Glanton's
Out
On February 9, 1998 the Barnes Foundation
Board of Trustees ended Richard Glanton's presidency. The move appeared
to be rooted in long-time friction between Glanton and Lincoln University
President Niara Sudarkasa, who until Monday was Foundation vice-president.
The Board appointed Lincoln board chairman and alumnus, Dr. Kenneth
Sadler, as its new president and Randolph Kinder as vice president.
Sudarkasa will now serve as board secretary. Glanton remains on the
board.
Glanton's ouster ends almost eight
years of control over the Foundation. When he began, the institution
operated primarily as a school as intended by its founder. The income
exceeded expenses and it had minimal legal bills of $29,000. Now the
Foundation is running a deficit. The 1996 legal fees were over $800,000.
Glanton betrayed Dr. Barnes' mandates, eviscerated the educational program
and turned the school into a museum. In the words of the judge who presides
over the Barnes trust, Glanton saw "the intent of the donor as
a hurdle to be overcome rather than a guiding light." It is a disgrace
that Lincoln University, the attorney general's office and the courts
allowed him to operate for this long.
His tenure began with exorbitant claims
for gallery restoration expenses. According to one insider, they were
ten times higher than prior estimates and "deliberately overstated."
Under Glanton, the board filed a court petition to sell some of the
Foundation's artwork, against recommendations of the art advisory committee
set up by his predecessor. Plans to sell up to $200 million worth of
paintings were thwarted by adverse reaction from the museum community
and legal action by parties concerned with preserving the Foundation's
central role as a teaching institution.
Glanton's next move was a 1992 court
request for permission to allow a tour of Foundation artwork. With a
high-dollar law firm and the National Gallery of Art behind the plan,
he achieved a favorable, although highly questionable, court ruling.
The judge refused to hear opposing testimony from an art transportation
and exhibition expert who would have testified that the preparation
time was far too short and could endanger the works. The $7 million
restoration figure used to justify the tour quickly skyrocketed to $10
and then $12 million as Glanton "huckstered" -- Judge Stefan's
term -- the collection to additional venues. In 1995, the tour ended
along with arguable damage to some works, and questions about the construction
work. (see photos) The last venue, Munich, was turned down by the Orphans'
Court only to be overruled in three days by a Superior Court panel who
made the decision without the full record of the case available. This
venue also resulted in a lawsuit against the Foundation by the City
of Rome.
Under Glanton, the board granted rights
to a catalog of the collection -- against the Dr. Barnes' express ban
on "copying" any of the artwork -- to Knopf publishers, shortly
after Knopf owner S.I. Newhouse made a $2 million gift to Lincoln University.
After a costly legal battle with trustees of a trust set up by Barnes'
long-time associate, Violette de Mazia, the Knopf issue was dropped
without a trial. The state attorney general agreed to drop the case
despite admissions by de Mazia counsel that "the evidence could
have supported a decision which would have removed either some or all
of the Barnes trustees."
During Glanton's reign, to use his
word, critics were summarily dismissed. Glanton booted art advisor and
Lincoln trustee, Richard Feigen, who publicly criticized his sell-off
plans. Later came the disbanding of the advisory panel of art-world
professionals set up by his predecessor Dr. Franklin Williams. Glanton
also fired a teacher, Richard Segal for his open criticism; he dismissed
Wendy Samet, a conservator who had expressed concern over plans to loan
certain fragile works, one of which was arguably damaged and another
removed from the tour early; he expelled a student who was an opposing
party to the legal proceedings to overturn the Barnes Indenture of Trust;
he "forced out" in her words, art program director and de
Mazia trustee Esther van Sant.
