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]