Money, Morale Rare Specimens Around Museum

As the San Diego Natural History Museum heralds the opening of the Josephine Scripps Hall of Mineralogy, it is also busy fending off criticism of its administration and internal policies. Staff morale is at an all-time low, the museum’s budget is in disarray, and an internal debate is raging about its future direction.

The questions facing the museum cut to the core of what a natural history museum should be: entertainment, a repository for science or something in between.

The museum was founded in 1874 and has become known as a premier mid-size natural history museum, whose scientists are well-known in their fields and have published important research on such issues as the environment.

The crisis began building after former museum director Hal Mahan was fired last July 11, soon after the end of the fiscal year. At the time, Mahan’s decision to leave was called “mutual.”

But, according to Allen Shaw, the museum’s current part-time interim executive director, the end of fiscal 1989-90 brought news that had not been reflected in reports to members or to the city, which supplied about $365,000 in transit occupancy tax funds to the privately run institution.

In an operating statement sent to San Diego’s Commission for Arts and Culture, the museum declared a shortfall of $13,882 out of a total budget of $2.3 million for fiscal year 1989-90. In fact, Shaw said, “we were negative about $125,000 after fiscal year ‘89-90.” Shaw confirmed that this pattern had been repeated for “several years,” although he argued that part of the deficit for last year represented a normal annual depreciation of $64,000 of the museum’s assets.

“When we got into this year, because of some major capital expenditures and some estimates that were unrealistic, we were facing a considerably larger deficit than that.”

According to Mahan, the board was fully informed of the impending financial problems, “but they decided not to do an awful lot about it. I tried to change it, but it did not get changed. . . . We did not even pass the audit of the National Science Foundation (in 1988). They went back five years and could not find enough records to do an audit.” Mahan, who was at the museum from early 1988 to mid-1990, blamed the business office for the difficulties, saying that “a director can only do so much.”

Jim Noeth, an auditor with the National Science Foundation, which gives grants to museums, confirmed that the foundation could not complete the audit attempted in 1988. A recent audit was completed, Noeth said, and it gives the museum “a good blessing because they have since revamped their accounting system.”

Shaw said the museum’s current financial problems were compounded by the termination of Mahan’s contract, which called for a six-month salary payment if he was fired before the end of his three-year contract. Shaw refused to disclose those costs, but the documents filed with the city show Mahan was paid $59,263.93 on July 16.

The museum’s turmoil is not new. It has had 14 directors since 1964 and eight since 1978. Dick Banks, who now works with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Washington, said in a phone interview that the problems have been simmering since at least 1966, when he left the museum’s science staff.

“The board was not well organized or efficient when I was there,” Banks said. “The board has been looked upon as a social function . . . so you have often gotten people in there who do not understand museums or science.”

As a result of the budget cuts, eight employees, including four from the scientific staff, were fired Dec. 12, leading to charges that the museum’s staff was paying the price for poor administration.

The furor led newly hired public relations director Michele Fortier to issue a Dec. 13 memo forbidding staff contact with the media or even museum guests, an action that further alienated staff members.

The morale problems, in part, center around speculation about Shaw’s salary. A staff member, who asked not to be named, argued that Shaw, who is the president and CEO of Uniforce Temporary Services and who volunteered to take over the directorship part time, should work for much less or take no salary at all until a permanent director can be found. (Payroll documents from the month of August show he was paid $6,272.79, but Shaw refused to confirm if this was his monthly salary and stressed that he did not take on the responsibilities for monetary gain.)

Then, last Tuesday, the museum announced that the four scientists had been asked to return. Fortier said the decision was made to “give the public a better chance to respond to the museum’s financial situation.” Others claim it was made because of pressure from disgruntled members. Either way, if $125,000, or a $2-million endowment, is not raised by March, Fortier said, the scientists will be let go again.

Although the scientists’ jobs have been saved for now, how will the museum crawl out of its financial abyss?

Current and former science staffers complain that the sciences are being gutted in favor of what they call blockbuster, “gee-whiz” exhibits.

Former staff member and past interim director Fred Schram thinks the trustees and Shaw want “something so flashy it pulls people through the door and they can stand there and collect the money. . . . It runs the risk of the museum becoming an entertainment and not a scientific institution,” he said.

But spokeswoman Fortier thinks more stress needs to be placed on exhibits because they attract visitors and because donors do not comprehend the science done at the museum.

“Anyone will tell you science is important,” she said. “But, at the same time, it is difficult to sit in a room with a potential donor and say we do really good science here and expect them to throw money at you. You have to be able to show them something of more substance, more tangible.”

One board member who declined to be identified argued that other scientific institutions are able to raise large sums and said statements like that show “we have a lot of people working there who do not understand the institution they are working for. . . . I feel science is the whole basis for the museum. “

Still, the attitude is familiar.

“I had the feeling there was not great support for scientific activities,” Banks said. Tom Fritz, another government scientist and former museum staffer, said he left in 1978 for the same reasons.

Shaw vehemently disagreed that science will cease to be an important part of the museum.

“I have not met one single trustee who feels we ought to lessen our scientific commitment, but we need to have the financial ability to support ourselves.”

“We must compete with the rest of San Diego for tourist dollars and for people,” former board president Pamela Bruder said. She argued that crowd-pleasing exhibits are a necessary stop-gap measure to stabilize the museum.

But there is a question of how strongly the museum should depend on admissions. According to Maryann Dunn, spokeswoman for the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, admissions and gift shop receipts there account for almost “nothing.” Instead, the museum depends on support from the county and funds raised by a foundation.

Although the San Diego museum is technically a private one, scientists and some board members feel the time has come to mount more aggressive fund-raising efforts to ensure the museum’s long-term financial health, something Shaw said is already being done. They argue that the board should include more members with a scientific background. Of 21 current board members, only three work in the sciences.

Shaw argued that he and the board are taking a long-term outlook.

“We want to reorganize the staff based on what the future is going to be for the museum, and that is partly getting the science effort in tune with exhibits and the needs of the community,” he said.

All sides agree that the museum has the raw material to excel. Hopes are high for a new director who may be named by March. A search firm has begun narrowing the list of candidates.

“We have a lot of promise,” said one board member, “but we always seem to shoot ourselves in the foot.”