0.10 Chapter eight: facing tough choices today  (Page 9/11)

If such a conclusion were reached, the mechanism chosen for such a disso­lution would, of course, make all the difference. For example, it would be unac­ceptable to everyone if the Society opted for selling off the collections through private auctions, even if the proceeds were donated to a worthy cause. It would also not be wise to put the Society into receivership, leaving the responsibility for distribution of the collections in the hands of the New York State attorney gen­eral. That office does not have the resources, the staff, or the professional expertise to make important and complicated curatorial decisions that following this course would demand. Finally, it would not be appropriate to have other institu­tions choose what they wanted from the collections. Such a process would lead to a rapid distribution of the most valuable items, leaving the great majority of less renowned yet historically important items orphaned and at great risk.

How, then, could such a transfer of assets be accomplished? One way might be to assemble a temporary full-time team of professionals to oversee the process. The team could be assembled from a combination of people, some, from inside the Society, who know the collections and others, from outside, who understand how the collections fit within the broader context of collections in the region. The first task for the team would be to divide the collections into contiguous parts. After the parts had been established, the team would identify the cultural institutions that would serve as the best homes for the various materials. These decisions would be based on factors such as the complementarity of the collections, the financial stability of the recipient institution, and the recipient institution's desire to house the materials. Once the collection was prepared and its new home had been iden­tified, it would be the responsibility of the dissolution team to work with recipient institutions to raise funds to pay for the transfer and long-term care of the col­lections. Bundling the collection with an accompanying endowment is an essen­tial element of the plan. Transferring the collections without funds for their care would risk spreading the burden of the Society's many years of deferred care and maintenance to other cultural institutions.

Option 3: merge with another cultural institution

The concept of a merger with another cultural institution is not new. For exam­ple, as explained earlier, extended negotiations took place between the Society and the Museum of the City of New York in 1990. At the time, the merger was deemed to be prohibitively expensive, but there were also political considerations that blocked the deal. Discussions about possible affiliations have taken place with other institutions as well, most notably the New York Public Library in late 1992 and New York University in 1993.

The key issues to consider in contemplating possible mergers are the com­plementarity of the collections, the allocation of space, how the merger might im­prove prospects for long-term financial stability, and the division of governance responsibilities between the boards of the combining entities. A discussion of a potential merger partner for the Society best illustrates these issues.