Glanton termed the art education program
which was central to the creation of the Foundation "hokum"
and an "hors d'oeuvre." Upon her resignation, former director
Van Sant claimed he "significantly diminished the Barnsian art
education program." The 1989-90 academic year just prior to Glanton's
arrival had an art department enrollment of 227. By the 1996-97 year,
enrollment was down to 107. Partly to blame for the drop was his elimination
of fourth and fifth-year seminar classes. Glanton forbade the practice,
in use since the 1920s, of arranging paintings for lectures. One teacher
noted that since students must now move from room to room, "it
is difficult for them to carry colors and lines in their heads [and
therefore] it is uncertain whether the students are always able to make
the connections between the paintings." Glanton also eliminated
private teacher preparation time in the galleries. They must now prepare
for their lectures along with the tourists.
In late 1996, after a year in which
over 97,000 people flooded the Foundation's galleries, thanks to promotion
by the Philadelphia Museum of Art, tourism agencies and hotels, the
Lower Merion Township Zoning Hearing Board concluded that the Barnes
Foundation was now conducting a "primary museum use." The
transformation Glanton began in 1990 with the blessing of long-time
Barnes nemesis Walter Annenberg was complete. However, for the moment,
his unwillingness to apply for a zoning special exception has resulted
in an injunction limiting visitors to a total of 500 per week.
A document filed by Lower Merion Township
notes: "The Barnes's financial records show that it has spent a
king's ransom in legal fees in recent years, at Mr. Glanton's direction."
It listed fees totaling $2.9 million. Tax records for 1996 show $832,367
in legal fees, and recently cleared defendants in the Civil Rights suit
Glanton initiated are suing the Foundation for $1.8 million in legal
fees.
Glanton often justified his disregard
for the terms of the Foundation Indenture of Trust by claiming his actions
constituted fundraising. He routinely hosted individuals on private
tours of the Foundation against Dr. Barnes' ban on "special privileges."
His claim that these tours constitute fundraising falls short. The 1996
tax return shows "various contributions" totaling only $6,023.
Glanton claimed that spending Foundation funds on lavish meals was part
of his "raising $500,000" with the 1995 re-opening party that
violated Dr. Barnes' prohibition on social events at the Foundation.
Yet a 1995 audited financial statement shows "Net special event
revenue" of only $82,930.
In 1990, the Barnes Foundation had
a surplus of revenue over expenses of $164,921. This on only endowment
income and less than $100,000 from admissions, tuition and other sources.
Despite a five-fold increase in admission price, a gallery shop that
in 1996 grossed $850,312 and over $200,000 in 1996 licensing and book
project revenues, Glanton's successor says the Foundation is currently
running a deficit. [Inquirer 2/15/98]
Court Orders Private Tours Stopped
When we last visited the issue of private
tours of the Barnes gallery which violate the Indenture of Trust, the
Orphans' Court had ordered the attorney general to investigate and report
on these activities. Recall that the violations were brought to the
Court's attention not by the supposed watchdog of charities, the attorney
general, but by a private citizen. At the time, we predicted the attorney
general's response would consist of "the usual complicity, occasionally
flavored with half-hearted concern for the educational program or the
safety of the collection." True to form, the attorney general's
report, which found undeniable evidence that private tours took place
on non-public days, follows the Trustees' tack that "if the [tour]
groups share an educational or cultural focus, or if an educational
program is indeed carried out, one must conclude that no proscription
has been violated." Note the shift from the Indenture language
which limited admissions on non-public days to "students and instructors
of institutions which conduct courses in art and art appreciation"
to "groups that share an educational or cultural focus."
This classic frame shift is similar
to the attorney general's position on two other private events which
were also the subject of contempt petitions -- a press party in December
1992 and a special lecture and tour for the Greater Philadelphia Chamber
of Commerce in February 1993. In those cases, the attorney general ignored
the Indenture language that "special privileges are forbidden"
and rationalized the clearly exclusive events as "publicizing the
tour" and "fundraising." Throughout the tenure of three
attorneys general, the modus operandi has been remarkably consistent.
The real issue is always sidelined for something else. Thus there was
no serious investigation of the purported "emergency" nature
of the building renovations or of the costs in the original painting
tour proceedings. To have done so might have revealed that the costs
were overblown and therefore there was no need to violate the indenture.
Instead, the issue was shifted to one over concern for the safety for
the paintings -- a safe bet for the Trustees with the National Gallery
of Art making the pitch and the attorney general refusing to hear opposing
expert witnesses.
