By Marsha Semmel

This article was published in Museum News, November/December 2002.

The late summer of 2001 signaled a turning point for the Women of the West Museum. As we conducted our annual strategic planning assessments, we observed both accumulating achievements and some sobering indicators, which led us to a decision that would have seemed unthinkable only a few months before. We resolved to pursue a merger with another museum. We took this path to preserve and sustain our mission to “discover, explore, and communicate the continuing roles of women in shaping the American West.” The decision required our board and staff to redefine what “growth” and “survival” meant for our museum and to explore new ways to achieve success in a rapidly changing environment. This article tells the story of the museum’s decision and the merger process.

Background

I was hired as the museum’s first director in January 1998, and by 2001 had already taken our trustees through a major repositioning. The museum had been established in 1991 with a mission to be “the world’s leading institution devoted to tracing and interpreting the multicultural history and contributions of women in the American West.” But the original plans for a stand-alone, 100,000-square-foot, strikingly modern building in Boulder, Colo., became enmeshed in a protracted multi-year controversy over the proposed site on the city’s south side. Although a new site, on the University of Colorado’s research park campus, had been secured in 1996, it came with a multi-million dollar price tag, and the total project costs were estimated at $50 million. Generous donations by a number of individuals and corporations had supported a feasibility study, architectural and early programmatic planning, and initial operating costs, and the museum continued to look for “angels” with pockets deep enough to provide the required significant capital support. “We wanted to be a national institution with the usual large facility,” says Jane Butcher, former chair of the museum’s board. “We were going to tell the stories of all women of the American West. We presumed that once our plans were announced, the money would flow in to such a marvelous idea.”

An extended planning process launched on my arrival—helped by important advice from a number of museum veterans—focused on developing a series of short- and long-term goals principally directed at increasing the museum’s “value added” to our local and national audiences and to potential stakeholders. This strategic redirection took shape over time, as we assessed broad environmental indicators, such as changes in people’s leisure-time activities and behaviors; got a “reality check” on the costs of operating and sustaining the proposed building; and recognized that it was highly unlikely that we could achieve a national competitive “edge” in the collections arena.

As a result, we made a bold decision: the Women of the West Museum would exist, for the most part, in the community and on the Web.

We began a series of programs that would leverage the power of new technologies and organizational collaborations. These programs were designed to engage the museum as an active participant in our community; achieve some immediate and visible “successes” in the wake of the extended controversy over the museum’s original site; and establish public trust in the museum as a substantive, knowledgeable, and community-minded institution whose educational goals were paramount and central. We wanted to show ourselves as a new kind of museum, an entrepreneurial organization that created original products drawing on solid scholarship, interactive learning strategies, innovative artistic interpretation, and the rich and relevant artifact and documentary holdings of other institutions. Our goal was to demonstrate that the museum cared about its audiences, could develop imaginative programs that affected people’s lives, and filled a need that was not being addressed by other institutions. We specifically wanted to show the value of learning about women’s history and culture in elementary and secondary schools, where such materials were almost nonexistent.

In late 1998 and 1999, we designed, launched, and received kudos for our Web site (www.wowmuseum.org, later www.womenofthewest.org). Working with such partners as the Denver Public Schools, I Have A Dream Foundation, Boulder Public Library, Boulder Museum of Contemporary Art, and the Nebraska Historical Society, we developed materials for educators; online exhibits; original contemporary art projects; and a statewide traveling exhibit, “Drawn Together: Women Make Art in the American West.”

This process of institutional reinvention tapped the expertise of a number of leaders in the museum field—including Harold and Susan Skramstad, Selma Thomas, Paul Richard, and Jane Clark Chermayeff—as well as noted scholars and artists. These consultants worked with our small but talented staff and our partner organizations to develop programs and exhibits online and on site at schools, libraries, community organizations, and other museums. Most of our activities took place in Colorado, although our history trail project also found a New Mexico venue and the online exhibits reached an international audience.

Our public transition into a new kind of entrepreneurial organization generally found favor with program audiences, participating educators and students, our donors and peers, the local and national media, and an ever-widening group of foundations, government agencies, and corporations. But the new identity also engendered some confusion and uncertainty. We continually had to answer questions about the original plan for a museum building, which had been heavily promoted during its development and remained in the news during the controversy over the site. Indeed, these questions were heard within the board room as well, with some trustees, including the museum’s founders, intent on continuing with the original project plans despite the lack of major capital support. In January 2000, the board endured a painful split, with the remaining majority committed to our new programmatic emphasis.

That March, the trustees recognized our successes at a planning retreat that focused not on a museum building but on audiences served, and the resulting strategic plan affirmed continuing the “museum without walls” concept. By July 2001, we had relocated our offices to downtown Denver; created a new graphic “look and feel” for the museum; launched additional programs, with others in the pipeline; and ascertained significant interest statewide and nationally in our future exhibits. We began a membership program; recruited strong staff in the areas of fund raising, marketing, and finance; and advertised in Aviso for a program director. Our new development director, Julia Fitz-Randolph, was raring to go: “We had a quality program and product to deliver.”

