When University President Dave Frohnmayer moved the art museum’s oversight to University Advancement, the University’s primary fundraising office, it raised eyebrows among the University community.
At the time, in June, Provost Linda Brady – the University’s central administrative academics officer – oversaw the museum. For many, her presence guaranteed a connection between the museum and academia. Frohnmayer said University Advancement could successfully resolve pressing issues the museum was facing, including hiring a permanent director.
University Advancement’s purpose certainly contrasts with that of the provost, who “provides leadership for matters that affect academic program, research, and outreach involving faculty members, students, and staff members.” According to the Provost’s Office, the provost is the spokesperson for academic matters at the University.

University Advancement, on the other hand, “serves the University of Oregon by building and strengthening relationships with diverse constituencies that encourage investment in and support of the University, its programs and initiatives” – in other words, it strategically develops donor relations.
Instead of Provost Linda Brady overseeing the museum, that responsibility now lies with Vice President for University Advancement Allan Price. As multiple sources pointed out, this move directly contradicts the Association of Art Directors’ “Professional Practices in Art Museums,” a standard guidebook often used by museum and university administrators. The book is compiled by the association’s Ethics and Standards Committee.
It states because an art museum is a university resource, “it is appropriate that the director should report to the central administration of the university/college rather than to some section/part of the university/college such as a department, division head, or school.” This reporting structure is designed to ensure the museum’s responsiveness to University community concerns.
Both Price and Brady report directly to Frohnmayer.
Price acknowledged the move’s implicit suggestion that the museum is not an academic entity, but said despite the advancement office’s donor-driven nature, the museum’s academic ideal will not be lost on him.
“We know that our role is supporting the academic mission of the University,” Price said. “That’s why we’re here. That’s what we do every day.”
Nowhere on the advancement office’s Web site is academics or the University mission statement mentioned.
A faculty member, who wished to remain anonymous at the risk of endangering friendships, offered a different take on the situation.
According to the source, donors wanted the museum oversight moved so the museum operations wouldn’t be hindered by academic concerns. The faculty source said Brady “put her foot down” on the matter, objecting to the direction the museum was heading and standing up for the museum’s academic purpose.
“These are people who go straight to Frohnmayer on things,” said the source. “They don’t monkey around with provosts.”
In a Sept. 9 letter to the University Senate, Art History Department Head Sherwin Simmons wrote that the conclusion of Campaign Oregon took priority over the provost’s “admirable efforts to reverse previous administrative neglect of the museum as part of her plan for academic excellence.”
He also called the University “an institution where donors are able (to) oppose the institution’s central academic officer in such a manner and have such power with the President.”
When Frohnmayer first announced the transfer, interim museum director Robert Melnick told the Emerald the museum needed to engage community members, and University Advancement would make that easier. But the museum’s recent community-driven goals have been equated to academic negligence.
“It suggests the University is willing to sell out the academic responsibility of a major resource of our academic mission,” said the anonymous faculty source.
Melnick said he was not consulted before the switch. Frohnmayer and Price did, however, approach faculty member and newly appointed museum director committee search co-chair Jon Erlandson, giving him a chance to back out. Despite some concern about the transfer, Erlandson decided to stay on board.
“It worried me briefly,” Erlandson said. “I thought it was a little bit of an unusual step.” He also noted there has thus far been no pressure from within the University regarding the search process.
Melnick said his commitment lay with the museum, staff and students, so the reporting change wasn’t troubling for him.

