Restricted Gifts and the Arts in difficult times

In what certainly will become one of the largest examples of trying to "re-purpose" restricted gifts, Brandeis University announced a few weeks ago that it was going to close the Rose Museum to the public and sell off it's art collection to help make up for endowment losses and budget problems. Yesterday the Rose family publicly denounced the plans (see Boston Globe pay special attention to the comments).

One would think this would be national news considering the precedent it seems to set. And in different times it might be. However considering the economic news coverage and the recent, growing debates about money going to the arts or sports sponsorships from corporations, I think we are lucky this story isn't gaining too much national momentum.

Let me state first, foremost and unequivocally, restricted gifts are restricted gifts. It is up to a donor and institution to negotiate the restrictions or adapting the restrictions, but it is a partnership in which the donor's wishes will always over-rule the recipients. As the saying goes you can't have your cake and eat it too, that is just the way it is and it should stay that way. If this were to change, every time there was a shift in leadership - staff or board - the use would be open to adjustment based on an individuals whims and desires, long term strategies would be difficult to implement and the organization would likely be subject to significant mission creep based on said individuals whims and desires - even with the restrictions some individuals try to circumvent the restrictions with personal agendas.

Without question, one of the most difficult decisions an organization is faced with is when a donor want to make a restricted gift that does not fit the mission of the organization. For years, programs specific grants created many instances of ineffective results or "next new thing" programs. However, lets imagine all grants were general operating grants. Does anyone really believe we would have many of the amazing education programs that arts organizations have? Does anyone really believe that as much new work would be created? Imagine how destructive the tension between artistic staff, management staff, and the board would become.

Let's face it, we need restricted gifts.

At organizations I have worked at, I have had "passionate discussions" with an Artistic Director or Board members about restrictions on certain funds, and almost every time I have been grateful to the donor for said restrictions. If a project was clearly mission based and close to the core - it was usually easy to make the restrictions work or to renegotiate them, if not, well the restrictions certainly made the decision easier.

Are the arts a luxury or necessity?

As for the second and more important issue at the forefront of the Brandeis situation - at what point in the economic crisis do the arts become a luxury that must be eliminated or sold off? Literature and life are filled with the tales of families caught in horrible economics that must sell off their personal belonging to rebuild their lives or survive. Of course, organizations can reach a point where they are required to do the same.

In a similar situation, the Metropolitan Opera just mortgaged it's most famous art work to raise cash. I consider the Met's decision to be creative - the mission is about Opera and leveraging the artwork in these difficult times seems like a reasonable risk.

In the case of Brandeis, I have to ask if this is a "quick/easy/obvious" decision - if it were just about closing off the museum to the public perhaps a mission argument could be made, but the proposal as a whole seems pretty drastic. Is Brandeis really at that famous Scarlett O'Hara moment - do they need to make a dress from the curtains already? I hope not, we are still pretty early in this financial crisis, and you would hope the university was better managed than to have already reached that point.

But back to the bigger more global question that looms - is there a point where the arts are just a luxury that should be eliminated? We are back to that relevancy issue and making an argument for the arts. A lot of my recent posts have circled around a major point that I want to reiterate - the key is to get past the idea that all of the arts arts elitist and making the arts more accessible if in cost alone. We have to embrace that the definition of art has evolved and needs to evolve. We have to broaden the donor and audience base. We must be relevant to our communities, or we will become a luxury not a necessity.