0.9 Chapter seven: retrenchment and the struggle for survival, 19  (Page 7/20)

Public attention and sentiment soon shifted away from the importance of the Society's collections toward a general questioning of how the institution itself could be in such bad financial shape. Articles more investigative in tone appeared in both the New York Times and the New York Observer. The Observer article was the first to take direct aim at the Society's most recent leadership. It criticized increases in ad­ministrative expenditures during Debs's tenure, questioned why the Society pro­vided space to the Jewish Museum rent-free, and took the Debs administration to task for the continued erosion of the endowment. It was apparent that some of the information critical of the Society came from the advisory committee. The article quoted an unnamed member of the committee, who said: "How can it be that year in and year out they were dissipating the endowment without any sign of improvement? It makes you wonder what was going on?"

Meanwhile, the advisory committee was working feverishly to finish its report by mid-March. One aspect of its work was preparing an operating budget that had a realistic chance of success. On the expense side, that involved contemplat­ing a variety of serious cuts and/or structural changes to the Society's mode of operation. The question of whether the Society's museum and library could con­tinue to be part of a single institution was raised, and the remaining staff were re­quested to prepare detailed operating budgets going forward for the library alone, for the museum alone, and for a single institution comprising both units. On the revenue side, committee deliberations involved a reopening of the various options for monetization of the Society's illiquid assets, including the sale or development of its real estate and deaccessioning of its collections. The possibility of deaccessioning once again raised the question of the relevance of the Society's mission. There had been calls for the Society to narrow its mission, and the advisory com­mittee consulted with the staff in preparing a new mission statement.

On March 11, 1993, the advisory committee report was released to the pub­lic. In addressing the Society's financial difficulties, the report focused primarily on the Society's sources of revenue rather than on its level of expenditures. It em­phasized that although the Society owned over $1 billion in assets, it was able to generate less than $1 million in recurring revenue. For the Society to survive, it said, it would simply have to find ways to generate more annual revenue. The rec­ommendations of the committee centered on four primary components, all of which would have to be implemented simultaneously for the plan to succeed: (1) a new mission statement, (2) refinement of the collections, (3) development of real estate, and (4) major public sector support for both operating and capital expen­ditures. In addition, the committee called for major trustee giving and for increased emphasis on generating revenue from earned income opportunities. Although the committee's emphasis was definitely on revenue, the report also recommended major cuts in operations, presenting an annual operating budget of $4.95 million for the new institution.