A museum, its trustees and a blank minute sheet.

A post about institutional reputation, management and honesty.

My previous post (22 August) on ‘governance’ was written before news of the British Museum’s losses broke. We could be forgiven for thinking that this stalwart of British institutions would be impervious to crisis. However, whilst museum managers, director Hartwig Fischer and deputy director Jonathan Williams, appear to have been behind on their job and have now resigned or stepped down, it took the museum’s trustees to step into the breach.

The history of irregularity at the museum is informative. In early 2021 Dutch art historian and dealer Ittai Gradel contacted Fischer and Williams after Gradel had discovered items being sold privately on eBay. He managed to trace them to the museum’s collection and identify the seller through their PayPal account. The directors assured Gradel they had undertaken a thorough investigation and found no improprieties. Gradel reported that Jonathan Williams “basically told me to sod off and mind my own business.”

Fischer, in his resignation statement, said that “it is evident that the British Museum did not respond as comprehensively as it should have in response to the warnings in 2021.” He also apologised to Gradel.

The collapse of senior management has meant that it was up to the museum’s Trustees to set up an independent review, preceded by a statement from their chairman, George Osborne: “I don’t myself believe there was a sort of deliberate cover-up, although the review may find that to be the case.”

George Osborne’s reported response itself raises questions, both about his independence and the role of trustees.

According to their website ‘the Museum’s aim is to hold a collection representative of world cultures and to ensure that the collection is housed in safety, conserved, curated, researched and exhibited.’ It goes on to assert that they are ‘committed to ensuring the Museum is run in an open and honest way.’

Scrutiny of the quarterly minutes of the museum’s Board of Trustees reveals that between January 2021 and March 2023, they met on ten occasions. On none is it recorded that they discussed or were appraised of the concerns raised by Gradel. The single reference to security policy was a fairly bland approval (para 9.1 of the minutes on 7 July 2022) and a presentation and discussion on risks to the collection (minute 4.1 on 1 July 2021). 

Was the Board of Trustees to the British Museum informed of a fundamental risk to the national collection? If they were, when, how, and why is it not minuted? Each of the recent meetings were attended by directors Hartwig Fischer, Jonathan Williams and Christopher Yates, with Jane Whittaker, director of resources and Elizabeth Knight, governance manager also present. Why did they not flag up the concern and explain to the trustees how it was to be resolved?

My overview suggests that either the board’s minutes were not fit for purpose, or that there was a concerted cover-up by executive management leaving the museum’s trustees in the dark.

This raises a further question. How proactive should trustees (or governors) be in their inquiry of their executive officers? Whilst day-to-day management is the executive’s responsibility, might it not be wise for trustees to raise questions about that which they have not been told?….’Are there any matters that have given rise to concerns about which we have not been informed?’

Perhaps had the right questions been asked, some of the wrong answers could have been exposed?

Advertisements appearing within or at the foot of this post are placed by the platform, not the writer. They are neither endorsed nor monetarised.

*
*
*
*