Afro-American Center’s Chief Attacked for Management : Tenacious Museum Leader Faces Criticism and Inquiry

For art collector Aurelia Brooks, running the California Afro-American Museum in Exposition Park fulfills a dream she had single-mindedly pursued for more than a decade. The state-financed museum she helped create and now directs is considered a unique public commemoration of the achievements of black Americans.

But as the Afro-American marks the 10th anniversary of the legislation that created it, Brooks finds her vision and leadership under fire, confronting an investigation by the state auditor general’s office and a staff divided by what critics have called her imperious management style.

A museum source says state investigators are examining a pattern of questionable decisions that has steered tens of thousands of dollars in royalties and rents apparently belonging to the State of California into the California Afro-American Museum Foundation, a private nonprofit corporation Brooks controls. The auditor general will not confirm or deny that report.

Brooks’ use of contracts to add nearly a dozen people to her staff brought a year-long Internal Revenue Service audit of the museum. Ruling that these staff members should have been hired as regular employees subject to income tax withholding, the IRS recently forced the state to pay thousands of dollars in back taxes.

Directive on Contract

The museum’s administrative officer, Fred E. Washington Jr., charges that Brooks ordered him to engineer the award of a $103,000 state contract to her foundation, shutting out a Boston-based nonprofit organization which had sought the award. Brooks refuses to respond to this charge.

The museum’s first director, Charlene Claye, contends that Brooks, then president of the museum board, drove her from office in 1983 so that Brooks could become director. Brooks denies doing so. In any event, the board, with Brooks still presiding, appointed her to the $56,340-a-year museum directorship.

And sources close to the museum, including current and former employees who asked not to be identified, say Brooks’ authoritarian rule and disregard for state administrative policy has demoralized many of the professional staff and impeded the museum’s efforts to assemble exhibits of national prominence. One insider described the tenor of Brooks’ leadership as that of “papal fiat.”

Support From the Outside

Despite these problems, however, Brooks seems to enjoy the confidence of influential outsiders.

“She’s beautiful,” said one museum source. “People are in love with her,” he continued, observing that the elegant Brooks charms the legislators and corporate patrons who attend the black-tie receptions she holds in honor of exhibit openings.

“If you are somebody, politically, socially or financially, then (Brooks) will put the charm on. If you’re not, forget it,” said a museum employee. “But most people in the world are not somebody, and those are the people we are here to serve.”

Those who have criticisms of Brooks’ management have been reluctant to say so publicly for fear of harming the young museum’s credibility.

“This museum legitimizes the black experience,” said history curator Lonnie Bunch, who came to Afro-American from the Smithsonian Institution. “It gives people a sense of permanence about the black experience. It’s unique in the country.”

But former Rep. Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, who helped found Afro-American and serves as the museum foundation’s nominal chairman, says, “A new institution always has growing pains. They all go through director changes and they go through power struggles.”

Indeed, the problems at Afro-American reflect an institution in transition, growing from the precious dream of a few into a multimillion-dollar state facility seeking a national reputation. Critics charge that Brooks, instrumental in the effort to found the museum, lacks the administrative skill and professional demeanor that distinguishes a mature institution from a fledgling project.

‘Deserves Praise’

Said one community source, “Aurelia deserves the greatest praise for getting this museum off the ground. She might be a little shrill in dealing with people, but it was her tenacity that saw the construction through.

“But I’m not sure that that bulldog tenacity is so necessary in dealing with the museum today. It’s a different entity than when there was nothing there at all.”

Brooks concedes that she has made mistakes when trying to comply with state regulations. “How do you find out the rules and regulations of the state?” she asks rhetorically. “You break the rules and regulations of the state.”

But she denies intentional wrongdoing and suggests accusations against her are made by foes seeking to harm the museum.

“Of course, you always have your detractors,” Brooks said. “You always get the little, small minds that have their own agendas and they kind of make life miserable.”

Once an aspiring painter, Brooks defends her leadership as part of a greater vision: “My whole purpose in this museum has really focused to help blacks have a better image of themselves.” Through Afro-American and the private foundation she controls as president, Brooks sought to help Californians “learn of the black contributions that have made this country great.”

“To me,” she adds emphatically, “that is the most important thing in the world.”

Signs of Management Ills

But Afro-American has been plagued by indications of poor management for several years. Many of the problems parallel those of the California Museum of Science and Industry, the adjoining institution with which Afro-American is administratively affiliated. Brooks says her foundation is a “junior replica” of the one associated with the Museum of Science and Industry.

A March, 1985, audit of both museums by the state Finance Department criticized Afro-American’s purchasing methods, which it said frequently circumvented state budgetary and expenditure controls. The audit also disclosed that no contract regulated the relationship between Afro-American and Brooks’ foundation, which freely used state resources as its own.

