Listers,

I have included the column to which this editorial refers in a separate post
to keep posts small.


-- 
Matthew White
Director of Museums
The Mount Washington Observatory
North Conway, New Hampshire



Museums and Money 
  
Thursday, May 31, 2001; Page A24


ON THE opposite page today, Smithsonian Secretary Lawrence Small defends his
institution's relationship with large private donors. That relationship has
been subject to sharp criticism from within the institution in recent days.
Mr. Small's vow to retain intellectual control over research and exhibits is
welcome; that issue of intellectual autonomy, more than the question of
naming rights, is behind the unease. The stellar status nurtured by
independent scholarship is what attracts visitors over the long term and
gives the Smithsonian its claim on the taxpayer support that still
constitutes 70 percent of its budget.

The blizzard of record-setting gifts, especially at the National Museum of
American History, has unnerved curators and scholars who think donors are
dictating museums' future direction. At the American History Museum, a group
of scholars last week wrote to the regents asking them to review several
donor contracts for "appearance of impropriety." Complaints have focused on
the hands-on participation of Kenneth Behring, who gave $80 million, and
Catherine Reynolds, who gave $38 million for a "hall of achievers" and who
will be involved, by contract, in selecting and updating its contents for
the next 40 years. The Reynolds contract does diverge somewhat from standard
Smithsonian practice. It stipulates that if a committee cannot agree on the
exhibit's contents, the matter will be settled not by the curatorial staff
but by the secretary himself. The compromise was arrived at, says
Smithsonian Undersecretary Sheila Burke, "for the comfort level of the
museum and the donor."

Such a setup has the advantage of accountability. It puts that much more
responsibility on the secretary to weigh institutional values against
donors' wishes in a situation where big gifts are urgently sought and badly
needed. The squeeze is inevitable in large-scale fundraising; as
Undersecretary Burke notes, "It's rare that someone just hands you money and
says, 'Good luck.' " But museums also have an obligation not to be unduly
pushed around by their donors, not only for the sake of professional ethics
but in order to preserve themselves as institutions to which others will
gravitate, and donate, in the future.


© 2001 The Washington Post Company

========================================================Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).