0.7 Chapter five: new initiatives and economic shocks, 1982-1987  (Page 11/18)

When the Tolles report was presented to the board, it provoked extensive and serious discussion on the Society's financial operations, the care and preserva­tion of the collections, and the strengths and weaknesses of the Society's person­nel. It was agreed that Tolles's recommendations should be followed. In particular, the board was unanimous in the opinion that removing the collections from the Paterson facility was a matter of the highest priority. In more general terms, Goelet called the report "informative, constructive and comprehensive." As the Society's board considered how to act on Tolles's recommendations, Goelet noted "that it is necessary for each trustee to respect the confidentiality of the Tolles report."

With the Tolles report and the Marts&Lundy feasibility study complete, it was up to Bell to implement the recommendations. He explained to the board that the work of the consultants had identified the Society's people problems, financial prob­lems, and program problems, and it was now time to determine when and how to solve them. To succeed, Bell said, any plan must address four major areas:

• It must establish development programs that will lead to a strong financial position and a capital campaign.
• It must establish acquisition policies for the museum and the library.
• It must provide for more adequate care for and preservation of the museum and library collections.
• It must resolve the Society's crisis of storage space.

Bell indicated that he had begun work on a master strategic plan for the Society's next five years, a preliminary version of which he hoped to present for the board's consideration in sixty to ninety days. And despite successful new ini­tiatives undertaken in the areas of public programs and conservation, the un­derlying problems concerning board governance and fiscal responsibility remained.

As the administrative staff worked on the strategic plan, conflict among mem­bers of the board remained a continuing distraction that was consuming an in­ordinate amount of the board's time. The committee on by-laws presented a major study for the board that recommended that the Society establish term limits of five years for trustees, with a consecutive limit of two terms. After a second term, board members would have to step down from their positions on the board for a year before they could stand for reelection. The committee also recommended that board members not be permitted to stand for reelection after their 75th birth­day. These recommendations, generated by a committee chaired by one of the Society's newest board members, Barbara Knowles Debs, was an effort to trans­form the leadership of the board. After lengthy discussion regarding the proposed changes, the five-year terms and age limit passed, but the one-year interim period did not. So controversial were these changes, however, that after the new bylaws had been approved, a trustee proposed an amendment that would govern changes to the by-laws. This amendment, which was subsequently passed, required that written notice of proposed by-law amendments or alterations be distributed to the entire board at least three weeks prior to the meeting in which the changes would be addressed.