Walsh University

The Ethics of Accepting Designated Financial Gifts to Museums: Considering Donations that Maintain Public Confidence

A Thesis by

Katherine May

Department of Museum Studies

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a

Bachelor of Arts Degree with

University Honors

April 2020

Accepted by the Honors Program

4/6/2020 Advisor Date

4/7/2020 Reader Date

4/6/2020 Katherine Brown, Ph.D., Honors Director Date

1

Introduction According to the American Alliance of Museums (AAM), the national professional museum association in the United States, “Museum governance in its various forms is a public trust responsible for the institution’s service to society.”1 Of its various obligations, a board of trustees’ most significant role is to oversee an institution’s fiduciary responsibilities and to set policy. Trustees are accountable for implementing the mission and ensuring that the institution adheres to ethical standards. However, public confidence is not easily earned because a concrete benchmark of success for a board of trustees is nonexistent. Instead, a board’s effectiveness is determined by the public’s point of view and opinions. Museum leadership must therefore go above and beyond legal requirements in order to maintain the public’s trust.

Nevertheless, meeting the public’s expectations is less complicated in theory than in practice. In order for public confidence to be maintained, it is imperative for trustees to keep abreast of public opinion, a notion that continuously varies. This responsibility is in addition to the task of ensuring that the necessary funds are procured for the institution. With growing dependence on individual private donors, it is not uncommon for the benefactor to gain partial authority over the gift’s use.

There are instances of large undesignated financial gifts (donations without conditions); namely Janet and Craig Duchossois’ $50 million to the Art Institute of Chicago in 2017, but similar examples are rare.2 Instead, it is typical for the public to read about large designated financial gifts, such as Ken Griffin’s $20 million gift to the Norton Museum of Art in 2018 that

1. “AAM Code of Ethics for Museums,” American Alliance of Museums, amended 2000, accessed October 12, 2018. https://www.aam-us.org/programs/ethics-standards-and-professional-practices/code-of-ethics-for- museums/. 2. Erin Rubin, “A $50 Million Gift with No Strings Attached? What It Took,” Nonprofit Quarterly, April 23, 2018, accessed July 6, 2019, https://nonprofitquarterly.org/50-million-gift-no-strings-attached-whats-bottom/. 2 secured Griffin’s name to the building.3 If the only apparent difference between Duchossois’ and

Griffin’s donations is the renaming of a museum’s building, then what is the distinction between these two types of gifts?

According to Ruth McCambridge of Nonprofit Quarterly (2010), gifts without conditions provide “a break from the constant unnecessary hamster wheel of applying yearly for grants […] and from receiving monies that may be restricted for one purpose when they really need them for another,” and can lead to “even dedicated nonprofits veer[ing] off mission periodically.”4 In other words, designated financial gifts pose a potential risk to trustees’ fiduciary responsibilities.

Designated donations are not necessarily restricted but are intended for a specific purpose, such as a capital campaign, endowment, acquisitions, and education programs, among other reasons.

Rather than balancing the needs of both the community and the institution, the scale is tipped in favor of one individual.

Donations maintain further potential risks to trustees’ responsibilities when they are perceived as “tainted.”5 This typically occurs when a benefactor becomes associated with a scandal or an event, individual, or product that is condemned by the public. For example, a

Guardian article revealed that a few Washington, D.C.-area museums have recently accepted financial donations from tobacco corporations, including the Smithsonian Institution’s National

Portrait Gallery and the Newseum.6 Although the donations’ connection to a negatively-

3. Lisa Bertagnoli, “Ken Griffin Gives $20 Million to Florida's Norton Museum of Art,” Crain’s Chicago Business, July 31, 2018, accessed July 6, 2019. https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20180731/NEWS07 /180739968/ken-griffin-gives-20-million-to-florida-s-norton-museum-of-art. 4. Ibid. 5. Paul Dunn, “When a Donor Becomes Tainted,” Nonprofit Quarterly, March 21, 2010, accessed January 15, 2019, https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2010/03/21/when-a-donor-becomes-tainted/. 6. Jessica Glenza, “Big Tobacco: Top US Arts Institutions Under Fire For Accepting Donations,” Guardian, March 29, 2019, accessed July 6, 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/29/smithsonian- and-top-institutions-under-fire-for-accepting-tobacco-money. 3 perceived product may not directly interfere with an institution’s operations, like designated financial gifts may, it maintains the potential of breaching public trust by going against the values of society.

Despite these two known qualities of financial gifts, “tainted” donations continue to be offered to museums. In light of this situation, it is important for trustees to understand how to best assess a donation to ensure it matches the institution’s mission and does not infringe on its autonomy. Also, trustees should understand how to communicate these motives to the public to promote transparency and ensure adherence to AAM’s Code of ethics to further establish public confidence. Therefore, an analysis of past donations will help reveal what impact the management of a large financial gift can have on public confidence, and which practices should be followed. This research will seek to answer the following questions: How do museum boards of trustees maintain public confidence when considering whether to accept designated financial gifts? How do donors’ beliefs impact the autonomy and perceived values of a nonprofit cultural institution?

My research will consist of a review of previous research, an analysis of three case studies, and a culminating conclusion about the findings from each case study. The following designated financial gifts will be examined: the Sackler family’s $3.5 million donation to the

Metropolitan Museum of Art (the Met) in 1974, Kenneth E. Behring’s $80 million donation to the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of American History (NMAH) in 2000, and

David H. Koch’s $35 million donation to the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of

Natural History (NMNH) in 2012. I will then create a scoring rubric for trustees of American museums to use when evaluating a potential designated financial gift based off findings from the 4 analyses. Building on research of financial gifts may promote healthy donor-trustee relationships and subsequently maintain the public’s confidence.

Literature Review

The literature review explores three areas relevant to my research: the role of nonprofit organizations and the importance of public confidence, how nonprofits protect public confidence, and how museums are financed and the ethics of accepting financial gifts. My project will review the relationship of these three areas and complement current research. The literature review and case studies ultimately highlight the importance of public confidence when considering designated financial gifts.

Role of Nonprofit Organizations and the Importance of Public Confidence

The National Council of Nonprofits articulates the role of nonprofit organizations within the United States. The Council, a national organization that supports America’s nonprofit sector, defines nonprofit organizations, or public charities, as groups that are intended for “public benefit.”7 This source explains that nonprofits are organized into a number of classifications, including – but not limited to – civic, health, arts, education, and religion.8 Although the services provided to the public by nonprofit organizations vary, all nonprofits, such as museums, are managed by individual boards of trustees that ensure an organization’s mission and subsequent

7. “What is a “Nonprofit?,”” National Council of Nonprofits, accessed June 10, 2019, https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/what-is-a-nonprofit. 8. Ibid. 5 posterity through principled governance and financial security.9 I will use the Council’s description to define the purpose of nonprofit organizations for my research.

Trustees therefore maintain fiduciary responsibilities that are intended to deter legal misconduct. A Practical Guide to Museum Ethics is a comprehensive discussion about common ethical dilemmas within museums and museum leadership and is intended for any museum professional or leader. The book prepares museum professionals for a variety of potential ethical quandaries. Yerkovich explains each of the three fiduciary duties: duty of care, duty of loyalty, and duty of obedience in the context of ethical governance. Duty of care requires trustees to operate in a cautious, thorough manner to avoid negligence. Although established to deter wrongdoing that could potentially harm an organization, this commitment encourages trustees to perform to the best of their abilities. Duty of loyalty necessitates that the interests of an organization are placed before those of an individual trustee. It is important for a trustee not to exploit the advantages of their position, especially if one’s actions hinder the advancement of the organization. Thirdly, duty of obedience calls for the promotion of an organization’s mission through the board’s long-term planning.10 The goal of these three duties is to protect nonprofits from mismanagement.

However, fiduciary responsibilities are in place to deter only legal misconduct. In order to ensure an institution’s posterity for public service, a nonprofit’s board of trustees must go beyond these expectations in order to secure the public’s confidence. For this reason, Marie C.

Malaro (1994) contends that museum governance should be held to higher expectations. Malaro outlines the purpose of nonprofits and the significance of maintaining the community’s

9. Ibid. 10. Sally Yerkovich, A Practical Guide to Museum Ethics (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016), 22-23. 6 confidence. The author specifically discusses the value of museum leaders going above and beyond expectation to maintain a trustworthy reputation for the institution. Malaro states that the responsibilities of trustees should “show personal attention to mission, that they actually set informed policy and exercise prudent oversight, and that they remain very sensitive to conflict of interest situations in core activities.”11 This heightened dedication is a precautionary effort against even the slightest notion of misconduct.12

Allison Anna Tait (2015) of the University of Richmond School of Law furthers

Malaro’s claim by observing stricter standards of conduct being implemented by trustees and directors for this reason. Her article is intended for museum and nonprofit professionals as it explores the interpretations of “public trust.” The researcher’s findings favor the trust law framework to improve the publicity of an organization. Tait articulates the necessity for museum leadership to operate with an increased level of care in order to maintain public trust. Tait asserts that both levels of leadership exercising duty of loyalty “help[s] to ensure that the terms set forth in governing documents are complied with and that the mission and needs of the institution are paramount.”13

On the other hand, Rob Atkinson’s (2008) analysis of fiduciary duties places particular emphasis on duty of obedience. Atkinson argues that duty of obedience encompasses both duty of loyalty and duty of care. Duty of obedience is important to public confidence as it promotes an institution’s posterity. Atkinson also contends that one must be careful when defining the baseline for duty of obedience, which encompasses both care and loyalty. Unlike the private

11. Marie C. Malaro, Museum Governance: Mission, Ethics, Policy (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1994), 12. 12. Ibid., 12-13. 13. Allison Anna Tait, “Publicity Rules for Public Trusts,” Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 33 (2015): 437-439, accessed October 15, 2018, EBSCOhost. 7 sector, public organizations hinge on public benefit. If expectations are out of reach, it may be impossible to satisfy public needs. Similarly, falsely setting the bar too low could exhaust resources.14 The effectiveness of thorough governance will be examined in each case study of my research.

In fact, research suggests that communication is a key component of effective governance, and will subsequently be an aspect for analysis with my own case studies. In one such study, Beshi and Kaur’s (2019) analysis of effective leadership’s impact on public trust in local government mirrors this idea. Beshi and Kaur’s study is intended for individuals involved in local government. Their analysis ultimately highlights communication as a main tool for improving public confidence. The researchers note that because trust is “multifaceted,” it is subsequently challenging to formulate an approach that successfully garners confidence.

However, the analysis underscores three aspects that impact public confidence: transparency, perceived accountability, and perceived responsiveness. Transparency offers society the opportunity to assess the effectiveness of governance and can be achieved through open, honest, and direct communication with the public. Perceived accountability is comprised of sharing intentions and goals so the public can evaluate leadership’s performance. Lastly, perceived responsiveness is taking heed to the public’s needs and concerns.15 A common theme in Beshi and Kaur’s research is communication. Although the study places emphasis on public organizations transmitting information to the public, the last item entails an open dialogue with the community, which aligns with my research.

14. Rob Atkinson, “Obedience as the Foundation of Fiduciary Duty,” Journal of Corporation Law 34, no. 1 (Fall 2008): 72-76, accessed November 23, 2018, EBSCOhost. 15. Taye Demissie Beshi and Ranvinderjit Kaur, “Public Trust in Local Government: Explaining the Role of Good Governance Practices,” Public Organization Review: A Global Journal (2019): 3, 10-12, accessed July 21, 2019, EBSCOhost. 8

This two-way conversation discussed in research conducted by Beshi and Kaur, as well as Atkinson, is also emphasized by Kozuch et al. (2018) who identify understanding the public’s needs as a fundamental component to the success of an organization. Managing Public Trust explores the relationship between an organization and public trust and is intended for a global audience involved in organizational leadership. The researchers explore the significance and meaning of trust, as well as its various aspects in different settings. Kozuch et al. outline the evolution of establishing public confidence. The authors specifically define public organizations as institutions “whose primary function, or mission, is to meet the public needs of the citizenry by providing public goods and services.”16 Unlike private corporations whose benchmark of success is profits earned, the prosperity of a nonprofit is rooted in an organization’s ability to

“balance the influence of different stakeholder groups and reconcile or resolve emerging conflicts” while also providing its specialized service to the community.17 Nevertheless, achieving this equilibrium is not an easy task. In fact, Kozuch discerns five principle tasks of public organizations that naturally challenge this ideal balance: to serve the needs of the public, to reflect the diversity of society, to strive to fulfill stakeholders’ interests, to operate in a forthright manner, and – specifically in regards to leadership – to foster employees’ competence.18 A natural quandary thus arises between the vision of trustees, the demands of the public, and the agility of the institution to meet society’s needs. This is relevant to my research as the three selected case studies exemplify an imbalance of donor influence.

Yet, as noted by Kozuch, public confidence is at the center of trustees’ work and the determinant of an organization’s success, and nonprofit organizations are continuously vying for

16. Barbara Kozuch, Sawomir Magala, and Joanna Olga Paliszkiewicz, Managing Public Trust, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), 28, EBSCOhost. 17. Ibid, 29. 18. Ibid., 30-31. 9 and adapting to the prevailing attitudes and needs of society. Considering this approach, clear and honest communication with the public is essential. In an analysis of cognitive behavior on public opinion, Huang and Cui (2019) analyze the process of conveying ideas to a target audience. The researchers discuss the impact of cognitive behavior on public opinion and review the segments of communication, and identify four segments of communication: the communicator, audience, content, and media.19 Although they acknowledge the impact of the communicator, or who conveys the message, on how the content is perceived by the public, they also observe great importance on both feedback and the platform used to transmit ideas to a target market; the researchers specifically mention that messages are typically better received from professional organizations. Moreover, when referring to past research, Huang and Cui state that “It is the response and feedback from the audience for the information and content sent by the communicator to achieve communication between the two.”20 How organizations, such as museums, communicate with the public will impact the public’s reaction to the content, which is a component of my research.