Things seemed to be good. But, were they? We were buoyed by our successes and committed to going the distance with our revised concept. But we knew that a significant amount of operating support to the museum would end in December 2001, when the donors’ pledges were fulfilled. We needed to find fresh funding and a larger and more secure revenue stream. 

We tried many things, including a campaign for new major donors, and we achieved a modicum of success. Unfortunately, the economy’s shortfalls (especially in Denver and Boulder, where there is great dependence on the telecom and high-tech industries) and the general downturn in the stock market (even before Sept. 11) did not help our cause. Several enthusiastic supporters already had board and financial commitments to other cultural and educational organizations. Other potential donors, including some national foundations, wanted to see more of a sustained programmatic track record before taking the risk. Then, in the wake of Sept. 11, funders began cutting back as their resources were shrinking or being redirected.

We understood that it would fall to our inner circle to provide ongoing support. Yet our trustees had given generously already, were watching the value of their own portfolios diminish, and perhaps most important, were weary with the uphill climb to achieve the museum’s success. The trustees’ fatigue contributed to my own version of burnout. I had come to believe that even with increasing grants and contributions from a broader pool of funders, it would be some time before we could attract the significant support required to grow and sustain the museum. We were earning trust and respect “beyond the family,” but it was coming slowly. We needed to look beyond our programmatic successes and think proactively about our long-term prospects.

Accordingly, in early October 2001, I had a frank discussion with board chair Tish Winsor and her predecessor, Jane Butcher. I told them that I had decided to step down, but would remain for six months to ensure a smooth transition. The three of us had a close working relationship, and Winsor and Butcher were sad to hear my news. But they agreed that it was time for a sober assessment of institutional viability and potentially dramatic action. “I wasn’t surprised by her announcement,” says Winsor. “[Marsha] had done a lot of heavy lifting for the museum. She had been inventive, collaborative, and flexible in order to fulfill our mission. She also understood the obstacles we faced. What we needed was a realistic plan to save the museum’s mission and programs in a sustainable organizational structure.”

Deciding to Merge

Winsor and I revised the agenda for our October board meeting to focus on options for the museum’s future. We met with our lawyer, who drafted a helpful background memorandum outlining the legal and financial implications of possible next steps, including merger or dissolution. We also got advice about communications strategy from Sharon Sherman, a veteran Denver-based communications consultant. I briefed the staff about our options. At the board meeting, we presented and discussed (with costs, timelines, and implications) four potential scenarios: continue at a current (or slightly reduced) level; pare down dramatically and continue to operate; merge with another 501(c)3 organization; or dissolve the museum.

Although some trustees argued for the “dramatic downsizing” option, most believed that a merger was the most viable strategy. After an extended discussion, the board voted unanimously to look for a merger partner. Winsor appointed a four-person task force (three trustees and me) to prioritize the key merger criteria; identify, approach, and negotiate with potential partners; and draft (with legal counsel) a merger agreement for board approval. We agreed to keep the entire board fully informed through regular updates and the process (and the identity of potential partners) confidential, and set a six-month timeframe for completion of the merger. 

Merger Criteria

By Oct. 31, 2001, the task force had identified the principal criteria for the merger partner: national stature and reach, with high standards of educational, curatorial, and/or academic excellence and achievement; commitment to move the museum’s mission and vision forward in a timely manner; a focus on public audiences; and demonstrated financial stability. What drove the process from the outset was a commitment to safeguarding and sustaining the mission of the museum and finding the right “fit.” All involved checked their egos at the door. Beyond mission, we wanted to ensure continuation of key Women of the West programs, such as our exhibits, educational projects, and the Butcher Scholar Award (which supports new research on women in the American West); and recognition of past major donors. “It was the quality of programs we decided to save by merging,” says Butcher. We recognized that a powerful incentive to a prospective partner—in addition to our mission, program ming achievements, donor and member database, and small but significant library—was more than $1 million in set-aside funds.

Choosing the Merger Partner

Some trustees thought it essential to keep the museum in the state; others, citing the museum’s regional focus, favored mission compatibility and national influence over a Colorado location. In the end, all agreed that the partner needed to have a compatible purpose and values, especially regarding our focus on the diversity of the western experience. Our task was easier because we did not have a physical facility and major artifact holdings: it made sense for our assets—online programs, educational materials, traveling exhibits, and funds—to be incorporated into an existing institution with the complementary strengths of an imposing facility, substantial collections, a strong exhibition and research track record, and a healthy endowment. We drafted a short memorandum outlining our criteria, and we made our initial and principal contacts with three institutions we’d worked with in the past, two in Colorado and one in California.