In his clear rebuke of the position
of the attorney general and the actions of the Barnes Trustees, Judge
Ott dismissed the concept that the provision of a $500 lecture to any
group who could afford it was honoring the terms of the Indenture:
In Paragraph 30 of the indenture,
as amended April 30, 1946, Dr. Barnes specified that, on the days
the gallery is not open to the public, it "shall be open... solely
and exclusively for educational purposes -- to students and instructors
of institutions which conduct courses in art and art appreciation,
which are approved by the Trustees of the Donee." The Attorney
General's Office, while urging compliance with the educational purpose
requirement, overlooks the second mandate in Paragraph 30 that attendance
be limited to art students and faculty on "non-public" days.
The group admissions policy now in place brings to mind the "hall
for rent" concept which has already been rejected by this Court
and the Superior Court in the context of holding social functions
at the gallery. [In re the Barnes Foundation, a Corporation,
453 Pa. Super. 243, 683 A.2d at 894 (1996)] Barnes, supra
at 251, 683 A. 2nd at 898. At present, any group willing to pay the
$500 lecture fee can sign up for a private tour. This development
flies in the face of Dr. Barnes' expressions that the purpose of his
gift was "democratic" and "without special privilege,"
and that his Trustees should ensure that "the plain people"
have "free access" to the collection and arboretum. See
Paragraph 30 and 33 of the Indenture. The Trustees will therefore
be directed to act in accordance with their clear instructions as
to who may enter the facility on "non-public" days. [Memorandum
and Opinion Sur Report of the Office of the Attorney General,
11/5/97] Full text is available on our web site at http://members.aol.com/barneswtch.
Judge Ott also took note of a social
function held at the Foundation for the benefit of the Pennsylvania
Ballet. See Barnes Watch 40, December 1996. Typically, the attorney
general's representative:
... opined only that this event "appeared"
to have violated the Superior Court's holding that Paragraph 33 of
the indenture should be interpreted to permit only those on-site functions
at the Foundation "which have as their sole purpose the raising
of funds for the institution. [id.]
Once again, Judge Ott did not mince
words. "The undersigned finds, without hesitation, that the Trustees
did contravene this judicial directive."
In light of the above blatant violations
of the Indenture, Ott issued an Order directing the Board of Trustees
"to cease and desist from conducting group tours on Mondays, Tuesdays
and Wednesdays, except for groups consisting of 'students and instructors
of institutions which conduct courses in art and art appreciation.'"
Since Glanton has tried to pawn off many of the violative activities
as "fundraising," Ott also directed the Trustees to "formulate
a development plan for fund raising, and shall adopt same as a resolution
after obtaining the approval of the Office of the Attorney General."
Don't be surprised if the Trustees
come up with a catch-all like the paragraph in their first petition
to amend the indenture -- omitted in the final version -- which asked
to turn the absolute prohibition against "society functions"
into the following: "[A]t no time after the death of said Donor,
shall there be held in any building or buildings, without the express
approval of the Board of Trustees, any society functions..."
[highlighted text added by the Trustees.] Need we comment on what the
attorney general might do?
Safer on Tour? Loaned Matisse is Damaged
The Court's acceptance of the original
painting tour to Washington, Paris and Tokyo, as well as the additional
venues to Toronto and Fort Worth, was largely conditioned on the premise
that the works were safer on tour than in the "deteriorated"
galleries at the Foundation. In May, 1992 Glanton testified: "The
pictures will be in a much better environment by virtue of them being
housed in these facilities." At the same hearing, National Gallery
of Art exhibition organizer Dodge Thompson assured the Court that "There
is enormous risk even for the Barnes paintings to be at The Barnes Foundation
today." He even called that risk "greater than the risk of
the tour."
The Trustees purported to rely heavily
on the National Gallery's advice. Trustee Cuyler Walker testified that
"The additional reason for our working with the National Gallery
was our lack of experience in dealing with an exhibition of this type."