Therefore, ensuring an audience for the content is a critical component of trust. In her research of public charities’ relationship with the public, Lindsey McDougle (2014) explores the connection between the community’s awareness and confidence. McDougle’s study specifically builds on a past study indicating declining rates of trust in nonprofits, and also reveals that awareness can significantly improve public confidence. In 2002, a national survey found that individuals reporting having strong confidence in nonprofit organizations decreased from 25% in

19. W.D. Huang and Y. Cui, “Effect of Individual Cognitive Behavior Model on Public Opinion Communication Mechanism Based on Social Ecosystem,” Ekoloji Dergisi, no. 107 (January 2019): 4725, accessed June 13, 2019, EBSCOhost. 20. Ibid. 10

July 2001 to 18% in September 2002, with subsequent studies signifying similar trends.21 From this data, McDougle recognizes a need for improving society’s association with public charities and attempts to understand the reason behind this growing sentiment. Her research reveals a surprising element: those likely to benefit from an organization are also the least likely to know about public charity’s services. Furthermore, the survey found that awareness typically maintains a positive effect on confidence, with recognition prompting the likelihood of trust by two or three times.22 The success of an organization is marginal if the public is unaware of the benefits provided by the public charity, and institutions cannot solely depend on mere existence to fulfill its duty of public service.

Therefore, effective communication necessitates corresponding viewpoints from both the communicator and audience. However, organizations also need to ensure that why their services are needed is properly conveyed. Furthering McDougle’s findings, Cadet and Carroll (2019) claim these groups “are in essence communicating to society what the risk is if they are not able to provide their services.” 23 This is a study that focuses on communication within the nonprofit sector. Cadet and Carroll explain that nonprofits commonly assume a storytelling marketing approach where information is disseminated in a such a way that “meaningful self-brand connections are formed.”24 This differs from narrative response, or the audience’s reaction, in that “lessons, ideas, concepts, and connections as a way of sharing information and experiences through narrative and anecdotes,”25 and instead involves the communication segment of content

21. Lindsey McDougle, “Understanding Public Awareness of Nonprofit Organizations: Exploring the Awareness-Confidence Relationship,” International Journal of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing 19 (3) (2014): 188-189, accessed July 20, 2019, EBSCOhost. 22. Ibid., 196. 23. Fabienne T. Cadet and Ryall Carroll, “Nonprofit Organization Communication: Risky Business,” Review of Business 39 (1) (2019): 7, EBSCOhost. 24. Ibid. 25. Ibid. 11 in that the message resonates with the public while still portraying the necessary information. My research will build on this theory by analyzing how museums communicate content related to scandal, and how this content is perceived by the public.

Hence, research highlights the need for any organization – public or private – to accurately understand its patronage for effective communication, a necessary component of public confidence that is lacking. Similarly, previous research also suggests that transparency is a common way for organizations to promote public confidence. After considering the functions of nonprofits and why organizations value public confidence, it is necessary to look into what barriers museums and other nonprofits currently use to protect public confidence.

How Nonprofits Protect Public Confidence

Current barriers are in place to protect a nonprofit from mismanagement, provide transparency, and subsequently safeguard public confidence. For instance, Powell and Steinberg

(2006) note that “procedural accountability,” via evaluations and peer review, is growing in prevalence within the American nonprofit sector.26 Institutions that are classified as 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) are tax-exempt and can incentivize donations with tax deduction.27 A requirement for these types of organizations is an annual submission of a Form 990 that is comprised of earnings, expenditures, and salaries of highest-paid employees, among other information. Most of the details from these Forms are

26. Walter W. Powell and Richard Steinberg, The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook, Vol. 2nd ed (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 374, EBSCOhost. 27. Ibid., 32. 12 available to the public, thus promoting transparency. For each case study that my research examines, I will identify which barriers are implemented by each museum.

As observed in Powell and Steinberg’s research, demonstration of forthright management can also be implemented through peer regulation, which Sue Chen (2009) identifies as a second layer of defense in addition to self-regulation.28 According to Chen, peer regulation is applying for and earning accreditation from AAM. This seal of approval shows the public that a museum operates to a high standard and is trusted to act in an ethical manner. Chen notes that whereas an institution may be granted this status it does not provide immunity from consequences of unethical decision making. For instance, AAM can revoke a museum’s accreditation if it does not abide by the Association’s Code of Ethics. Self-regulation is a museum’s compliance with its own guidelines. Chen gives the example of museums having regulations outlining how to ethically deaccession objects from its collection, a topic that can easily draw criticism.29 Thus, it is imperative for institutions to display ethical conduct as outside opinion forms the basis for public confidence.

In fact, museums in the United Kingdom (UK) exemplify how barriers can be further ingrained. As some of the most well-known institutions are sponsored by the Department for

Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), including the British Museum, National Portrait

Gallery, and V&A, public approval is all the more important; not only is an individual museum’s governance at risk, but so is the UK government.30 Subsequently, there is more research

28. Sue Chen, “Art Deaccessions and the Limits of Fiduciary Duty,” Art, Antiquity & Law 14 (2) (2009): 113, accessed November 23, 2018, EBSCOhost. 29. Ibid., 113-115. 30. “Strategic Review of DCMS-Sponsored Museums,” Department for Digital, Culture Media & Sport, November 2017, accessed November 24, 2018, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/file/ 673938/Strategic_review_of_DCMS-sponsored_museums.pdf. 13 surrounding the public’s perception of ethical governance in addition to how the government encourages individuals to meet ethical standards.

In a recent study of nonprofit mismanagement, McDonnell and Rutherford (2018) observed commonalities that lead to regulatory investigations at UK institutions, including age, location, and service. Whereas focusing on the impact of a nonprofit’s size, results confirm an important element of public confidence: public scrutiny is more likely to occur at larger organizations. With obligations to a greater staff, consumer base, and budget, nonprofits are at the helm of an increased amount of public opinion. In response to their findings, McDonnell and

Rutherford argue that “It is no longer sufficient (if indeed it ever was) to rely on charity status to convey trust and inspire confidence in the conduct of an organization.”31 Therefore, there is a need for government-imposed ethical standards.

To guide individuals providing public services, the Committee on Standards in Public

Life established the 7 Principles of Public Life, known as the Nolan Principles, in 1995. The

Nolan Principles are comprised of seven components: Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity,

Accountability, Openness, Honesty, and Leadership.32 With the goal of “combat[ing] the public perception of wrongdoing,” the Museum’s Association (MA), UK’s equivalent of AAM, included the Principles in its Code of Ethics for Museums (2008).33 Despite its implementation at the national and professional levels, a study of UK museum accountability conducted by

Katherine Groninger (2012) found that more than half (55%) of the 3,000 institutions invited to

31. Diarmuid McDonnell and Alasdair C. Rutherford, “The Determinants of Charity Misconduct,” Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly 47 (1) (2018): 115-116, 120, accessed October 20, 2018, EBSCOhost. 32. “The 7 Principles of Public Life,” Committee on Standards in Public Life, May 31, 1995, accessed November 25, 2018, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-of-public-life. 33. Katherine Groninger, “Protecting the Public Trust: Implementing Accountability Measures in UK Museums,” International Journal of the Inclusive Museum 5 (4) (2012): 73, accessed October 20, 2018, EBSCOhost. 14 participate in her survey reported being “Unfamiliar” with the Principles.34 Whereas defining ethics is the first step to avoiding malpractice, educating governance – including staff – about the standards should be the next approach. Although my research is focused on museums in the U.S., understanding alternative approaches may offer insight into potential suggestions for a board of trustees.

Nevertheless, how can leadership educate its personnel about the importance of ethics if standards are not formed and amended to meet the nature of an institution? Erich Hatala Matthes

(2017) ponders this question in the context of art research. Matthes finds fault in how previous controversaries, most recently the removal of Confederate statues, have been handled by museums at the global level. He argues that instead of “merely reacting to public controversy, museums could support serious investigation into these subjects and serve as leaders who shape a sophisticated public discussion that persists beyond the attention span of modern media.”35

Matthes’ call for field-wide agreement to ward off public criticism touches on the idea that codes of ethics should reflect the needs of an institution, or profession in this case. Barriers against misconduct, such as a code of ethics, may prove virtually ineffective if all trustees do not fulfill their responsibility to review and collectively revise them as needed.

In addition to seeing that fiduciary expectations are achieved, a board of trustees is also responsible for ensuring financial stability. Procuring capital is a necessary element of a museum’s sustainability. However, fundraising can also provoke ethical dilemmas.

34. Ibid., 73-74. 35. Erich Hatala Matthes, “Why Museums Need Their Own Ethics Departments,” Apollo Magazine, September 4, 2017, accessed November 25, 2018, https://www.apollo-magazine.com/why-museums-need-their- own-ethics-departments/. 15

How Museums are Financed and the Ethics of Accepting Financial Gifts

As nonprofit organizations, most museums receive funding from a variety of sources. In a

2012 report published by the United States Department of State Bureau of International

Information Programs, Ford W. Bell explains that museums receive financial support from government, private, invested, and earned funds. Private giving, or “individuals, charities and philanthropic foundations, as well as corporate sponsors,” is the largest segment, constituting

38% of operating revenue.36 Considering this statistic, trustees should be even more prudent when dealing with financial matters, especially since more museums are becoming dependent on gifts from the private sector.

The market has become further competitive in the post-recession era as Katja Lindqvist

(2012) finds that private stakeholders have the potential to offer sustainability. The need to secure financial security has grown increasingly important as more cultural organizations are established. Even though stakeholders of museums range from the government to friend associations, the available funding has not risen with the number of institutions formed in recent years, leading to heightened competition in the past decade. Securing strong relationships with donors may establish loyalty that leads to repeat financial gifts. Private donations are also typically made after long decision making and are less susceptible to financial crises.37 Caution should be exercised as donors may want to attach conditions to financial gifts to gain influence over its use.

36. Ford B. Well, “How Are Museums Supported Financially in the U.S.?,” United States Department of State Bureau of International Information Programs, March 2012, accessed November 2, 2018, https://photos.state.gov/libraries/amgov/133183/english P _You_Asked_ How_Are_Museums_Supported_ Financially.pdf. 37. Katja Lindqvist, “Museum Finances: Challenges Beyond Economic Crises,” Museum Management and Curatorship, 27 (2012): 4, 6, accessed November 14, 2018, EBSCOhost. 16

Coining these limitations as “donor governance,” David Yermack (2017) of the New

York University Stern School of Business argues that powershifts in favor of the donor occur when a museum’s board of trustees is “weak.”38 Yermack describes this imbalance as an innate feature of private sector donations.39 Restricted financial gifts have the potential to encourage trustees to overlook fiduciary obligations in order to meet donors’ requests. My research strives to confirm the theory of donor governance through the imbalance of benefactors’ influence over the use of the donations in each case study. AAM acknowledges that donors may gain involvement in an institution’s affairs, but advises an institution to see the importance “to a museum’s public trust responsibilities that it maintain control over the content and integrity of its programs, exhibitions and activities.”40 However, despite its potential detriment to ethical leadership – and autonomy – some trustees continue to acquire restricted donations.

In his study of American art museums, Peter Temin (1991) observes a rise in restricted financial gifts over the past century and attributes the increase to the creation of tax-exempt status in his historiography of American art museum’s financial past. With the need to disclose financial activity on federal tax returns, museums began implementing additional measures to guarantee proper operations, including a shift to professional staff. The inability to cover expanded operation costs, however, soon led to a growth in both the deficit and the appeal of financial gifts, regardless of stipulations.41

38. David Yermack, “Donor Governance and Financial Management in Prominent US Art Museums,” Journal of Cultural Economics 41 (3) (2017): 216, accessed October 12, 2018, EBSCOhost. 39. Ibid. 40. “Developing and Managing Business and Individual Donor Support,” American Alliance of Museums, accessed November 25, 2018, https://www.aam-us.org/programs/ethics-standards-and-professional- practices/developing-and-managing-business-and-individual-donor-support/. 41. Peter Temin, “An Economic History of American Art Museums” in The Economics of Art Museums, Martin Feldstein, editor (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), 180, 185-187. 17

Conversely, Paul Dunn (2010) discusses the threat of gifts becoming “tainted” as a result of a donor’s misconduct.42 According to Dunn, this shift in public opinion transpires “when a nonprofit’s values and activities are inconsistent with those of a donor,” which are brought to the public’s attention through the media.43 Dunn identifies three reasons for this change: stakeholder theory, value incongruence, and economic need. Stakeholder theory is the idea that one person or party maintains a greater share in the organization than others. Value incongruence consists of

“the degree of compatibility between the norms, values, and actions of an external stakeholder with the core values, beliefs, and activities of an organization,” and discrepancies in the parties’ values lead to value incongruence.44 Furthermore, an institution’s economic need could direct its handling of donations that conflict with the organization’s mission. Dunn points out that an institution could determine that a donation’s economic benefit outweighs any potential damage to its reputation.45

However, Dunn explains that scandals are often brought to the forefront of the public’s attention when they do occur, and asserts that “nonprofit organizations must be forearmed and ready to react upon the revelation that a donor once perceived to be clean is now tainted.”46 Dunn identifies three main approaches to handling a “tainted” donation. The first, acquiescence, is the outright return of a donation. The second strategy, compromise, is a partial return or reversal of a donation. Dunn provides the example of changing the title of a renamed building but maintaining the monetary donation. The last strategy, defiance, is the act of not making any changes despite a scandal.47 Which strategy is selected, however, will directly impact public confidence. Thus,

42. Dunn. 43. Ibid. 44. Ibid. 45. Ibid. 46. Ibid. 47. Ibid. 18 current research indicates the significance of museum-donor relationships and its impact on the public’s perception of ethical leadership. My research will build on Dunn’s theory when creating suggestions for trustees when considering financial gifts and will identify the best action plan if the donation becomes tainted.

In addition to reviewing the conditions of gifts, the board is also responsible for ensuring that the provenance of a major gift has been researched and seeing that the donation aligns with the institution’s mission. Whereas commonly studied in the context of object donations, understanding the background of financial gifts is just as critical.48 In a study of looted objects in the United States, Laetitia La Follette (2017) comments that stolen artifacts “not only contravenes a museum’s code of ethics, but also damages the museum’s reputation.”49 Likewise, understanding a potential donor’s background is important to maintaining a museum’s image.

Adequate provenance research demonstrates thoroughness on behalf of an institution, either by leadership or staff, and certifies that trustees are mission-driven.

