MOCA Misery
I won’t go into a lot of particulars about what’s going on at MOCA, in part because you might get bored and stop reading (I guess you might do that anyway), but mostly because plenty of others have already done a fine job of telling the story in great detail: here, here, and here.
Here is the short version: the Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) in Los Angeles is in deep financial distress. Yes, it’s true that most arts institutions are having money problems at the moment, (endowments are sort of like 401Ks that way…the stock market crashes and so do they), but MOCA’s situation is slightly different for several reasons. First and foremost, it’s problems are such that without an immediate and enormous infusion of cash, it will be forced to close or potentially be absorbed by Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA). Second, the general consensus is that, unlike other arts institutions whose troubles stem more or less directly from the financial crisis (and will only get worse as the many donors who work(ed) in finance start defaulting on their pledges), MOCA’s problems seem to be pretty clearly linked to years of poor financial management on the part of the board of trustees.
And here’s where we get to my gripe: non-profit boards. Board members are expected (and legally bound) to do more than just fork over money. Trustees would be well advised to act as though the institution whose board they sit on is as dear to them as their own children, because somewhere down the line when that institution runs out of money it’s going to it’s trustees to look for cash. And while it’s fine to tell your real children to grow up, get a job, and move out, trustees are legally responsible for keeping the finances of their institution in check.
Somehow, I think a lot of trustees don’t really get this part, even though someone must have told them. There are a lot of good and virtuous reasons to join a board, and I guess now would be a good time to point out that I have encountered any number of trustees who were dedicated, responsible, and genuinely cared (some even passionately!) about the organization they were serving. Unfortunately, however, sitting on the board of a non-profit can and often does serve less noble purposes. Some of the more questionable motivations for be-trusting oneself are as follows: one, it’s perfunctory—that is, it is more or less expected when you have a certain amount of wealth or a high-profile job that you contribute your time and money in this way; two, it’s calculating—that is, it is a great way to meet other rich people with whom you can yacht and strike lucrative business deals; and three, it’s a superficial status thing—that is, “Oh, you’re on the board at MOCA? I used to think you were a tacky nouveau riche product of high finance, but now I see that you are in fact exceptionally cultured.”
Look, trustees are far from the only people responsible for ensuring the healthy maintenance of an institution. But at the end of the day they are the ones responsible for making the really big and important decisions that will determine the future of said institution. There needs to be more guarding against those individuals who cozy up to museums and opera houses simply for the cultural capital they possess (for a colorful example see: Vilar, Alberto).
And now I will climb down from my soapbox, very carefully, because it’s slippery up here. Lest you think me some sort of a moral crusader on behalf of arts institutions, let me say this: when trustees get lazy/stupid and screw up the finances of museums and other cultural institutions, there is less (or no) money to hire people—people like me, who desperately need jobs to justify the last two (very expensive) years of their life which were spent learning how to ingratiate themselves with board members and the like.
