Questions re. Administration of the Museums and Fundraising

Worcester has one of the finest secondary art museums in the country. Its director is a curator whose main function is fundraising, with a fundraising staff. Worcester has other fine museums as well, such as the Armory Museum. These are independent museums and we weren’t able right away to find out if the city contributed anything to them. But according to a January 2002 survey by the Association of Art Museum Directors, of which the Worcester Art Museum is a member and the director of WAM is a past president, on average art museums get 6% of their operating budgets from cities. (See www.aamd.org; press releases, #1). It appears that the Springfield Museums get about 50% of their operating budget from the city of Springfield. In general, the major function of the executive director of any arts organization, including museums, is fundraising.

Public libraries, on the other hand, are public entities supported by their communities. All of the money allocated by the city to support its libraries should be available to the libraries.

Is the SLMA therefore administratively top-heavy? Is its executive director performing his job adequately?

If most cities have libraries run by librarians, with city funds, and museums that mostly sustain themselves through active fundraising, are we paying for an extra layer of administration, i.e., executive director of the SLMA, that is performing an unnecessary function or not performing fundraising up to par?

Is the arrangement that Springfield has with the SLMA even legal in Massachusetts?

The SLMA claims to be a private, non-profit organization that is not required to account for its expenditures of public funds. However, it is funded with a line item in the Springfield city budget as if it is a city department or a quasi-public organization, which would make it accountable and would make its finances public record. If Springfield is contracting with a private, non-profit organization for services, Massachusetts state law generally requires a contract for services or some other form of accountability when government funds are used. Also, if the SLMA is in no way a public entity, this means that Springfield has no library system of its own and, essentially, contracts with a private organization for the operation and maintenance of a privatized library system.

The reason for a government entity using privatized services instead of publicly owned and operated services is efficiency. This efficiency is obtained through a public bidding process where the lowest-cost bidder is chosen. This low bidder has to then sign a contract that guarantees certain service levels for a certain price, and has to keep to that price and service level even if circumstances change and they lose money on the deal.

So, if the SLMA is really a private, independent service provider, it seems to violate state law that they did not get their contract through an open bidding process. For a contract this large, municipalities are usually required by law to go out to bid. Is Springfield required to go out for bids for a library system? Perhaps an opinion of the Attorney General is needed to clarify this point. Note that there are private companies that operate school systems, and a private company would probably jump at the chance to underbid the SLMA, even if it meant building new library buildings to replace those owned by the SLMA.

Combining a city library system and a museum system is apples and oranges.

A city library system has to have a certain allocation that is used only for the libraries. The person presiding over the system is accountable to the city for his or her performance

Museum directors likewise have to be held accountable for their performance, but much of their performance is based on their fundraising success or failure, and they are judged by a board of directors.

What worked in Springfield 100 years ago no longer works. Municipalities must have public libraries, but no municipality should have to shoulder the burden of museums the way Springfield has been doing. And taking money away from the libraries and giving them to the museums, which seems to be happening, contradicts the purpose of the funds and the original reason for the SMLA’s existence.