Art criticism took on a whole new meaning for the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art last month when a Connecticut consultant revealed her highly critical evaluation of the museum to Senior Vice President and Provost Linda Brady and Vice Provost Terri Warpinski.
According to Warpinski’s letter to the museum community, the University hired Dr. Alceste Pappas of the Pappas Consulting Group to thoroughly examine the museum in all areas. Her findings were consequential, and the report described them in detail alongside suggested steps for improvement.
“The report is going to be the starting point for discussions with the administrators, the board, the staff and the general public about the museum,” said museum Interim Director Robert Melnick. “In response to the report, we’re already beginning to move forward.”
Because the museum is in its early stages as a campus and community entity, Warpinski felt that the timing was right to recruit an outside perspective.
“We don’t want to go too far down the path without knowing it’s the right one,” she said.
Melnick said the Museum Board met and discussed the report. He pointed out that the board thoroughly evaluated the report before “jumping in” to make drastic changes, but progress has been steady.
The report, now posted on the museum Web site, was comprehensive in its findings: It specifically cites a “lack of clarity of the Museum’s mission, vision, values, goals, and strategies,” and found that several Board members expressed a need for a specific vision statement. According to the report, several museum employees could not recite or paraphrase a mission statement which, Warpinski pointed out, is printed on the back of their security badges.
To counter this apparent ignorance, Pappas suggested that faculty members “delineate clearly the mission, vision, values, goals and strategic initiatives of the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art.”
Melnick, however, believes that the museum has a very clear sense of purpose. He said that in theory the mission is to serve the academic and general public, and to educate both the academic and public community on the value of art.
“I don’t differentiate between the academic and community side,” he said. “I think they’re tied together.”
Another highly publicized report finding is informal museum operation and “a number of governance issues,” including complicated dynamics and a lack of communication.
Warpinski said the casual atmosphere should not carry a negative connotation.
“That would describe a lot of what we think about as being typical to what the U of O is,” she said. “It’s not a very stuffy atmosphere. There’s not a sense of elitism among the staff at the museum.”
To improve the museum’s organizational structure, the report suggested three parallel discussions take place: strategic direction; charter, by-laws and governance assessment; and the search for a museum director.
Melnick said there has been greater clarity of staff responsibilities and the organization setting of the museum in light of the report.
As for the governance issues, the report suggested evaluating the Board membership and structural efficacy.
Warpinski said there has since been a “realignment of the staff. They’ve been really remarkable and willing to step up and take on greater responsibility.”
According to the report, “The Board is uniform in its belief that the financial management and reporting practices of the museum are inadequate.”
Melnick said museum officials are working with people in the University to improve those practices.
Christy McMannis, museum Financial Services Coordinator, and Museum Board President Connie Huling declined to comment.
Despite the critical results, Melnick remains optimistic about the report.
“No one ever likes to see criticism,” he said. “On the other hand, I took it as a very important step. We are absolutely taking it to heart, but with a very positive light.”
Contact the higher education reporter at [email protected]