DIA Millage Proposal

[davewindsor]

Actually, davewindsor, Detroit has 60,000+ artworks besides the Monet, so it could put together a pretty impressive arts endowment. On top of that, it's got taxing powers, so it's extremely unlikely to go bankrupt if it mobilizes the financial value in its art collection. Still, in that extremely unlikely event of a post-mobilization Detroit bankruptcy, courts properly applying property law would direct the payouts from artwork liquidations to the holders of artwork rights [[less a small residual Detroit's creditors would retain from the financial value of its cultural easements), Detroit having already gotten its funds for the artworks at the IPO. So you see, davewindsor, artworks rights holders do have something real.

Hold on a second. Now you are advocating real legal rights of ownership over the Monet and DIA artwork to ETF shareholders? So it's not the case that Detroit can have it's cake and eat it too. So all a lawyer would have to do is file a lawsuit claiming that the city is mismanaged and that the Monet should be put on public auction because it's a poor caretaker and a private collector in Dubai would be a better caretaker and the ETF shareholders could actually win possession and force its sale.

In the future, if the city made a bad investment and is in the same position as it is today, a lawyer could argue in court that the DIA is not properly maintaining low humidity temperature to preserve the Monet or that there is not enough security to watch over a $10m Monet due to budget cuts or any number of variables. So much for your cultural easement. If you're allowing court claims in financial troubles, you've opened the door to hundreds of lawsuits by ETF shareholders arguing for its sale to private collectors and you are basically advocating the sale of the Monet artwork because you've now extended legal claims of possession to ETF shareholders and it only takes a good lawyer and the wrong judge to now give possession or a right to force the sale of the Monet to a private collector.

Either ETF shareholders have legal rights of possession for their investment or they do not. You can't have it both ways. If you're allowing the courts to reinterpret who has claims on the Monet in certain scenarios, you've opened the door to it's sale and Detroit can't have it's cake and eat it too [[as you say). Well, good night. The Founder's Board are not going to want the sale of the DIA collection. Thanks for playing.

[Coaccession]

...So all a lawyer would have to do is file a lawsuit claiming that the city is mismanaged and that the Monet should be put on public auction because it's a poor caretaker and a private collector in Dubai would be a better caretaker and the ETF shareholders could actually win possession and force its sale...

You're claiming that, davewindsor. I just said that ETF shareholders would get the proceeds from artwork sales in a Detroit bankruptcy, rather than creditors getting the proceeds from artwork sales in a Detroit bankruptcy. Either way, the art gets sold in a Detroit bankruptcy. The only question is who gets the money from selling the art.

...In the future, if the city made a bad investment and is in the same position as it is today...

You seem awfully worried about Detroit being going bankrupt. Care to explain why you think the City would quickly dissipate a multi-billion-dollar arts endowment? I ask because you never seem to reflect that a multi-billion-dollar arts endowment might offer Detroit some benefits.

...Either ETF shareholders have legal rights of possession for their investment or they do not. You can't have it both ways...

There you go again, davewindsor, confusing yourself. You take rules for a liquidation in bankruptcy and then say things work that way outside of bankruptcy court too. Ahem... bankruptcy suspends the normal rules, tosses out contracts, liquidates assets. Inside bankruptcy things happen one way. Outside bankruptcy things happen another way. There are -- pay attention here, davewindsor -- two ways that things can happen! You might want to study up on that if you're engaging in a legitimate discussion. Otherwise, you'll confuse readers who are as unclear on the rules as you are.

Under normal circumstances -- outside of bankruptcy -- with ETFs Detroit has its Monet and money too, without ETFs just the Monet. In bankruptcy, ETFs or not, Detroit has no Monet and no money. With ETFs, rightsholders get the bulk of the proceeds from the artwork liquidations and Detroit creditors get a bit of liquidation proceeds. Without ETFs, Detroit creditors get all the liquidation proceeds. In both cases, asset buyers at the bankruptcy auction get the Monet. Detroit's clearly better off with the Monet and money too. Of course, you seem so bothered by the possibility of Detroit getting out of its financial distress that there's really nothing I can say here that will get you to apply logic and evidence.

So, what's your next intervention going to be? Odds are it will be another unfounded problem you invent out of whole cloth, but perhaps you'll run out of those and just start circling back through your prior errors.