In fact, AAM acknowledges that donors may gain involvement in an institution’s affairs but advises an institution to see the importance “to a museum’s public trust responsibilities that it maintain control over the content and integrity of its programs, exhibitions and activities.”50

Furthermore, the International Council of Museums’ Code of Ethics states that “Regardless of funding source, museums should maintain control of the content and integrity of their

48. Marie C. Malaro and Ildiko DeAngelis, A Legal Primer on Managing Museum Collections, third edition (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Books, 2012), 20. 49. Laetitia La Follette, “Looted Antiquities, Art Museums and Restitution in the United States since 1970,” Journal of Contemporary History, no. 52 (3) (2017): 672, accessed October 16, 2018, EBSCOhost. 50. “Developing and Managing Business and Individual Donor Support.” 19 programmes, exhibitions and activities. Income-generating activities should not compromise the standards of the institution or its public.”51

Thus, current research indicates the significance of museum-donor relationships and its impact on the public’s perception of ethical leadership. Whereas previous studies focus on the ethics of museum leadership, the growing importance of private sector donations, and the potential risks of restricted gifts, how a museum manages a designated gift has not been thoroughly analyzed. Furthermore, little research of “tainted” donations has been conducted.

As revealed in the reviewed literature, exploring the ethics of considering designated financial gifts may promote a museum’s role of community service and, therefore, the institution’s posterity. My research will examine barriers currently used by museums to preserve integrity and transparency. The case study analysis will specifically build on Dunn’s theory of

“tainted” donations and institutions’ response to scandal. By elaborating on research within these three areas, the goal of my research is to ultimately provide trustees with a set of ethical guidelines to follow when procuring donations.

Methodology

In this study, I will conduct a multiple case study analysis of three donations that were gifted to museums between 1974 and 2012 and range from $3.5 to $80 million. Each gift was designated to its respective museum for a specific purpose and has become “tainted” since its initial procurement. Furthermore, in addition to these qualities and the size of the donations, the

51. “ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums,” International Council of Museums, June 2017, accessed March 8, 2019, https://icom.museum/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/ICOM-code-En-web.pdf. 20 financial gifts have garnered the public and media’s attention, thus causing strong public response and prompting details of the donations to be accessible for review via newspapers and other news sources.

First to be reviewed is the Sackler family’s $3.5 million donation to the Metropolitan

Museum of Art (the Met) in 1974.52 Whereas the family designated the funds to build the Sackler

Wing, the family’s name has come under scrutiny recently due to family members’ leadership of

Purdue Pharma, the company that produces Oxycontin, and its association with the current opioid epidemic.53 In May 2019, the Met announced that it will no longer accept donations from the Sacklers.54

Secondly, Kenneth E. Behring’s $80 million donation to the Smithsonian Institution’s

National Museum of American History (NMAH) in 2000 will also be analyzed. Behring designated the gift toward the institution’s $200 million capital campaign, which prompted the addition of the “Behring Center” to the name of the NMAH’s building, and possible influence over an exhibit’s content.55 Thirdly, David H. Koch’s $35 million donation to the Smithsonian

52. Katie Warren, “Meet the Sacklers, One of the Richest Families in America, Who Built Their $14 Billion Fortune Off of Controversial Prescription Drug OxyContin,” Business Insider, January 18, 2019, accessed July 7, 2019, https://www.businessinsider.com/who-are-the-sacklers-wealth-philanthropy-oxycontin-photos-2019-1; Note: Although the Guardian reported the value of the Sackler family’s donation at $3.4 million, this research will review the Sackler family’s donation at the value of $3.5 million; Joanna Walters, “Artist Nan Goldin Stages Opioids Protest in Metropolitan Museum Sackler Wing,” Guardian, March 11, 2018, accessed March 1, 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/10/opioids-nan-goldin-protest-metropolitan-museum-sackler-wing. 53. Victoria Stapley-Brown, “The Met Is Re-Evaluating Its Gift Acceptance Policy in Wake of Sackler Lawsuits,” The Art Newspaper, January 21, 2019, accessed January 27, 2019, https://www.theartnewspaper. com/news/the-met-is-re-evaluating-its-gift-policy-in-wake-of-sackler-lawsuits. 54. Elizabeth A. Harris, “The Met Will Turn Down Sackler Money Amid Fury Over the Opioid Crisis,” New York Times, May 15, 2019, accessed July 7, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/arts/design/met- museum-sackler-opioids.html. 55. Elaine Sciolino, “Smithsonian Is Promised $38 Million, With Strings,” New York Times, May 10, 2001, accessed October 14, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/10/us/smithsonian-is-promised-38-million-with- strings.html; “Smithsonian Institution Announces Biggest Single Donation in its 154-year History,” National Museum of American History, September 18, 2000, accessed October 13, 2018, http://americanhistory.si.edu/press /releases/smithsonian-institution-announces-biggest-single-donation-its-154-year-history. 21

Institution’s National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) in 2012 for the David H. Koch Hall of Fossils — Deep Time exhibit will be examined. This financial gift follows a $15 million financial gift to NMNH for the David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins in 2010 which has raised concern of donor influence due to its portrayal of climate change.56 Calls for Koch’s resignation on the boards of NMNH and the American Museum of Natural History in New York transpired after his 2012 donation.57

In order to conduct this research, newspapers, journal articles, and field-specific periodicals and websites will be consulted, such as, but not limited to: The New York Times,

Washington Post, Chronicle of Philanthropy, The Art Newspaper, Nonprofit Quarterly, among other sources. As media is the main source of public information regarding museum donations, an analysis of public opinion can be formed from these sources. Direct communication with the museums via phone and email interviews may fill gaps of knowledge pertaining to case studies; however, this method will be supplementary.

Each case study will be examined individually with an established list of guiding questions for analysis about the donor, designation, and public response. Questions for each case study are as follows:

Donor: Who provided the financial donation? Is there a history between the donor and the museum? What is the general public opinion of the donor outside this particular donation?

56. Hui Liu, “What to Do When You See Science Denial at the Science Museum,” Greenpeace, July 26, 2017, accessed November 3, 2018, https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/see-science-denial-science-museum/. 57. David Ng, “Reject David Koch Money, Scientists and Museum Officials' Letter Urges,” Los Angeles Times¸ March 25, 2015, accessed November 3, 2018, http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/culture/la-et-cm- david-koch-museums-20150325-story.html. 22

Designation: What is the purpose for the donation? Does the donation support or pose any threat to the museum’s autonomy?

Public Response: What is the public’s opinion of the donation? How is the institution reacting to the public’s response?

Finally, there will be a culminating discussion of the findings from each case study, and the main research questions will be deduced from this analysis. The researcher will create a scoring rubric for trustees of American museums to use when evaluating a potential designated financial gift. Criteria will be based on characteristics of gifts that may help or hinder operations and public trust. The purpose of this rubric is to help trustees consider financial gifts from both the perspectives of leadership, operations, and the public’s opinion in the hopes of further maintaining public confidence.

Limitations of this study include confidentiality, access to information about donor and financial gifts, and the continuous unfolding of events. Whereas these limitations may be difficult to overcome, it is not imperative that additional information be acquired as the research will be conducted from the public’s perspective. Therefore, main sources will be those that have already been published. Additionally, confirmation bias will be another limitation given the publicity and criticism of the selected donations. To reduce this bias, discussion surrounding the benefits of each financial gift will be included in the analysis and discussion.

23

Case Studies

Sackler Family

In 1967, the Egyptian government announced its decision to gift the Temple of Dendur to the United States in order to preserve the monument from the rising levels of the Nile River.

Numerous cities and museums vied to be the stewards of the 2,000 year-old monument, but the

United States government ultimately selected the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York

City. The Met commissioned architects Kevin Roche and John Dinkeloo to design a palatial gallery that would honor the Temple’s grandeur and provenance, complete with a reflecting pool and natural light. Named after the donor who underwrote a portion of the $11.5 million in total costs for the new exhibit space, the Sackler Wing officially opened to the public in 1978.58

Arthur Sackler, a physician, marketer, and philanthropist, is the Wing’s namesake and the man behind the $3.5 million donation. In 1952, Arthur, along with his brothers Mortimer and

Raymond, purchased Purdue Frederick, a company focused on patent medicine. The Sackler brothers donated to a variety of institutions as their wealth grew, but Arthur became an especially prominent patron of the arts. Providing financial gifts to renowned museums such as the Arthur

M. Sackler Museum at Harvard University and the Smithsonian Institution’s Arthur M. Sackler

Gallery, Arthur’s financial gift to the Met came as no surprise.59

Nine years after the dedication of the Sackler Wing, Arthur passed away in 1987, but

Mortimer and Raymond carried on the family name. Renaming the company to Purdue Pharma,

58. Paul Goldberger, “Temple of Dendur and Its Glass Box; Cities Competed for Temple; Size Suggests Importance; Another Glass Court Planned,” New York Times, January 14, 1979, accessed July 13, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/1979/01/14/archives/temple-of-dendur-and-its-glass-box-cities-competed-for-temple- size.html?searchResultPosition=1. 59. Ibid. 24 the release of a powerful new painkiller, OxyContin, in 1995 yielded financial success. However, containing oxycodone, OxyContin is highly addictive and nearly twice as strong as morphine.

Purdue Pharma employed misleading marketing tactics that portrayed OxyContin as the quintessential treatment for pain to medical professionals.60 Prescriptions for the drug subsequently skyrocketed, rising from 670,000 to 6.2 million between 1997 and 2002, and with each prescription came the potential for addiction.61

Almost a quarter of a million Americans have died as a result of opioid-related overdoses from 1999 to 2017, causing the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) to declare the opioid crisis a nationwide public health emergency on October 26, 2017.62 As society grapples with the epidemic and its consequences, questions about its origins have been raised.

Who is to blame?

As of 2019, the HHS maintains a page on the Department’s website titled “What is the

U.S. Opioid Epidemic?,” and the first bullet point reads: “In the late 1990s, pharmaceutical companies reassured the medical community that patients would not become addicted to opioid pain relievers and healthcare providers began to prescribe them at greater rates.”63 Although the

Department explains that multiple drug companies are at fault for prompting the national health crisis, society has recognized Purdue Pharma as a major culprit, and the Sackler name has since become synonymous with the epidemic. In 2007, the company plead guilty to a federal felony

60. Ibid. 61. Mark R. Jones, Omar Viswanath, Jacquelin Peck, Alan D Kaye, Jatinder S Gill, and Thomas T Simopoulos, “A Brief History of the Opioid Epidemic and Strategies for Pain Medicine,” Pain And Therapy 7 (1) (2018): 16, accessed July 14, 2019, EBSCOhost. 62. Goldberger; “HHS Acting Secretary Declares Public Health Emergency to Address National Opioid Crisis,” U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, October 26, 2017, accessed July 14, 2019, https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2017/10/26/hhs-acting-secretary-declares-public-health-emergency-address- national-opioid-crisis.html. 63. “What is the U.S. Opioid Epidemic?,” U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, accessed July 14, 2019, https://www.hhs.gov/opioids/about-the-epidemic/index.html. 25 charge for using marketing tactics that falsely portrayed OxyContin “as less addictive, less subject to abuse and less likely to cause withdrawal than other painkillers.”64

Whereas the Sackler name rises in infamous recognition, the public’s attention has turned to its association with educational and cultural institutions. Awareness of the Sacklers’ leadership of Purdue Pharma and the company’s use of Arthur’s deceitful marketing tactics has caused public backlash. Questions regarding the ethics of maintaining financial gifts from donors who acquired their wealth through a business that is at the helm of hundreds of thousands of deaths have been raised. Individuals have quickly begun to show outward disapproval toward organizations that have retained tainted funds as opioid-related deaths continue to exponentially increase.

Despite almost a half century separating the epidemic from Arthur’s famed donation, the

Met has received donations from the Mortimer D. Sackler Foundation as recently as 2016. In

March 2018, anti-opioid activists, including Nan Goldin and her Prescription Addiction

Intervention Now (PAIN) group, staged a protest in the Met’s Sackler Wing, calling for the

Museum to decline gifts from the Sackler family. Prescription bottles littered the reflecting pool as protesters revealed black banners with statements such as “Fund Rehab.”65 However, chants of “Shame on Sackler” continued at other Sackler-funded institutions. One month later, Nan

Goldin and PAIN journey to Washington, D.C. to a voice the same demands outside the

Smithsonian’s Arthur M. Sackler Gallery in Washington, D.C.66 Less than a year later, the same

64. Colin Moynihan, “Opioid Protest at Met Museum Targets Donors Connected to OxyContin,” The New York Times, March 10, 2018, accessed July 14, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/us/met-museum- sackler-protest.html?searchResultPosition=1. 65. Ibid. 66. Peggy McGlone, “‘Shame on Sackler’: Anti-Opioid Activists Call Out Late Smithsonian Donor at His Namesake Museum,” The Washington Post, April 26, 2018, accessed July 14, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost. com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2018/04/26/shame-on-sackler-anti-opioid-activists-call-out-late-smithsonian- donor-at-his-namesake-museum/?utm_term=.4b0f0f85eed5. 26 group staged a protest inside the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in New York City, home to the Sackler Center for Arts, where Goldin and fellow demonstrators released replica prescription slips for OxyContin from the Museum’s rotunda in February 2019.67 All three events, staged at prominent institutions, garnered coverage by the media that pressured institutions to respond.

A year passed from the initial protest at the Met before the first major institutions would provide such responses. In January 2019, the media reported the Met to be reviewing its gift policy.68 All within the same week, the National Gallery of Art and the Tate art galleries in

London, as well as the Guggenheim, announced plans to reject future donations form the Sackler family in March 2019.69 As the anti-opioid community celebrated a major victory in its campaign, attention turned toward the Met. Two months passed before the fateful announcement from the Met’s President, Daniel H. Weiss, appeared in the pages of The New York Times on

May 15, 2019. Asserting that “On occasion, we feel it’s necessary to step away from gifts that are not in the public interest,” Weiss stated that the Museum would no longer accept donations from the Sackler family.70 Two months later, the Louvre Museum in France announced it will remove the Sackler’s name from the Sackler Wing of Oriental Antiquities.71

67. Colin Moynihan, “Guggenheim Targeted by Protesters for Accepting Money From Family With OxyContin Ties,” The New York Times, February 9, 2019, accessed July 14, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com /2019/02/09/arts/protesters-guggenheim-sackler.html?searchResultPosition=1. 68. Victoria Stapley-Brown. 69. Joanna Walters, “Tate Art Galleries Will No Longer Accept Donations from the Sackler Family,” The Guardian, March 22, 2019, accessed July 13, 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/mar/ 21/tate-art-galleries-will-no-longer-accept-donations-from-the-sackler-family; Liam Stack, “Guggenheim Museum Says It Won’t Accept Gifts From Sackler Family,” The New York Times, March 22, 2019, accessed July 14, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/22/arts/guggenheim-sackler-family-donations.html. 70. Anand Giridharadas, “When Your Money Is So Tainted Museums Don’t Want It,” The New York Times, May 16, 2019, accessed July 12, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/opinion/sunday/met- sackler.html?searchResultPosition=3. 71. Elizabeth A. Harris, “The Louvre Took Down the Sackler Name. Here’s Why Other Museums Probably Won’t.,” The New York Times, July 18, 2019, accessed July 21, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/18/arts /sackler-family-museums.html. 27

In a span of a couple months, four major museums made significant social statements to reflect the values of society. Nevertheless, the anti-opioid community’s efforts have not come to a halt. Arthur Sackler’s name is still present on the National Mall, spurring individuals like

Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon to urge the Smithsonian to rename one of its Asian art galleries in June 2019. The Smithsonian’s newly-appointed secretary, Lonnie G. Bunch III, has since responded to such requests with the following statement: “The legal agreement signed between the Smithsonian and Arthur M. Sackler was in keeping with the Smithsonian’s recognition practices at the time and obligated the Smithsonian to designate the facility as the Arthur M.

