L.B. Museum Drops Plan to Move, Agrees to Resignation of Director

The Long Beach Museum of Art Foundation’s board of directors had a rather momentous meeting recently.

First, they formally acknowledged what others had been saying for months: that the museum’s hoped-for move to the high-rise Landmark Square project downtown was not in the cards.

Then they accepted the resignation of Stephen Garrett, the museum’s executive director since 1984. Linda McCullough, foundation president, later called the action a “mutual agreement” resulting from various tensions arising out of recent challenges faced by the institution. Others said there had been misunderstandings between Garrett and the board regarding his leadership style. Specifically, they said, he had been seen as a leader who ruled by consensus rather than exercising the more overt authority desired by the board.

Garrett himself characterized the resignation as a personal choice based on his desire to do “other things.” It was not, he emphasized, a reaction to anything negative.

In fact, the announced departure of the executive director two years before the expiration of his $60,000-a-year contract was only the latest in a series of noisy developments that have rocked the normally placid museum in recent months.

In April, Garrett angered many patrons by ousting 23-year employee Barbara Hendrik from her job as manager of the museum’s bookstore just eight months before her 65th birthday. Board members approved the move, describing it as part of a cost-cutting reorganization designed to make the institution more fiscally responsible.

A few weeks later, six key members of the museum council--a volunteer group responsible for membership and attendance--resigned en masse to protest the museum’s decision to change the format of a summer concert series to increase profitability.

And Garrett raised the ire of many in the community by suggesting that the city sell the museum’s current site, a quaint historical building overlooking the sea on Ocean Boulevard, to help finance the now-doomed move to Landmark Square. The proposal triggered a flurry of angry letters.

Membership has dropped from 1,200 in February to 1,171 today.

“The problems that we’ve had (are the result of) growing pains,” said Jon Moynes, the museum’s press officer.

Indeed, those pains began three years ago when the museum first declared its independence after 30 years as a city institution. Under the terms of an agreement with the private foundation set up to run the museum, the city--in addition to allowing continued use of the site it owns on Ocean Boulevard--agreed to continue its financial support of $357,000 a year at least until 1990 when the institution’s progress will be evaluated.

For its part, the museum foundation agreed to operate in a fiscally sound manner and to pursue new sources of income--most notably grants from private corporations and foundations--which, among other things, would allow the museum to move eventually to a more suitable site. Besides providing much-needed parking, more exhibition space and increased security, foundation officers said, a new location would be more conducive to the creation of a major regional art facility consistent with the city’s emerging image as an important cultural center.

Revenue Has Risen

Museum officials say they are proud of the financial progress their institution has made since 1985.

Annual revenues have grown 32% from $620,000 to $820,000 during that period. While costs have increased by about the same proportion, officials say, enhanced internal controls and a full-time financial manager have allowed the museum for the first time to move into the black with an operating surplus of $20,000.

The increased resources, which last year included an unprecedented $204,000 in agency grants and individual or corporate contributions, have, among other things, allowed the museum to increase its annual number of major exhibitions from five to seven.

And despite the recent downturn, officials say, museum membership has increased by about 50% over the last three years.

Yet the desired relocation has proven elusive.

The museum, which was included in the initial plans for a new 31-story office building to be constructed at Ocean Boulevard and Pacific Avenue, pledged to raise $2 million toward the estimated $5 million cost of the move, provided the city would contribute the rest.

Support Without Funds

But the city balked, publicly supporting the idea yet never really committing itself to the funding. At the same time, the museum’s internal turmoil raised questions regarding its own ability to come up with the money it had pledged. The impasse finally ended with both sides admitting that the $85-million Landmark Square project would have to proceed without the museum. Although some museum officials and members have expressed disappointment at that outcome, others say they are relieved.

“I don’t agree that the move is immediately necessary,” Moynes said last week. “If we don’t have the money and somehow we are stampeded into making the move, it would be a formula for disaster. It’s too big a risk; we can continue to mount good exhibitions where we are.”

Councilman Wallace Edgerton, whose district includes the museum’s present site, has publicly proposed the creation of a long-term trust fund to pay for construction of a free-standing museum in a public park, an idea that board president McCullough says she opposes.

Other possible sites being bandied about include a vacant city-owned lot in the shoreline area and the restored Masonic Temple on Pine Avenue that owner Lloyd Ikerd recently offered to the museum for $3 million.

No Other Sites in Sight

According to McCullough, however, the foundation has no immediate prospects for a new site that seem appropriate or tangible.

“The Landmark building was the most tangible offer that was available,” she said, “and when something is that much in the forefront you don’t go out exploring everything else.”

More pressing at the moment, she said, is the search for a new executive director, which she hopes will be completed by early next year.

“It would be premature to say that there won’t be any changes,” McCullough said, adding that the new director will be paid about $50,000 a year--less than Garrett, whose tenure ends Sept. 1. Yet the board is not looking to alter the museum’s general course, she said.

“I feel very positive about (our direction),” McCullough said. “I think there is a lot of interest in the museum right now. Any time there’s change, there are negative aspects to it. Our challenge is to emphasize the positive aspects and to move on with them.”