[davewindsor]

You're claiming that, davewindsor. I just said that ETF shareholders would get the proceeds from artwork sales in a Detroit bankruptcy, rather than creditors getting the proceeds from artwork sales in a Detroit bankruptcy. Either way, the art gets sold in a Detroit bankruptcy. The only question is who gets the money from selling the art.



You seem awfully worried about Detroit being going bankrupt. Care to explain why you think the City would quickly dissipate a multi-billion-dollar arts endowment? I ask because you never seem to reflect that a multi-billion-dollar arts endowment might offer Detroit some benefits.



There you go again, davewindsor, confusing yourself. You take rules for a liquidation in bankruptcy and then say things work that way outside of bankruptcy court too. Ahem... bankruptcy suspends the normal rules, tosses out contracts, liquidates assets. Inside bankruptcy things happen one way. Outside bankruptcy things happen another way. There are -- pay attention here, davewindsor -- two ways that things can happen! You might want to study up on that if you're engaging in a legitimate discussion. Otherwise, you'll confuse readers who are as unclear on the rules as you are.

Under normal circumstances -- outside of bankruptcy -- with ETFs Detroit has its Monet and money too, without ETFs just the Monet. In bankruptcy, ETFs or not, Detroit has no Monet and no money. With ETFs, rightsholders get the bulk of the proceeds from the artwork liquidations and Detroit creditors get a bit of liquidation proceeds. Without ETFs, Detroit creditors get all the liquidation proceeds. In both cases, asset buyers at the bankruptcy auction get the Monet. Detroit's clearly better off with the Monet and money too. Of course, you seem so bothered by the possibility of Detroit getting out of its financial distress that there's really nothing I can say here that will get you to apply logic and evidence.

So, what's your next intervention going to be? Odds are it will be another unfounded problem you invent out of whole cloth, but perhaps you'll run out of those and just start circling back through your prior errors.

Sorry Coaccession, you just gave ETF shareholders ownership rights over the Monet by giving them real legal rights to it. I know GM shareholders who lost all their money in the bankruptcy, yet GM still exists. And those shareholders had voting and equity rights, which you said ETF shareholders don't have. You contradicted yourself. You are now basically saying they have protection as owners which opens the door to the sale of DIA artwork to ETF shareholders in a lawsuit. You can't take it back. Thanks for playing.

[East Detroit]

When you're considering selling your wedding ring to pay your mortgage, you're really in trouble. Sadly, many in Metro Detroit don't believe they are married to the City of Detroit.

[jiminnm]

Most commodity ETFs, including GLD [[the largest gold ETF), are set up as trusts. The shares you buy are actually shares of the trust. The trust then owns the physical assets of the ETF. For example, I have read that GLD is the 6th largest owner of physical gold in the world, owning more than most governments. Some commodity ETFs also own future contracts for the asset. That probably doesn't give unit holders rights to the asset, but a claim against the trustees. Most of the remaining commodity ETFs are partnerships, where the partnership owns the asset and buyers of shares are actually buying limited partnership units.

Other ETFs, such as those speciallizing in indexes, dividends or specific sectors, are funds [[like a mutual fund) that own the underlying investments or other investments that are anticipated to produce a given return.

There would be many issues that needed to be addressed prior to Detroit even considering this scheme, not the least of which is who actually owns the actual piece of art being included [[the city, the donor who claims loan or a violation of a condition of donation, the Founders, or anyone else who claims an interest) and whether this is appropriate action for an entity that had been entrusted with the possession and preservation of public art. Assume the years of litigation result in a declaration of city ownership, that the officials that undertake the scheme somehow survive the community outrage and continue, and that the city can demonstrate it will manage the money from this endeavor much better than it has managed previous finances, it is worth it? I expect not.

What, exactly, would the city be selling? Coaccession appears to be saying that title for a piece [[or a group of pieces somehow legally joined together) would be sold subject to a cultural easement retained by the city. That's not unprecedented, as property owners can subject their properties to a variety of easement restrictions [[such as conservation easements and air space limiting building heights). But, as with any other property, the more restrictive the easement the greater the reduction in property value. A typical utility easement allows probably 99%+ of the prior activity to continue, but an easement for a high pressure gas transmission line severely restricts the property use within several hundred feet of the easement. So, where is the cultural easement on the scale of restrictions?

