September 24, 2011 Naree Viner Heidrick & Struggles The Grace Building 1114 Avenue of the Americas

24th Floor New York, NY 10036 United States Phone: +1 212 8679876 Fax: +1 212 3709035 Email: nviner@heidrick.com Re: Heidrick & Struggles tapped to find the next Dallas Museum of Art director Dear Naree Viner: The task you have been given of finding a new DMA director is obviously a challenging one. Just as millions of U.S. citizens who have a stake in how our federal tax dollars are being utilized by tax-subsidized 501 (c)(3) entities like the Dallas Museum of Art, the Council for Artists' Rights would like to take this opportunity to share some observations about the DMA's recent past. When the Dallas Morning News published reporter Michael Granberry's article on August 10, 2011, "Dallas Museum of Art picks its way through nation's financial calamity," we hope that it signaled a turning point in North Texas news reporting. The DMN featured the story on the front page, illustrating it with two large color photos. It is no secret the DMN has been reluctant to be aggressive about getting straight answers from the DMA. The importance of Granberry's piece is the DMN and the DMA appear to have finally accepted their responsibility--as public institutions--to become transparent entities. For the first time, some facts in Granberry's article, previously denied to him, have been made public by the DMA. Not since the decades-ago directorship of the late Jerry Bywaters has the DMA divulged its operational information. In other words, going forward, the DMA and the DMN cannot put toothpaste back into a tube. Given the DMA's willingness to be forthcoming with previously undisclosed information, it is time for it to do some self examination and answer some basic questions. It starts with the board of directors reviewing its governance and fiduciary responsibilities. Now is the time when the board might consider reimbursing the DMA for bequested works ostensibly "irrevocably promised" to the museum and later pulled from the museum's future. The Council for Artists' Rights wrote about the issue in May of 2010 in its eblast "Cover Up Continues of $57.2M

"permanent collection" Sell off at Dallas Museum of Art." Those sold artworks reaped great profits to private individuals who happen to be museum donors and trustees. For example, the Jeff Koons sculpture "Balloon Flower" (Magenta) 1995 - 2000 (private purchase by the Rachofskys in 2001 for $1.2m) sold at auction for $25.8m in 2008. Another piece that was "irrevocably promised" to the museum was the Mark Rothko painting "Untitled" 1961, of two red rectangles, was valued at $31.4m. The sale of the Rothko was intentionally kept away from becoming a DMA public news item and was subsequently written about in 2010 by D Magazine art critic Peter Simek in his piece "In Wake of Rothko Sale, Questions Loom Over 2005 Donations' Impact on Museum's Future." It is worth repeating that donors--which include museum trustees--to nonprofit museums are rewarded with a federal income tax deduction and are forbidden from receiving any further compensation--a lesson which could cost the DMA its 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. One of the latest examples the DMA has not been transparent was documented by DMN investigative reporter Brooks Egerton. On May 18, 2009, Egerton posted a blog entry "They won't talk: Dallas Museum of Art" about the frustration his colleague Michael Granberry encountered while attempting to gather information about the DMA's King Tut exhibition in 2008 - 2009. Egerton wrote, "Today we launch a regular feature that spotlights officials who won't talk. Dallas Museum of Art boss Bonnie Pitman is our first subject. She has refused for months to answer basic financial questions about the King Tut exhibit, which closed yesterday. It fell far short of attendance projections, as Dallas Morning News reporter Michael Granberry reported. The News had to file a series of formal records demands just to get the taxpayer-subsidized DMA to claim that it and the city of Dallas would lose no money on the deal. But the museum won't let us see any records to back that up. Why? Pitman and her staff say they promised the exhibit's for-profit organizers absolute confidentiality, as I reported yesterday. Museum officials say they can't even tell us how many people saw Tut for free. Pitman initially said she'd do an interview for Granberry's story but backed out at the last minute. Too busy, her PR lady said." The next opportunity for the DMA to show its commitment to transparency will be in the first quarter of 2012 after its next exhibit closes. Museum board president John Eagle told Granberry (included in the DMA news article) that he looks forward to this fall's Jean Paul Gualtier fashion show at the DMA. However, is Eagle prepared to put that contract online right now, searchable for all to see in the name of Internet-based transparency? Making the details public would be similar to what Indianapolis Museum of Art director Maxwell Anderson said in his "A Clear View: The Case for Museum Transparency," (featured on the American Association of Museums' website); more importantly, what he has done, namely, allow taxpayers to remotely monitor museum operations from any basic computer in the world. Will Eagle order his acting director Olivier Meslay to reasonably accommodate Granberry or Egerton should they or anyone else request an audit of the DMA's financial records? Can Eagle guarantee the City of Dallas and the DMA will not take a financial bath on the Jean Paul Gualtier fashion show and reveal how much of the total cost is the commercial designer Gaultier paying? It has come to our attention that the DMA is closely partnered with the Foundation for the Arts, a private entity. According to the DMA's website, "[in] 1964 The Foundation for the Arts

was established as a holding agency for the former DMCA collection, with the power to solicit funds and acquire art objects to be placed at the disposal of the Museum. Jerry Bywaters resigned as director of the Museum, and was succeeded by Merrill Rueppel..." Will the incoming director be transparent about a public museum's cozy relationship with that private entity which is not at all accountable to taxpayers? A routine Google search using keyword "Foundation for the Arts"--to learn more of the entity--reveals only two entries, the one that is quoted above and another about a DMA exhibition. The time span 1964 to 2011 is a very long time for a private entity to be associated with the DMA, why is not there more information about that public-private partnership? With the recent one-year deaccessioning of over $930,000 worth of artwork by the DMA, where was the work placed, was fair market value obtained, or were "sweetheart" deals made behind closed doors with the Foundation for the Arts? And what about the blacklisting of a whole generation of professional artists and their students in Dallas, some who are still alive? Will anyone ask these tough questions of the DMA? As you may know, the much publicized 2010 disagreement between Dallas wildflower artist Chapman Kelley and the Dallas Museum of Art for the Museum's adding of sound effects to Kelley's 1960 painting without his permission, has not gone unnoticed. In response to that incident, Texas Wesleyan School of Law professor Megan M. Carpenter analyzed the facts and the broader artists' rights issues in her Spring 2011 paper, "Drawing a Line in the Sand: Copyright Law and New Museums." That work appears in the Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, it is available on the Social Science Research Network or SSRN. It is so well-written that no further comment is necessary, only to say that it is a must read for anyone seriously interested in the visual arts. These and other instances of questionable behavior by the DMA are further detailed at Texas art historian Sam Blain's recently created Dallas Art History blog. Some of the Council for Artists' Rights observations about the DMA are parked at scribd.com. Naree Viner, feel free to forward this email to whomever you think may be interested. Thank you for your time and attention. We look forward to your response. Best regards, John Viramontes Council for Artists' Rights Cc: Brooks Egerton Investigative reporter Dallas Morning News Chapman Kelley Visual artist

Charles "Chuck" Grassley U.S. Senator (R-Iowa) whistleblower campaign Dallas Museum of Art Maxwell Anderson. Ph.D. Director, Indianapolis Museum of Art Michael Granberry Staff reporter Dallas Morning News Peter Simek Art critic D Magazine Roberta Smith Reporter New York Times Sam Blain Texas art historian