This digital journal’s title – nonprofit/ngo governance: mission, means, metrics, courage – includes the last element for good reason.
Courage in governance is often crucial and yet mostly invisible, as most occasions where it is called for and exercised are never documented for public consumption.
But sometimes a governance challenge requires that courage be exercised which spills over into the public realm in a significant way, and the Rose Art Museum story is a solid example. This Brandeis University museum houses “New England’s preeminent collection of modern and contemporary American art.”
This writing is occasioned by the settlement announced last week between Brandeis University and four Rose Art Museum supporters who were plaintiffs in a suit filed in 2009 to prevent the university’s plan to close the museum and potentially sell the artworks. The action by Brandeis was announced as a response to the fiscal crisis it faced at the time. Interestingly, the plaintiffs — Meryl Rose, Jonathan Lee, Lois Foster and Gerald Fineberg — were members of the Rose Art Museum’s Board of Overseers at the time of the initial two suits filed in the matter (later joined). They continued to serve through their respective terms as overseers (the last to end this August).
There is an important sidebar to this story, as the Board of Overseers of Rose was (and is) an advisory board, and does not have a fiduciary role (reserved in this case to the Brandeis Board of Trustees). The role of advisory boards in this sense — common in large university settings for various initiatives large and small — will be the subject of a follow-on post.
Excerpts from the Brandeis settlement announcement are just below with the full text available here: http://www.brandeis.edu/now/2011/june/rose.html
_______________
The settlement agreement, which brings to an end all claims concerning management of the Rose and the potential sale of artwork, states that the Rose is, and will remain a university art museum open to the public and that Brandeis has no plan to sell artwork…
The origins of the dispute stretch back to January 2009, when the board of trustees, in the midst of a historic economic downturn, voted to authorize the sale of artwork if necessary – a move that sparked widespread and prolonged controversy. However, the university sold no artwork and 13 months ago Brandeis announced it would explore a range of alternatives to the sale of art as a means of realizing value from a portion of the collection while maintaining ownership of the artwork…”
_______________
Along the way, the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) properly (and harshly) criticized Brandeis and threatened sanctions. In a letter released 1 July 2011, the AAMD noted:
“…we applaud your decision to reaffirm Brandeis University’s commitment to the Rose Art Museum and to preclude the sale of works of art from the Museum collection to provide support for University or Museum programs or operations.
We are keenly aware of the financial challenges created by the economic crisis since art museums as well as universities have been dramatically affected by new economic conditions. Further, we know the administration and Board of Trustees at Brandeis faced exceptionally difficult choices in the effort to achieve financial stability.
Your decision to rescind consideration of sales of works of art from the Rose Art Museum collection to support operations and to reaffirm the University’s commitment to the Museum as an integral part of the University protects and benefits the Rose Art Museum, Brandeis, and the national art museum community…”
Indeed…
There is certainly more to the story, so we include some links to Boston Globe coverage below.
Observations
We do not know whether the overseers who fought the initial decision, and then took action to file the suits and stay with the process as individual plaintiffs over the two-year-plus period, would describe themselves as “courageous.” Perhaps not.
But for our part, we believe their actions – taken in the face of a university president confident in his mandate and supported by the Brandeis board of trustees – was indeed courageous. Equally, it was as necessary as it was unfortunate.
We suspect that it is more the exception than the rule that “board members” (whatever their specific fiduciary role) exercise comparable courage when faced with crises in their governance service. But to do so certainly serves the institution they govern as much as it confirms the public trust we place in them.
We believe more open discussion about courage and governance would serve us all and hope to continue this “Profiles on Governance Courage” series of posts. If you have a candidate, please let me know at david.r.curry@drcurryassociates.net.
Last, we found it all the more powerful that this settlement — preserving the Rose Art Museum and its collection — was reached just as “extensive renovations” are being completed in time for the museum’s 50th anniversary exhibition in the fall. The renovations happen to have been funded by one of the plaintiffs in the suit and his wife – Gerald and Sandra Fineberg.
David R Curry
5 July 2011
.
Boston Globe coverage
Brandeis settles art museum suit
The Rose will remain open, not sell its works
1 July 2011
http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/articles/2011/07/01/brandeis_settles_suit_brought_by_rose_art_museum_supporters/
ART AT BRANDEIS | Globe Editorial
The Rose blooms again
2 July 2011
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2011/07/02/the_rose_blooms_again/
Museum overseers sue to halt Rose closure
28 July 2009
http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2009/07/28/museum_overseers_sue_to_halt_rose_closure/