At the auditors’ urging, the museum’s relationship with Brooks’ foundation was defined in a formal contract signed in July, 1985. But Brooks concedes that key provisions of the agreement, including a requirement that the foundation’s books be audited annually, have not been fulfilled.

In January, 1986, the state auditor general sharply criticized the Museum of Science and Industry for allowing its affiliated foundation to take money paid by outside groups for the use of museum facilities.

“The State’s General Fund should receive all payments made by private organizations for the use of state property,” said the auditor general’s report, which Brooks says she has read.

Deposited to Foundation

Yet museum documents show that as recently as August of this year, the foundation was collecting money from outside organizations for use of the museum’s premises. The documents show that since 1985, more than $10,000 paid by outside groups for use of Afro-American facilities was deposited into foundation accounts that Brooks controls. Brooks has declined to confirm or deny the accuracy of these figures.

But she did concede that one such arrangement, in which a film company paid her foundation $4,300 to shoot a commercial at Afro-American, resembled an instance at Science and Industry that was criticized by the auditor general.

“We didn’t know any better,” Brooks said. “We were operating in the same vein as the parent company,” Science and Industry. “I know that sounds so stupid, but all of us were new” to state service. Even so, Brooks has not returned this money to the state treasury, and she defends other instances in which outside organizations paid the foundation in order to use museum facilities.

“As far as I’m concerned, (the fees paid) are (compensation for) expenses” incurred by the foundation in preparing the facility for use, she said.

Brooks’ foundation regularly collects royalties from films and exhibits produced by the museum. She acknowledged that more than $10,000 in royalties generated by the films “Black Olympians” and “Paths to Black Leadership” has been deposited into foundation accounts, as has another $10,000 paid for the rental of traveling exhibits assembled by museum staff and an unknown amount raised by the sale of exhibit catalogues. She asserts that she intends to return some of that money to the state, but lacks an administrative channel by which to do so.

Claims Some Rights

Brooks also said that her foundation is entitled to some of the proceeds, because it helped pay some production costs. She declined, however, to provide documentation of such contributions. She said her accountants presently were examining the foundation’s records and had advised her that “nothing should go out publicly until we get everything in order.”

Brooks’ foundation also has saved thousands of dollars in administrative costs by using state resources as its own. The foundation uses state telephones, postage meters and office supplies without charge. Under the foundation-museum contract, the foundation may use office space free and operate the museum gift shop but must obtain approval from the state General Services Department for any other services or materials provided by the museum.

But officials of the State and Consumer Services Agency, which oversees the museum, could not immediately determine whether any such requests had been made.

Brooks asserts that her foundation’s free use of state resources and collection of money for use of state property is justified by its role as a patron of the museum. The foundation has raised funds from outside contributors and helped pay for construction of the museum in 1984.

But the foundation’s most recent annual financial report to the state Registry of Charitable Trusts, covering the calendar year ended Sept. 30, 1986, shows that while $37,335 was spent for management and fund-raising purposes, nothing was expended for grants, allocations or program services on behalf of the museum. The report does list $3,973 spent on convention attendance, $2,800 in accounting fees and $484 for luncheons.

Total Worth $387,239

The foundation listed its total worth as $387,239 as of Sept. 30, 1986. Brooks described this amount as “sort of like an endowment. It’s sort of like nest egg money while we’re trying to build up the funds necessary for major acquisitions.”

However, Brooks declined to let The Times see the foundation’s financial records.

Museum insiders complain that Brooks’ foundation contributes little to the facility, and that professional staff has no say in foundation expenditures. Said one highly placed source, “The question most staff cannot answer is what the foundation is paying for,” adding, “I think the foundation could be doing a hell of a lot more” to help the museum.

Administrative officer Washington, who has taken a leave of absence from the museum, charges that Brooks has made a policy of diverting state funds into her foundation in order to command museum resources without the oversight of state officials.

“The foundation is supposed to support the museum,” Washington said. “But what’s happened is just the opposite. The museum supports the foundation.”

$103,000 Contract Cited

As evidence of this policy, Washington points to a $103,000 state contract the museum awarded to Brooks’ foundation last year to hire and train college-level students to explain exhibits to museum visitors. Washington says Brooks ordered him to write bid specifications that would drive off a Boston-based nonprofit organization that sought the contract.

Washington says that Brooks had always intended for her foundation to receive the contract, the largest let by the museum, and was shocked when the CEIP Fund Inc., a nationwide organization that specializes in placing college interns in government and private industry, expressed interest in the project.

Washington says he advised Brooks that CEIP would be better equipped to handle the project than her foundation. CEIP “had a network, they had an organization” by which they could select well-qualified interns from across the country, Washington said. “The foundation had never done anything like that.” Washington said Brooks asked him to write her foundation’s bid letter and to make sure CEIP could not win the contract. To do that, Washington said he wrote special conditions into the bid specifications sent to CEIP that he knew they could not meet.