Sackler Gallery in perpetuity,” prohibiting the Museum from changing its name.72 However, a change in the gift policy in 2011 places a 20-year maximum limit on naming rights, or until the next renovation.73

This announcement came to the relief of Arthur’s widow, Jillian. As President and Chief

Executive of the Dame Jillian and Dr. Arthur M. Sackler Foundation for the Arts, Sciences and

Humanities, Jillian Sackler has maintained direct ties to her late husband’s philanthropy. Penning an op-ed that appeared in The Washington Post in April 2019, Jillian expressed frustration toward the shift in the public’s opinion of Arthur due to his “association” with OxyContin, a drug that was released several years after his death. She raises an interesting point about society’s current approach to scandal and how quick judgement can alter one’s reputation, stating

“We live in an age when assigning blame has become a national obsession […] Hearsay builds upon hearsay in the search for culprits, until guilt is assumed — without evidence.” Jillian

72. Peggy McGlone, “Smithsonian Says No to Senator’s Request to Strip Sackler Name from Museum,” The Washington Post, June 30, 2019, accessed July 12, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/museums/ smithsonian-says-no-to-senators-request-to-strip-sackler- name-from-museum/2019/06/28/618ee18a-99ec-11e9-a027-c571fd3d394d_story.html?utm_term=.667e62c676a4. 73. Harris. 28 ultimately identifies the victims as the “culprits,” but the institutions who are forced to react to the public’s response, too.74

Therefore, the Freer Gallery of Art and the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery – two Smithsonian- operated Asian art museums adjacent to one another on the National Mall – opted to invest in a rebranding endeavor in the fall of 2019. Sixty-four years after the Freer Gallery opened its doors in 1923, the Smithsonian Institution established the Sackler Gallery next door to house a 4,000- piece collection donated by its namesake. Despite being two individual museums, the institutions share the same advisory board and funding. According to Deputy Director Lori Duggan Gold, collectively referring to the two museums as the National Museum of Asian Art is a shift in the institutions’ identities rather than a formal renaming. The shared logo now features the two museums’ names in smaller print below “National Museum of Asian Art.” Gold’s explanation follows speculation that the change came in response to the criticism the Smithsonian faced in its decision to not remove “Sackler” from the newer museum’s name.75

Yet, Peggy McGlone of The Washington Post asserts that the Smithsonian is indeed renaming the Sackler Gallery to do away with its ties to the opioid epidemic. McGlone’s argument could be true as the root of the Deputy Director’s rationale is public perspective. The institution is essentially an attempt to call the public’s attention away from “Sackler” – a word which has tainted the Gallery’s reputation – in favor of a name that better articulates the purpose of the Galleries. Additionally, the way in which the museums are rebranding through an

74. Jillian Sackler, “Stop Blaming My Late Husband, Arthur Sackler, for the Opioid Crisis,” The Washington Post, April 11, 2019, accessed July 12, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/stop-blaming- my-late-husband-arthur-sackler-for-the-opioid-crisis/2019/04/11/5b8478a4-5c89-11e9-a00e- 050dc7b82693_story.html?utm_term=.8f3d3add9d8c. 75. Peggy McGlone, “Don’t call it the Freer/Sackler. Call it the National Museum of Asian Art,” The Washington Post, December 4, 2019, accessed December 29, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com /entertainment/museums/dont-call-it-the-freersackler-call-it-the-national-museum-of-asian- art/2019/12/04/ce6bbc78-160c-11ea-9110-3b34ce1d92b1_story.html. 29 unofficial title change could be considered a form of renaming, and doing so in the midst of the controversy surrounding one of its namesakes gives the public all the more reason to believe that it was done in reaction to poor public response.76

Thus, Arthur Sackler’s donations to the Metropolitan Museum of Art and other museums pose as puzzling examples of what impact public opinion can have on a museum’s operations.

Institutions that benefited from a donor’s generosity were suddenly placed in a position to make a social statement. This is especially the case given the fact that demonstrations and protests received media coverage by notable sources, particularly The New York Times and The

Washington Post. Yet, the Sackler case study raises an important question: will social change occur if well-intended gifts are reversed or rejected simply because of their connection to notoriety?

Kenneth E. Behring

In the 1990s, the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of American History

(NMAH) began a $200 million capital campaign to fund the improvement of its galleries.

NMAH sought to expand and improve the narrative of the nation’s history by renovating its permanent exhibit halls as it entered the 21st century. Over the course of its fundraising efforts,

NMAH received several major financial gifts from various individuals and corporations, including Jerome and Dorothy Lemelson and Polo Ralph Lauren. However, the capital campaign garnered the public’s attention – and criticism – in the new millennium with two historic donations.

76. Ibid. 30

On September 18, 2000, NMAH proudly announced the acceptance of the “largest single gift ever to the Smithsonian Institution” with Kenneth E. Behring’s $80 million donation.77 A prominent philanthropist and former owner of the Seattle Seahawks, Behring proved to be a committed patron of museums, gifting $20 million to the Smithsonian Institution’s National

Museum of Natural History (NMNH) three years prior for the Kenneth E. Behring Family

Museum’s Hall of Mammals.78 In addition to his 2000 financial gift, Behring promised support with future capital campaigns, which, according to Board Chairman Ivan Selin, allowed the

Museum to meet its fundraising goal. NMAH immediately released its idea for an exhibit hall funded by Behring’s donation that recognized those who embody the “American spirit.”79 To honor Behring’s generosity, the Museum also revealed the addition of “Behring Center” to the building’s name.80 Despite Behring’s gift concluding NMAH’s extensive capital campaign, the

Museum became the recipient of another significant donation less than a year later.

In May 2001, the Catherine B. Reynolds Foundation donated $38 million to create an exhibit that celebrated American achievers. Reynolds, a well-known supporter of education, stated the exhibit would “focus on current living people who are very much 21st century to inspire young people to be the best they can be.”81 Whereas the concept resembled the exhibit halls funded by Behring’s donation, Reynolds’ gift attracted greater speculation. A New York

Times article published later that month questioned the donation’s influence over the institution’s autonomy, claiming the exhibit “will bear her name, it will be paid for by her, and she says she

77. “Smithsonian Institution Announces Biggest Single Donation in its 154-year History.” 78. Dick Baynton, “Dick Baynton: The Uneducated Tycoon,” TheRoanokeStar.com, July 22, 2019, accessed August 11, 2019, https://theroanokestar.com/2019/07/22/dick-baynton-the-uneducated-tycoon/. 79. “Smithsonian Institution Announces Biggest Single Donation in its 154-year History.” 80. Ibid. 81. “Gifts That Can Warp a Museum,” New York Times, May 31, 2001, accessed October 13, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/31/opinion/gifts-that-can-warp-a-museum.html. 31 wants ‘a hands-on- role’” through her Foundation’s responsibility to nominate individuals featured in the exhibit.82 Concern over the contract’s terms arose even among Museum staff.

Barney Finn, long-time curator at NMAH, speculated how donations like Behring and Reynolds’ may affect the Museum’s legitimacy. Finn articulated the fundamental issue of accepting restricted financial gifts when he asked, “at what point will the public say, ‘This is just a corporate museum.’”83 Shortly after the announcement of Reynolds’ donation, NMAH found itself confronting this question.

In a July 2001 article published in Smithsonian Magazine, Lawrence M. Small, the

Smithsonian Institution’s Secretary, attempted to provide an explanation for the agreements formed with Behring and Reynolds. By comparing the two financial gifts to Congress’ 1836 acceptance of James Smithson’s bequest that established the Smithsonian Institution, he reasoned that donors have always been involved in the use of their charitable gifts. Small assured that “no financial contribution is worth the sacrifice of the public’s trust in the Smithsonian. And these donations do not in any way compromise our standards.”84 Although touching on a major point of contention, the article merely justifies Behring and Reynolds’ gifts while implying continued acceptance of similar donations in the future. Small does not discern internal standards from public confidence, and evidently misjudges how the Smithsonian’s guiding principles are translated to the community. Efforts to improve morale proved virtually ineffective as the public’s questioning persisted.

82. Ibid. 83. Sciolino, “Smithsonian Is Promised $38 Million, With Strings.” 84. Lawrence M. Small, “Generosity and Standards,” Smithsonian Magazine, July 2001, accessed October 14, 2018, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/generosity-and-standards-45718941/. 32

Disapproval culminated when the Museum noticed conflicting conditions between

Behring and Reynolds’ donations later that year. Reynolds agreed to finance a 10,000 square- foot exhibit highlighting distinguished Americans, whereas the contract for Behring’s $80 million gift designated almost 20,000 square feet for an exhibit of similar content the previous year. Selin noted Small’s initial management of the gift, explaining that Reynolds’ donation would not have been approved considering the terms of Behring’s contract had the Museum’s staff and board been more involved.85 Reynolds subsequently reversed her $38 million pledge in early 2002 amid the controversy, citing the “criticism of the exhibit's focus on individuals rather than groups by Smithsonian staff” as the rationale for her decision.86

In addition to granting jurisdictions to both donors, the board’s inability to fully understand the conditions of Reynolds’ contract displays an eagerness to obtain capital at the risk of the public’s trust. Small nearly single-handedly oversaw the initial stages of the gift’s procurement, suspending its collective management by all trustees until it became too late to reverse any decision made by Small and Reynolds. Whereas Reynolds willingly canceled the donation, her decision occurred only after the public expressed its objection.

Moreover, attention in the press exposed the idea that NMAH’s board of trustees may not operate with the level of autonomy previously assumed. Such revelation also resulted in internal frustration as Museum staff perceived an outside entity gaining approval to purchase influence over exhibit content, prompting at least one employee to speak to the media about the matter that added to the perceived credibility of the claims. Numerous outlets covered the story, including

85. Elaine Sciolino, “Smithsonian Must Exhibit Ingenuity in the Face of Overlapping Gifts,” The New York Times, August 6, 2001, accessed October 13, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/06/arts/smithsonian-must- exhibit-ingenuity-in-the-face-of-overlapping-gifts.html. 86. “Donor Pulls Funds for Exhibit at Smithsonian,” Los Angeles Times, February 5, 2002, accessed October 14, 2018, http://articles.latimes.com/2002/feb/05/news/mn-26426. 33

The New York Times, Washington Post, and L.A. Times. The media coverage also exposed the donors’ backgrounds. Unlike Reynolds, who held a history of supporting education, Behring, a safari hunter, offered to donate rare stuffed trophies of bighorn sheep in addition to his 1997 $20 million financial pledge to NMNH, potentially risking the values of the Museum.87

Although Reynolds’ eventual retraction saved the board from possible legal infringement,

NMAH’s trustees initially did not go beyond the law and act in a cautious, attentive manner.

Regardless of Small’s position, the gifts’ acquisitions should have been monitored by the board’s quorum, if not all trustees given the donations’ size. AAM outlines the information flow of trustees that includes two key points. First, “Decisions should be made by the Board deliberately and without due haste or pressure,” and second, “In the case of any major transaction, the Board should receive the basic documents and analysis by experts in connection with the transaction.”88

The lack of communal awareness indicates the decision may not have been jointly approved.

Although leadership of NMAH acknowledged the poor handling of Reynolds’ donation, the

Smithsonian’s agreements with Behring and Reynolds exemplify donor-imposed conditions and subsequent weakening of public confidence.

David H. Koch

Ahead of the 1980 presidential election, The New York Times published a feature on the

Libertarian Party’s candidate and running mate, Ed Clark and David H. Koch. Two individuals from conservative backgrounds, the pair maintained a mutual goal of limiting the powers of

87. “Crisis at the Smithsonian,” Archaeological Institute of America, September 19, 2002, accessed November 12, 2018, https://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/smithsonian/behring.html. 88. Paula Cozzi Goedert, “Guide for Board Members,” American Alliance of Museums, November 2, 2014, accessed November 25, 2018, https://www.aam-us.org/2014/11/02/guide-for-board-members/. 34 government through tax cuts and reserved foreign policy. The pursuit for office was not Koch’s first encounter with the Party, however. Money procured from his family’s business, Koch

Industries, had been donated to the Party and various Libertarian-related non-profit organizations prior to the campaign. In fact, Koch’s ability to finance the campaign played a key role in securing his position as running mate.89 Furthermore, the 1980 election fell on the heels of the

1973 Oil Embargo that sparked the prices of oil, a natural resource Koch Industries owned large amounts of, to rise steeply, adding a controversial element to Clark and Koch’s campaign.90 Yet the appearance of being disconnected from the notions of society would follow Koch throughout his career.

