Writing Shotgun

SECOND ART MUSEUM AUDIT IS IN, AND RESULTS ARE SOBERING

Theo DouglasMon. August 04
 

Long Beach Museum of Art’s third audit in two years–and its second audit this year–was unleashed earlier today by City Auditor Laura Doud’s office. As promised, it takes a long, hard look at the museum’s extensive inventory, and the results are rather chilling.

As was rumored earlier this year, Doud’s office discovered that a large number of pieces were “not located or observed,” which could mean missing, or stolen–or, for some reason, just not found or seen.

It’s available for download at the City of Long Beach website, but you can see the audit and the museum’s response directly by clicking here. And Long Beach City Council will hear about the audit in eight days, at the council’s Aug. 12 meeting. (If you click, though, be warned: the audit is 43 pages, so it may take a little while to open.)

The museum’s inventory is divided between pieces owned by the Foundation, which runs the museum, and pieces owned by the City of Long Beach.

According to the audit, 144 of 1,134 city-owned art objects identified “were not located or observed” during the audit. (To be fair, and as if that helps, the audit reports that 121 of those 144 art objects weren’t observed during the museum’s “last reported complete inventory,” in 1988.)

These 144 missing art objects included examples of African art and artwork, and the two Alexei Jawlensky paintings we told you about in May.

Turns out, though, there’s another missing Jawlensky: a city-owned “artwork … attributable to Andreas Jawlensky, son of the famous artist, Alexei Jawlensky.” According to the audit, this Jawlensky–a third, missing Jawlensky, for those following along at home–”was observed in 1988, but has since been missing.”

The audit notes variously that collection inventories and appraisals can be prohibitively expensive, but then there’s this: “An appraisal of selected artwork completed in 1999, valued 146 City pieces of art at $11 million. The current appraised value of the City’s collection is unknown.”

But wait, there’s more: according to the audit–and, again to be fair, we’d already heard this–the museum’s storage facilities aren’t large enough to house both city- and foundation-owned artwork, together numbering more than 2,800 pieces, so more than 40 percent of the city’s collection “is stored off-site.”

We’ll leave you with this–for now: “Five City-owned art pieces were found in City Departments and not properly safeguarded. Subsequent to the completion of our audit, these five pieces have been returned to the Foundation for safekeeping.”

Makes you wonder where exactly these five pieces were located. We’ll have more on the audit coming soon, including the museum’s response.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Viewing 11 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    City Auditor Laura Doud’s office has now completed the audits. Considerable discrepancies have been noted and many excellent recommendations have been made for their mitigation for both the City and the Library Foundation. A copy of the audit can be downloaded from her office webpage on the City website.

    Ms. Doud has done her usual exemplary job on our behalf and met her stated mission: To provide independent assurance that public funds are spent appropriately and effectively, to promote transparency, accountability, and efficiency in City operations and to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse of City resources.

    Now what will the City and the Foundation do about the recommendations and what will the Foundation do to come into compliance with its obligations to the City under Agreement 26174?

    Perhaps most importantly: Who will make sure *something* is, in fact, done?
    • ^
    • v
    Since there has not really been a change in leadership at LBMA - the current director was President of the Board then Development Director when all this garbage happened, and the Board has not changed at all - why should we expect any real changes to be made?
    • ^
    • v
    Marina (2): We should “expect real changes” because the Museum is a City asset (I would say, treasure), meaning it belongs to the people of Long Beach and is therefore managed by our elected and appointed City government. Yes there exists a partnership of sorts with the Museum Foundation but they operate at our pleasure and under our supervision.

    This means we have a right to scrutinize every aspect of the museum’s operations and to insist that the facility be run properly on our behalf and with strict and transparent accountability to us. This is also why our tax dollars financed the two audits recently completed by our must excellent elected City Auditor and her staff.

    The audits are now completed. Discrepancies, missing items and severely flawed inventory controls have been identified and a considerable number of excellent recommendations made to mitigate each of these challenges.

    We, the electorate, must now hold our elected officials accountable on this. The Museum is ours. It is managed by the City Community Development Department. That Department, like all others in our City government, answers to City Manager West, Mr. West answers to our City Council who, in turn, answers to us.

    Not only should we “expect” real changes, we should “demand” them, loudly, and not be silent about it until those changes occur!
    • ^
    • v
    John B: You go. Who says idealism is dead? I wish the "Who" lyrics about "meeting the new boss....." weren't rattling around in my head now.

