Dear Editor:

            I read with great surprise and even greater disappointment a statement made by Dr. Bernard Watson, president of the Board of Trustees of the Barnes Foundation, in a press release recently issued regarding the consideration of an alternative access to the Foundation from City Avenue . Dr. Watson stated, in part, “Such a road which leads to our back gate – already exists . In fact, we have attempted to utilize that road in the past to minimize traffic impacts on our neighbors. When we did so, we received a violation notice for Lower Merion Township”.

            As the Commissioner from Merion, PA the home of the Barnes Foundation, I am writing this letter in an attempt to set the record straight with respect to that statement and address the commonly held misconception that the Township of Lower Merion and, more specifically my neighbors, want the Barnes to move.

            It is, in fact, just the opposite.

            Statements such as this merely fuel the fires of misunderstanding which lead to erroneous conclusions. The record is clear that at no time was the Barnes ever cited by the Township for it’s use of Lapsley Lane as an alternative access from City Avenue. The fact is that Lapsley Lane is a private road jointly owned by the Barnes and St. Josephs University. It’s use is governed by the rights of the parties that own it.

            Yes, there have been difficulties. Yes, the Barnes apparently has financial difficulties. And yes, there is a need for greater access to the gallery. There aren’t many who would dispute those facts although there may be differences of opinion regarding the degree and alternatives to resolve them.

            It’s not too late.

            Before taking steps that are unalterable, alternatives must be carefully examined. There’s no doubt that a move to a more visible sight would have certain advantages and, if the primary purpose of Albert Barnes’ indenture was to create a tourist attraction, then this would be one way to do it. However, educational institutions exist and, more importantly, co-exist in residential areas throughout Lower Merion and have done so throughout its history. Certainly not without challenges. But, for the most part, these challenges have been met through compromise and collective thought.

            This is the home of the Barnes and as the signs on a growing number of residents’ lawns read, “THE BARNES BELONGS IN MERION.”

            James S, Ettelson, Esquire

Commissioner, Township of Lower Merion

Ward 12, Merion

MERION CIVIC ASSOCIATION MAKES CLEAR "THE BARNES BELONGS IN MERION."

            The media has frequently portrayed the Merion neighbors of the Barnes as being at best, indifferent to, or at worst, overtly hostile to the presence of the Foundation in this community. This communication will attempt to correct this impression. For over eighty years the Barnes Foundation has existed harmoniously with both the residential and institutional members of the Merion community. We believe the relationship can and should be continued, with the school, the galleries and the arboretum remaining in their present location.

            The Barnes is renowned for its outstanding art and sculpture collections; but it also represents the thought and aesthetic of a particular individual at a particular time and in a particular location. Dr. Barnes situated the foundation in Merion, engaged the services of an outstanding architect to construct the building and brought in the famed Henri Matisse to paint the murals which adorn the spacious entry hall. He placed great emphasis upon the gallery's relationship to the arboretum and to the surrounding community. Several years prior to the construction of the galleries, Dr. Barnes purchased land in the area and arranged for construction of a group of fine houses which were sold at fairly modest prices in an effort to protect the integrity and appearance of the neighborhood. It was not mere happenstance which located the Barnes Foundation in a largely residential setting. Were the Barnes to move, we think it unlikely that this building and its particular harmony with its surroundings could be preserved. Not only would an essential part of Dr. Barnes' vision be lost, but a valuable piece of social history as well.

            It has been argued that moving the Barnes to the Parkway, placing it in closer proximity to the other art institutions in the city would be more attractive to tourists. No other city concentrates all of its treasures in one location. London has its Soane¹s, Paris its d'Orsay and Pompidou, Rio its Castro Mayo, each located at a distance from the respective city¹s major art institutions. There are decided advantages to both the tourist and city having its resources in a number of locations.

            On May 25, 2004, the Merion Civic Association¹s Board of Directors adopted the following resolutions:

            Whereas the Barnes Foundation was established in 1922 by Dr. Albert C. Barnes, to promote the advancement of education and the appreciation of the fine arts;

            Whereas the mission of the Barnes Foundation is "to promote the advancement of education and the appreciation of education and the appreciation of fine arts and horticulture;"

            Whereas the Barnes Foundation carries out its mission through teaching, research, and publications related to its Art Department and Arboretum, as well as through public access to the Gallery which houses its main collection of paintings, sculpture, and other works of art;

            Whereas the Barnes Foundation is internationally recognized for possessing one of the world's greatest collections of Impressionist and Post-impressionist art; Whereas the Barnes Foundation is located at 300 North Latch's Lane in Merion, Pennsylvania;

            Whereas before his death in 1951 Dr. Albert Barnes left strict instructions that the Foundation and its collection not be moved; Whereas the Barnes Foundation has petitioned Montgomery County Orphan's Court for permission to relocate to a new facility on the Benjamin Franklin Parkway in downtown Philadelphia;