After ultimately losing the election, Koch continued his philanthropy, gifting financial donations to arts and educational organizations over the years that he claimed to amount to over

$1 billion. As Executive Vice President of Koch Industries and member of the National Museum of Natural History’s (NMNH) advisory board, Koch donated $35 million toward the Museum’s

David H. Koch Hall of Fossils — Deep Time in 2012, the Museum’s largest single donation.91

This major donation follows a $15 million financial gift for the David H. Koch Hall of Human

Origins in 2010.92 The Hall of Human Origins’ portrayal of climate change, however, has

89. E.J. Dionne, Jr., “Libertarian Party Bids for Conservative and Liberal Votes,” The New York Times, July 10, 1980, accessed July 16, 2019, https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1980/07/10/112157107.pdf. 90. “Oil Embargo, 1973–1974,” Office of the Historian, Bureau of Public Affairs, accessed July 17, 2019, https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/oil-embargo. 91. “The David H. Koch Hall of Fossils DEEP TIME,” National Museum of Natural History, accessed November 3, 2018, https://naturalhistory.si.edu/DeepTime/; Lukas Rieppel, “The Smithsonian’s New Dinosaur Hall is a Marvel. But its Ties to David Koch are a Problem,” The Washington Post, June 9, 2019, accessed December 30, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/06/09/smithsonians-new-dinosaur-hall-is-marvel-its-ties- david-koch-are-problem/. 92. Jacqueline Trescott, “David Koch Donates $35 Million to National Museum of Natural History for Dinosaur Hall,” The Washington Post, May 3, 2012, accessed November 3, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/david-koch-donates-35-million-to-national-museum-of-natural- history-for-dinosaur-hall/2012/05/03/gIQAIjT3yT_story.html?utm_term=.2012349d821c; “New Exhibition Hall Devoted to Human Origins Opens at National Museum of Natural History,” Smithsonian, March 17, 2010, accessed November 2, 2018, https://www.si.edu/newsdesk/releases/new-exhibition-hall-devoted-human-origins-opens- national-museum-natural-history. 35 sparked protests from members of the science community. Critics claim the exhibit neglects to discuss the topic from an anthropogenic perspective, accusing Koch – a denier of this theory – of using his wealth to buy influence over the exhibit’s content.93

According to Joe Romm, the exhibit is “misleading” overall on the topic of climate change. Romm argues that the exhibit can prompt visitors to view the subject in an almost apathetic manner. For instance, an interactive feature allows patrons to predict the effects warmer temperatures will have on human evolution, such as taller statures or more sweat glands.

Yet, Romm notes that this portrays a serious global issue in a distant, “Don’t worry, be happy” manner, especially in light of the fact that visitors are led to believe that if humans have adapted to warmer temperatures in the past, they will continue to do so in the future. Furthermore, Romm explains that the exhibit fails to distinguish previous populations from today’s. While humans may have been able to adapt to a changing environment in the past, the rapid growth in global population and technology has had an unprecedented impact on the environment.94

For the purposes of this research, the topic of climate change acts only as a mere litmus test for Koch’s possible influence over the exhibit’s content. According to Romm, the gallery itself presents a mild picture of climate change, one that differs even from the Smithsonian

Institution’s stance on the topic as well as public sentiment. The NMNH’s website states that the

Museum’s mission is “to promote understanding of the natural world and our place in it. The museum’s collections tell the history of the planet and are a record of human interaction with the

93. Liu. 94. Joe Romm, “Smithsonian Stands By Wildly Misleading Climate Change Exhibit Paid For By Kochs,” ThinkProgress, March 23, 2015, accessed December 30, 2019, https://thinkprogress.org/smithsonian-stands-by- wildly-misleading-climate-change-exhibit-paid-for-by-kochs-bd3105ef354b/. 36 environment and one another.”95 In October 2015, the Smithsonian Institution released the following statement regarding climate change: “Scientific evidence has demonstrated that the global climate is warming as a result of increasing levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases generated by human activities.”96 The statement acknowledges “increasing levels of atmospheric greenhouse gasses,” yet, according to Romm’s account, the David H. Koch Hall of Human

Origins does not reflect this.

The still-apparent contradiction is compounded by the current social and political climates. As climate change continues to be a recurring topic of conversation within the global community – with seven Democratic presidential candidates proposing their own plans to combat the issue in the Green New Deal era – the public is likely all the well more aware of the topic.97 As a national nonprofit organization devoted to educating the public about humans’ interaction with the environment, it is fair to expect NMNH to capture this topic in the Hall that is intended to discussion this development due to the Museum’s mission statement.

Subsequently, some individuals have publicly displayed opposition to Koch’s connections to prominent nonprofit organizations due to an apparent conflict of interest. A petition signed by scientists and museum professionals in 2015 advocating against Koch’s placement on the board at both NMNH and the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York states “that the only ethical way forward for our museums is to cut all ties with the fossil fuel industry and funders of climate science obfuscation.”98 After serving on AMNH’s

95. “About the Museum,” National Museum of Natural History, accessed December 30, 2019, https://naturalhistory.si.edu/about. 96. Romm. 97. Evan Halper, “How do Democratic Debate Candidates Plan to Combat Climate Change?,” Los Angeles Times, December 17, 2019, accessed December 30, 2019, https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-12- 17/democratic-debate-presidential-candidates-environment-climate-change-policy. 98. Ng. 37 board of trustees for 23 years, Koch resigned, a decision some consider a victory for the institution’s legitimacy.99

However, such criticism did not deter the NMNH from following through on its plans for the David H. Koch Hall of Fossils — Deep Time, its newly-renovated dinosaur exhibit that opened in June 2019. Unlike the Hall of Human Origins, the Museum put forth a strong effort to discuss paleontology within the context of climate change. Rather than asking visitors to predict how humans will adapt to climate change with options that do not capture the seriousness and immediacy of the issue, NMNH offers visitors the chance to learn about the personal implications of global warming, such as what it will do to beloved commodities and locations, like chocolate and beaches.100

It appears that the NMNH has fabricated the new dinosaur hall in an overall vigilant manner following the public criticism faced from the Hall of Human Origins. According to Sarah

Kaplan of The Washington Post, the Smithsonian even issued a statement to clarify that Koch’s financial gift did not grant him any influence over the exhibit’s content,.101

Yet, despite these improvements, media coverage of the exhibit’s opening continues to circle back to Koch’s background and the irony of a global warming-denier financing an exhibit about evolution and extinction – two concepts greatly impacted by climate change, and such questioning continues to donations Koch has gifted to other museums.102 One of the more

99. M. H. Miller, “David Koch Resigns From the Board of the American Museum of Natural History,” ArtNews, January 21, 2016, accessed November 20, 2018, http://www.artnews.com/2016/01/21/david-koch-resigns- from-the-board-of-the-american-museum-of-natural-history/. 100. Sarah Kaplan, “The Smithsonian’s Renewed Fossil Hall Sends a Forceful Message About Climate Change,” The Washington Post, May 26, 2019, accessed December 31, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost. com/national/health-science/the-smithsonians-renewed-fossil-hall-sends-a-forceful-message-about-climate- change/2019/05/25/bc896212-78d2-11e9-b3f5-5673edf2d127_story.html. 101. Kaplan. 102. Rieppel. 38 notable donations in recent years is a $65 million donation to the Metropolitan Museum of Art for its newly-designed plaza.103 His acts of generosity were not free from public skepticism, though, as some questioned the objective behind such gestures. Continuing his involvement in the oil industry, members of the public began to identify possible alternative motives. An article in The New York Times considers Koch’s donations as a form of propaganda to benefit his company, stating:

Unshackled by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision and other related rulings, which ended corporate campaign finance restrictions, Koch Industries and Americans for Prosperity started an all-fronts campaign with television advertising, social media and cross-country events aimed at electing lawmakers who would ensure that the fossil fuel industry would not have to worry about new pollution regulations.104

Thus, Koch’s connection to the NMNH poses as a noteworthy example of the power of donor reputation and the long-term damage it can pose to public confidence. The Hall’s first renovation in nearly 40 years, Koch’s donation brought the work of the NMNH to the twenty- first century, but the donor’s shadow over the exhibit leaves one to ask the following question: are the financial advantages of a donation worth risking the society’s trust over public signs of value discordance between donor and institution?

103. Theresa Agovino, “Met Museum Unveils David Koch $65M Plaza,” Crain’s New York Business, September 9, 2014, accessed July 16, 2019, https://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140909/ARTS/140909840/ met-museum-unveils-david-koch-65m-plaza. 104. Coral Davenport and Eric Lipton, “How G.O.P. Leaders Came to View Climate Change as Fake Science,” The New York Times, June 3, 2017, accessed July 15, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-leaders-climate-change.html. 39

Discussion

Each case study analyzed in this research offers varying insight into three critical components of a designated financial gift: donor, designation, and public response. A key aspect of this project is to highlight conflicts of interest the trustees may encounter when considering financial gifts. In this section will discuss observed themes and then I will make recommendations for museum trustees.

In regard to the donors, Arthur Sackler’s $3.5 million donation was his first gift to the

Metropolitan Museum of Art. In 1974, the Sackler name was known strictly through Purdue

Frederick and remained fairly unknown to the general public. On the other hand, Kenneth E.

Behring’s public image held greater prominence at the time of his donation to the National

Museum of American History (NMAH) in 2000, due to previous philanthropic endeavors and past ownership of the Seattle Seahawks. Whereas Behring’s financial gift in 2000 was not his first donation to the Smithsonian Institution, the $80 million gift was his first donation to

NMAH. Of the three donors, Koch was the most well-known – and controversial – at the time of his 2012 donation to National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) due to his ties to the oil industry and conservative beliefs. Furthermore, the businessman is the only benefactor to maintain a history with the specific institution prior to gifting his 2012 gift, having donated $15 million financial gift for the David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins in 2010.

Overall, the purpose of each donation was clearly communicated to the public. When

Sackler’s gift was initially donated to the Met, the gift did not appear to pose any threat to the

Museum’s autonomy. In fact, the donation granted the Museum the ability to hire architects to create a special structure for the Temple of Dendur. On the contrary, Behring’s donation appears to have had the opposite impact. Newspaper reports and comments from a Museum staff member 40 revealed potential donor governance. Koch’s donation also enabled NMNH to renovate a key gallery of the Museum.

Public reaction to each donation varies and appears to be directly affected by the information provided via the institution or media. In fact, the public was either directly or indirectly guided to the media for information. After contacting the Met’s Development office, I did not receive a response, thus indirectly sending me to news reports for details about the donation. Similarly, after requesting additional information from the Smithsonian Institution’s

Office of Advancement about Behring and Koch’s donations, I received the following reply: “It is not our practice to provide additional information about gifts and donors beyond what is made public in press releases and our annual reports, which are also online.”105 The Institution’s response thus directly leads me to the media.

Therefore, media coverage played a crucial role in all three case studies. Media coverage of Sackler’s donation correlates with the opioid epidemic. As the Sacklers gradually became associated with a national health crisis, protests against the namesake of the Met’s gallery increased. In 2019, a year after such public outcry began, the media reported the Met to be reconsidering its gift acceptance policy, and several months later announced its rejection of all future donations from the Sacklers. This was also followed by the Smithsonian’s Freer and

Sackler Galleries fusing into the National Museum of Asian Art.

Whereas there is little evidence of unfavorable opinion from the community at the time of

Behring’s record-breaking gift in 2000, questioning began when the Catherine B. Reynolds

Foundation donated $38 million the following year. NMAH issued a press release that provided

105. Zully Dorr, email message from the Smithsonian Institution’s Office of Advancement, July 12, 2019. 41 details of the donation immediately following its procurement. However, overlapping terms in the donations’ contracts prompted the community to take notice, with major news publications, such as The New York Times and Los Angeles Times, reporting the events to the public as they unfolded. Furthermore, a Museum staff member displeased with the degree of authority given to both donors voiced his frustration to the media. The aforementioned occurrence eventually caused the Smithsonian Institution’s Secretary to retroactively explain the reasoning behind the acceptance of both donations. Additionally, only segments of the contracts’ details are available to the public through the media.

Public disapproval surrounding Koch’s involvement with the NMNH maintained prevalence prior to the gifting of his 2012 donation through his leadership roles at the NMNH and American Museum of Natural History (AMNH). Speculation of donor governance over the

David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins has some journalists doubting the Museum’s autonomy.

The Museum issued a statement clarifying that Koch’s donation did not grant him any donor influence and was approved by a bipartisan committee, which is important due to his political affiliations. The David H. Koch Hall of Fossils – Deep Time also appears to discuss the topic of climate change in a more direct manner, a critique cited in news sources such as ThinkProgress.

Nonetheless, as nonprofit organizations, these institutions depend on major donations.

Lindqvist’s observations of the sector’s growing dependence on single-donor financial gifts indicate that some institutions may be unable to reject a donation solely due to its conditions.

This could especially be the case if a financial gift is designated for an articulated need, such as a gallery to house the Temple of Dendur. Furthermore, donations from well-known individuals may also inherently bring publicity for the museum. Despite being a general sentiment, public 42 opinion is comprised of many individual beliefs. Judgments are susceptible to becoming exacerbated in the Internet era as information about specific donors can be easily obtained.

With this dilemma, is there such a thing as a “perfect” donor? I argue that whereas the ideal donor may exist, the likelihood of all benefactors being faultless is unlikely. As exhibited in the Sackler case study, humans are not static and reputations can change over the course of time. Therefore, museum’s board of trustees should critically examine each aspect of a gift and donor reputation to ensure both align with the mission of the institution.

Recommendations

As observed in the case studies, it is common for a museum’s board of trustees to accept financial gifts that reap immediate benefits but also pose long-term consequences. In order to ensure financial donations support a museum’s posterity, it is important for trustees to consider gifts with future generations in mind. Therefore, I have proposed a scoring rubric (Figure 1) for trustees to use when considering the acceptance of any financial gift.

According to the Internal Revenue Service, as of 2018, gifts of $15,000 or more are subject to a gift tax and require the completion of a Form 709.106 Some may argue that this amount serves as an appropriate minimum for consideration as donors are not gifting for the sole purpose of tax exemption and could therefore be doing so for an alternative motive. However, financial gifts of any size should be considered by a board of trustees as a donor’s influence or reputation could garner negative media attention or prevent the institution from acting

106. “Instructions for Form 709 (2018),” Internal Revenue Service, accessed October 15, 2019, https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i709#idm140297522519056. 43 autonomously. In essence, for each gift presented to a museum, trustees should examine how well the gift suits the need it is intended to fulfill, especially if the institution offers an eponym.

For instance, the University of Montana considers a donor’s giving, legacy, relationship to the

University, gifts to other institutions, among other criteria, prior to an official acceptance.107

Similar to that of the University of Montana, the rubric’s criteria are inspired by the case studies and are divided into four parts: alignment with mission, alignment with policy, museum autonomy, and museum and donor reputation. Alignment with mission ensures a gift supports the core values and purpose of the institution. Trustees should be especially cautious if there are any conflicts of interest – actual or perceived – between a museum’s mission and the donor’s intent. Alignment with policy protects an institution’s operations and standards, such as its code of ethics and gift acceptance policy. These two criteria are mere protections for principles that a museum should already maintain. The next two components provide additional barriers specifically based on the case studies. Autonomy ensures the museum’s ability to use the gift for purposes it alone deems as important and reverse the gift if necessary. This criterion is long-term protection and is based on Behring and Reynolds’ gifts. The component concerning museum and donor reputation is more short-term and examines how a donor’s reputation may impact that of a museum.