As the tour wore on, evidence of the
National Gallery's duplicity began to emerge. When a Picasso was damaged
on the Tokyo leg of the tour, the National Gallery's conservation chief
made an internal memo of the event which stated that because he considered
the damage not to "original paint" the damage and the repair
by a Tokyo conservator was "not noted on the condition report."
Never mind that the object had been damaged.
Another example was the same conservator's
written remark that additional travel of Seurat's les Poseuses
was "very questionable. Our original consideration was for three
venues. I do not think it should travel any farther, especially by truck."
Later, when the Philadelphia Museum of Art wanted to exhibit the painting,
the story changed. "When it was examined at the Barnes Foundation,
the question was whether it could travel safely to four venues
and our consideration was that it could." So off the painting went,
by truck, to its fourth venue.
Just when it looked like the Trustees
might need the National Gallery to support a new tour (see "Glanton's
China Plans" elsewhere in this newsletter) comes word of the latest
National Gallery flip-flop. In a 1996 interview in the Legal Intelligencer,
Richard Glanton claimed that he rejected Rome's Mueseo Capitolino as
an exhibition venue because it was "not suitable based on a recommendation
from the National Gallery." If this were true, the same National
Gallery apparently disregarded its own best advice when it sent its
Matisse Pianist and Checker Players to the Museo Capitolino where
it was recently vandalized along with two other works in the show.
Barnes Watch has always held the opinion
that the Barnes Foundation is the safest place for the works. All crowded
special exhibitions, state-of-the-art security measures notwithstanding,
create needless extra risk. However, word that school children may have
caused the damage in Rome raises the question of just how safe the Barnes
galleries really are now that the Trustees are admitting groups of children
as young as kindergarten age.
Inquirer Plays Softball
It would appear that the Inquirer,
while promoting the Barnes Foundation as a tourist attraction, is unwilling
to have the architect of the betrayal of Dr. Barnes' trust indenture
look bad. Thus while Main Line Life clearly reported "Glanton
voted out by Barnes Trustees," the Inquirer headline read
"Glanton steps down as head of the Barnes Foundation." The
next day an article headlining Glanton as a "man of influence"
with a "bold style" referred to him "step[ing] aside."
Again on the front page of the Sunday "Review" section, a
photo caption says he "stepped down." In all three prominently
placed articles none of Glanton's detractors or litigation foes are
interviewed. The single Main Line Life piece included responses
to Glanton's exit by four individuals involved in the present litigation.
The Inquirer continues to portray
the Barnes Foundation controversy solely in terms of its value as a
tourist attraction. A February 15 article included exclusively sources
from the "Barnes as a museum" viewpoint. Typical was tourism
promoter Tom Muldoon's reference to the Foundation as "a resource"
and "an economic engine." The article had a one-sentence reference
to "Barnes loyalists [who] believe the foundation should still
function today primarily as a school." Yet there was not a single
source cited to explain the position even though it is what the founder
wanted and is mandated by the Orphans' Court.
The Inquirer did run one fairly
critical article by art critic Edward Sozanski which called the impression
that Glanton "liberated the foundation's fabulous secret art collection
for the enjoyment of art-lovers around the world, utter nonsense."
However, even this piece distorted the record in claiming that "Glanton
and his board had the good sense not to change anything" in the
"long overdue refurbishing." First, Glanton and the board
had no choice as the Court ordered that, "The tour is permitted...
upon the express conditions that, following completion of the renovations,
the paintings be returned to their places on the walls as directed by
Dr. Barnes." Second, everything was not put back because an entire
display room was eliminated by an elevator.
Soznaski finds no fault with the party
line that the painting tour was necessary to pay for the "long
overdue" refurbishing. Like most of his media colleagues, he ignores
claims that only $1.5 million was required for necessary repairs and
the inescapable conclusion that the $12 million "refurbishing"
was grossly inflated not to "keep the buildings in first class
order and repair" but to justify the tour and betrayal of Dr. Barnes'
wishes. He calls the $16 million rental of the collection a "success"
without ever addressing claims that priceless works were damaged by
the venture.