Voices of dissent

Melnick has filled the interim post since January. When he signed on, his tenure was indefinite. Now, the search is likely drawing to a close. The search is down to four candidates, and although Price called the finalists a “tremendous pool,” some skepticism regarding the search process during the summer has surfaced.
There is a lot resting on the results of this search. In February, the museum released a report by consultant Alceste Pappas. Pappas said the museum lacked a clear mission and contained many internal governance issues.
While the museum board spent time examining the report toward the end of last year, they put it on hold during the summer at Frohnmayer’s request in order to focus on the director search, Melnick said.
“We are now looking at the Pappas report again after letting it sit for a few months,” said Melnick.
Frohnmayer said from a leadership standpoint, it made sense to use the summer productively in the search for a permanent director, and the changes that were recommended in the Pappas report were always going to happen, “it just didn’t make sense to do them without a permanent director at the helm.”
At the Oct. 7 University Senate meeting, Simmons asked the Senate to consider a resolution calling for Frohnmayer to re-establish the reporting relationship between the museum and Provost. His letter to the Senate read, “The change in reporting … (has) as (its) larger context serious problems within the governance structure of the museum, and in particular the proper role of the community and donors.”
The concerns voiced in Simmons’ proposal echo those of many University faculty. Some are concerned the transfer negates the museum’s role as an academic entity.
Art history associate professor Andy Schulz, a member of the permanent director search committee, called the initial faculty reaction “strongly negative.”
“Faculty … view the museum as integral to the academic mission of the University. We view it as akin to a laboratory, a library, a place where we and our students engage … it’s just a scholarly inquiry,” Schulz said. “So to move it out of the office of the provost and to place it in advancement really fundamentally shifts the nature of the museum.”

The search process

The
executive director search, meanwhile, has faced challenges of its own.
Erlandson rebutted claims that the search process was expedited at the expense of thoroughness, as did Melnick.
Rather, Frohnmayer said, the search committee would utilize the summer. Then, the museum board of directors could complete the search and resume tackling the governance issues in the fall.
Erlandson said the search committee “very quickly discarded” the idea of accelerating the search process and selecting a director during the summer.
“The problems at the art museum were such that it was really important to get a director there as soon as possible,” Erlandson said. But, he added, “Politically on campus it was unacceptable to do this search without bringing in candidates for the normal and full vetting on campus.”
Price said “multiple groups” told Frohnmayer they were not happy with the status quo, so they wanted to get the search going. It wouldn’t have made sense to conduct a summer search from the academic side because most faculty are off-campus, Price said, which was one reason for the reporting change.
Theoretically, then, the museum would be placed back under the Provost’s Office once the search is completed, but Price said he couldn’t speculate on that.
“We’re going to do our best to deal with the issues on the table,” Price said.
Schulz expects the reporting relationship will be a “significant structural problem” for the permanent director.
“The purpose of the University is to encourage the broader culture to think about challenging questions and issues,” Schulz said. “One wonders if a museum that reports to the director of advancement might be hindered in exploring controversial topics.”

‘A murky process’

The Museum of Art re-opened in January 2005 after 4 1/2 years of closure and renovation. The problem is, it maintained the same budget it had prior to the renovation.
“The museum really re-opened at almost twice the size at the same budget,” Price said. As a result, the museum was running in the red until Frohnmayer recently announced the Provost’s Office would contribute an additional $500,000 to the museum’s budget.
Now, Melnick said, the University’s annual $1.8 million museum budget covers its basic operation expenses, or the cost of “opening the doors.”
“It’s an investment in what the museum is and will be on the part of the University,” Melnick said.
Melnick said the additional funding reflects strong commitment of the University to the museum, but also acknowledged that ideally the budget would be funded at $2.5 million.
The University of Michigan, one of the University’s “peer institutions,” hosts a noted art museum. The museum receives $2.1 million from the University of Michigan.
Frohnmayer said it’s always been a struggle to obtain resources, not only for the Museum of Art but for other University entities as well, such as the Museum of Natural and Cultural History.
“It’s long overdue, but the finances were finally straightened out,” Frohnmayer said. “It was a murky process up to that point.”
The museum also annually receives approximately $110,000 from donations, grants and endowments, Melnick said. The endowments go to the UO Foundation, which invests them and returns the income to the museum. Endowments renew every year so they are less common than donations.
The 2007-08 museum board of directors comprises five faculty members and 24 community members. The community board members are people “who have had a strong presence at the museum” and can contribute various perspectives, Price said.
The board advises the museum on all matters. Price appointed an ad-hoc faculty advisory committee to better integrate the museum into academia.
Melnick is optimistic about the committee and said some changes in daily business operations “will be a direct result of those discussions.”
[email protected]