I for one was unusually dismayed to read the polemic offered as reasoned editorial opinion in the May edition; and I know I am not alone.
Sharon Heal lays into a museum already brought to its knees by the actions or inactions of a previous generation of company directors at Josiah Wedgwood and sons.
What I really must take serious issue with is the throwaway line that this “case highlights some of the perils of trust status, and should act as a warning to those considering the option.”
This is simply not true and also quite misleading. The idea that an organisation can incur a massive pension fund liability because it is the last entity standing in a group of failed companies is not a result of its status as a trust but a matter of law. Such a liability could conceivably occur to any kind of organisation that is not protected by an act of parliament.
This is a peril for all. For example, if it were a massive local authority pension deficit we as taxpayers would end up with the liability ourselves. Indeed we regularly see moves to sell collections from local authority museums trying to make ends meet.
Here too often the proposed starting point as in the editorial of “the collection protected and legal arrangements watertight” may be lacking within a local authority context.
Trust status, when properly and realistically drawn up, creates the environment within which great museums, large and small, can flourish. The majority of winners of the respected Art Fund Prize have been independent trust museums.
Let’s not get hung up on raising misplaced fears where they do not lie, but instead stand up and encourage good museums to thrive under independent trust status, properly set up, and properly focussed on delivering great public service.
Matthew Tanner, chairman Association of Independent Museums
Sharon Heal lays into a museum already brought to its knees by the actions or inactions of a previous generation of company directors at Josiah Wedgwood and sons.
What I really must take serious issue with is the throwaway line that this “case highlights some of the perils of trust status, and should act as a warning to those considering the option.”
This is simply not true and also quite misleading. The idea that an organisation can incur a massive pension fund liability because it is the last entity standing in a group of failed companies is not a result of its status as a trust but a matter of law. Such a liability could conceivably occur to any kind of organisation that is not protected by an act of parliament.
This is a peril for all. For example, if it were a massive local authority pension deficit we as taxpayers would end up with the liability ourselves. Indeed we regularly see moves to sell collections from local authority museums trying to make ends meet.
Here too often the proposed starting point as in the editorial of “the collection protected and legal arrangements watertight” may be lacking within a local authority context.
Trust status, when properly and realistically drawn up, creates the environment within which great museums, large and small, can flourish. The majority of winners of the respected Art Fund Prize have been independent trust museums.
Let’s not get hung up on raising misplaced fears where they do not lie, but instead stand up and encourage good museums to thrive under independent trust status, properly set up, and properly focussed on delivering great public service.
Matthew Tanner, chairman Association of Independent Museums