            Whereas three Philadelphia area foundations have pledged up to $150 million to underwrite the relocation of the Barnes Foundation to downtown Philadelphia;

            Whereas the Montgomery County Orphan¹s Court has asked the Barnes Foundation to devise a plan for the "least drastic deviation" from Dr. Barnes wishes;

            Whereas the Merion Civic Association is organized to advance and protect the interests and concerns of residents and institutions located in Merion, Lower Merion Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania;

            NOW, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE MERION CIVIC ASSOCIATION

            (1) Acknowledges the extraordinary contributions to the education and appreciation of fine arts and horticulture that have been made possible by the Barnes Foundation;

            (2) Believes that the gallery's relocation from its present site would not only change the aesthetic nature of its collection, but also severely compromise its founder's stated mission;

            (3) Welcomes a process by which all parties of interest work toward a goal of maintaining The Barnes Foundation in its present location.

            In 1990, new trustees, with no ties to Dr. Barnes or the educational program, gained control of the Foundation. Since then, the emphasis has shifted from promoting and enhancing the original art education program to exploiting the Foundation's art collection for its commercial potential. In September, 2002, the trustees (backed by the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Lenfest Foundation and the Annenberg Foundation) sought court permission to eliminate virtually every term of the Foundation's original bylaws (essentially Dr. Barnes' will), in order to move the art collection from the Paul Cret-designed gallery in Merion, Pennsylvania to a full-time museum in near-by Philadelphia.

            In December 2003, the Montgomery County Orphans Court heard the trustees' case to allow the collection to be moved to "larger more user-friendly galleries" and to eliminate all guaranteed time for classroom study of the collection. Like their 90s predecessors, these trustees claimed financial hardship justifies breaking the Foundation's bylaws, but publicly available records show how the alleged hardship is largely of the management's own doing.

            The trustees argue that zoning regulations that limit auto traffic on the residential front road to the Foundation are "choking" visitor and fundraising income. However there is no evidence that they tried to renegotiate a 1996 agreement with St. Joseph's University that prevents access from a major highway to the rear of the property via Lapsley Lane. Similarly, the Foundation's president summarilly dismissed suggestions that the sale of neighboring Episcopal Academy created an opportunity for highway access. The first time the trustees formally requested township permission to hold an outdoor fundraising event in October 2003, the request was granted. Testimony suggested that if the paintings moved to Philadelphia, students would be shuttled back to Merion to view the arboretum, yet no evidence addressed simply shuttling tourists from Philadelphia to the Merion gallery and leaving the artwork where it is.

            The Orphans Court's ruling in January 2004 temporarilly denied the trustees'request to move, citing inadequate evidence on alternatives and virtually no evidence of the economic feasibilty or details of the Philadelphia venture. The Court ordered the trustees to appraise artwork not on public view in the gallery (this would include the well-known portrait of Dr. Barnes by Giorgio de Chirico) and a 137 acre farm in Chester County that has never been significantly used in the Foundation's education program. However, unless the Court requires a truly independent review of these appraisals, the results will likely be skewed in favor of the move. As the Enron scandal has shown, experts tend to give the advice their clients pay to hear.

            While appearing to scrutinize the trustees' case, the Court's ruling likely set the stage for the move by ignoring the overspending that put the Foundation in alleged financial peril (the 2002 expenses were nearly five times the 1990 expenses) and by crediting testimony that there is no solution to increasing public visitation (and related revenue) in the original location. Both premeses should have been examined more carefully, especially in light of the Court's recognition that the statutory watchdog of public charities, the state attorney general, has served as little more than a "cheerleader" for the trustees' plan. Indeed the present claims of financial hardship recall the 1990s plea to break Barnes' will to raise funds to repair the gallery (while the trustees secretly discussed the sale of $200 million worth of artwork). Those claims were later exposed to have been grossly inflated with the necessary repairs estimated at a fraction of the numbers presented in court.

            In 1990, the Barnes Foundation was still conducting classes as it had when Dr. Barnes died. It was also solvent on a $1 million annual budget, and a $10 million endowment. By 2002, the Foundation had a $4.5 million annual budget, yet it's original education program was smaller than in 1990; now dwarfed by a plethora of costly museum-type programs, from "collections assessments" to Cezanne coffee mugs, from museum docents to wine and cheese receptions. Barnes Watch believes that there is no need to move the Barnes Foundation art collection, but that all that is required is sound fiscal management and a return to the Foundation's original emphasis on its program of art education. The Court has suggested that if a $50 million endowment from sale of unused assets can be created, it will deny the move. But, historical budget data shows that figure could be far lower and the Foundation would still be solvent if operated properly.