Now that Glanton is out, the newspaper
is reportedly working on an investigative piece about the Foundation's
finances. Readers of Barnes Watch will wonder why it took them seven
years to decide this might be newsworthy.
Renovation Hoax Notes
The media and the courts accepted without
question the Trustees' claims of the need for anywhere from $7 to $18
million in renovation costs. A classic was the Inquirer's "Into
the back rooms of the Barnes to see a museum in sore disrepair"
which was the result of a reporter's private tour with Glanton wherein
all information was supplied directly by the Foundation and went unquestioned
in the article. However, there were plenty of clues that the costs were
suspect. For instance, at the court hearing where the Trustees presented
their case for the restoration, the man who did the actual cost estimates
was not presented as a witness.
In 1993, A.F. Brown made the case that
the renovation budget was largely contrived in his lengthy "Barnes
Case: How the Trustees Faked It: Renovation Budgets and Other Hoaxes."
One example cited was a $135,000 expense
for a sprinkler system. The Foundation's own consultants noted that
"the intrusive nature and cost of adding sprinklers may ultimately
rule them out on this project."
Not to be deterred by his own experts,
Glanton testified that the fire detection and sprinkler system "needs
complete replacing. What we have in there is totally inadequate, in
fact, probably not even in compliance with the latest laws with
respect to the type of system we would have to install at this time."
[N.T. 5/21/92, p. 128] While giving the court the impression that sprinklers
were needed as a matter of code, Glanton never actually said that the
sprinklers were required. In fact, evidence recently cited in Lower
Merion Township's Statement of Undisputed Facts filed in the Federal
civil rights case unveils the sprinkler hoax. It notes: "The Barnes
volunteered to install sprinklers." Only after "Barnes
decided to install sprinklers" was the foundation "required
to meet the Code for sprinklers."
Promises Promises
After the Barnes Trustees returned
to Court claiming construction cost overruns necessitated additional
tours to Toronto and Fort Worth, Judge Stefan expressed doubt that $3.5
million would be left over to add to the endowment as Barnes attorney
Bruce Kauffman was boasting. To reassure the judge, Kauffman, who was
recently appointed to a federal judgeship, stated: "There's not
going to be any additional cost overruns. And indeed, Mr. Glanton will
testify that he's going to do everything he can to cut this back, to
try to make it less than ten million dollars." In fact, according
to Foundation press releases, they spent $12 million.
Preate Surfaces At Political Bash
Two years to the day that the Inquirer
announced former Attorney General Ernie Preate's sentencing for mail
fraud, the paper included him in a list of "the Keystone State's
creme-de-la-creme." Preate, who was found by a federal judge to
have abused the public trust as attorney general and who can no longer
practice law, was at the Pennsylvania Society's year-end party at New
York's Waldorf-Astoria -- an event which the Inquirer described
as "de rigueur for Pennsylvania's political patricians and business
barons." No mention was made in the article of Preate's inmate
status at this time last year or what a convicted felon was doing among
"senior public officials who have a tremendous control of our lives
and people seeking something from them." Lest we forget, it was
Preate who as attorney general took no position on the sale of Barnes
Foundation artwork or the $2 million grant by the Newhouse Foundation
to Lincoln University shortly before the Barnes Foundation catalog was
let to Newhouse-owned Knopf, and who approved a first round of painting
tours and then a second even after evidence was presented of damage
to Matisse's mural la Danse. Recall as well the tens of thousands
in campaign contributions by Barnes and Lincoln officials, their friends
and lawyers that went to Preate. Of course none of that ever seemed
to bother the Inquirer. So why spoil a good party where not only
convicted felons but even "journalists and their publishers go
to mingle over fine wine and finger food"? [Inquirer 12/15/97]
In other news, the law firm that defended
Preate during the federal investigation of him has agreed to return
to the state $304,425 in Preate's personal legal fees that were improperly
billed to the state. Preate will not be reimbursing the firm. Nice work
if you can get it.