    We'll all end up pretty tired "demanding" all the things the city should be doing. Maybe next we could demand our legislators get the budget passed?

    Maybe we need to "demand" the city find that money LB got from the hotel tax for housing, but can't seem to find it was credited to any fund. The homeless have no voice to make "demands" - maybe you could look into this.
    • ^
    • v
    I totally agree with you John - my only point is that until there is real change in leadership at the Museum, we are foolish to believe that anything else has changed up to this point! Part of what we should "demand" is a total overhaul in leadership at both the staff and board levels, but no coverage so far has addressed the qualifications of the people currently in those posts.
    • ^
    • v
    the commish (4) and Marina (5): With all due respect, it's not idealism, it's representative democracy. What I've described is precisely the way it *is*, we've just allowed some who represent us to forget who they work for. We've allowed them to forget through our twin bad habits of voter apathy and abysmally low proactive participation.

    Your implied point is well taken; that demands upon our representatives without effective follow through become little more than tiresome and vacuous. We're pretty good at making demands but, as a people, exceedingly poor at applying accountability. Our collective displeasure rarely, if ever, results in real-world consequences for those we elect and appoint to represent us.

    Good case in point: Michael Shane Ellis, convicted of drunk driving, hit and run and various other offenses and to the best of my knowledge currently on criminal probation, sits on our elected School Board to this day. Our elected officials swear oaths of allegiance to us and sign lofty "Codes of Ethics" but at the end of the day people like Ellis somehow remain our elected representatives. It's a comment more about the electorate, than the elected.

    Government, without true accountability to the electorate and real consequences for its failures, will always do pretty much whatever it wants because there really is no down-side. And government is not about to change that legislative natural order of things.

    Change will only come from us, the electorate, and it's a lot simpler to affect than many seem to think. All we have to do is proactively participate (provide input, ask questions and insist upon satisfactory answers), create the sort of government that *we* most desire (through intelligent voting and removing those from office that do not comply with our collective will) and then monitor that government closely and continuously.

    Contrary to what we seem to have come to believe, self government is NOT a spectator sport.
    • ^
    • v
    You're preaching to the choir, John. I'm simply trying to highlight the fact that the lack of changes in leadership at LBMA has not been addressed. Trust me, I do my part in the democratic process and do not just sit back and wait for things to change! But there is no election that will affect the LBMA leadership (unless you know of an election I don't know about??) and I would very much like for the press to examine what is going on there.

    I'm done with this thread...
    • ^
    • v
    Marina (7): I'm not preaching, I'm practicing (just ask my Council member and our City Auditor). It seems clear that you and most of DW's regular readers do also. But despite a lot of effort from an active, commited and dedicated minority of the electorate, very little changes in the way our City government does business. Why is that?

    It's because we need to convert that "minority" to a "majority" if we ever hope to see real change.

    We must also stop thinking in terms of any given election and think, rather, in terms of *every* election. Each Council member (regardless of District) and Mayor we elect must be elected with these sorts of issues in mind.

    We must grill every candidate that runs for these offices and be as certain as we can possibly be that they truly intend to represent the majority of the electorate as they carry out their duties. If they cannot convince us of this, then we should not elect them. Period.

    If someone gets elected and later proves unwilling to truly represent the majority of the electorate, then we must either vote to recall them or refuse to re-elect them. Period.

    Eventually it will become quite clear to anyone who presumes to run for public office in Long Beach that it's the people that are in charge here and that they (the candidate) cannot possibly be successful in their aspiration if they do not truly represent the majority of the electorate once in office.

    Once our Council and Mayor's chairs are filled with people who understand *that*, then and only then will our city be run as we, the people, want it run. Because they will make decisions reflective of *our* will; They will appoint City and Department Managers that will do the jobs *we* expect them to do and in the manner *we* expect those jobs done; and they will will appoint Boards and Commissions throughout the City that operate according to the same guidelines.

    Then in between elections (as is the case now) we must provide our elected and appointed officials with constant, clear and intelligent input so they are not left to guess at what we want them to do and how we want it done.

    We must monitor all of our elected officials carefully and make sure they are all meeting or exceeding the standards we set for them when they were elected. If they are not, then we must call them on it and require them to improve their performance or risk removal.

    I can promise you that the *moment* a majority of the people in this city become voters, and the moment that electorate actually starts voting, then proactive voter participation will become the rule, rather than the exception.