If rights of possession and display were retained by the Detroit, I see two immediate problems. First, most rights typically transferred with sale would remain with the city, so the value the city received for the interests transferred would be substantially less than 100% [[probably single digits). Second, the city then opens itself to damage claims from the new owners [[as Dave points out). The more the city attempts to protect itself, the less it gets. In fact, if I was a purchaser subject to such restrictive terms, I could probably construct a legal argument that it isn't really a sale but is, in fact, a donation. So, we also can't discount the tax implication of this scheme.

Transferring partial possession and display rights to an individual would increase the value of the transfer, and make it look more like a sale, but raise the associated risks of damage or loss, as well as more community outrage at what really starts looking like sale of of publicly owned art.

The only way I see this working will be for the city to transfer actual ownership to a separate entity. The terms of that transfer would, of course, be subject to negotiation. However, the more control the city attempts to retain, the less it would receive. At some point, any transferor will require a provision that all interests of ownership transfer under certain conditions. One might argue that scenario could occur in bankruptcy, and be correct. I would argue that it's possible but highly unlikely due to the ownership issue, the novelty of the action, possibly the public issue and possibly a timing issue resulting from the other issues.

I just don't see how this would be an effective tool for the city, even assuming it can clear all the related hurdles. Of the city cannot survive financially without a sale of assets, then there should be community discussion as to whether or not art should be included in that sale.

[Coaccession]

Sorry Coaccession, you just gave ETF shareholders ownership rights over the Monet by giving them real legal rights to it. I know GM shareholders who lost all their money in the bankruptcy, yet GM still exists. And those shareholders had voting and equity rights, which you said ETF shareholders don't have. You contradicted yourself. You are now basically saying they have protection as owners which opens the door to the sale of DIA artwork to ETF shareholders in a lawsuit. You can't take it back. Thanks for playing.

You've seen all those news stories where easement holders and property holders are fighting it out in court over who controls the property, right, davewindsor? The thing is, I think those were happening in your dreams. In the real waking world, this is all settled law -- easement holders have their rights, property holders have their rights, and courts will enforce them according to property law established over many, many generations of precedents. Of course, you may be on to something I don't know about, but your case would be a whole lot stronger if you could point to some links about easement holders and property holders fighting over control. Then we could see whether those describe events occurring in, y'know, reality or... in your dreams.

[Coaccession]

When you're considering selling your wedding ring to pay your mortgage, you're really in trouble. Sadly, many in Metro Detroit don't believe they are married to the City of Detroit.

Well, East Detroit, if indeed anyone were suggesting Detroit consider the equivalent of selling its wedding ring to cover a couple of month's mortgage payments, that would indeed suggest Detroit's in trouble. In truth, Detroit has the equivalent of an attic full of masterpieces worth well more than its house. With some creativity, Detroit could live a lot better than it's living today, and it's certainly unseemly for it to ask for the neighbors' charity when it's got more wealth than they do, albeit with a current cash flow that doesn't cover all its expenses.

[Detroitnerd]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaauuuuuuuuuuuugggggghhhhhh!!!

[Coaccession]

Very good points, jiminnm, generally speaking, deserving a point-by-point response. Detroitnerd has already responded with typical erudition, and I'll post a fuller discussion in due course, but one glaring question leaps out:

... whether this is appropriate action for an entity that had been entrusted with the possession and preservation of public art...

The City of Detroit is indeed an an entity that has been entrusted with possessing and preserving public art, but it has higher responsibilities than that, such as public safety and health. Do those higher responsibilities oblige it to consider whether and how the wealth embedded in its public art can enhance public safety and health, among other things that may also be more important than its responsibilities to public art? Remember, while the City of Detroit owns museums, it is not itself a museum. That's a point many here are loathe to address, but you seem able and perhaps willing to engage on it.

[Baselinepunk]

At the sake of unnecessarily adding to the conflagration of Coaccessions ego; what he offers is typical from a person who has no, or very little, formal museum/repository training. He only has a superficial knowledge of cultural stewardship and only looks at situations like this through the lens of Capitalism. However, just as we have witnessed with the current Mayor and Governor; government cannot be run like a business. It sounds sexy to say that you can but in the end it just doesn't work -- they are so similiar that there is a wide valley between.

This whole "Monet for Money: Take Care of Your Debt for a Fee" concept is fatality flawed as exampled thoroughly from davefromwindsor's posit, and with the fact that this guy can't get any play for "his" concept from any willing repository both local and national. There are a fair amount of repositories that are in trouble; I have yet to come across a legitimate repository that has used this concept in the manner presented with any degree of success.