Glanton named to oversee Girard Trust: Buddy System,
Part 1
In November, the Inquirer ran
a lengthy three-part report on the Stephen Girard Estate. Considering
the Inquirer's advocacy of the betrayal of the terms of the Barnes
Indenture of Trust, it is surprising that they would do a critical investigation
of the Girard Estate. However, the report was evidently so discomforting
to the Board of City Trusts (BCT), which administers the estate, that
the board announced they would nominate a "Girard Independent Committee"
to "conduct a comprehensive review of the funding, operations and
activities of the Girard Estate, Girard College and the Sundry Trusts."
In light of the inevitable cynicism
with which such a self-examination is sure to be received, one might
expect that a board beset with probing questions about its handling
of charitable moneys and public accountability would turn to individuals
with unimpeachable credentials. To whom did they turn? Among the five
"prominent independent citizens" selected was Richard Glanton.
Here is a "prominent" individual
who as president of the Barnes Foundation has spent millions of charitable
dollars on lawsuits. Under his leadership, the Foundation filed a Federal
Civil Rights suit against Lower Merion Township, its commissioners and
the Foundation's neighbors, which was summarily dismissed and which
has put the Foundation at risk for $1.8 million in fee claims by the
former defendants. Glanton, who in 1993 was found by a jury to have
defamed and to have "engaged in pervasive and regular sexually
discriminatory conduct and created a hostile environment" toward
a female associate, is currently the subject of another defamation case
brought by the Lower Merion Township Commissioners. Then there is the
self-dealing alleged in the July 1997 issue of Philadelphia magazine
which cites sources who say that Glanton offered Barnes Foundation legal
business to a Lincoln University trustee and his law associate in order
to influence their votes for Lincoln board chairman. Could the Board
of City Trusts have overlooked these items?
Of more than passing interest is an
investigation BCT board member and state senator Vincent Fumo began
in October of some $530,000 spent since 1988 to renovate Lincoln University's
president's house. At the helm during the renovations was Niara Sudarkasa
who is said to have lead the effort to oust Glanton as Foundation president.
Three days before the Foundation's Trustees voted Glanton out, he sent
a memo to several of them who are also Lincoln board members warning
them of the alleged seriousness of Fumo's investigation. Fumo's office
would not comment on allegations that Glanton had prompted the investigation.
Glanton Hires Administrative Manager: Buddy System Part
2
Last August, the Barnes Foundation
hired Linda Z. Marston as administrative manager. Marston is the wife
of David Marston who is Glanton's law partner and who was formerly at
Buchanan Ingersoll where he brought the Foundation's alleged painting
theft suit against the de Mazia Trust. An Inquirer article on
her appointment mentioned no background in education or the arts. According
to the Inquirer, Marston spent a couple of stints in what appear
to be political appointments at the Department of Health and Human Services
and at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
According to a memo from Niara Sudarkasa,
Glanton hired Marston "without informing, much less consulting,
the board of trustees." She apparently first learned of Marston's
hiring in the newspaper. Marsotn resigned shortly after Glanton's ouster.
Glanton's creation of what Sudarkasa
terms a "senior-most management position," raises the issue
of the limits on personnel prescribed by the Indenture of Trust. The
Indenture specifically refers to certain personnel:
Art director; Director of Education;
not more than four men as gallery attendants and watchmen;
one engineer who shall be in charge of all apparatus for heat and
moisture controls, air conditioning and similar or allied matters;
one stenographer and clerk. In connection with the Arboretum, and
in addition to the superintendent and curator thereof, Donee shall
employ sufficient men [grounds keepers], and may also employ lecturers,
not exceeding six in number; such cleaners and janitors as may be
necessary... No other administrative or executive officers or clerical
assistants shall be engaged or employed by Donee except those above
specified. Not more than three teachers shall be employed and
paid for with Foundation funds. [Emphasis added]
During Glanton's tenure, there has
been a catalog project coordinator, a public relations person, gallery
shop and audio guide sales people and now an administrative manager,
all hirings prohibited by the indenture. We note also Niara Sudarkasa's
early proposal -- revisited in an October 1996 board meeting -- for
"...fellowships and professorships that would be funded by the
Foundation and administered through Lincoln University." This scheme,
for which she had proposed an endowment of over $16 million, would violate
not only the hiring limitations in the indenture but also the stipulation
that the Foundation "is not to be merged in or absorbed by any
other institution."
