The Providence Athenaeum Audubon controversy

How often first reports later prove wide of the mark!

Right now there's a fine example right here in town, in the controversy surrounding the Providence Athenaeum's decision to sell its double elephant folio of Audubon's Birds of America. That decision, overwhelmingly supported by Athenaeum members, has been fiercely contested by a handful of dissidents.

But this is no ordinary dispute. Although it is nominally about the Birds, it has blown up into a full-scale assault on the Athenaeum itself -- most recently culminating in a well-financed and very public lawsuit. Most media outlets have dutifully repeated the plaintiffs' litany of accusations. This has put the spotlight on the Athenaeum's board and director, who have responded like the bookish sorts that they are: with deep shock, heartfelt protestations, and a desperate desire to be left in peace.

The problem is, the dissidents do not want peace -- they want to take over the Athenaeum. Nor have they been at all reticent about what they want to do with it, having railed repeatedly against such outrages as professional librarians, children's programs, and anything to do with opening up the Athenaeum to the community at large. In private, they have quite openly declared that they are trying to turn back the clock: back, however, to a largely imaginary past, where their own private clubhouse is staffed by elderly widows working for a few dollars an hour with no benefits, and the silence within is unbroken by the rabble who now inexplicably seem to run the place.

So far, the Athenaeum has been kept on the defensive, but it is only a matter of time before its accusers get their turn under the spotlight. It won't be pleasant, either, as it will be asked why a handful of old, well-connected Providence families are attempting to litigate a revered neighborhood institution into submission -- an institution both egalitarian and democratically run, but which they manifestly regard as their own, wayward, personal property.

We were ourselves in shock when we first heard that the Birds were being considered for deaccession. But after taking a close look, we eventually concluded that there was no other choice -- it was down to the Birds, or the Athenaeum itself. The Athenaeum is a library, not a museum. Over the years it has ended up with a good number of rare books, but nothing remotely like its prize Birds, which are probably worth a hundred times more than any other item in the collection. Interestingly enough, their purchase was also controversial: they were bought in the 1830s, despite considerable opposition, as a money-making venture, in the (false) expectation that people would pay to see them. To some, the Athenaeum's Birds have an almost talismanic status, but in many respects they no more fit the collection than would a Van Gogh. As is, they are seldom viewed, cost a bundle to insure, and there is another copy less than 100 yards away at Brown's Hay Library (the Athenaeum itself will also retain another, smaller, edition of the Birds).

Athenaeum leaders have been accused of financial mismanagement. This is largely a case of misplaced blame, since the Athenaeum's present financial troubles go back quite a number of years. The current board and director have not been in place long (the director, not even two years), and have been working overtime to cut expenses and increase income. It is bitter reward indeed that they be blamed for the problems that they have been striving so hard to overcome. If anyone is to be blamed, it should be past leadership. Administration by amateurs may seem cheap, but here it led to a costly complacency, for during the long stock market boom the endowment was almost entirely neglected. It has only been under the current leadership that a formal development program was finally established.

I don't have the charts handy at the moment, but when I took a look at the dissidents' allegations concerning the Athenaeum's finances, it was clear that they were manipulating the numbers. Extraordinary expenses (such as emergency building repairs) were arbitrarily included or excluded, according to what best fit their arguments, while a dramatic rise in expenditures was "demonstrated" by picking the two most extreme points in a multiyear graph that zigzagged up and down quite dramatically. It should also be noted that many, if not most, nonprofits have been in financial straits since the stock market crash, and that under the circumstances the Athenaeum's draw on its endowment is in no way exceptional or exceptionable.

It is striking (though not widely enough noted) how few the objectors are. The lawsuit listed 29 plaintiffs, and I understand a few more were later added. At the same time, I have been told that several listed as plaintiffs had their names added without their knowledge, and at least a couple have gone to court to have their names removed. Furthermore, a number of the remainder turned out to be neither present nor past Athenaeum members. Given that the Athenaeum currently has over 1000 active members, the dissidents' core group would appear to represent less than 1% of the Athenaeum community. Even early on, when a petition was being circulated calling for a special meeting (and no more) regarding the sale of the Birds, only some 80 signatures were obtained -- many belonging to members who, after hearing the full story at the meeting, then came out in support of the sale. At the Rhode Island State House meeting where the dissidents attempted to have the Athenaeum censured, there were only three or four speakers in favor of the measure, and a quite sizeable crowd against. The legislators were not impressed, save by the outlandishness of the motion.

One of the most dramatic claims of the lawsuit is that the current Athenaeum board is illegitimate and has somehow "hijacked" the institution. According to the plaintiffs, Athenaeum shareholders were disenfranchised in 1997 in favor of general members, who previously did not have voting rights. When I first heard this story, I wondered if it could be true. If so, it would put a whole new spin on the situation -- but it seemed very strange that no one would have raised any objection to such a "hijacking" until six years after the fact. For contrary to the plaintiffs' propaganda, the Athenaeum board is not some remote, dictatorial entity, but rather part and parcel of the membership at large. It is open, diverse, and turns over regularly -- the very opposite of the typical old-boy institution run by unreachable lifetime trustees, and in many respects more like your local PTA.