I've witnessed fresh undergrads take apart this concept in a matter of minutes. There is more to an object than dollar signs. "Conaccession" stands to make money if this concept is used; perhaps even posterity to save his failing career. Further, he has taken a real leap here; he has soiled his reputation and degree while peddling this BS.

Note that you cannot even get a direct answer when he is questioned about this concept; it's just the same ole BS. He's well practiced and has his pitch down pat. I've like to see him present this idea at the next Board Meeting and at a City Council meeting. Why waste your time here? Why not go right to the decision makers instead of a messageboard like this? That answer is simple: he is hoping to loop some folk into advocating this crap for him.

Conaccession is no different than BAMN, IMHO.

[davewindsor]

You've seen all those news stories where easement holders and property holders are fighting it out in court over who controls the property, right, davewindsor? The thing is, I think those were happening in your dreams. In the real waking world, this is all settled law -- easement holders have their rights, property holders have their rights, and courts will enforce them according to property law established over many, many generations of precedents. Of course, you may be on to something I don't know about, but your case would be a whole lot stronger if you could point to some links about easement holders and property holders fighting over control. Then we could see whether those describe events occurring in, y'know, reality or... in your dreams.

I live in reality. You're the one who's living in his dreams and fantasyland because you don't take into account that this is a highly litigious society and there are a lot of opportunists out there. It has gotten so bad that lawyers are willing to sue on contingencies instead of asking for retainers.

If the DIA sells 60,000 artwork ETFs, you're probably going to have 60,000 lawsuits. Opportunists love speculating and finding loopholes and playing with the law to get big payouts. It happens all the time and everywhere. Take, for instance, Michael Kelly, a shady land speculator who owns around 1,200 parcels of land in Detroit. http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...ing-of-Detroit There's tonnes of examples in the article of his opportunistic behavior. Take, for instance, a parcel of land he bought at a county tax sale for $1,100 in 2006 running next to the Pretty Lady Strip Lounge and then he got a $19,000 settlement from the neighbour by blocking their entrance. He bought a parcel of land for $95,000 in 2009 running through a factory and demanded $2m from Bridgewater Interiors.

There are so many opportunists out there and so many lawyers willing to take their cases that just by suggesting that ETF shareholders would retain ownership rights over artwork during bankruptcy you've opened the door a very costly legal nightmare for city and the taxpayer with your ridiculous ideas.

This is not settled law. The laws change all the time. You're living in fantasyland. The moment your ETF shares are sold to the public, you're going to have a tonne of opportunists who are going to gobble them up and start suing the city for ownership of the artwork so they can either get a huge settlement or force it's sale to foreign dealers for more money. And any money raised by ETF shares will lost being used to pay off lawyers and lawsuits.

[Baselinepunk]

"You're the one who's living in his dreams and fantasyland because you don't take into account that this is a highly litigious society and there are a lot of opportunists out there. It has gotten so bad that lawyers are willing to sue on contingencies instead of asking for retainers. "

Yet another good point.

I would not be surprised if Conaccession got sued in all of that as well, in the end. I can only imagine the supposed desperate repository that would employ this shoddy BS as a means to make ends meet; only to get burned then turn around and sue the living shit out of Conaccession for misrepresentation, misleading and for being an overall huckster.

I would surely bring the popcorn, and happily provide carpooling services to the courtroom gallery ...

[Wheels]

He would not be the purveyor He would just collect from the patten rites. Scott free and outa here.

[Coaccession]

...This is not settled law...

So you can't actually point to any wave of cases where property owners have taken over putatively-neglected easements, davewindsor. But you're sure this nightmare will happen to Detroit because... you see litigation everywhere! And all litigation is all the same because... your nightmares tell you so?

[Coaccession]

...There is more to an object than dollar signs...

There are dollar signs to an object? Gee, maybe the public should know something about those dollar signs! Detroit's CAFR says the City's 60,000+ art objects are worth... zero! Custer's Flag brought a couple million dollars into Detroit's coffers, and when the Founders Society promptly put that money into Amerindian artworks, they immediately appeared on Detroit's books valued at... zero! Now Baselinepunk tells us objects have dollar signs. Well, I for one hope the Founders Society will tell the public about those dollar signs as it asks for their votes on its millage.