Injunction Limits Public Visiting Hours
In mid-November an injunction requested
by Lower Merion Township and upheld by the Commonwealth Court compelled
the Barnes Foundation to limit the hours of public visitation to those
in effect before it closed for renovations in 1993. The Foundation's
telephone message stated that: "Due to a Court order" public
visiting is now 9:30 to 5:00 on Friday and Saturday with a maximum of
200 visitors and 1:00 to 5:00 on Sunday with a maximum of 100. A sign
posted at the Foundation's gate also refers to a "court order."
It appears the Foundation is playing
a public relations game to deflect criticism from the tourists it has
been wooing for the past two years. By referring to the court order,
the Foundation seems to say "it is not our fault you can not get
in." However, if anyone is to blame for the current court-ordered
public visiting limits at the Barnes Foundation it is the Trustees themselves.
In December 1996, the Lower Merion Zoning Hearing Board ruled that the
unfettered increase in visitors to the gallery had created a principal
use as a museum which is not permitted in an RAA zoned district. However,
it proposed a remedy, which the Trustees have not pursued.
In its opinion, the zoning board suggested
that were it to apply for a special exception: "Barnes could use
that provision as a vehicle for the Board to determine whether any given
level, type or intensity of use is accessory to its permitted educational
institution. Plans that restrict public access to reasonable levels,
that limit summer access and shift some activities to weekdays, and
make the gallery's impact mode like that of an educational institution
support an argument that gallery use is accessory." [emphasis supplied]
Foundation Sued for Legal Fees
When the Barnes Foundation sued Lower
Merion Township, its commissioners and seventeen neighbors of the Foundation
for alleged Civil Rights violations, we noted that
[A] likely outcome could be a hoard
of lawsuits filed against the Foundation by the people its trustees
have accused of "conspiracy" and racism. Not only would legal
fees be enormous, but judgments against the Foundation could likely
bankrupt the institution and force the sale or another tour of its "assets."
Now that the Civil Rights suit has
been thrown out, defendants in that case are suing for compensation
for their legal fees. The fees, as listed in the Legal Intelligencer
total over $1.8 million. Add to this the money the Foundation spent
on legal fees while pursuing the case, and, unless insurance is paying
them, the fees to defend the Trustees against the state defamation suit
brought by the Township's commissioners. That case is still pending,
as is the Township's counter-suit in Federal Court. Meanwhile, as predicted,
Glanton has begun work on new tour venues. See "China Plans"
in this newsletter.
Sudarkasa Joins Museum of Art Board
The Board of Trustees of the Philadelphia
Museum of Art has elected Barnes Foundation trustee and Lincoln University
President Niara Sudarkasa to its board. It is surprising that an institution
which relies heavily on donations would choose as a board member a Barnes
trustee who sought court approval to betray a donor's wishes and to
sell off parts of that collection. Even after the Trustees had dropped
their court request to violate the Barnes Indenture ban on painting
sales, Sudarkasa continued to promote the concept. She inquired as to
whether objects other than paintings could be sold, suggested the sale
of "one of the African pieces" and at one point, she conditioned
her approval of the loan of paintings on reviving the request to the
court for the sale of "one or two works of art."
What message does Sudarkasa's selection
as trustee send to the Philadelphia Museum's potential donors? It could
be argued that her disregard for the sanctity of trusts is probably
a non-issue since the museum already has a dismal record of upholding
trusts, having recently broken the terms that for decades kept the renowned
Johnson Collection together in its own separate space.
Since museums generally choose wealthy
trustees who can make large donations, the selection of an academic
from a historically black college -- albeit someone with little or no
background in art -- might be viewed as lending diversity to the board.
