This is an area where much has been written and presented over the years. Yet in many ways, museums of all kinds still have numerous and ongoing challenges in working meaningfully and productively with separately organized/incorporated "friends" or other support groups.
Separate nonprofit support groups also exist within museums and historic sites operating under government auspices, as well as with all manner of academically affiliated and other institutions. In my 20+ years of experience (serving on the advisory board of a friends group, working on the staff of a different friends group, leading a government-owned museum with an affiliated friends group, and advising both friends' groups and government administrators on how best to work together), friends' group bylaws are only one aspect of this issue. Bylaws are ultimately sort of like a constitution, which means they've got to be read and constantly interpreted, and occasionally updated to reflect changing realities and needs. But bylaws apply only to one of the entities in the relationship. Ultimately I believe it comes down to, who has the authority to lead the institution (the sum of its many parts) including guiding the friends group/nonprofit support entity? Is it possible to agree on a single leader for both entities, at least on a day-to-day basis? So often the purposes drift apart, fueled by personality conflicts and/or real or perceived lack of respect for each other's roles, and conflict is the logical yet unfortunate result.
Regular orientations/briefings with board members and staff need to be held to ensure that each board member and/or staff member understands his/her proper role, and also the proper roles/responsibilities of the support entity as differentiated from the parent entity/museum that is being supported. This is especially tricky if a friends group runs a museum's membership program and/or any other revenue-generating activities such as a store or sales of publications, etc., which rely on using the museum's name, brand and/or facilities to succeed. The "fiduciary" duty of a board can become confused and conflated in this kind of organizational relationship. Both organizations (especially the parent entity) need to make sure they train, encourage and support their leader(s) in understanding, managing and maintaining these relationships. But oftentimes government or university administrators don't see this as important, or worse yet, they simply see the support group as a source of funding -- not understanding there's always a need to provide leadership across the aisle, so everyone supports the same vision and remains headed in the same direction. When this happens, there are usually rough times ahead.
Ultimately, clear expectations must be established up-front and in writing as to the purpose(s) and responsibility/authority of each entity, and signed by both entities. Clear lines of communication need to be put in place both formal and informal to ensure everyone plays by these rules. I'm a bit skeptical about using an MOU for this purpose, as these tend to be broad and conceptual. A contract that sets forth the basics between the entities is one approach that I've seen work well. Agreeing on a set term for this contract ensures regular review and the opportunity for updating as needed. However, such a contract is only as good as the points it covers and the clarity of its content, as well as the ongoing relationship between its signatory entities. There also must be a means in place of addressing conflicts should they arise. In a perfect world, executive/lead museum and friends group staff (whether paid or volunteer) should be the primary conduits for ongoing communication and conflict resolution. Board members and government/college administrators at higher levels simply aren't on hand day-to-day and typically aren't fully versed in the issues and the specifics of the many relationships and business lines that museums must maintain to thrive and grow.
Anyway, I mention all this to stress the importance of looking at more than just bylaws. Those are important mostly to the friends group in my experience, and the parent museum/government/university rarely can insist on changes -- even necessary ones -- to such bylaws unless it also has a competent and enforceable written agreement in place, establishing the relationship and responsibilities and clarifying the differing authority of the parties in the first place. Having said all this, I'm a strong believer in putting such groups in place because so often it's the only way that real progress can be made in fundraising and growing a museum that's part of a larger parent organization -- although personally I do not believe it's useful to have more than one such entity for a given museum, because this just compounds the management complexity and likelihood for conflict. Regardless, the very real prospects of organizational drift and future conflict need to be recognized up-front when discussing putting a friends group in place, so as to minimize the chances of these things "just happening" later on, which is all too often the case.
------------------------------
Paul Hammond
Executive Director
March Field Air Museum
Riverside, California
Original Message:
Sent: 08-16-2016 08:26 AM
From: Lisa Nicoletti
Subject: Museum Support Groups/Friends
I am very interested in this topic, too. Our separate 501c3 Friends group has supported Centenary College of Louisiana's Meadows Museum of Art since the museum's creation in the late 1960s, with varying degrees of success and difficulty. No Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) yet exists between the college and this non-profit, and we're now working on one. It is often hard for the Board (about 20 folks) of this community group to understand that they're not a governing board for the museum, because their existence is intrinsically tied to the museum. Adding to the complication, they run the museum's only membership campaign and manage all that revenue (I believe most Friends members think their membership dollars are going directly to the museum/college, not to a separate non-profit that controls those dollars). When the membership campaign is badly handled, that's revenue lost for the museum/college and potential damage to our "brand". When the Friends group refuses to fund a demonstrated museum need, it can unduly influence the museum's planning, programming, and reputation. I would love to receive copies of Friends bylaws or Friends MOUs from other academic museums if anyone is willing to share. Hearing both what has worked and what hasn't would be helpful.
------------------------------
Lisa Nicoletti PhD
Co-Director: Collections & Research
Meadows Museum of Art Centenary College of Louisiana
Shreveport, LA
lnicolet@centenary.edu
Original Message:
Sent: 06-27-2016 04:42 PM
From: Robin Meador-Woodruff
Subject: Museum Support Groups/Friends
Hello all. I wanted to reach out to those of you with member support groups to ask how they are incorporated into your administrative structure. Here at the Birmingham Museum of Art, we have several support groups by discipline... American Art, Contemporary Art, our Sankofa Society for African Art, and several more. We are looking at the potential benefits of tightening up their structure, and I wondered how other museums with several support groups fit theirs into the overall organization. I've come up short on searches, so please respond to me if you've got a successful structure in place or you can refer me to another museum with a good structure for support groups.
Many thanks!
Robin
------------------------------
Robin Meador-Woodruff
Special Projects Coordinator
Birmingham Museum of Art
Birmingham AL
------------------------------