The rating is on a scale of 1 to 3, with 1 being unsatisfactory and 3 being satisfactory; 2 necessitated further consideration. Each criterion is given its own score and then totaled to provide an overall score. The lowest possible score is 4 while the highest is 12. Gifts garnering scores of 1 to 7 should not be accepted while those with scores of 8 to 12 are deemed as

107. Keila Szpaller, “UM School of Law to be Renamed for $10M Donor,” Missoulian, May 20, 2015, accessed January 1, 2020, https://missoulian.com/news/local/um-school-of-law-to-be-renamed-for-m- donor/article_5e0f3b6a-0740-5a9d-9596-bf993c1484b9.html. 44 acceptable. However, this rubric is only a guideline, and trustees are encouraged to consider other aspects of the donation and the individual needs of their institutions.

Conclusion

The responsibilities of a museum’s board of trustees are myriad and complex. Trustees’ most important obligation is to safeguard an institution’s posterity through the preservation of its reputation and financial stability. However, the success of a board is determined by public confidence, a form of trust that is not easily earned because a concrete benchmark of a board’s success is nonexistent. Therefore, trustees must consider the long-term effects of a decision that could impact both current and future generations.

This is especially true when considering restricted financial gifts, or gifts with conditions.

The concept of insufficient trust in this setting is demonstrated by the Sackler family’s $3.5 million financial gift to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1974, Kenneth E. Behring’s $80 million donation to the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History in 2000, and David

H. Koch’s $35 million gift to the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History in 2012.

Each financial gift maintained the purpose of funding a specific project. However, the donors’ reputations proved unfavorable either at the time of acceptance, such as Koch’s, or year – even decades – later, like Sackler and Behring, and skepticism of donor governance further threatened the institutions’ public confidence.

Subsequently, when presented a financial gift of any size, a board should review it holistically and examine its donor, designation, and the public’s response. Trustees should also ensure that conditions, or the gift altogether, can be reversed in the future if necessary. It is vital Financial Gift Scoring Rubric 45

The following criteria should be examined when considering the acceptance of a financial gift. Each aspect should be rated on a scale of 1 (unsatisfactory) to 3 (satisfactory) and then totaled to provide an overall score. Gifts garnering scores of 8 to 12 are deemed acceptable, while those with scores of 4 to 7 should not be accepted. However, this rubric is only a guideline and trustees are encouraged to consider other aspects of the donation and individual needs of their institution.

(3) (2) (1) Criteria Score Satisfactory Needs Further Consideration Unsatisfactory Promotes the purpose of the museum. Aligns with the values of the Poses a potential breach with the Gift is designated for a specific museum. Gift is designated for a values and purpose of the institution. Alignment with Mission purpose that enables the museum to specific purpose that enables the If accepted, the gift could limit the not only fulfill, but improve its museum to fulfill its service to the museum’s ability to fulfill its service service to the public. public. to the public. Poses a potential breach with the Aligns with the museum’s code of Does not appear to conflict with the museum’s code of ethics, gift ethics, gift acceptance policy, and museum’s code of ethics, gift acceptance policy, or legal code. If legal code. If accepted, the museum acceptance policy, or legal code. If accepted, the gift may limit the Alignment with Policy maintains full autonomy over the accepted, the museum maintains some museum’s operational autonomy implementation of the gift’s autonomy to reverse the gift’s and/or ability to reverse the gift conditions which may be reversed if conditions, but may need to seek without seeking legal assistance. necessary. some legal assistance. Furthermore, conditions may conflict with those of previous donations.

While some aspects of the donation Potentially infringes upon the If accepted, the museum maintains may impose some limits on the museum’s autonomous operations and complete autonomous operations and museum, conditions of the gift do not decision-making. Museum may not Museum Autonomy decision-making. Museum may appear to completely limit the reverse the gift’s condition even if a reverse the gift’s conditions if museum’s current operations. need to do so arises after its necessary. Museum may reverse the gift’s acceptance. condition if necessary.

Donor is favorably perceived by the Donor maintains neither a negative Donor’s reputation is associated with community. Museum’s ties to the nor exceptionally positive reputation. Museum and Donor Reputation matters that potentially conflict with donor could be of benefit to the Ties to the individual would have the values of the public. institution. little impact on the museum. TOTAL

Comments:

Figure 1 Figure 46 for museum trustees to act in a cautious manner in order to fulfil the nonprofit’s responsibility of serving the public’s interests rather than that of a select few. 47

Bibliography

“The 7 Principles of Public Life.” Committee on Standards in Public Life. May 31, 1995.

Accessed November 25, 2018. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7

principles-of-public-life.

The 7 Principles of Public Life, or the Nolan Principles, is a document outlining ethical standards for public office holders. Written by the Office on Standards in Public Life, it is intended for leaders in the United Kingdom’s public sector. The 7 Principles include selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty, and leadership. This document is an example of a barrier that is established to protect government-funded institutions from fiduciary wrongdoings.

“AAM Code of Ethics for Museums.” American Alliance of Museums. Amended 2000.

Accessed October 12, 2018. https://www.aam-us.org/programs/ethics-standards-and

professional-practices/code-of-ethics-for-museums/.

AAM’s Code of Ethics outlines ethical standards for museums in the United States. The Code of

Ethics was established by the American Alliance of Museums, the national professional museum organization in the United States. Standards include those for governance, collections, and programs. This document articulates the ethical guidelines museums are expected to maintain in order to maintain public confidence.

“About the Museum,” National Museum of Natural History. Accessed December 30, 2019.

https://naturalhistory.si.edu/about. 48

The National Museum of Natural History is a Smithsonian-operated institution with a collection, research, and educational focus on the history of the Earth. Situated on the National Mall in

Washington, D.C., the Museum has a general audience from around the world. This particular page on the Museum’s website articulates its mission to teach the public about the history of humans’ relationship with the planet.

Agovino, Theresa. “Met Museum Unveils David Koch $65M Plaza.” Crain’s New York

Business. September 9, 2014. Accessed July 16, 2019. https://www.crainsnewyork.com/

article/20140909/ARTS/140909840/met-museum-unveils-david-koch-65m-plaza.

Crain’s New York Business is a business-focused news source intended for a general audience in the New York area. This article discusses the presentation of the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s new David Koch Plaza in 2014. Funded by a $65 million from David Koch, this donation is an examples of Koch’s philanthropy to museums.

Atkinson, Rob. “Obedience as the Foundation of Fiduciary Duty.” Journal of Corporation Law

34, no. 1 (Fall 2008): 43-97. Accessed November 23, 2018. EBSCOhost.

This is an analysis of fiduciary duties with particular emphasis on duty of obedience. Published in the Journal of Corporation Law, a student-published corporate law periodical, this study is intended for a global audience. Atkinson argues that duty of obedience encompasses both duty of loyalty and duty of care. Duty of obedience is important to public confidence as it promotes an institution’s posterity. 49

Baynton, Dick. “Dick Baynton: The Uneducated Tycoon.” TheRoanokeStar.com. July 22, 2019.

Accessed August 11, 2019. https://theroanokestar.com/2019/07/22/dick-baynton-the

uneducated-tycoon/.

Dick Baynton is a columnist for TheRoanokeStar.com. As the local news website, this article is intended for the Roanoke Valley community. Baynton provides a biographical background of

Kenneth E. Behring. The article highlights Behring’s donations to both NMNH and NMAH, making specific mention of the use of the financial gift to NMNH.

Bertagnoli, Lisa. “Ken Griffin Gives $20 Million to Florida's Norton Museum of Art.” Crain’s

Chicago Business. July 31, 2018. Accessed July 6, 2019. https://www.chicagobusiness.

com/article/20180731/NEWS07/180739968/ken-griffin-gives-20-million-to-florida-s

norton-museum-of-art.

CrainsChicagoBusiness.com is an online news source for individuals of the greater Chicago area.

The article is intended for leaders of Chicago’s private and public sectors, as well as the general public. Bertagnoli’s article discusses Ken Griffin’s $20 million financial gift to the Norton

Museum of Art in 2018. As the gift placed Griffin’s name on the building, it is an example of a restricted donation.

50

Beshi, Taye Demissie and Ranvinderjit Kaur. “Public Trust in Local Government: Explaining the

Role of Good Governance Practices.” Public Organization Review: A Global Journal

(2019): 1-14. Accessed July 21, 2019. EBSCOhost.

This is a study on the elements of effective governance published in Public Organization

Review: A Global Journal, a peer-reviewed journal of scholarly works about public organizations. Beshi and Kaur’s study is intended for individuals involved in local government.

Through their analysis, the researchers identify transparency, perceived accountability, and perceived responsiveness as factors that impact public trust. The study ultimately highlights communication as a main tool for improving public confidence.

Cadet, Fabienne T. and Ryall Carroll. “Nonprofit Organization Communication: Risky

Business.” Review of Business 39 (1) (2019): 1-14. EBSCOhost.

This is a study that focuses on communication within the nonprofit sector. The article is published in the Review of Business, a peer-reviewed journal focused on research that explores the relationship between business and risk. Although the journal and article are intended for an interdisciplinary audience, this article is specifically directed toward leaders in the nonprofit sector and those responsible for organizations’ communication to the public. Cadet and Carroll explain the communication strategies nonprofits typically assume, such as the storytelling marketing approach.

Chen, Sue. “Art Deaccessions and the Limits of Fiduciary Duty.” Art, Antiquity & Law 14 (2)

(2009): 103-142. Accessed November 23, 2018. EBSCOhost. 51

Art, Antiquity & Law is a quarterly journal focused on law pertaining to culture and history. The journal’s readership consists of individuals outside the legal profession, including collectors, archeologists, investors, fund managers, museum officers, and art historians. Chen argues in favor of implementing a stricter trust standard of care as a way to ensure adherence to fiduciary law in the context of art deaccessions. Such standards are an example of how organizations can increase transparency in order to promote public confidence.

“Crisis at the Smithsonian.” Archaeological Institute of America. September 19, 2002. Accessed

November 12, 2018. https://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/smithsonian/

behring.html.

Archeological Institute of America is a periodical that promotes public understanding of human study. This particular article is intended for the museum community. The news story discusses

Kenneth E. Behring’s donations to the Smithsonian and brings to light his past as a safari hunter.

Davenport, Coral and Eric Lipton. “How G.O.P. Leaders Came to View Climate Change as Fake

Science.” The New York Times. June 3, 2017. Accessed July 15, 2019. https://www.

nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-leaders-climate-change.html.

The New York Times is an American newspaper for the general public. This article explains the relationship between prominent members of the G.O.P. and environmental policies. Coral and

Lipton use David Koch as an example of individuals using philanthropy to ultimately benefit personal business. 52

“The David H. Koch Hall of Fossils DEEP TIME.” National Museum of Natural History.

Accessed November 3, 2018. https://naturalhistory.si.edu/DeepTime/.

The David H. Koch Hall of Fossils – Deep Time is a fossil exhibit at the National Museum of

Natural History scheduled to open in 2019. According to the Museum’s website, the exhibit will serve the public’s understanding of Earth’s past and how it connects to today. This description provides an overview of the purpose of an exhibit funded by David H. Koch.

“Developing and Managing Business and Individual Donor Support.” American Alliance of

Museums. Accessed November 25, 2018. https://www.aam-us.org/programs/ethics

standards-and-professional-practices/developing-and-managing-business-and-individual

donor-support/.

This article is a guideline how to maintain strong donor relationships. The article is published on the website of the American Alliance of Museums, the national professional museum organization in the United States. This article is intended for museum professionals, especially those that work with donors. AAM specifically notes the importance for a museum to maintain integrity of its work despite donor governance.

Dionne, Jr., E.J. “Libertarian Party Bids for Conservative and Liberal Votes.” The New York

Times. July 10, 1980. Accessed July 16, 2019. https://timesmachine.nytimes.com

/timesmachine/1980/07/10/112157107.pdf. 53

The New York Times is an American newspaper for the general public. This article provides an overview of the Libertarian Party’s candidate and running mate, Ed Clark and David Koch, ahead of the 1980 presidential election. E.J. Dionne, Jr. briefly explains David Koch’s wealth, connection to Koch Industries, and political background.

“Donor Pulls Funds for Exhibit at Smithsonian.” Los Angeles Times. February 5, 2002. Accessed

October 14, 2018. http://articles.latimes.com/2002/feb/05/news/mn-26426.

Los Angeles Times is a newspaper for the general public. This article discusses the reversal of

Catherine B. Reynolds’ $38 million pledge to the National Museum of American History. It specifically highlights criticism received from Museum staff and its impact on Reynolds’ decision.

Dunn, Paul. “When a Donor Becomes Tainted.” Nonprofit Quarterly. March 21, 2010. Accessed

January 15, 2019. https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2010/03/21/when-a-donor-becomes

tainted/.

Nonprofit Quarterly is a national journal comprised of research focused on nonprofit leadership.

Although the article’s readership is intended to be those who work in the voluntary sector, specifically individuals who hold positions in nonprofit governance and management, it is also directed toward a general audience. Dunn’s article portrays the significance of museum-donor relationships and its impact on the public’s perception of ethical leadership through his examination of “tainted” gifts. Dunn offers ways in which organizations faced with tainted donations can respond, including acquiescence, compromise, and defiance. 54

Giridharadas, Anand. “When Your Money Is So Tainted Museums Don’t Want It.” The New

York Times. May 16, 2019. Accessed July 12, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/

16/opinion/sunday/met-sackler.html?searchResultPosition=3.

The New York Times is an American newspaper for the general public. This article discusses the

Metropolitan Museum of Art’s decision to reject future donations from the Sackler family. The

Metropolitan Museum of Art is the recipient of a gift from Arthur Sackler, drawing criticism over the years due to the family’s connection to OxyContin.

“Gifts That Can Warp a Museum.” The New York Times. May 31, 2001. Accessed October 13,

2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/31/opinion/gifts-that-can-warp-a-museum.html.

The New York Times is an American newspaper for the general public. This particular piece is an opinion article discussing Catherine B. Reynold’s $38 million donation. Whereas the article questions the acceptance of the financial gift, it also articulates the plans for the exhibit funded by Reynolds’ donation.

Glenza, Jessica. “Big Tobacco: Top US Arts Institutions Under Fire For Accepting Donations.”