However, there may be another reason the museum would want to polish
Sudarkasa'a image. Notes from the January 29, 1996 Barnes Board of Trustees
meeting refer to "other cooperative efforts" in an entry concerning
the Philadelphia Museum. With the specter of new tours in the offing,
the museum may want to keep a close ally on the Barnes board should
the opportunity arise to repeat its own record-breaking Barnes Foundation
exhibition.
Glanton's China Plans
In his 1991 ruling which allowed the
first loan of Barnes Foundation paintings, the late Judge Louis Stefan
commented that "the Trustees' suggested amendments to the Indenture
do speak in the plural, and do give rise to the suspicion that the intentions
of the Trustees might be somewhat more ambitious than what their present
request has indicated." Almost from the date of that decision,
Glanton was already "huckstering" -- Stefan's term -- the
artwork for more venues. After pulling off three extra tours while the
Foundation gallery renovations dragged on, Glanton now seems set for
another round.
This past September, the Inquirer
reported that Glanton was traveling with a "cultural, educational
and economic delegation" to Shanghai and that he expected to "meet
with the head of Shanghai's art museum in an effort to schedule a Barnes
exhibition there in 1999." On October 31, the paper quoted Herb
Vederman, Philadelphia's deputy mayor for economic development who said
that the "six-day trip resulted in 'significant progress' toward
a future showing in Shanghai of the Barnes Foundation art treasures."
Since the attorney general did nothing
about the allegations in the City of Rome case which claimed that Glanton
traded tour rights for personal gain and legal business, it is easy
to see how and perhaps why he might try to pull off a new tour. With
the Foundation spending millions on law suits, and potentially millions
more to pay the legal fees of the parties it has sued, Glanton, and
now perhaps his successors may return to Orphans' Court with the familiar
poverty story.
Munich Case Judge Elected to Supreme Court
Superior Court Judge Thomas Saylor,
who was "not recommended" for State Supreme Court by the Pennsylvania
Bar Association was elected to the post in November's general election.
The Bar Association noted that he has not demonstrated "a high
level of legal scholarship." Saylor was also one of the three judges
who overturned the Orphans' Court ruling denying an additional painting
tour to Munich.
The Munich case appellate panel which
included Saylor, held a telephone conference hearing without waiting
for the availability of the full transcript of the case, a striking
departure from the law. Nevertheless they allowed the tour, ignoring
Orphans' Court Judge Stanley R. Ott's ruling that: "The Trustees
failed to meet their burden of proving that the proposed additional
venue is necessary to cover the costs of ongoing renovations and to
provide future repairs."
The panel waited ten months before
issuing a written opinion and never explained why they ruled without
the availability of the record. The opinion was a ridiculous farce which
claimed that "the reasoning of Judge Stefan, as applied to new
facts controls in this case with the same opportunities (gain without
harm) central to Judge Stefan's decision." However, Stefan had
ruled that:
"The basic justification for allowing
the tour to additional venues must find support in the necessity of
permitting [the Trustees] to comply with Dr. Barnes' charge to his Trustees
that "all of the buildings and improvements of Donee shall at all
times be kept in first class order and repair."
The trier of fact, Judge Ott, found
that the Trustees' case did not meet this criterion since the Foundation
had more than enough money to complete the renovations for which Judge
Stefan had allowed the tour. One might expect a judge running for the
state's highest court to know that only the impossibility of maintaining
the Settlor's intent under the trust terms is a legal reason for breaching
those terms. There is no such principle in trust law or in Judge Stefan's
reasoning as "gain without harm."
The Inquirer decried Saylor's
election in its editorial pages. However, the Inquirer ignored
the travesty of justice that Saylor participated in by overturning the
Munich decision and made no comment when the opinion came out.
This newsletter is published by Barnes
Watch, a 501(c)(3) charitable, educational organization. Tax deductible
donations, requests for further information, suggestions and corrections
should be addressed to: Barnes Watch, PO Box 49 Broomall, PA 19008.
Our internet web address is http://members.aol.com/barneswtch.