Print
E-mail
Why Is DRPA Spending Money On Foundation?
By Evelyn Yaari, For The Bulletin
Thank you for Chris Freind’s article about the Delaware River Port Authority’s outrageous financial support for the dismantling of the Barnes Foundation, “DRPA Spending More ‘Economic Development’ Funds.”
The DRPA commissioners apparently consider the $500,000 pledge a contribution toward the well-being of regional arts and culture. They are dead wrong.
The plan would eviscerate the Barnes Foundation, reducing the world-renowned Merion complex to an empty shell. Left intact, i.e. with the art collection in place, the Barnes Foundation in Merion is eligible for National Historic Landmark status.
Why the bridge commission should bring money to the Barnes move table has everything to do with the fact that Gov. Ed Rendell is the chairman of the commission. The DRPA ‘economic development’ money is a reservoir of borrowed funds into which the governor dips at will, but which has nothing whatsoever to do with the purpose of the DRPA.
The functioning of the DRPA clearly warrants further scrutiny, but I would like to focus on the Barnes matter, which concerns Philadelphia’s reputation as steward of our national historic and cultural heritage. Because of the Barnes mess, that reputation carries an enormous stain at the moment.
A review of the DRPA’s own Guidelines for Arts and Culture Grants (administered by the Greater Philadelphia Art Alliance) shows “management” criteria that the Barnes project does not satisfy, in my opinion. I list the guidelines below, followed by notes in italics.
“Sound financial and operational planning and development, as evidenced by the following, are key factors in making the funding determination:”
“Budget presents a realistic picture of the expenses and income needed to accomplish the organization’s programs.”
Where is the study showing the soundness of the Barnes project? It does not appear to exist. Since being granted permission for the move in 2004, construction costs have risen dramatically. By 2011, they will have risen by 50 percent. It is also not clear how a Parkway Barnes would cover the annual operating deficit of at least $4,500,000 that was anticipated by the Barnes own “expert” in 2004.
“Variety of funding sources that demonstrate broad-based support.”
Support for the Barnes project comes from a fairly narrow group, many of whom are connected to one another.
“A specific plan to evaluate the economic impact of the proposed project.”
There is no published evidence of a careful, objective study of the economic impact of the Barnes project. On the other hand if the guidelines were to ask about cultural impact, there is a ready answer: the move would destroy forever one of the truly great cultural treasures of the Philadelphia region.
“Evidence indicating the ability of the organization to plan and carry out its proposed programs.”
The inability of the current Barnes board to carry out its programs is evidenced by its failure to develop scholarships for its educational programs, its failure to significantly increase public access hours, its failure to implement a convenient, efficient reservations system, and its failure to vigorously promote the Barnes Foundation in Merion.
“Stable financial position of the organization.”
The historic instability of the Barnes is already famous. Less widely known is the extreme instability that would befall the Barnes if should it move, which dwarfs anything that came before. Court testimony from 2004 indicates that the annual operating deficit would quadruple at a Philadelphia Parkway facility.
“Evidence of organizational program evaluation and subsequent plans for improvement.”
Again, a plan for the Parkway institution has not been published, despite the many questions that remained unanswered, including how massive attendance would be achieved and maintained year in, year out.
“Active board committee(s)/chair(s).”
Glad they mentioned that. When have we heard about contributions from the current Board of Trustees for the benefit of the Barnes in Merion? The only known contributions are toward the move that would spell the end of the Barnes Foundation as Dr. Barnes intended.
“Compliance with DRPA contract regulations and grant application guidelines.”
What can one say? This brings us full circle in a very fishy pond.
Conclusion: The DRPA is a public entity charged with ensuring the safety, security, efficiency of our region’s bridges and ports. The commission should be prevented by law from using any of its financial resources for non-transportation use. In the meanwhile, the DRPA subsidy to the Barnes move project is unacceptable and the pledge should be rescinded.