After talking to several Athenaeum members of long standing, it became clear that the claim of disenfranchisement was baseless (so if you can get someone to bet you on the eventual outcome of the lawsuit, go for it!). It seems the proprietary rights of shareholders were formally ended not six, but nearly 30 years ago, when in 1974 the Athenaeum became a 501(c)3 nonprofit corporation (and under the presidency of one of the current plaintiffs, no less!). The issue is slightly (but only slightly) confused by the continuing use of the term "shareholder" in Athenaeum documents long after 1974, even though it had by then been explicitly spelled out that "shareholders" and "members" enjoyed identical voting rights (see the 1985 bylaws, for example). When, in a long-overdue bit of editing, all mention of "shareholders" was finally removed from the bylaws in 1997, it made no actual change in the former shareholders' status, despite the lawsuit's claims. From what I've heard, the matter of voting rights was a total nonissue. There used to be shareholders and "members waiting for shares". When a share became available, it would be reassigned to the next member on the list, with no payment made. Everything was very casual and congenial, for everyone understood that the shares were essentially quaint relics that served no real function save as markers of long-term membership.

An unfortunate result of this whole episode has been the opening of divisions between members, and even within families. This may well end up being painted as a fight between old money and new (or even between the old WASP elite and the modern world), but that would be a gross misrepresentation. For there are a few newcomers among the dissidents' leaders, while a vote restricted to old-family members would still come down overwhelmingly in favor of the status quo. Paradoxically, even if the lawsuit succeeded in forcing a new election restricted to 1997 shareholders, there is every likelihood that nothing would end up changed. Which raises the question of what the plaintiffs expect to accomplish, assuming that they are proceeding rationally.

UPDATE: As predicted, it's now the plaintiffs' turn in the hot seat. It has just been pointed out that for all their self-righteous rhetoric, only 11 of the plaintiffs responded to the Athenaeum's 2002 annual appeal, and their contributions accounted for only 1.5% of the funds raised. Athenaeum staff members (only six of whom are full-time) contributed nearly three times that amount. Ouch.

The Brown Daily Herald has weighed in, as well.

AND A FEW WORDS about the sale contract with Christie's:
Selling an Audubon double elephant folio is not like selling old paperbacks. The art market is very thin at the top end; there are few end buyers, and they don't buy just anywhere. Christie's has the best track record here, by far; if any other means of sale had been chosen, that would have raised a red flag.

Anyone with any knowledge of high-end art and antiques will tell you the Athenaeum's contract with Christie's is absolutely industry-standard, and that the Athenaeum has received terms more favorable than a private consignor might expect (buyer's fee only -- no commission or fees from the seller). There is, and always was, a set reserve, and a buy-in fee in case the reserve is not met. Again, this is absolutely normal: it is going to cost Christie's serious money to promote the sale, and they will have to receive fair compensation for their services. To think otherwise is pure fantasy, but is entirely consistent with the Athenaeum's attackers' parallel delusion that a professional staff can be replaced by volunteers and untrained minimum-wage part-timers with no detriment to the institution.

FURTHER UPDATE: The Athenaeum's defenders are beginning to take off the gloves. Here are a few excerpts from a letter published in the November East Side Monthly (now available online here):

Armed with a web site and a Superior Court lawsuit, a newly formed organization calling itself "Save the Athenaeum" is attempting a hostile takeover of the 250-year-old Providence Athenaeum. . .

The purported reason for this lawsuit is outrage over the Athenaeum Board's decision to sell its set of Audubon's Birds of America. . .

At the Athenaeum's last annual meeting, the small cabal of grumblers about this issue launched an emotional tirade that included a shouted demand that the entire board of directors should "resign and leave town." We members were told that "new trustees" should take over the Athenaeum. One elderly gentleman complained about changes in the Athenaeum, presumably including its recent expansion of membership and leadership beyond the East Side, saying, "The Athenaeum is an East Side institution. We don't have any minorities here." I heard others characterizing the board as "those people," perhaps expressing horror that families not members of the Hope Club now sat on the library's board.

"Those people"? Yes, I'm afraid it means what you think it means.

One significant phrase . . . heard at the meeting, was that the Athenaeum would be better off "run by East Side men." Significantly, the "Save the Athenaeum" organization lists no officers or members on its web site -- they seem happy to hide behind a corporate name even as they slap librarians and library board members with summonses.

And as the writer notes, the attackers have not been hesitant to spread the most blatant and defamatory falsehoods, including that the staff were spending the endowment on European vacations and on "hiring their girlfriends".

Posted by David on October 16, 2003 3:53 PM