contained in this communication is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any plan or arrangement addressed herein.

THE FOREGOING IS NOT AND SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS LEGAL ADVICE. IF LEGAL ADVICE IS REQUIRED, THE NONPROFIT OR OTHER PARTY IN QUESTION SHOULD SEEK THE ADVICE OF QUALIFIED LEGAL COUNSEL. If you liked this post, please visit http://www.charitygovernance.com for a description of our training and consulting services. You will also want to acquire a copy of Jack Siegel's book, A Desktop Guide for Nonprofit Directors, Officers, and Advisors: Avoiding Trouble While Doing Good." Copyright 2009, Charity Governance Consulting LLC. All Rights Reserved. You may not copy any portion of this post to a computer "clipboard" for re-posting anywhere or e-mailing, or otherwise reproduce this post. If you want others to review this post, you may provide them with a link to this web blog. Any use of the material or ideas in this post by reporters or other publishers shall make reference to Jack Siegel, author of "A Guide for Non-Profit Directors, Officers and Advisors: Avoiding Trouble While Doing Good" and this web blog. For additional information call 773-325-2124