After several weeks of talks, it became clear that the Autry Museum of Western Heritage in Los Angeles was the ideal merger partner for the Women of the West Museum. Our respective missions had a “hand-in-glove” compatibility. The Autry’s respected exhibitions, publications, and research and education programs explored the ethnic, racial, and gender diversity of the West, past to present. We could easily envision the integration of the two organizations; the seamless fit was not as apparent with the other merger candidates. Autry CEO John Gray and I agreed that there was enough potential mutual benefit to a merger, and in early December the task force flew to Los Angeles, where we met with Gray, Autry founding director Joanne Hale, and other museum staff. We toured the Autry facilities, had a day of frank conversation, and learned more about the Autry’s current projects and future plans.

Late in December, our trustees voted unanimously that the task force should pursue the merger with the Autry Museum. We spent January through March in a series of meetings and conversations that deepened and strengthened the relationship. In February, Gray came to Colorado to meet some Women of the West trustees, and he contacted others by phone. Gray also shared the news with Autry staff and volunteers, who were “thrilled by the prospect” of the merger and eager to know exactly what it meant for future programs and exhibits. Many were already familiar with the Women of the West Web site. Throughout, the two CEOs drove the process, working closely with board, staff, and legal counsels. As Gray recalls, “We agreed on the reason. We agreed on the purpose. We had a clear and open discussion. We figured out how to make it work.”

In a series of conversations and e-mails, we hammered out the major aspects of the merger:

• Assumption of mission. The Autry would use Women of the West Museum assets to continue to support our mission.
• Endowed curatorial position. Rather than create a dedicated space within the Autry for Women of the West exhibits, we opted to set aside $1 million of our funds—matched by an equal contribution of new Autry funds—to create the Autry’s first endowed curatorial position, a senior-level post whose occupant would champion the Women of the West’s mission in a variety of programs and settings.
• Continuation of the Butcher Scholar Award in support of research and scholarship on women in the West.
• Continuation of various Women of the West Museum online and educational programs and exhibits.
• Creation of a Women of the West archive within the Autry.
• Governance. Four Women of the West Museum trustees to join the Autry Board of Trustees.
• Recognition. Major Women of the West Museum donors to be acknowledged in Autry publications and permanently within the museum.
• Reciprocal membership. All Women of the West Museum members to enjoy full membership privileges at the Autry.

Communications

Our communications plan was a key component of the merger process. We decided to withhold a public announcement until the merger was formally approved, but we let our stakeholders know that we were pursuing a merger, considered this a positive and strategic decision that would move the museum’s work forward, and had developed a thoughtful and systematic process to achieve our goal. By February 2002, we were working closely with our Autry counterparts on all aspects of media relations.
 

Conclusion

In early March 2002, the boards of trustees of both museums approved the merger and announced it to members, donors, and the public. The Autry wasted no time in welcoming Women of the West Museum members to its ranks and hanging the announcement banner in its entrance. By the first week in April, Autry staff had arrived at our museum offices, the vans had been packed, and the museum’s assets shipped off to southern California. In June, the four newest Autry trustees attended their first Autry board meeting.

Museum members and major stakeholders were virtually unanimous in their support for the merger. Some local women’s advocates and early supporters expressed disappointment that the project would be leaving Colorado, but they, too, understood.

Because the Women of the West Museum was a fledgling institution without a permanent home or established collection—and without the challenges of blending two staffs—our merger process was easier than some. Still, our trustees, employees, members, and supporters had a strong commitment to our vision and were proud of the many things that we had achieved in a relatively short time. We had put the museum on the map. Hence, the merger decision, even with its positive outcome, was not without the bittersweet feelings that inevitably accompany the abandonment of an original dream. As Jane Butcher recalls, “We tried every way to . . . tell the stories that we know are crucial to the history of this country and therefore the future.” Our trustees had given significantly to the enterprise, celebrated our successes, and remained dedicated to making the museum a living entity, true to its mission. Fortunately, they were also realistic, committed to ensuring the future of the organization, and considered their stewardship responsibilities with seriousness and purpose. Tish Winsor believes that the “merger was a real opportunity to do what needed to be done” and that sometimes it is necessary “to take cultural institutions and group them together for the benefit of the community.”

Mergers, of course, are not merely cookbook exercises, following a prescribed path or method. They are about people as well as organizations, and in many ways they resemble a courtship, requiring the right combination of partners, timing, resources, readiness, and leadership. With regard to our experience, on balance, all parties are satisfied with the results. For both museums, the merger served important strategic purposes. We were a good match, we crafted a workable road map to drive the process, and we never lost track of the “North Star” of mission and vision. In an ever-changing and ever-challenging cultural landscape, our experiences may provide some useful alternatives for other museums at organizational crossroads.

Editor’s note: For additional resources on this topic, please go to the members-only section of the AAM Web site at www.aam-us.org.