    And when that happens, full time responsiveness and accountability on the part of our elected and appointed officials will become a fact, and not just a dream.

    But it all starts with our very next vote...and then continues, as a matter of habit, with every single vote we cast thereafter. We have to VOTE...and we have to vote INTELLIGENTLY.

    So, please, if you're reading this and you're not registered to vote, please do so today and then vote intelligently each time you have the opportunity. If you are registered but have not been voting...VOTE...and do so intelligently.
    • ^
    • v
    Well then it ain't gonna happen John B.
    You're dreaming. Pretending really. Ever hear of realpolitik?
    It isn't healthy to be so deluded.
    I vote but it never does any good. There are too many people eager to believe in phoney John Edwards types apparently because he has good hair and talks a good game. I spotted him for the lying fake he is years ago.
    By the time Obama or McCain gets in it will likewise be too late for people to change their votes to candidates who have lost in primaries long ago.
    Shame that people can't learn. Shame they never will. Best to acknowledge it and live in the real world. As Spengler commented,"Optimism is cowardice".
    Have a nice day.
    • ^
    • v
    Niccolò (9): Dr. Spengler is it? The German historian, philosopher, Socialist and devout pessimist that suffered a nervous breakdown and then later died of a heart attack? I can’t imagine why any reasonable person would want to hold him up as a positive example or follow in his footsteps.

    Psst...hey “Niccolò”...here’s a hint for you: When we argue for our limitations, we tend to permit them to define us. I would see us (as citizens) defined more by the possible than by the improbable. You know it was once considered “improbable” that we would ever end slavery in this nation. Should we therefore not have tried? It was once considered “improbable” that we could ever win a war against Fascism in Europe. Should we therefore not have made the attempt? It was once considered not only improbable but also completely impossible that we could ever travel to or survive in outer space. Should we therefore have abandoned all efforts to do so?

    I would see us (as a people) aspire to the *higher standards* of self-government set by the founders of this great nation, than settle for the *mediocrity* defined by fatalists like Dr. Spengler and yourself.

    I would encourage you to define the success of casting your vote through the act of voting itself, “Niccolò”, not by whether or not your preferred candidate is elected or ballot initiative is passed. By voting you give voice to your preferences. Millions upon millions of others in this world do not benefit from such a privilege. Their preference is not considered. Their voices are not heard. Thus just by voting you have, indeed, done a *great deal* of good.

    Taken from the macro to the micro, then: If a proven majority of the electorate here in Long Beach demands the implementation of each of the recommended mitigations put forth in the latest museum audit, I can assure that they will, indeed be implemented. They will be implemented because the museum belongs to *us* and because it is managed for *us* by people who are appointed by other people that *we* elect. People that want to: remain in office and be re-elected to that office or be elected to other offices. The Museum Foundation (LBMAF) operates some aspects of the museum only because we have joined into an agreement that allows them to do so. That same agreement also specifies some policies and procedures that they have found to be not in compliance with. Thus the LBMAF will also implement the mitigations that apply to them because if they do not we can simply terminate the agreement with them and find another organization that will maintain the operational standards that we set.

    We most certainly want to maintain a positive and mutually beneficial partnership with the LBMAF. It also owns a significant amount of the overall art collection and their mission and ours are eminently compatible.

    But at the end of the day, the museum is *ours* (at least for now) and, thus, the final word on how it is to be operated rests with *us* as represented by *our* elected officials who are, in turn, assisted by the officials they appoint on *our* behalf.

    This is the only standard of truly representative self-government that we should accept in the “real world”, “Niccolò”. To the degree that we accept any standard lower than this is a failing not of our government, but of ourselves.

    “Off...” (5) and JB (6): As I understand it, Mr. West is proposing the elimination of 10 positions in the current Economic Development Bureau (EDB), arguably saving us about $1 million, then adding the responsibilities for the new “Municipal Cultural Affairs” entity to those of the remaining Economic Development Bureau employees.

    The name of the proposed entity is a bit confusing since, organizationally speaking, you wouldn’t have one Bureau within another. More than likely Municipal Cultural Affairs would become a Division within the EDB or EDB might possibly be re-named “Economic Development and Municipal Cultural Affairs Bureau.

    In any case, if my information is accurate, we wont be spending any more for this program...
    • ^
    • v
    How the wind doth blow.
close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus
 

© 2007-2008 Seven Days Publishing LLC.