Guardian. March 29, 2019. Accessed July 6, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/

business/2019/mar/29/smithsonian-and-top-institutions-under-fire-for-accepting-tobacco

money. 55

This is an article that discusses cultural institutions’ acceptance of money from tobacco companies. Guardian is a British news source that covers international news and is intended for a national and global audience. Glenza’s article provides a recent example of tainted donations that are currently being donated to museums and other arts institutions. Glenza compares donations from tobacco companies to financial gifts from the Sackler family in light of the opioid epidemic.

Goedert, Paula Cozzi. “Guide for Board Members.” American Alliance of Museums. November

2, 2014. Accessed November 25, 2018. https://www.aam-us.org/2014/11/02/guide-for

board-members/.

Paula Cozzi Goedert is a partner at Barnes & Thornburg LLP. Posted on the American Alliance of Museums’ website, the national museum association in the United States, this piece is specifically intended for individuals in museum leadership, specifically board member. Goedert outlines the responsibilities of board members, including fiduciary duties of card, obedience, and loyalty.

Goldberger, Paul. “Temple of Dendur and Its Glass Box; Cities Competed for Temple; Size

Suggests Importance; Another Glass Court Planned.” The New York Times. January 14,

1979. Accessed July 13, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/1979/01/14/archives/temple-of

dendur-and-its-glassbox-cities-competed-for-temple-size.html?searchResultPosition=1.

The New York Times is an American newspaper for the general public. This article provides a background of the Temple of Dendur’s arrival at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and an 56 overview of the Sackler Gallery. Goldberger discusses Arthur Sackler’s $3.5 million donation and the symbolism within the gallery.

Groninger, Katherine. “Protecting the Public Trust: Implementing Accountability Measures in

UK Museums.” International Journal of the Inclusive Museum 5 (4) (2012): 71–78.

Accessed October 20, 2018. EBSCOhost.

This is a study of how museums in the United Kingdom are held responsible. International

Journal of the Inclusive Museum is a peer-reviewed journal that seeks to find ways to make museums more inclusive. Intended for the museum community, this article shares research of accountability and internal controls utilized by museums in the UK to improve transparency among museum leaders. It specifically discusses the UK’s Museum’s Association’s Principles in its Code of Ethics for Museums (2008) and its impact on museums’ ethical practices.

Halper, Evan. “How do Democratic Debate Candidates Plan to Combat Climate Change?” Los

Angeles Times. December 17, 2019. Accessed December 30, 2019. https://www.latimes

.com/politics/story/2019-12-17/democratic-debate-presidential-candidates-environment

climate-change-policy.

Los Angeles Times is an American newspaper. The periodical’s intended audience is the general public. This article outlines the Democratic presidential candidates’ plans for combating climate change. The prominence of the subject ahead of the 2020 presidential election indicates the value the public currently places on the matter. 57

Harris, Elizabeth A. “The Louvre Took Down the Sackler Name. Here’s Why Other Museums

Probably Won’t.” The New York Times. July 18, 2019. Accessed July 21, 2019.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/18/arts/sackler-family-museums.html.

The New York Times is an American newspaper for the general public. This article analyzes why most museums that have accepted financial donations will most likely refrain from removing the

Sackler name from their buildings like the Louvre Museum. Harris identifies three challenges that can deter a museum from removing a donor’s name, including legal, financial, and moral reasons. Harris’ article also includes the parameters of the Smithsonian Institution’ s donor agreement with the Sackler family for the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery.

Harris, Elizabeth A. “The Met Will Turn Down Sackler Money Amid Fury Over the Opioid

Crisis.” New York Times. May 15, 2019. Accessed July 7, 2019. https://www.nytimes

.com/2019/05/15/arts/design/met-museum-sackler-opioids.html.

New York Times is a major newspaper in the United States. The article is for a national and global audience. Harris reports the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s decision to stop accepting donations from the Sackler family.

“HHS Acting Secretary Declares Public Health Emergency to Address National Opioid Crisis.”

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. October 26, 2017. Accessed July 14,

2019. https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2017/10/26/hhs-acting-secretary-declares-public

health-emergency-address-national-opioid-crisis.html. 58

The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services is a department within the federal government that is responsible for ensuring the health of American citizens. This article is intended for a general audience. This article announced the public health emergency related to opioid use in 2017.

Huang, W.D. and Y. Cui. “Effect of Individual Cognitive Behavior Model on Public Opinion

Communication Mechanism Based on Social Ecosystem.” Ekoloji Dergisi no. 107

(January 2019): 4723-4730. Accessed June 13, 2019. EBSCOhost.

Ekoloji Dergisi is a peer-reviewed journal for environmental research. Whereas the journal is directed toward individuals in biology and environmental sciences, this article is intended for an audience in the social sciences. Huang and Cui discuss the impact of cognitive behavior on public opinion and review the segments of communication. The researchers identify four segments of communication: the communicator, audience, content, and media.

“ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums.” International Council of Museums. June 2017. Accessed

March 8, 2019. https://icom.museum/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/ICOM-code-En

web.pdf.

The International Council of Museums (ICOM) is a global organization of museums and museum professionals. The Code of Ethics are a set of professional standards for museums across the world. The document discusses ethical standards for a variety of areas, including research, object acquisition, and finances, among other topics. ICOM’s Code of Ethics states that museums should maintain the integrity of its work regardless of a donor’s donation. 59

“Instructions for Form 709 (2018).” Internal Revenue Service. Accessed October 15, 2019.

https://www.irs.gov/ instructions/i709#idm140297522519056.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is the federal tax collection agency. This particular page provides instructions for completing the Form 709, $15,000 or more are subject to a gift tax and require the completion of a Form 709, the United States git tax return. The IRS requires this form to be completed when gifting $15,000 or more.

Jones, Mark R., Omar Viswanath, Jacquelin Peck, Alan D Kaye, Jatinder S Gill, and Thomas T

Simopoulos. “A Brief History of the Opioid Epidemic and Strategies for Pain Medicine.”

Pain And Therapy 7 (1) (2018): 13-21. Accessed July 14, 2019. EBSCOhost.

Pain and Therapy is a peer-reviewed journal for medical professionals and others involved with pain and pain-related therapy. This article provides an overview of the origins of the opioid epidemic and provides opioid-related statistics. Jones et al. specifically discuss the exponential rise in the number of OxyContin prescriptions from 1997 to 2002.

Kaplan, Sarah. “The Smithsonian’s Renewed Fossil Hall Sends a Forceful Message About

Climate Change.” The Washington Post. May 26, 2019. Accessed December 31, 2019.

https://www.washingtonpost. com/national/health-science/the-smithsonians-renewed

fossil-hall-sends-a-forceful-message-about-climate-change/2019/05/25/bc896212-78d2

11e9-b3f5-5673edf2d127_story.html. 60

The Washington Post is an American newspaper intended for the general public. Kaplan’s article provides an overview of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History’s new dinosaur hall, David H. Koch Hall of Fossils — Deep Time. The article provides insight into how the

Museum incorporated the topic of climate change in the exhibit, while also noting that the

Smithsonian has stated donors do not have any influence over exhibit content.

Kozuch, Barbara, Sawomir Magala, and Joanna Olga Paliszkiewicz. Managing Public Trust.

Palgrave Macmillan, 2018. EBSCOhost.

This is a book that discusses the relationship between an organization and public trust and is intended for a global audience involved in organizational leadership. The researchers explore the significance and meaning of trust, as well as its various aspects in different settings. Kozuch et al. outline the evolution of establishing public confidence. The authors specifically define public organizations and identify innate challenges to institutions’ service to the community.

La Follette, Laetitia. “Looted Antiquities, Art Museums and Restitution in the United States

since 1970.” Journal of Contemporary History, no. 52 (3) (2017): 669-687. Accessed

October 16, 2018. EBSCOhost.

Journal of Contemporary History is a quarterly peer-reviewed international journal that publishes articles and book reviews about post-1930 history. Its readership comprises of individuals interested in social, economic, political, diplomatic, intellectual and cultural approaches to history. La Follette’s research indicates that sharing an object’s provenance will provide a more in-depth history and context. This article mentions the ethical and reputational risks involved with improper provenance research. 61

Lindqvist, Katja. “Museum Finances: Challenges Beyond Economic Crises.” Museum

Management and Curatorship, 27 (2012): 1-15. Accessed November 14, 2018.

EBSCOhost.

Museum Management and Curatorship is an international peer-reviewed journal for museum professionals. The journal comprises of article topics that include governance, collections, and ethics, among others. This particular article examines the financial management of museums, especially in light of economic crises, and the subsequent value of long-term stakeholder relationships for an institution’s sustainability. Lindqvist highlights the growing dependence on private donors due to an increasing number of cultural institutions.

Liu, Hui. “What to Do When You See Science Denial at the Science Museum.” Greenpeace.

July 26, 2017. Accessed November 3, 2018. https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/see-science

denial-science-museum/.

Greenpeace is a global campaigning organization that exposes environmental issues and fosters a green future. The organization’s published articles are intended to promote environmental knowledge for advocates and members of the public. This opinion article criticizes David H.

Koch Hall of Human Origins portrayal of climate change and speculates Koch’s influence over the exhibit’s content.

62

Malaro, Marie C. Museum Governance: Mission, Ethics, Policy. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian

Institution Press, 1994.

This is a book detailing common issued faced by museum leaders. The book is intended for individuals involved in museum field, specifically those in governance. Malaro outlines the purpose of nonprofits and the significance of maintaining the community’s confidence. The author specifically discusses the value of museum leaders going above and beyond expectation to maintain a trustworthy reputation for the institution.

Malaro, Marie C. and Ildiko DeAngelis. A Legal Primer on Managing Museum Collections.

Third edition. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Books, 2012.

This is a book that explores various aspects of museum law, specifically in regards to collections.

It is intended for professionals in collections care and management, museum law, and museum leadership. Malaro makes note of the board’s responsibility to conduct provenance research of object donations prior to acceptance. This analysis exemplifies the importance of board involvement and research prior to acceptance.

Matthes, Erich Hatala. “Why Museums Need Their Own Ethics Departments.” Apollo Magazine.

September 4, 2017. Accessed November 25, 2018. https://www.apollomagazine.com/

why-museums-need-their-own-ethics-departments/.

Apollo Magazine is an international art magazine. Comprising of art news and articles, its primary audience is members of the art community. This article discusses what occurs when 63 museums are faced with controversy. Matthes argues for museum staff to receive proper education in ethics, especially amid the contention surrounding the Confederate statues.

McDonnell, Diarmuid and Alasdair C. Rutherford. “The Determinants of Charity Misconduct.”

Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly 47 (1) (2018): 107-125. Accessed October 20,

2018. EBSCOhost.

Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly is a peer-reviewed bi-monthly journal that focuses on nonprofits, volunteerism, and philanthropy. This article is intended for an interdisciplinary audience with a focus in the nonprofit sector. In a study of UK museums, McDonald and

Rutherford identify frequent causes for scrutiny, such as age, location, and service. The researchers argue that museums’ placement in the voluntary sector does not make provide immunity from public scrutiny.

McDougle, Lindsey. “Understanding Public Awareness of Nonprofit Organizations: Exploring

the Awareness-Confidence Relationship.” International Journal of Nonprofit &

Voluntary Sector Marketing 19 (3) (2014): 187-199. Accessed July 20, 2019.

EBSCOhost.

This is a study about the connection between the public’s awareness of and trust in nonprofit organizations. The research is published in the International Journal of Nonprofit & Voluntary

Sector Marketing, a peer-reviewed journal intended for marketing professionals within the public sector. McDougle’s research reveals that individuals’ unfamiliarity with public charities typically maintains a negative impact on one’s impression of the organization. The study specifically 64 builds on a past study indicating declining rates of trust in nonprofits, and also reveals that awareness can significantly improve public confidence.

McGlone, Peggy. “Don’t call it the Freer/Sackler. Call it the National Museum of Asian Art.”

The Washington Post. December 4, 2019. Accessed December 29, 2019. https://www.

washingtonpost.com/entertainment/museums/dont-call-it-the-freersackler-call-it-the

national-museum-of-asian-art/2019/12/04/ce6bbc78-160c-11ea-9110-3b34ce1d92b1_

story.html.

The Washington Post is an American newspaper intended for the general public. This article discusses the decision to rebrand the Freer Gallery of Art and the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery to the National Museum of Asian Art in fall 2019. This decision follows protests and calls from the public to remove Sackler’s name from the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery with no prior action from the institution.

McGlone, Peggy. “‘Shame on Sackler’: Anti-Opioid Activists Call Out Late Smithsonian Donor

at His Namesake Museum.” The Washington Post. April 26, 2018. Accessed July 14,

2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-andentertainment/wp/2018

/04/26/shame-on-sackler-anti-opioid-activists-call-out-late-smithsonian-donor-at-his

namesake-museum/?utm_term=.4b0f0f85eed5.

The Washington Post is an American newspaper intended for the general public. This article discusses a demonstration that was held at the Smithsonian Institution’s Arthur M. Sackler 65

Gallery by anti-opioid protesters in 2018. This protest specifically targets the Smithsonian’s continued honoring of the Gallery’s namesake.

McGlone, Peggy. “Smithsonian Says No to Senator’s Request to Strip Sackler Name from

Museum.” June 30, 2019. Accessed July 12, 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com

/entertainment/museums/smithsonian-says-no-to-senators-request-to-strip-sackler-name

from-museum/2019/06/28/618ee18a-99ec-11e9-a027-c571fd3d394d_story.html?utm_

term=.667e62c676a4.

The Washington Post is an American newspaper intended for the general public. This article discusses the Smithsonian Institution’s decision to not rename the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery despite individuals like Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon requesting to do so. This request occurs during anti-opioid community’s calls for museums to reject donations from the Sackler family.

Miller, M.H. “David Koch Resigns From the Board of the American Museum of Natural

History.” ArtNews. January 21, 2016. Accessed November 20, 2018.

http://www.artnews.com/2016/01/21/david-koch-resigns-from-the-board-of-the

american-museum-of-natural-history/.

ARTnews is an American art magazine. Intended for the art community, it is comprised of exhibit reviews, visual-art news, and artist biographies. This article announces David H. Koch ’s resignation from the American Museum of Natural History’s board of trustees.

66

Moynihan, Colin. “Guggenheim Targeted by Protesters for Accepting Money From Family With

OxyContin Ties.” The New York Times. February 9, 2019. Accessed July 14, 2019.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/09/arts/protesters-guggenheim-sackler.html?

searchResultPosition=1.

The New York Times is an American newspaper for the general public. This article discusses a demonstration that was held at the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in New York City by anti- opioid protesters in 2019. This protest specifically targets the Museum’s continued honoring of the Sackler Center for Arts’ namesake.

