Vimont, who had previously worked on themuseum concept for several years as a cityemployee, "was our office. She was our staff,"LeMaster said. Minutes from several board meetings indicatethat Vimont repeatedly urged the board to hirea full-time director. But board membershesitated to spend money they might not beable to raise, LeMaster said. Vimont frequentlyprovided the board with lists of her duties,which ranged from coordinating marketing tohandling all financial transactions to fundraising.As project manager and fund raiser, Vimontpaid out more than $840,000 for expenses suchas project management, fund raising, andstaffing an office from early 1994 until July1997. Over the same time, $600,000 went forconstruction and design costs, records show.
Of the $840,000 in non-constructionexpenses, the museum's invoices showthat Vimont's firm, JVA, received$465,000.
Durham said a substantial amountof that money represented reimbursement forbusiness-related expenses. LeMaster said JVAreceived between $4,000 and $6,000 a monthunder its contract with the museum board.
The Herald-Leader requested a copy of thecontract [with Jane Murray-Vimont] , butmuseum officials have been unable to findone. [Seriously? Jane Murray’s museumcould not find a copy of its contract withher? Did she take it with her?]
The money devoted to fund raising wastroubling to former UK player SteveLochmueller , who served on a steeringcommittee for raising money. "You don't spendmoney, necessarily, to make money," saidLochmueller, an area manager for atelecommun- ications firm and now a memberof the museum's full board. He said his concernabout fund raising may simply have been a"perception."Clearly, though, the effort ran into realproblems. Several deadlines for opening cameand went.
NOT `A WINNER'
By the end of the museum's first year, totalcontributions and pledges were reported at$313,059, but only $136,000 of the pledges hadbeen collected. [Murray-Vimont collected onlyhalf of the pledged amount.] That fell far shortof an initial goal, $3 million for the first 18months.A key fund-raising effort, in which
gold, silveror bronze medallions
were given to donors,was far less successful than its $2.9 milliongoal. The museum spent $201,105 on 6,500medallions. Only about 800 went to donors, inreturn for gifts totaling $1.1 million. Themedallions made an additional $36,000 for themuseum when Whitaker Banks purchased2,000, records show. Durham, the museum'sexecutive director, said he's not sure how manyare left in stock. Records show it may be asmany as 3,762. [6500 expensive medallionsordered by Murray-Vimont. Over half left over.Definitely not a winner of an idea, Jane!]Durham has decided to discontinue theprogram. "It [Murray- Vimont’s idea for a fund-raiser] wasn't a winner," he said.
CITY OFFICIALS CONCERNED
If private contributions weren't exactlystreaming in,
public con-tributions were.
[Funds that Lexington is still paying off today.] The Lexington Center, a corporation of theUrban County Government, offered 10 years'worth of free rent for the museum in the CivicCenter Shops. (The museum pays about$50,000 a year for utilities and operatingexpenses. Without the deal, rent might be$100,000 to $150,000 a year.)
The museum also lined up $1 million incash from Lexington city government.
[Much of it went in Murray-Vimont’spocket.]That gift was required by state officialsas part of an agreement stemming from theaborted Lexington Cultural Center. After thecenter project was canceled, city officials wererequired to redirect state funds allocated to it tovarious cultural efforts, including the museum.Half the million-dollar contribution was made inFebruary 1997.
But by midyear, whenVimont asked for an additional $250,000,city officials were wary.
Ken Kerns, the city's chief administrativeofficer, wrote to Vimont that city officialswanted full access to all financial records. Kernssaid in an interview that he grew concernedabout the museum's financial condition. ButKerns said that Durham, the executive director
Leave a Comment