Defending LACMA’s Financial Record

The Times recently published two major articles about the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Both articles contain serious misstatements, and reflect a lack of understanding of the museum’s financial underpinnings. As chairman of the museum’s Board of Trustees, I feel compelled to correct the record.

The County Museum of Art was formed through an agreement between the County of Los Angeles and the museum’s private support arm, Museum Associates. The objective was to build and maintain a great museum, and with the presence of that museum to acquire, conserve and display great works of art and bring major exhibitions of art to our community. Community leaders recognized that such a museum would enrich the cultural vitality of Los Angeles.

To accomplish the objective, the county committed to provide the land on which the museum would be built. The county’s contract with Museum Associates obligates the county to provide annual support to maintain and operate the museum.

For its part, Museum Associates, led by the museum’s Board of Trustees, committed to provide funds for the construction of the museum’s buildings, which then would be transferred by gift to the county. The private sector also was to provide the museum collections and raise funds for exhibitions, conservation and other essential museum activities.

Through this unique partnership, the County Museum of Art has achieved extraordinary success since it opened its doors in Hancock Park in 1965.

Since the museum was founded, tens of millions of dollars have been contributed by the private sector to build the museum’s buildings. Hundreds of millions of dollars of works of art of the highest quality, representative of the creative achievements of people of many lands and over centuries of time, have been contributed to the museum by the private sector. Great exhibitions, such as “Treasures of Tutankhamun” and “A Day in the Country,” have been brought to our community as a result of contributions from the private sector.

The first Times article in question, by art writer Suzanne Muchnic, made reference to a pro bono study prepared at the museum’s request. This study has not yet been presented to the museum’s Board of Trustees. The second article, by Christopher Knight, commented on that study.

The Times articles suggest that the museum’s trustees have not been generous in their support of the institution. Nothing could be further from reality. In the past 10 years alone, the museum successfully completed an $80-million capital campaign. More than one-half of that sum was raised from the museum’s trustees. A number of the trustees made multimillion-dollar gifts to the museum. Others made major five- and six-figure gifts.

During this same 10-year period, trustees contributed works of art to the museum that are valued in the many tens of millions of dollars. In the last year alone, when county support fell below the budgeted amount, the museum’s Board of Trustees was asked to provide necessary support so that the museum could remain open and so as to preserve planned exhibitions that otherwise would have been eliminated. Within a few weeks, more than a million dollars was raised from the board.

Contrary to Knight’s opinion, no one should be surprised that trustee contributions have not been directed toward the museum’s endowment fund. Endowment income finances the museum’s maintenance and operations, and under the agreements between the county and Museum Associates, maintenance and operations were to be funded through county support.

Against this background, I found the articles, “Art Museum Study Reveals Trouble in Raising Money,” (Part A, July 30) and “LACMA: Not a Pretty Model of Philanthropy” (Calendar, Aug. 2), to be startling. The commitment in support of the museum, made and honored by the museum’s board, is nothing short of a model of philanthropy. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply wrong.

Similarly, the facts do not support Knight’s view that the making of restricted gifts is an effort on the part of donors to control management of the museum. The museum’s management is in the hands of its professional staff, led by the director.

The fact that some trustees, and other donors, prefer to contribute works of art to the museum, and that others prefer to support particular museum programs, has no bearing on museum management. The museum has a variety of needs, and a gift directed to support a specific need is just as helpful--and appreciated--as an unrestricted gift.

It is disappointing that The Times does not recognize and applaud the generosity of all contributions that in the aggregate have given Los Angeles a vital cultural asset.