Every day a museum receives a seven-figure gift is a very good day. But for the Orlando Museum of Art, which recently received a $1.8 million bequest from the estate of Margaret Young, the gift couldn’t have come at a better time.
Last December, the museum’s executive director, Cathryn Mattson, warned trustees and influential donors of “a serious financial crisis” with a projected shortfall of nearly $1 million on the $4 million budget. of the museum by the end of June 2024.
The deficit is the result of what a former museum administrator, Winifred Sharp, called “the Basquiat fiasco”: a 2022 exhibition of paintings allegedly created by art world legend Jean-Michel Basquiat, but which the FBI later seized as counterfeits. . A Los Angeles auctioneer later admitted to the FBI that he and an associate had forged the paintings, some in just five minutes.
The $1.8 million bequest could go a long way toward easing the museum’s financial woes. But Ms. Young, who was an artist herself, said her bequest could only be used to purchase art for the museum’s permanent collection, not for operating expenses like employee salaries or fees. growing legal rights of the museum.
So now, as nonprofits sometimes do, the museum has asked a court to change the restrictions on Ms. Young so the money can be spent more widely.
On April 24, the museum, along with a letter of support from Ashley Moody, Florida’s attorney general, asked the Orange County Circuit Court to modify the restrictions. No court date has been set.
Young died in 2005, and her inheritance is the remaining money she left in a trust for her daughter Kit Knotts, who died last fall. The trust directs that upon Ms. Knotts’ death, the remainder be paid into the museum’s “Permanent Collection Fund” and used to add to their permanent collection.
The museum, in its court filing, asks to use the $1.8 million for “general OMA purposes related to and servicing its existing permanent collection,” including “curatorial staff, maintenance/repair of safes, security dedicated to the permanent collection, etc. .”
The museum said in the filing that it cannot use the bequest solely to purchase art because it does not have a “permanent collection fund,” which “makes it impossible for OMA to achieve the donor’s objective.
The museum says its financial situation is improving and the amendment request is not an effort to close its financial gap. But some critics say the amendment, if granted, would have that effect because it would appear to allow legacy funds to be spent on what are generally considered operating expenses.
The Friends of American Art, an OMA “collecting circle” whose members donate money to purchase art for the permanent collection, recently expressed concerns that their own contributions might be diverted to cope with the museum’s lack of cash flow.
Ms. Mattson and the museum’s board chair, Mark Elliott, responded in a letter reassuring the Friends group that their donations were “restricted and can only be used to purchase works of art.”
“So what is it ?” asked Fiorella Escalon, a donor who is leading a public “Save OMA” campaign that has criticized the museum’s transparency. Cathryn Mattson, she said, “told us there was an account set aside for purchasing art for the permanent collection, and she told a judge we didn’t have an account.” counts like that.”
Critics also question whether it would be so difficult to create another fund to add art to the permanent collection, even though there is currently no fund with that specific name.
But opening a new account for the Young bequest was not an option, Ginnette Childs, an attorney for the museum, said in response to questions. She said creating such an account would have been redundant since the museum already has the Friends group and another collector’s circle, the Acquisition Trust. Moreover, she added, such a move would have required additional legal fees (“much more than changing the restriction”) and the creation of entirely new rules for museums regarding the purchase of works of art. art.
The New York Times contacted several art world lawyers, who said they did not view the process of creating a new fund to house the donated acquisition funds as complicated or expensive.
The hurdle the museum has let itself jump, lawyers say, is convincing a court that it is complying with Florida law governing restricted charitable donations. It states that “any modification must be made in accordance with the probable intention of the donor” and only if the restriction has become “unlawful, impracticable, impracticable or unnecessary.”
In Pennsylvania, where the laws governing charitable assets are similar, the Barnes Foundation convinced a judge in 2004 that the museum’s near-bankrupt financial situation justified lifting restrictions imposed by its founder that it must remain in its original house in suburban Merion. It’s now in downtown Philadelphia.
Likewise, several lawyers said the most compelling argument the Orlando museum made for an amendment would have been its financial difficulty, not the difficulty of creating a new “permanent collection fund.”
“Are they insolent with the court? said Clarissa Rodriguez, a partner at Harper Meyer in Miami who specializes in art law. “Because they have a fund to acquire permanent collection art, but it’s not called a ‘permanent collection fund’.”
Ms. Rodriguez said that proposing to use the bequest “in service” of the existing permanent collection, with “broader purposes that end in ‘et cetera,’” could raise concerns about violating the donor’s intent. “The intent is exactly what the restriction says, for the museum’s permanent collection and acquisition budget,” she said. “Not for other uses, not for a new roof, not to pay legal fees, not for employee salaries, so many things that could have been clarified.”
Some of the expenses the museum is asking the bequest to spend on – “security” and “curatorial staff” – are regular operating expenses.
But Ms Childs denied that the expanded list of acceptable uses of the funds was designed to close the financial gap. The museum, she said, “tries to honor the donor’s intent by using the funds to support the permanent collection of art that the museum has.”
As a result, she said, the museum does not anticipate that donors will be upset by its request for a change.
“We hope that current and future donors to the Museum will appreciate OMA’s approach in this area,” she said. “It’s public, we sought consent from the Florida Attorney General before filing the motion, and we are now seeking court approval.”
But one disgruntled potential donor is Margaret Young’s surviving daughter, Dee Miller, 77. She also has a trust established by her mother which, upon Ms. Miller’s death, would donate the remainder of her assets to the museum for its “Permanent Collection Fund.” .”
She said she didn’t know her mother named the museum as the sole beneficiary when she structured her two daughters’ trusts. But she wasn’t surprised.
“My mother was an artist herself,” Miller said. “She lived just a few blocks from the museum and started taking art classes there when it was called the Loch Haven Art Center,” as the museum was originally called, in the 1990s. 1960. “She loved this place.”
She said she was disappointed that her mother’s wishes could be changed by this legal action. “I think the museum should do with the money what my mother wanted it to do,” she said. “She wanted it to be used for a specific purpose. I would like his wishes to be respected.
And what about the rest in his own confidence? It is also currently valued at around $1.8 million. Would she have a problem if the museum again challenged her mother’s request that the museum be used for purchasing art?
“Well,” Miller mused with a chuckle, “I won’t be there to object.” She paused, then became serious again: “Should I call a lawyer?”