Moynihan, Colin. “Opioid Protest at Met Museum Targets Donors Connected to OxyContin,”

The New York Times. March 10, 2018. Accessed July 14, 2019. https://www.nytimes.

com/2018/03/10/us/met-museum-sackler-protest.html?searchResultPosition=1.

The New York Times is an American newspaper for the general public. This article discusses a demonstration that was held at the Metropolitan Museum of Art by anti-opioid protesters in

2018. This protest specifically targets the Museum’s continued honoring of the Sackler Wing’s namesake.

“New Exhibition Hall Devoted to Human Origins Opens at National Museum of Natural

History.” Smithsonian. March 17, 2010. Accessed November 2, 2018. https://www.si.edu

/newsdesk/releases/new-exhibition-hall-devoted-human-origins-opens-national-museum

natural-history. 67

The Smithsonian Institution is comprised of various museums and research centers. Exhibits and research completed by the Smithsonian are for the general public. This news release posted on the Institution’s website announces the opening of the Hall of Human Origins funded by David

H. Koch.

Ng, David. “Reject David Koch Money, Scientists and Museum Officials' Letter Urges.” Los

Angeles Times. March 25, 2015. Accessed November 3, 2018. http://www.latimes.

com/entertainment/arts/culture/la-et-cm-david-koch-museums-20150325-story.html.

Los Angeles Times is an American newspaper. The periodical’s intended audience is the general public. This particular article discusses petitions circulating among museum leaders encouraging institutions to decline accepting financial gifts from David H. Koch due to his history of influencing exhibit content.

“Oil Embargo, 1973–1974.” Office of the Historian, Bureau of Public Affairs. Accessed July 17,

2019. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/oil-embargo.

The Office of the Historian, Bureau of Public Affairs maintains and researches the United States’ federal government history and is part of the United States Department of State. As an article posted on the Office’s website, this cite is intended for the general public. The article outlines the history of the Oil Embargo that caused the price of oil to rise in the mid-1970s.

68

Powell, Walter W. and Richard Steinberg. The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook, Vol.

2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006. EBSCOhost.

This is a book that provides a holistic account of nonprofit organizations. Powell and Steinberg’s research is intended for individuals within the public sector. Whereas the publication covers a variety of topics related to nonprofits, such as its purpose, history, and governance, Powell and

Steinberg also discuss global trends within the sector and how public organizations impact society, thus catering toward a general audience. The book provides an overview of how nonprofits are held accountable in the United States.

Rieppel, Lukas. “The Smithsonian’s New Dinosaur Hall is a Marvel. But its Ties to David Koch

are a Problem.” The Washington Post. June 9, 2019. Accessed December 30, 2019.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/06/09/smithsonians-new-dinosaur-hall

is-marvel-its-ties-david-koch-are-problem/.

The Washington Post is an American newspaper intended for the general public. This article discusses David H. Koch’s funding of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History's

David H. Koch Hall of Fossils — Deep Time. Rieppel’s article specifically examines the threat

Koch’s donation poses to public confidence in light of the benefactor’s possible alternative motives due to his political affiliations.

Romm, Joe. “Smithsonian Stands By Wildly Misleading Climate Change Exhibit Paid For By

Kochs.” ThinkProgress. March 23, 2015. Accessed December 30, 2019. https://think 69

progress.org/smithsonian-stands-by-wildly-misleading-climate-change-exhibit-paid-for

by-kochs-bd3105ef354b/.

Started by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, ThinkProgress is a liberal news website intended for the general public. Joe Romm’s article discusses how David H. Koch’s perspective of climate change likely impacted the David H. Koch’s Hall of Human Origins portrayal of global warming. Romm also includes the Smithsonian Institution’s stance on the topic of climate change.

Rubin, Erin. “A $50 Million Gift with No Strings Attached? What It Took.” Nonprofit Quarterly.

April 23, 2018. Accessed July 6, 2019. https://nonprofitquarterly.org/50-million-gift-no

strings-attached-whats-bottom/.

Nonprofit Quarterly is a national journal comprised of research focused on nonprofit leadership.

The article is intended for individuals within the voluntary sector. Rubin provides an example of a large unrestricted financial donation. The researcher concludes that unrestricted gifts provide museum boards of trustees with the ability to exercise duty of obedience.

Sackler, Jillian. “Stop Blaming My Late Husband, Arthur Sackler, for the Opioid Crisis.” The

Washington Post. April 11, 2019. Accessed July 12, 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.

com/opinions/stop-blaming-my-late-husband-arthur-sackler-for-the-opioid

crisis/2019/04/11/5b8478a4-5c89-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html?utm_term=.8

f3d3add9d8c. 70

The Washington Post is an American newspaper intended for the general public. This op-ed is authored by Jillian Sackler, Arthur M. Sackler’s widow, who calls for the end of her husband’s defamation by the public. In her article, Jillian explains that her husband did not maintain an association with OxyContin and that protesting his donations harms the beneficiaries.

Sciolino, Elaine. “Smithsonian Is Promised $38 Million, With Strings.” New York Times. May

10, 2001. Accessed October 14, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/10/us/

smithsonian-is-promised-38-million-with-strings.html.

New York Times is a major newspaper in the United States and is intended for a national and global audience. This particular article discusses the background of Catherine B. Reynolds’ $38 million donation to the National Museum of American History and outlines the plans for its use.

The article also highlights concern regarding the ethics of its acceptance, including comments from Museum staff.

Sciolino, Elaine. “Smithsonian Must Exhibit Ingenuity in the Face of Overlapping Gifts.” The

New York Times. August 6, 2001. Accessed October 13, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/

2001/08/06/arts/smithsonian-must-exhibit-ingenuity-in-the-face-of-overlapping

gifts.html.

The New York Times is an American newspaper for the general public. This article reports on the similarities between the proposed exhibits funded by Kenneth E. Behring and Catherine B.

Reynolds. It includes commentary from Museum leadership regarding the situation and ways in which it may be resolved. 71

Small, Lawrence M. “Generosity and Standards.” Smithsonian Magazine. July 2001. Accessed

October 14, 2018. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/generosity-and-standards

45718941/.

Smithsonian Magazine is a journal published by the Smithsonian Institution. Comprising of articles focused on a broad range of topics, it intends to capture a diverse audience from the general public. This article written by the Smithsonian’s former Secretary and explains the reasoning behind the acceptance of Kenneth E. Behring and Catherine B. Reynolds’ donations.

“Smithsonian Institution Announces Biggest Single Donation in its 154-year History.” National

Museum of American History. September 18, 2000. Accessed October 13, 2018.

http://americanhistory.si.edu/press/releases/ smithsonian-institution-announces-biggest

single-donation-its-154-year-history.

The National Museum of American History is an institution that focuses on the United States’ past. Operated by the Smithsonian Institution, its purpose is to educate the public about the country’s history. This press release announces Kenneth E. Behring’s $80 million contribution to the Museum’s capital campaign for renovation in 2000.

Stack, Liam. “Guggenheim Museum Says It Won’t Accept Gifts From Sackler Family.” The

New York Times. March 22, 2019. Accessed July 14, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com

/2019/03/22/arts/guggenheim-sackler-family-donations.html. 72

The New York Times is an American newspaper for the general public. This article discusses the

Guggenheim’s decision to reject donations from the Sackler family. The Museum’s announcement occurred as the other prominent museums decided to stop accepting gifts from the

Sacklers amid protests.

Stapley-Brown, Victoria. “The Met Is Re-Evaluating Its Gift Acceptance Policy in Wake of

Sackler Lawsuits.” The Art Newspaper. January 21, 2019. Accessed January 27, 2019,

https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/the-met-is-re-evaluating-its-gift-policy-in-

wake-of-sackler-lawsuits.

The Art Newspaper is an online and print international art news source. This article is intended for a national (United States) and global audience. Stapley-Brown provides a background of the controversy surrounding the Sackler family’s donation to the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

“Strategic Review of DCMS-Sponsored Museums.” Department for Digital, Culture, Media &

Sport. November 2017. Accessed November 24, 2018. https://assets.publishing.service.

gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/file/673938/Strategic_

review_of_DCMS-sponsored_muse ums.pdf.

This document was created by the United Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport, the department within the United Kingdom’s government that sponsors museums. It provides a review of UK museums and is intended for the general public and museum leaders. The report provides insight into the UK government’s management of museums to mitigate fractures in the public’s confidence. Ensuring transparency and efficiency are key components for public trust as 73 some of the UK’s most well-known museums are sponsored by the Department for Digital,

Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS).

Szpaller, Keila. “UM School of Law to be Renamed for $10M Donor.” Missoulian. May 20,

2015. Accessed January 1, 2020. https://missoulian.com/news/local/um-school-of-law-to

be-renamed-for-m-donor/article_5e0f3b6a-0740-5a9d-9596-bf993c1484b9.html.

Missoulian is a local newspaper in Western Montana that covers local, state, and national news.

Szpaller’s article examines a $10 million gift granted to the University of Montana that would rename the School of Law to honor its benefactor. The article explains that the University has a list of criteria for accepting renaming donations.

Tait, Allison Anna. “Publicity Rules for Public Trusts.” Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law

Journal (2015): 421-471. Accessed October 15, 2018. EBSCOhost.

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal is an international journal focused on research in arts, entertainment, and sports law. This particular article is intended for museum and nonprofit professionals as it explores the interpretations of “public trust.” The researcher’s findings favor the trust law framework to improve the publicity of an organization. Tait articulates the necessity for museum leadership to operate with an increased level of care in order to maintain public trust.

74

Temin, Peter. “An Economic History of American Art Museums.” In The Economics of Art

Museums, Martin Feldstein. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991.

The Economics of Art Museums is a collection of articles discussing economic issues encountered by art museums in the United States. Initiated by the National Bureau of Economic

Research, its readership is comprised of economists and professionals in museum, visual arts, and cultural studies. This article is a historiography of American art museum’s financial past.

Temin specifically explains the causes for institutions’ shift toward restricted financial gifts for sustainability.

Trescott, Jacqueline. “David Koch Donates $35 Million to National Museum of Natural History

for Dinosaur Hall.” The Washington Post. May 3, 2012. Accessed November 3, 2018.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/david-koch-donates-35-million-to

national-museum-of-natural-history-for-dinosaur-hall/2012/05/03/gIQAIjT3yT_

story.html?utm_term=.2012349d821c.

The Washington Post is an American newspaper intended for the general public. This article reports on David H. Koch’s 2012 $35 million donation to the National Museum of Natural

History. As the largest single donation in the Museum’s history, Trescott includes Koch’s motives behind the financial gift.

Warren, Katie. “Meet the Sacklers, One of the Richest Families in America, Who Built Their

$14 Billion Fortune Off of Controversial Prescription Drug OxyContin.” Business 75

Insider. January 18, 2019. Accessed July 7, 2019. https://www.businessinsider.com/who

are-the-sacklers-wealth-philanthropy-oxycontin-photos-2019-1.

Business Insider is an online American business news source. This article is intended for a national audience. Warren’s article provides a background of the Sackler family and reports the family’s 1974 donation to the Metropolitan Museum of Art at $3.5 million.

Walters, Joanna. “Artist Nan Goldin Stages Opioids Protest in Metropolitan Museum Sackler

Wing.” The Guardian. March 11, 2018. Accessed March 1, 2019. https://www.

theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/10/opioids-nan-goldin-protest-metropolitan

museum-sacklerwing.

Guardian is a British news source that covers international news. The article is intended for a global and national audience. Walters’ article reports the value of the Sackler family’s donation at $3.4 million.

Walters, Joanna. “Tate Art Galleries Will No Longer Accept Donations from the Sackler

Family.” The Guardian. March 22, 2019. Accessed July 13, 2019. https://www.the

guardian.com/artanddesign/2019/mar/21/tate-art-galleries-will-no-longer-accept

donations-from-the-sackler-family.

The Guardian is a British newspaper intended for a general audience. This article discusses the

Tate Art Galleries’ decision to stop accepting donations from the Sackler family. The Galleries’ 76 announcement occurred when the public began to pressure institutions to reject donations from the Sacklers.

Well, Ford B. “How Are Museums Supported Financially in the U.S.?.” United States

Department of State Bureau of International Information Programs. March 2012.

Accessed November 2, 2018. https://photos.state.gov/libraries/amgov/133183/english/

P_You_Asked_How_Are_Museums_Supported_Financially.pdf.

This is a pamphlet by the United States Department of State Bureau of International Information

Programs explaining how museums are funded in the United States. It is intended for a general, global audience interested in how American museums are financially supported. The pamphlet describes the insecurities and complexities of funding sources available to American museums.

The report reveals that museums generally receive approximately one-third of its funding through donations.

“What is a “Nonprofit?”” National Council of Nonprofits. Accessed June 10, 2019.

https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/what-is-a-nonprofit.

The National Council of Nonprofits is a national organization that supports America’s nonprofits. Although the Council is directed toward professionals and groups within the public sector, this summary is intended for those who may be unfamiliar with nonprofits. This article provides a basic definition and overview of public charities. The Council specifically explains that nonprofits are intended for public benefit. 77

“What is the U.S. Opioid Epidemic?” U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Accessed

July 14, 2019. https://www.hhs.gov/opioids/about-the-epidemic/index.html.

The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services is a department within the federal government that is responsible for ensuring the health of American citizens. This article provides an overview of the opioid epidemic and is intended for a general audience. When discussing the causes for the epidemic, the article lists pharmaceutical companies’ tactics for prescribing opioids in the late 1990s.

Yerkovich, Sally. A Practical Guide to Museum Ethics. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman &

Littlefield, 2016.

A Practical Guide to Museum Ethics is a comprehensive discussion about common ethical dilemmas within museums and museum leadership. Yerkovich’s book is intended for any museum professional or leader. The book prepares museum professionals for a variety of potential ethical quandaries. Yerkovich explains each of the three fiduciary duties: duty of care, duty of loyalty, and duty of obedience in the context of ethical governance.

Yermack, David. “Donor Governance and Financial Management in Prominent US Art

Museums.” Journal of Cultural Economics 41 (3) (2017): 215-235. Accessed October 12,

2018. EBSCOhost. 78

Journal of Cultural Economics focuses on the economics of cultural and heritage and performing arts industries. Readership of its articles consists of economists and professionals in the aforementioned industries. Yermack’s article explores the consequences of power imbalance in favor of the donor within US art museums, coining it as “donor governance.” The researcher identifies donor governance as a potential product of “weak” governance and unstable finances.