[Coaccession]

...I would surely bring the popcorn...

Hey, Baselinepunk, I'd bring some of my own to your talk about how well things turned out in Fresno! Hey, at least the Founders Society sold off the Custer Flag at a time of their own choosing...

[gnome]

If I ever catch you walking the pavement here I promise to put my boot on your neck and hold it there until rats come by and gnaw off your face.

[Baselinepunk]

If I ever catch you walking the pavement here I promise to put my boot on your neck and hold it there until rats come by and gnaw off your face.

+2 gnome. Good show.


"Custer's Flag brought a couple million dollars into Detroit's coffers, and when the Founders Society promptly put that money into Amerindian artworks, they immediately appeared on Detroit's books valued at... zero! Now Baselinepunk tells us objects have dollar signs."

That's the way it rolls in a functional, ethcial repository. Get you head out of your Capitialist ass. This is a public, not for profit insitution.

Seriously? I'm the one who is telling everyone that objects have dollar signs? That's the foundation of your "concept"; you're trying to split and multiply that dollar sign.

Again, someone playing "cowboy" without knowing how the hat and cattle go together.

Typical Capitalist who has absolutely no idea about cultural stewardship.

"Hey, Baselinepunk, I'd bring some of my own to your talk about how well things turned out in Fresno!"

Oh, do tell. We're all waiting for some sort of "success story" of this lameass idea.

"Hey, at least the Founders Society sold off the Custer Flag at a time of their own choosing..."

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. That is not how that happened and you have absolutely no idea how repositories like the DIA function.

[Roq]

If I ever catch you walking the pavement here I promise to put my boot on your neck and hold it there until rats come by and gnaw off your face.

Thumbs up.

[Coaccession]

If I ever catch you walking the pavement here I promise to put my boot on your neck and hold it there until rats come by and gnaw off your face.

+2 gnome. Good show.

Thumbs up.

Such erudition!!! Arguments like that give me the greatest confidence in your opinions, and those of your confreres. You probably want to take away my patten rites too!

… {objects have dollar signs is} the way it rolls in a functional, ethcial repository.

Gee… and I distinctly remembering you telling me that's not the way it rolls...

That is not how {selling off the Custer Flag} happened and you have absolutely no idea how repositories like the DIA function.

Well, you told me an object lost its dollar signs as soon as it went in into a "functional, ethcial repository." Yet the Founders Society saw nothing but dollar signs in the Custer Flag… a public artifact highly-culturally-valued by many Detroiters and Michiganders that is now... in private hands, inaccessible to the public, thanks to the Founders Society's ethics. People pleaded with the Founders Society not to sell off Michigan history -- DIA history, even -- but the Founders Society said the Custer Flag isn't art, so it must go. Then people pleaded with the Founders Society to sell Michigan history to a Michigan history museum, but the Founders Society said we must take the high bid to buy as much art as possible, so it went to a private party. Then the Founders Society used the proceeds from the Custer Flag to buy Amerindian art because… they wanted to be popular with Tri-County voters so their millage would pass! How's that working? Hoping everyone has short memories?


I guess objects have dollar signs when it's convenient for you museum experts, and objects don't have dollar signs when that's convenient for you museum experts. And if anyone disagrees, it's time to put a boot on their neck. Nice of gnome to bring in gnawing rats too. That helps bring to mind the museum experts' imaginative vision of future performance art: "a boot stamping on a human face — forever." Because sometimes that's just the only way you can get some damn people to stop complaining about you having it both ways. You're entitled to have it both ways, aren't you, since you're not a capitalist. Right?

[gnome]

Listen pal, I'm about as big a fan of capitalism as you will ever find, I'm also a Republican and not afraid to say it; you sir redefine all labels save one: obnoxious blowhard.

Then the Founders Society used the proceeds from the Custer Flag to buy Amerindian art because… they wanted to be popular with Tri-County voters so their millage would pass!

See here is where a blowhard makes a critical error. See folks he makes it sound like he knows the members of the Founder Society, has sat in their meetings and took notes. These notes were so good he knows what the Founders were thinking.

A blowhard wants you to think he knows what he is talking about, tosses bon mots like Easter Eggs but prefers obtuse obfuscation to cloud the issue of his own opportunism.

You're not a capitalist. A capitalist believes in hard work and risk. You are a scrapper. A rabid dog. A mongrel of the lowest order.

