Management Problems at Gilcrease Museum

[TulsaJayhawk]

While most everyone seems to like the idea of linking the management of Gilcrease Museum to the University of Tulsa, I've found no discussion -- either in the Tulsa World or online -- of exactly how management at the museum has been failing over recent years (or decades, if that be the case).

If this has been discussed here already, kindly direct me to the appropriate thread.  If not, what have been the key complaints or problems that have arisen from the existing management structure?  And why is TU, with no discernible program in museum management, the best entity to take over the management of this incredibly valuable asset owned by the city of Tulsa?

Having worked in the nonprofit field previously, I think it would be a nightmare to have to answer to a bloated board (and emeritus board chiming in at will) as well as a city bureaucracy.  But how will the bureaucracy of a university improve on the nightmare?

[TheArtist]

Actually I hope they do not "link" the management of Gilcrease Museum to the University of Tulsa. The current management structure is one of the main problems and needs to be completely redone.

There have been mentions of this on here before. But not a lot of detail. From what I hear one gist is that there are several parties working and running the museum and that they do not always cooperate well. Each tries to hold on to its "power". It makes it hard to get anything done or changes made. "I dont have to do what you say, I work for..." "You cant do that without permission from, x, y and z." Conflicts of interest and getting everyone to agree type problems.

IMO the museum looks terrible. Especially on the outside. Its interior is a jumbled mess of little additions that dont seem to allow for orderly future growth. Some of the galleries actually look like they were once office spaces. Definitely does not come across as the world class museum and attraction its collection warrants and that our city should have.  There needs to be one overriding authority or structure, one main voice, and an over all vision and mission to move forward.

The mayor seems to be aware of the problems at Gilcrease. My hope is that TU does not become part of the management but the main manager.  All the workers should be under its authority. The Gillies should just be a volunteer organization and also answer to TU management. The cities role... I dont know, perhaps the president or CEO that oversees and has final "sign off" on TUs management descisions. But we cant keep going with the present mess of too many cooks in the kitchen. There needs to be a definite chain of command not a bunch of competitive parties. And since current management structure is a big part of the problem, I doubt that they are just adding TU to the mix but will try to streamline things. Will be interesting to hear some info about what they are planning.

[sgrizzle]

Here is a previous (but not highly informative) thread:
http://tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7288&SearchTerms=Gilcrease

It's my understanding that this is meant to be an enhancement, like when OSU took over TRMC.

[TURobY]

The TU community received the following email today from President Steadham Upham:

quote:

I regret to announce that the Gilcrease Family Foundation and the City of Tulsa have been unable to agree on terms that would have allowed The University of Tulsa to assume management of the Thomas Gilcrease Institute of American History and Art.  As a result, the provisional management agreement between the City and TU expired at 5 p.m. today (December 24, 2007), and the City will now pursue other options for museum management.

As you may recall, the proposal signed by the City and TU in October was contingent on a number of conditions essential to successful implementation. The first milestone was to be that the City and the Gilcrease Family Foundation would agree on changes to their original management arrangements.  Despite everyone's best efforts, this negotiation stalled over longstanding differences between the Gilcrease Family and the City of Tulsa.

I am, of course, disappointed that our proposal could not be finalized.  We do, however, continue to hold the Gilcrease Museum in highest regard as an outstanding cultural and educational resource, and we remain eager to advance its mission through all available partnerships.  Should conditions change, we would welcome the opportunity to fulfill our original management vision - which we believe would have benefited both institutions as well as museum patrons.

I extend my thanks to the many faculty, staff and friends of the University who devoted considerable time and expertise to this effort.  I am proud that so many members of our TU family stepped forward to support this unique opportunity to be of service to the greater Tulsa community.

Regards,
Steadman Upham, President
The University of Tulsa

[TheArtist]

Looks like yet another example of why Gilcrease Museum has problems. The different parties are always fighting so the museum stagnates in the same ol ratty building. World Class collection in an out-dated jumbled mess. Tulsa has so much to offer in many areas, it just doesnt know how to improve it or package it.

[FOTD]

All I know about Gilcrease is there is loads of money and egos behind it. It's the first stop for me when family and friends across the nation come to T town for a look see....

[sgrizzle]

I think that TU message said it all. The City couldn't get the Gilcrease Family to budge.

It's your museum, you got your name on it, don't make it the community's responsibility to keep up with it and still tell us how to do it.

[Wrinkle]

I have no iron in this fire, but I will remind people of the Gilcrease Family Foundations'one main principle of operations of this museum, and that is that it perpetually remain FREE to anyone who wishes to view the exhibits. While there is a donor jar at the entrance, there remains no fees for access. Such is what Mr. Gilcrease demanded for his original gift.

I strongly suspect any 'new' administrative plan to date has attempted to incorporate supporting fees for its operation in direct confrontation with Mr. Gilcreases wishes and for which the Foundation is apparently standing stern.

I applaud them if that be the case.

And, I'd go so far as to suggest the 'museum' would not be so 'world class' without any of Mr. Gilcrease's art.

Virtually all of the physical building has been paid for by taxpayers in the form of bond issues, with none of the expenses born by the City's operational budgets, at least as I understand things.

