A golem is on the loose in the Bay Area Jewish community, and it is called the Magnes Museum merger.
It represents what may be irreconcilable differences, regrettably unrecognized until now, between two cultural institutions and the constituencies that support each. Instead of the silence that the museum’s management has been imposing, what is needed is constructive public discourse about the future of our ailing museums. In reassessing the merger’s impacts to date and exploring alternative models for partnership, conversation might be part of the cure.
The question is: Why has it been nearly impossible to create a clear vision and operable model for the contracted merger between the Jewish Museum San Francisco and Berkeley’s Judah L. Magnes Museum? The two museums agreed upon a merger following several years of negotiations and understandable concern from local philanthropists that it would not be feasible for the community to simultaneously support two separate building campaigns.
Museums, like other cultural and arts organizations, struggle to survive in a complex world of competing resources. They are influenced by benefactors, corporations and government sponsors, which customarily blur the line between culture and commerce. That is part of the challenge. But it doesn’t explain the failure of imagination and integrity that has jinxed the Magnes merger and wearied, even demoralized, this community.
Sadly, the task of carrying out the merger has bred confusion, rage, embarrassment and disappointment on both sides of the Bay Bridge. Once the Jewish community handed over the reins to the San Francisco “Magnes” to steer the transition, problems and ill feelings set in from the start.
Because a draconian management style was employed — as is evidenced, for example, in the immediate, one-sided layoffs of Berkeley staff and the shunning of transparency — one has to ask whether a mutually beneficial merger was ever really intended. Instead, we seem to be witnessing the painfully slow death of a Berkeley institution, which is why so many members of this community feel miserable about the merger. Have rachmonis (compassion), please. Burials need to be announced so that the community can arrange the shiva.
Or is it the case that the Herculean demands of a merger may have exceeded the specific expertise of the people in charge? For the talented team led by Connie Wolf, whose primary objective was always to bring Daniel Libeskind’s design to life, the merger may have been, from day one, a burdensome detour. In fact, the Berkeley Magnes could have provided some of the required skills — after all, there was 40 years’ experience, renewed accreditation by the American Association of Museums (the Jewish Museum San Francisco had lapsed accreditation) and founder Seymour Fromer. But the East Bay contingent was shut out of the decision-making and planning processes from the get-go. Even Fromer was excluded until recently.
Another problem is that the terms of the merger called for the blending not only of finances and administration but also of the institutional identities. It seems these two very distinct identities cannot, and perhaps should not, be blended. Finally, it is not clear how cost-effective the merger will be over time, when the central management of two buildings located in separate cities and divided by an 8.4-mile bridge will tax financial and human resources in ways that may yet be unforeseen.
Mergers between cultural institutions need not strictly emulate the top-down conventions of corporate mergers. There are creative options, and the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco provides one alternative model. In this case, an umbrella entity houses two museums, each of which preserves its institutional identity and, to varying degrees, its fiscal autonomy. The retaining of differences is viewed and managed as a principle value of the merger.
A similar respect for difference and autonomy guides the partnerships made by numerous other cultural organizations including, for example, the Center for Jewish History, the New York umbrella structure built and shared by five major institutions of Jewish scholarship, history and art.
On the same day I received the Nov. 15 Bulletin, which reported the most recent staff layoffs at the Magnes, I also received the latest issue of Museum News, the bimonthly magazine of the American Association of Museums, which featured a successful merger between Colorado’s Women of the West Museum and Southern California’s Autry Museum of Western Heritage. These two museums seemed to do everything right that our museums did wrong. Both sides sincerely welcomed the merger and developed concrete criteria for creating a win-win scenario. They communicated openly and regularly with staff, lay leaders, membership, sponsors, the media and the public. For example, layoffs were scheduled in advance and special farewell programs were organized where staff, most of whom had served one to five years, were properly thanked.
In contrast, last week the San Francisco Magnes laid off staff abruptly, including the entire Berkeley curatorial team, with no formal show of appreciation for those professionals who had given 20 years or more of service.
Like a courtship, a merger requires “the right combination of partners, timing, resources, readiness, and leadership,” writes Marsha Semmel, former director of the Women of the West Museum. The union between the Jewish Museum San Francisco and the Judah L. Magnes Museum never reveled in courtship. It always was a marriage of convenience, though I don’t think the Berkeley Magnes anticipated the loss of its decision-making powers. One year into the formal arrangement, the two partners are in need of counseling.
Today, a merger may still be feasible and beneficial to the community. However, the terms of the merger need to be redrawn to achieve mutual benefit. One solution is to organize an independent evaluation by an outside group of museum specialists (for example, drawn from the National Council of American Jewish Museums or the American Association of Museums) to critique the merger and propose remedies. Objective, external expertise may be the most effective means to regain control of a golem-like dynamic, steer the museums back on course and revive the community’s confidence.