Evelyn Yaari lives in Bala Cynwyd. She is a member of Friends of the Barnes Foundation. She can be reached eyaari@comcast.net
The DRPA commissioners apparently consider the $500,000 pledge a contribution toward the well-being of regional arts and culture. They are dead wrong.
The plan would eviscerate the Barnes Foundation, reducing the world-renowned Merion complex to an empty shell. Left intact, i.e. with the art collection in place, the Barnes Foundation in Merion is eligible for National Historic Landmark status.
Why the bridge commission should bring money to the Barnes move table has everything to do with the fact that Gov. Ed Rendell is the chairman of the commission. The DRPA ‘economic development’ money is a reservoir of borrowed funds into which the governor dips at will, but which has nothing whatsoever to do with the purpose of the DRPA.
The functioning of the DRPA clearly warrants further scrutiny, but I would like to focus on the Barnes matter, which concerns Philadelphia’s reputation as steward of our national historic and cultural heritage. Because of the Barnes mess, that reputation carries an enormous stain at the moment.
A review of the DRPA’s own Guidelines for Arts and Culture Grants (administered by the Greater Philadelphia Art Alliance) shows “management” criteria that the Barnes project does not satisfy, in my opinion. I list the guidelines below, followed by notes in italics.
“Sound financial and operational planning and development, as evidenced by the following, are key factors in making the funding determination:”
“Budget presents a realistic picture of the expenses and income needed to accomplish the organization’s programs.”
Where is the study showing the soundness of the Barnes project? It does not appear to exist. Since being granted permission for the move in 2004, construction costs have risen dramatically. By 2011, they will have risen by 50 percent. It is also not clear how a Parkway Barnes would cover the annual operating deficit of at least $4,500,000 that was anticipated by the Barnes own “expert” in 2004.
“Variety of funding sources that demonstrate broad-based support.”
Support for the Barnes project comes from a fairly narrow group, many of whom are connected to one another.
“A specific plan to evaluate the economic impact of the proposed project.”
There is no published evidence of a careful, objective study of the economic impact of the Barnes project. On the other hand if the guidelines were to ask about cultural impact, there is a ready answer: the move would destroy forever one of the truly great cultural treasures of the Philadelphia region.
“Evidence indicating the ability of the organization to plan and carry out its proposed programs.”
The inability of the current Barnes board to carry out its programs is evidenced by its failure to develop scholarships for its educational programs, its failure to significantly increase public access hours, its failure to implement a convenient, efficient reservations system, and its failure to vigorously promote the Barnes Foundation in Merion.
“Stable financial position of the organization.”
The historic instability of the Barnes is already famous. Less widely known is the extreme instability that would befall the Barnes if should it move, which dwarfs anything that came before. Court testimony from 2004 indicates that the annual operating deficit would quadruple at a Philadelphia Parkway facility.
“Evidence of organizational program evaluation and subsequent plans for improvement.”
Again, a plan for the Parkway institution has not been published, despite the many questions that remained unanswered, including how massive attendance would be achieved and maintained year in, year out.
“Active board committee(s)/chair(s).”
Glad they mentioned that. When have we heard about contributions from the current Board of Trustees for the benefit of the Barnes in Merion? The only known contributions are toward the move that would spell the end of the Barnes Foundation as Dr. Barnes intended.
“Compliance with DRPA contract regulations and grant application guidelines.”
What can one say? This brings us full circle in a very fishy pond.
Conclusion: The DRPA is a public entity charged with ensuring the safety, security, efficiency of our region’s bridges and ports. The commission should be prevented by law from using any of its financial resources for non-transportation use. In the meanwhile, the DRPA subsidy to the Barnes move project is unacceptable and the pledge should be rescinded.
Evelyn Yaari lives in Bala Cynwyd. She is a member of Friends of the Barnes Foundation. She can be reached eyaari@comcast.net
 |
 |
|
| Obama At The Crossroads | Dr. Love Delivers Octuplets Advice |
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of thebulletin.us.
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