I do recall, however, that perhaps the City has added personel, at City cost, to increase its presence and influence, without having actually obtained majority interest in anything. So, for them to be pushing another plan at all seems a bit odd to me. They really have no leverage to do so. But, it did apparently add to those quibbles described above about who is actually in charge or posesses the power to do so, while the real answer lies in the memo above. It's the Gilcrease Family Foundation.

[cannon_fodder]

Do you have any sources or reason to believe TU was demanding such a thing Wrinkle?  I was under the impression the main sticking point was the core changes to the management structure.  Currently split between the board, the family, and the city - each with veto power.  Assuring NOTHING ever gets done.

Tulsa demanded control within written guidelines in exchange for providing its expertise.  As well it should have.  For TU to tie its name to Gilcrease and have 3 other bodies still able to mess with the management makes no sense at all.

Maybe I'm more in the dark than you are and biting at rumors here, but that version makes sense to me.

Gilcrease is a very interesting place that I go to 3 or 4 times a year.  I do not care who is doing it, but I hope they improve the facilities some.  At times it seems more like a warehouse for artifacts than a museum and in the 5 years I have been going nothing but the traveling exhibit room has changed.

Anyone know what is really going on or what really went down?  I hate to just contribute to the "my understanding" thing but apparently that's all we have.

[TheArtist]

Of course its the collection that is world class but the facility is shameful. Especially when you see and enjoy the art and facilities of other museums who keep expanding and improving. I would love to see in my lifetime a fund drive to build a stunning building that would make the whole experience more enjoyable, to really make it a treat and a higlight, something to really be proud of and show off when you take visitors. Of course the collection is still great. But just walking up to that building and having to explain to your guest that, "no, honest there is some really great art inside" is not the best first impression. And then when your inside trying to show off what your city has and there are obviously some issues, rooms that were obviously small offices that now supposed to pass as galleries, etc. etc.  

It should be better than that. Even the gift shop looks like crap. I hate being so negative, but I wish that they would listen because I dont think they must really know. This is Tulsas main museum other than Philbrook. It should look it.

[Wrinkle]

I simply cannot agree with your synopsis.

While the exterior may be considered conservative, the halls and galleries are beautiful.

If you're looking to replace it with an "iconic" building, I doubt you're going to get much support.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Do you have any sources or reason to believe TU was demanding such a thing Wrinkle?  I was under the impression the main sticking point was the core changes to the management structure.  Currently split between the board, the family, and the city - each with veto power.  Assuring NOTHING ever gets done.

Tulsa demanded control within written guidelines in exchange for providing its expertise.  As well it should have.  For TU to tie its name to Gilcrease and have 3 other bodies still able to mess with the management makes no sense at all.

Maybe I'm more in the dark than you are and biting at rumors here, but that version makes sense to me.

Gilcrease is a very interesting place that I go to 3 or 4 times a year.  I do not care who is doing it, but I hope they improve the facilities some.  At times it seems more like a warehouse for artifacts than a museum and in the 5 years I have been going nothing but the traveling exhibit room has changed.

Anyone know what is really going on or what really went down?  I hate to just contribute to the "my understanding" thing but apparently that's all we have.

No, nothing specific, I stated it was only 'strongly suspect'.

But, given the parties involved (and, I did not suggest TU was the stumbling point), transformations such as these often have odd little twists well hidden as to intent.

The City is notorious for such at this point.
I'm now of the opinion any deal they're involved with may follow suite.

And, revenue generation/creation is the stated goal of our leadership, we just didn't realize she meant from us at the time.

But, it also came to mind a college with no real arts experience stepping into a deal like this could be considered a stratagem.

[shadows]

The Gilcrease building was designed by Hanton and Wilson under the direction of Gilcrease who seem to be foreman on the job.   At the time the only ones who could work on the construction had to be Indians.   The stone cutters working on the North side on the long bench were natives. With faces that could only be distinguished as of the Indian breed.   The purpose, I was told, was this was a monument to show that the "Red Man" also had a culture that equaled the prevailing culture that over ran him.

The native stone was gathered from the area and cut into the shapes that you see in the original building, built to display only artifacts and painting made to show their culture to those who at one time placed a bounty on their heads as savages.

The condition of transferring title to the city was with condition that it was to remain free of any admission charges, nor could any part be use for retailing any products.   He made a gift to the city of oil  production that was to be used to maintain the upkeep .  Like the we are doing today, once control was placed in the hands of the city bond issues were issued to change the original intent and structure, with more unneeded buildings and change the the landscape.

In the back ground there have been rumors that the heirs (family) have been in disapproval of the way it has all been handled over a period of time.  

(The Jim Davis gun collection is on lease to the state for $1 dollar a year as long it remains in Claremore in a building furnished to display it.  In  the event there is a charge of admission or plans made to move it the collection reverts to the heirs.   Vegas, I understand has a standing offer to the heirs in millions of dollars to display the guns there. )

It was my understanding that the transfer of title of  the Museum was secured in such a way to be known as the Gilcrease Museum of Tulsa and not a division of the private owned University of Tulsa.  Any breach of the agreement could be settled quickly by turning it back to the family.

To intertwine the gift of Gilcrease Museum to Tulsa with a private university is an insult to the family, both living and dead, and breaches the integrality of the one who assembled it.

Itr seems the family will stand by their rights of inherence and protect even in the courts the right to maintain it as the Gilcrease Museum of Tulsa where their grandfather is no longer able to.