With all due respect to conservators...but this really is an issue with
larger ramifications, as we watch Disney take Manasas. It may seem like a large
leap to make, but I sense a dichotomy being set up that is imaginary. The
discussion seems to indicate that the information non-profits have is somehow
less tainted by the drive for filthy lucre than anyone else.
    There are no easy distinctions here between not-for-profit and for-profit.
I know what my salary is (something better than paultry, something worse than
lavish). I also know what designers in good design houses make...no better
(plug in conservators or any of the professionals that typically work with
museums). I am aware of the salaries of the top management in so-called
non-profit hospitals (health care empires) and many universities. Somewhere
approaching staggering. Salaries are only one small facet, yes, but they do
indicate that the issue of personal gain (or lack thereof) is murky indeed.
    We all watch with sadness at the predatory methods of some urban
developers, as whole communities are chewed up and spit out. Have you ever seen
the struggles between a residential neighborhood and a growing museum, college,
hospital in their midst? Depending only on your point of reference, the
n-f-p/f-p is a distinction without a difference. I know a brilliant grant
writer that describes herself as a Velociraptor.  Those grants can look an
awful lot like excess profits when applied to institutional growth, again,
depending on where you stand.
    There is also the positive side of the discussion. There is an excellent,
small children's museum in New Jersey that set up as a for-profit institution.
There are tons of reasons this decision was made, not the least of which is
that they could go from conception to opening within a year. There are an
infinite number of reasons that were NOT part of the thinking...As a for-profit
they could shirk their responsibilities as an educational institution... As a
for-profit they could cut corners and get away with shoddy work (Something
NEVER seen in ANY non-profit...NOT!)
    Forgive my simple mindedness here, but I thought that the distinction was
organizational, not moral. The 501 (c) 3 status was established for tax
purposes. How many of us, operating in large, near-bankrupt cities are now
facing the likelihood of paying some form of property tax?  As municipalities
desparately search for revenues, we're sitting ducks, as well we should be. So
is everyone else.
    I would love to hear from people in countries where there is no such
status, what does the discussion mean in your context?
 
I'm giving short shrift to the issues here, and I hope some sense can be made
of this mess.
 
Aaron Goldblatt
Please Touch Museum
[log in to unmask]