[Coaccession]

You are a scrapper. A rabid dog. A mongrel of the lowest order.

More erudition! But you know, I was replying mostly to Baselinepunk about his points, including his denigration of capitalists. Your one point just prior to my reply to you, Baselinepunk and Roq -- boot on the neck, gnawing rats -- just suggests you don't much favor free speech, or at least free speech for your opponents... but then, free speech for thee but not for me isn't really free speech, is it? Your boot on the neck only touched on your attitude toward capitalism in that capitalism involves, among other things, a free flow of ideas... because ideas, after all, are what creates capital. New products, services and processes let people work smarter, so their hard work and risk pay off in greater productivity. But the future has its enemies, folks who'd rather suppress new ideas than examine them... people who put boots on necks, or substitute insults for arguments... people who think innovators deserve the reward of having their face gnawed by rats, rather than financial returns for developing a novel method. I wouldn't call folks like that capitalists. I don't think of you as one, no matter your protestations here. Actually, your attitude may be why you and Baselinepunk get along so well together.

I haven't sat in on any Founders Society meetings, but have read their policy -- if memory serves now -- that a board committee considers significant deaccessions, and the entire board considers major deaccessions, so I rather imagine the directors were not take unawares by the sale of the Custer Flag. Are you suggesting they were?

[davewindsor]

So you can't actually point to any wave of cases where property owners have taken over putatively-neglected easements, davewindsor. But you're sure this nightmare will happen to Detroit because... you see litigation everywhere! And all litigation is all the same because... your nightmares tell you so?

I don't have to provide specific cases. To change the status quo, the burden of proof is on you to prove that your poorly thought out, untested on any museum in the world system would be a benefit to the city [[and not a huge liability) which you miserably failed to do.

It wouldn't surprise me if you ever got your wish that you would be one of the first opportunists to buy ETF artwork shares with a couple of loan sharks and start suing the city for possession of the artwork or a huge settlement. But, that will never happen because most people are smart enough to see a scam and call it out for what it is, fantasyman. Just look at all the feedback to your hucksterism on this thread. Thanks for playing.

[Coaccession]

I don't have to provide specific cases.

True enough, davewindsor. If spreading baseless Fear,Uncertainty and Doubt about innovation is your only purpose, then any allegation will do, and no evidence or logic can possibly end the allegations. "Cases? Cases?!?! We don't need no stinkin' cases!!!!"

[Baselinepunk]

"Well, you told me an object lost its dollar signs as soon as it went in into a "functional, ethcial repository.""

I do not recall saying that.

" People pleaded with the Founders Society not to sell off Michigan history -- DIA history, even -- but the Founders Society said the Custer Flag isn't art, so it must go."

No, they did not. That's an assumption on your part. Further, that is not how deaccessions work.

"Then people pleaded with the Founders Society to sell Michigan history to a Michigan history museum, but the Founders Society said we must take the high bid to buy as much art as possible, so it went to a private party. "

There were some people who suggested this but it was far from the uproar you try and make it out to be. This is one of two flags recovered from that battle, and this flag was mostly out on loan. The purpose for the deaccession was to generate revenue to purchase other objects for the museum sand to care for the collection the flag came from, not to make money [[profit).

"Then the Founders Society used the proceeds from the Custer Flag to buy Amerindian art because… they wanted to be popular with Tri-County voters so their millage would pass! How's that working? Hoping everyone has short memories?"

That's complete bullshit. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

"I guess objects have dollar signs when it's convenient for you museum experts, and objects don't have dollar signs when that's convenient for you museum experts. And if anyone disagrees, it's time to put a boot on their neck."

False. You can try to use fallacies to sway the crowd. You must think folks on this board are as dumb as a bag of hammers. Not only is that untrue [[by far) but it's insulting as well.

The fact that people here and elsewhere do not agree with you is due to the fact that you don't know what you're talking about. You hold ZERO credibility in the museum field and are far from a person that should be offering financial advice to repositories. You can wave that Ph.D around all you want; it's clear that you only satisfied the minimum gpa requirements to realize that piece of paper.

Oh, BTW - - Seeing that you're on, like, your sixth hissy about this here on this board; I can only imagine just how beat up your reputation "out there" with so much personal information you've provided. Anyone who cares now knows who you are, and what you are. That can't be good for your bottom line [[read: pocket book).