Suit Threatened on Laguna Merger Vote

Members of the Laguna Art Museum are considering legal action to stop the museum board from voting Tuesday to merge with the Newport Harbor Art Museum of Newport Beach.

At a rancorous meeting here Sunday, attended by about 50 museum members and local artists, board President Gilbert LeVasseur was asked repeatedly to postpone a merger vote for at least 60 days.

“If you vote Tuesday to merge,” one woman said, “you’re going to have a riot on your hands.”

Meanwhile, proponents are stepping up their arguments that without a merger, the Laguna museum may be doomed.

LeVasseur told those at the meeting that “about three years ago, we found ourselves 30 days from insolvency” and were saved only by last-minute donations. He also said a major funding organization has promised a $250,000 “transitional” gift to the museum if it merges with Newport Harbor but has told the board it “can’t count on us any longer’ if no merger takes place. LeVasseur would not name the organization.

In a letter to the members last week, LeVasseur said “in this changing economic climate, there is a genuine risk that within several years the museum will not be able to continue to operate.”

Any decision to merge must be ratified by a majority of the 1,500 members. Annual membership is given to anyone who gives the museum $25 or more.

Several at the meeting said they are not necessarily opposed to a merger but are upset that even though officials at both museums have been discussing the subject since fall, LeVasseur’s letter was the first official notification any of the members had received.

Many at the meeting agreed with Stuart Katz, a local art dealer who said “let’s give the community a chance” to study the matter and give the museum its feedback. Others said they are “offended” at museum officials’ “deceitful” delay in notifying them, and that this has led to “a lot of suspicion” and distrust.

“The view of the community is that you’ve gone off in isolation and are now surprising everyone with” news of the merger, said G. Ray Kerciu, a Cal State Fullerton art professor and museum member at whose home the meeting was held. Others said the merger is a fait accompli, although LeVasseur insisted “it is not a done deal.”

LeVasseur said he would discuss postponement at the Tuesday meeting.

But that wasn’t good enough for those present, who voted unanimously to look into legal action. Ken Kleinberg, an attorney who attended the meeting, said he may be able to file a temporary restraining order blocking a Tuesday vote. The members and artists plan to meet again tonight at the Forum Theatre in Laguna Canyon.

Meanwhile, rumors are flying. Several at the meeting asked about reports that trustees are buying up blocks of memberships to sway the vote. LeVasseur said that is not true.

Museum director Naomi Vine, also at the meeting, said a membership drive has been underway since December but that no more than 30 memberships have been added in the last month.

Asked why the board feels it has to “rush” into a vote Tuesday, museum officials said their employees are “stressed” over the uncertainty of the museum’s future, and that funding proposals for future exhibits have been put on hold pending a decision.

Still, LeVasseur agreed that “we could have improved upon the process” of informing the membership.

*

Several local residents are concerned that a merger would move the museum out of Laguna Beach. LeVasseur said if a merger is approved, a single administrative staff would have offices at the Newport Harbor museum, which is scheduled to undergo expansion, but that “we will try to keep the [Laguna] site open as long as possible.”

If, after a year or so, “keeping it open jeopardizes the financial position of the whole, we will probably look to move,” he said. But he added that he has had informal discussions with Laguna Beach city officials (whom he would not name) about leasing the museum to the city at $1 a year for use as an “art center.”

Vine said that there will be “two facilities as long as the [financial] support is there.”

Proponents of a merger contend that a single, prominent institution would have a better chance of securing ever-diminishing funds from private and public sources and could keep administrative costs down.