When museums go with the highest bidder
The ethics of funding from museum donors, board members, and corporate sponsors—from Purdue Pharma to BP to Safariland—has reached a feverish pitch over the past couple of years. In the post-MeToo era, socially attuned and digitally connected citizens are mobilizing and demanding that we consider the values of our employees, artists, and communities in the actions we take, including with the money we accept. Money from donors who violate those values through illegal or unethical means is not worth having.
When someone’s giving capacity is the most important factor when looking for board members, other critical issues, such as where that money came from, can get ignored. It can be easy to get blinded by dollar signs, but the danger in this is having a board that is potentially disengaged or absent; racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically homogeneous; and, even worse, not aligned with the values of the people the institution is supposed to serve.
Prominent art museums, in particular, are notorious for having some of the highest giving requirements in the nonprofit sector. Board service is also a prestigious reward for socialites. Perhaps we need a culture that decouples how much a donor gives from an evaluation of who is well-suited to govern the institution. In this fairytale scenario, museums might look to underrepresented groups, including younger people with little available cash. These trustees would have the skills necessary to provide deeper understanding of the museum’s target audience and insight into emerging trends affecting the future sustainability of these institutions.
How can boards deal with the challenge of having sitting trustees who perhaps came by their funds by means that are inconsistent with the values of institution? An obvious, but not always palatable solution, is to name and shame and remove the trustee. A more passive approach would be to remain silent until that trustee willingly goes (if ever). The risk there is losing support from other supporters to the point of becoming irrelevant. Another more strategic but long-term option might be to tighten the screws on term limits. Many museums allow trustees to rotate off for a year and return again and again, and sometimes they might return with additional baggage in tow.
How can museums prevent a situation like this from happening in the first place? At a minimum, museums need robust ethical guidelines for board members and for donors receiving naming rights that covers not just their activities on the board but their activities outside the boardroom that can negatively impact the reputation of the institution and its ability to serve the public. The Association of Art Museum Directors Code of Ethics, adopted in 1966 and amended most recently in 2011, provides guidance on conflicts of interest and art accessioned into a museum’s collection but says nothing about sources of donor funding. The American Alliance of Museums Code of Ethics, which was adopted in 1993 and amended in 2000, likewise does not address the ethics of funding.
A new generation of patrons is demanding increased transparency in how museums operate, and it’s time to ensure that we are putting the interests of our artists, staff, volunteers, supporters, and community above any gift.
