bread and butter from commercial ventures like the DCAP? If Auping and Wylie do not have enough work to keep them occupied at themuseum, perhaps the museums' board of trustees needs to take a hard look at thosepositions and consider making them part-time jobs with the commensurate reductionin salary and employee benefits. This issue--museum professionals' ties to art-relatedcommercial ventures--is the subject of a New York Times article dated November 18, 2007"Museums Solicit Dealers' Largess," concerning the Los Angeles Museumof Contemporary Art. That article caused art lawyer Sérgio Muñoz Sarmiento towrite an editorial called"Private Contributions and Public Institutions," which waspublished on Clancco.com November 28, 2007. He references the NYT article in it.We are not legal scholars but it appears that these North Texas museums' seasonedcurators are serving private interests rather than the public. Is that behavior a classicexample of having a conflict of interest? Their actions--and by extension, the museumsthemselves--strongly intimates of having violated Internal Revenue Service rules.The IRS code states that not-for-profit museums must be operated exclusively for thepurposes which gave rise to receiving its tax-exempt status under code Section 501(c)(3), namely, serving the public, and not private enterprise. In other words, the privateenterprise has already received a private benefit via their
contribution.Museum resources ultimately belong to the public; the public is the museum patron viabeing a taxpayer. Is it time to blow the whistle on these museums' policy by getting nonprofit ethics andaccountability investigator US Senator Charles "Chuck" Grassley (R-Iowa) involved?His campaign to clean up nonprofits is legendary and well-covered by the press.Secondly, for over 150 years this country had an organized national system toeducate, through exposure, the entire art community and the public, including artcollectors, as to what was regularly being produced by living artists and how artists wereranked by many of the top professionals in the field. This was done without favoritismand was a system availableto all artists, professionals and the public, including collectors, without compromisingor jeopardizing the tax-exempt status of public institutions. It was called the juriedexhibition and it occurred at the local, regional, national and international level. Such asystem may or may not have produced the same artists hand-picked to stock the DallasCowboys Stadium. As itstands, only few people chose those 19 artists which is a tremendous concentration of power. Is this method of choosingartwork really fair to the rest of the artists who werenot given the opportunity for their work to be seen by the DCAP?