Outside Area, Few Support Barnes Move

November 26th, 2007
Jim McCaffrey

Philadelphia - Regarding the proposed move of the Barnes Foundation's art collection, almost nobody outside of Philadelphia thinks it is a good idea.

In Philadelphia, a relatively small network of wealthy people connected through society, business, schools and seats on nonprofit boards have been engineering the Barnes Foundation move from Merion to the Benjamin Franklin Parkway.

They insist the attempt to block the move is just the whining of a few cranky neighbors who are little more than angry, crackpot conspiracy theorists.

Yet, in newspapers and magazines outside of Philadelphia, including such prestigious voices as the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Los Angeles Times, critics write that local nonprofits are hijacking the Barnes collection.

Los Angeles Times art critic Christopher Knight complained recently of the joint bid by the Pew Charitable Trust, Annenberg Foundation and Lenfest Foundation to administer and move the Barnes collection.

"Reaction outside the region was uniformly negative, but silent acquiescence [is the reaction] from local art organizations, who depend on the foundations' philanthropic largess," he wrote in a column published Sept. 10.

The art world outside Philadelphia sees a network of influence dedicated for personal motives to moving the Barnes collection.

"What happened was just the nonprofit world's equivalent of a hostile corporate takeover, powered by privilege, manned by bureaucrats and operating below the public radar," Mr. Knight wrote. "A weak foundation was gobbled up by an alliance of stronger ones, which had their own motives. For $150 million in pledges, control of the $6 billion art collection changed hands."

Mr. Knight declares that the move "wrecks the greatest American cultural monument of the early 20th century."

He then starts down of one of the many trails that lead into the labyrinth of social, political and business connections in the story of the Barnes move.

He points out Barnes treasurer Stephen Harmelin is an attorney with the Philadelphia law firm of Dilworth Paxson.

State Sen. Vincent Fumo, he notes, worked at Dilworth Paxson. Sen. Fumo chairs the appropriations committee that approved a $100 million state appropriation for the Barnes move.

Nobody has ever admitted to introducing this $100 million line item into the capital budget.

Orphan's Court Judge Stanley Ott was never told there was a state appropriation for the Barnes. The judge was allowed to believe the foundation was going broke when he ruled in favor of the move.

Dilworth Paxon also represented Ambassador Walter Annenberg, and it still represents his charitable foundation.

Gerry Lenfest used to work for Walter Annenberg before purchasing some of Mr. Annenberg's companies and making his own fortune.

Mr. Lenfest is now both president of the Lenfest Foundation and chairman of the Philadelphia Museum of Art (PMA).

Other examples of people involved with the Barnes who are also serving other art interests in Philadelphia include Sheldon Bonovitz, chairman and CEO of the Center City law firm Duane Morris.

Mr. Bonovitz is married to a cousin of Comcast CEO Brian Roberts. He is a director on the board of the Philadelphia Museum of Art and is also on the Barnes board.

Former federal court judge Arlin Adams is the attorney for the Barnes. He is also an honorary trustee of the Philadelphia Museum of Art.

In his book [i]Art Held Hostage: The Battle Over the Barnes Collection[/i], author John Anderson notes the active involvement of people connected to the Philadelphia Museum of Art with the effort to move the Barnes' collection to Philadelphia.

PMA trustee Stanley Tuttleman is quoted saying the Barnes could be moved.

Mr. Anderson suggests Raymond Perelman, when he was chair of the PMA, implied the Barnes collection would fit nicely into the new Perelman wing of the museum. A new building would not even have to be built for the collection.

The new wing, many have commented, does seem to have plenty of room for a new collection.

Then there is the Pew angle.

In his petition to reopen Judge Ott's decision, Mark Schwartz, attorney for the Friends of the Barnes, writes, "The move has nothing to do with the vision or indenture of Dr. Barnes, and everything to do with Philadelphia tourism, the development of Museum Row, access to the Barnes collection for the Philadelphia Museum of Art, and the Pew Charitable Trusts' goals of qualifying as a public charity - all third party interests with ambitions diametrically opposed to Dr. Barnes."

The Pew argued in its successful IRS application for charitable trust status that its role managing the Barnes' fundraising allows it to be categorized as a (tax exempt) charitable enterprise.

Mr. Anderson is promoting a new book "Follow the Money", an account of the Tom Delay/Jack Abramoff scandals, but he has not stopped following the Barnes' saga.

He commented in an interview last week, "My feeling was, and continues to be, that the effort to take control of the Barnes was much longer in process than it was ever revealed to be.

"I think it began at least a year or two before the rescue plan was announced.

"The whole effort lacks transparency. [It's] likely [former Barnes Chairman Richard] Glanton was right when he used to say he was the last bulwark between those folks and the contents of the collection.

"There were some pseudo efforts to help the Barnes during the period when Kimberly [Camp] was director. These were ... efforts to help out the Barnes with little net effect. $500,000 there, $250,000 here, enough so the cultural institutions could say they were trying to help the Barnes but not really. You have to wonder how did they have the money ready to go when they stepped up [to in the effort to move the Barnes]?"

He added, "The things many around Philadelphia dismiss out of hand, a significant number of important art critics in the country who are opposed to the effort accept."

He mentioned Mr. Knight and critics from the New York Times, the New Yorker magazine and the Wall Street Journal.

"People who are well informed about art clearly object to the move," he added.