Not one single city official has spoken out against the VAC charging admission to its regular exhibits, at least not publicly. Not even a peep from the mayor or a city council member. Yes, the WP’s management team is a separate entity, and can make its own decisions, but when it comes to fees and services, especially when they have received millions in subsidies from taxpayers (and the city owns the facility and is responsible for maintenance) you would think at least ONE of them would be vocal about the decision to charge admission.
There is other reasons we should be concerned, besides the fact the WP has gone back on their promise to taxpayers, it is how they do their accounting at the Pavilion, throwing everything in one pot, and robbing Peter to pay Paul when one of the entities is not doing so well. In this 2007 audit of the Pavilion by city auditors they said this about their accounting practices (basically pointing out their accounting is only reviewed by one person) (DOC PDF; WPIAÂ )
3. A lack of segregation of duties in the accounting and financial functions requires more involvement and oversight from the Board of Trustees according to the external auditor. In order to assist the Board with these oversight responsibilities, we recommend that the Board consider using the City’s internal auditors for limited audit procedures. These procedures might involve a review of selected bank statements, journal entries, accounts payable checks and other accounting information. The specific procedures could be done on an unannounced basis as appropriate. These activities would be specific procedures and would not be considered an audit. These activities could probably be accomplished in one or two days each year. We believe that this assistance would be in the best interests of both the City and Washington Pavilion Management.
While I am sure this helps the WP to ‘control’ financial information, it shows a lack of transparency from an institution that receives public funds. Not good. In other words, we may never know the specifics of where the Pavilion gets other funds, such as donations. We also may not know which entities are bringing in the most revenue.
What makes this even more scary in light of the admission fee at the VAC is what other ‘financial’ practices has the Pavilion been practicing under the radar to raise money for the facility?
Some museums sell off some of their permanent art collections to raise money which is called ‘deaccession‘.
Usually this is done to raise money for better pieces or needed upgrades to the museum. It’s not always a ‘bad’ thing. But if an institution like WP is using deaccession as a way to raise money for say the Great Hall or the Science Center, this should concern the public. I have not heard the Pavilion is doing this, but I wouldn’t put it past them.
If they are, donors who have either given money or actual artworks to the VAC’s permanent collection should be concerned. Many times people will give artwork to a museum when they are retiring and downsizing, and they usually give the artwork for a couple of reasons 1) they hope the artwork that they have enjoyed for years can be enjoyed by others, and most importantly be SAFE from the FREE market and 2) It is a pretty nice tax write-off.
The more I hear about the ‘changes’ taking place at the WP, the more suspicious I become. I’m starting to wonder why I am the only one asking these questions while the city says nothing.