“I’d already had discussions with (CEIP), and I had a feel for their costs,” Washington said. “Having that information . . . I could mathematically come up with (specifications) that I believed they couldn’t meet,” Washington said.

CEIP Never Responded

“As expected, (CEIP) never responded. I would have been shocked to get a bid.”

Karen M. Kennedy, the former director of CEIP’s Southern California office, agreed with Washington’s assertions. The information he sent her “was specifically engineered to enhance the chances of (Brooks’ foundation) getting” the contract, she said.

“Fred is very accurate when he says the (specifications) he sent me were virtually impossible” to meet, Kennedy said.

Washington goes on to bitterly criticize Brooks’ overall administration of Afro-American. “As bureaucrats, we’re supposed to be doing this for the people of the State of California,” he said. “These are not our personal assets to manipulate.”

Brooks, who has refused requests to discuss this matter, has reprimanded Washington for laziness and stated that he holds a “total disregard and contempt for the museum and its goals.”

Yet Washington is not alone in his criticisms. Said one source close to the museum, “The problem with Aurelia is that as she sees it, she is always right and everyone else is always wrong. She’s the best accountant the world has ever seen, she’s the best art critic the world has ever seen, she’s the best historian the world has ever seen,” the source complained.

Called ‘Scheming, Cunning’

Claye, who was appointed museum director in 1982 after a nationwide search, called Brooks “a scheming, manipulative, cunning woman” whose desire for total control of Afro-American drove her from office. “She considered it her own museum, not a state institution,” Claye said.

Brooks was the unpaid president of Afro-American’s governing board during Claye’s tenure from January, 1982, to May, 1983. Claye recalled Brooks’ dealings with her as “total harassment,” with Brooks continually overriding Claye’s decisions.

“It was always a power struggle. I would plan a program and before I knew it, it would be vetoed” by Brooks, she said. “The staff didn’t know who to listen to, me or the president of the board.

“Mrs. Brooks had a problem relinquishing her leadership role. She was everything in pulling the museum together, but once a professional director was appointed, she should have stepped back,” Claye said.

Citing health problems, Claye took a two-month leave of absence in April, 1983. The following month, she said, the museum board fired her and appointed Brooks to take her place.

Brooks denies that she coveted Claye’s job. “I’m not a curator, I’m a former artist,” she said. “I’m shocked to be here” as director.

Other Managerial Problems

Among other instances of managerial problems at Afro-American is the recently concluded IRS audit, which determined that during 1984-85, the museum failed to pay federal withholding taxes for 11 employees.

The employees were called private contractors, even though they performed secretarial and other functions that would regularly be carried out by civil servants. Brooks says she hired these extra workers through contracts because the state had not given her the number of employees she needed to run the museum properly.

State negotiators reduced the IRS’ demand of $30,000 in back taxes to a settlement of $6,000, although Brooks says “I still don’t agree with it.”

Brooks said that many state agencies have circumvented hiring freezes through this use of contracts, but declined to identify any. An IRS spokesman, Rob Giannangeli, told The Times he knew of no other current audits of state government, adding, “It’s very seldom that we get involved in an audit of a public agency.”

Porter Meroney, Gov. George Deukmejian’s undersecretary of state and consumer services who oversees Afro-American, said that Sacramento “kind of agrees with (the IRS). We did the wrong thing here. We should have hired these people as employees.” But he said he knew of no other management problems at Afro-American.

Questions Bounce Back

The undersecretary deferred all other questions about Afro-American’s operations to Brooks. She, in turn, now refers, through a spokeswoman, all questions back to Sacramento.

Brooks is not without influence in Sacramento. Two legislators, Sen. Bill Greene (D-Los Angeles) and Assemblywoman Teresa Hughes (D-Los Angeles), sit on the museum board. At Brooks’ request, several bills have been introduced that would, among other things, increase Afro-American’s autonomy from the two state agencies that presently have oversight responsibility--the Museum of Science and Industry and the State and Consumer Services Agency.

Key provisions of these measures would have given Afro-American unprecedented freedom from the fiscal oversight state budget officials have over most agencies.

Last year, Deukmejian vetoed such a bill introduced by Greene, saying it “could be construed to override the state’s long-established system of fiscal controls and systems of accountability.”

Another Greene bill passed this year initially contained a provision that would have exempted Afro-American from budgetary oversight by its parent agencies. Deukmejian signed the bill only after those provisions were deleted.

Brooks shrugs off the naysayers and describes her administrative problems as trivial.

“I’m sure there have been abuses, but I’m saying, ‘Look at the job we’re doing here.”’

As for herself, the reluctantly transplanted Washingtonian, says: “Maybe I feel I’ve found my mission, here in California, far away from the hard-shell crabs I love so much.”