Nonprofit Law Prof Blog

Barnes Foundation Back in Court

Last week, the Philadelphia Inquirer and New York Times (and then the Philadelphia Inquirer again) reported on the decision by a Pennsylvania court to permit the Barnes Foundation to make some modest changes in how they display their art: specifically permitting temporary loans of art to other institutions or temporary displays of art in other locations in the museum.

Anyone who has followed the Barnes Foundation case(s) over the years knows that Albert Barnes amassed a truly incredible collection of art during his lifetime, and left it to the Barnes Foundation with unusually precise instructions on how it should be displayed. Over the years the trustees of the Barnes Foundation have returned to court over and over to try to alter those precise instructions, successfully winning the right to move the paintings from their original location in Merion, Pennsylvania, into Philadelphia, among other limited changes. The museum in Philadelphia is truly one of my favorite art museums in the world, and (despite really liking art museums) I was always too lazy to visit the museum in Merion before the courts permitted the Foundation to move the collection. So, I’m a direct beneficiary of the court’s permissiveness. On the other hand, this case is often used in Nonprofit Law classes (including mine) to illustrate the potential for conflict between philanthropists and the charitable institutions they create or fund, especially after their deaths. Barnes illustrates this conflict so well because he was so clearly mistrustful of the art establishment in Philadelphia, and worked so hard to direct his philanthropic vision after his death. So, even the most modest and reasonable alterations to the rules that bind the Foundation are viewed by some as a betrayal of Barnes and his legacy. I’m sympathetic to that instinct. If you want to get yourself worked up on Barnes’s behalf, I recommend the movie Art of the Steal (2009), which can be streamed from Amazon for a fee.

I’m also sympathetic to how difficult it is for a court to balance the competing interests in cases like these. Yesterday, I wrote about director standing, and my co-blogger Darryll Jones pointed out in a comment how annoying (and expensive!) it can be for a charity when a single person brings vexatious litigation. In the Barnes case, the Foundation brought an action to deviate from the terms of the trust indenture and the Pennsylvania Attorney General filed a “no objection letter,” leaving the judge with no party genuinely taking a position adverse to the Foundation. The judge did conduct a “site visit,” and probably did not really need an adverse party to make the case against deviation, but the fact that nonprofit standing is generally so limited does reduce the likelihood that the interests of a deceased donor will be fully represented. Again, I think that’s probably on balance a good thing, but it’s a hard balance to get perfect.

Benjamin M. Leff

Interesting Look at Batman and Bruce Wayne's Philanthropy

Not everything that we blog about has to be the real world. Have you wondered whether the recent DC movies have ignored Bruce Wayne's philanthropy as it is represented in the original comics. This piece has you covered.

From the piece: "In the comics, Bruce Wayne has been anything from an investor to a direct leader in philanthropic projects. Wayne has taken the lead on topics such as children's hospitals, environmental conservation, historic preservation, and solving climate change. In fact, multiple storylines depict Wayne using his personal wealth to rebuild damaged parts of Gotham in the aftermath of epic events. Any time villains like Darkseid or the Legion of Doom have sought to conquer Earth, Gotham is one of the first cities to be rebuilt, thanks to Wayne's personal assistance. If a chart were to be drawn of the Wayne family wealth investment, it would be one of the most generous financial footprints in comics.

The fact is, when it comes to Gotham City, many of the threats people face are beyond the simple question of wealth and resources. Villains like Bane, Ra's al Ghul, and even Joker have proven able to overcome the entire GCPD and political structure. That's an issue a bigger budget for social programs can't defeat. Stories like "Joker War," "City of Bane," and "No Man's Land" put Gotham in situations that only the sheer strength, wit, and resources of a superhero could overcome. While Wayne's wealth can always help the struggling people of Gotham, the problems that plague people living in the DCU go beyond typical human needs and dangers."

Philip Hackney

 

 

 

 

 

A Charitable Baldwin

I don't mind admitting that I'm more drawn to celebrity gossip than C-Span.  In that spirit, a recent item in the Wall Street Journal reports that actor Alec Baldwin intends to donate his profits from his gig as spokesperson for Capital One to nonprofit arts organizations.  Thus far he has given $1 million to the New York Philharmonic and $500,000 to the Roundabout Theater Company, where he sometimes performs.  In a brief interview with the WSJ, he asks "How can I get my hands on more money [to donate]?  How can I set up a food company like Paul Newman that prints money?  Could I sell hair gel?"

So, it turns out that Alec Baldwin, in addition to being a celebrity, is a budding social entrepreneur.  I'm sure many of us could help advise him on his hair gel venture.

TAK