Here at issue is the art gallery collection that is clearly a community resource, and as such is not the university’s to sell since the art was mostly donated with tax receipts.
The context is that Auditor General of Ontario has reviewed the evidence about the insolvency process and reported that the university leaders made an unnecessary choice. She demonstrated that the decisive cause of the university’s financial constraints came from ex-president Dominic Giroux’s accumulation of huge debts. She also stated that current president Robert Haché’s use of the Companies’ Creditor Arrangement Act (CCAA) only worsened the situation. Under the CCAA, the university has spent $24 million so far for consultations, lawyers and outside advisors that could and should have been spent on higher education. Those past mistakes should not be compounded by not dealing properly with assets at present.What has not been discussed sufficiently is the effect of the CCAA decisions on the community. The immediate impact on those who lost jobs or students who lost programs has been noted, but the larger economic impact on the City of Greater Sudbury has yet to be felt. If university enrolment continues to decline, local businesses will certainly be affected. Much publicity has rightly been given to the potential loss of greenspace surrounding the university. Some notice has been taken of the potential loss of one of the city’s few heritage buildings, the Bell Mansion and its grounds.The present board and administrators seem not to have given consideration to the terms written into the contract of this gift for $1 to the university by the Chamber of Commerce in 1967–1969. The terms dictate that it is to be maintained as a cultural centre or, as the contract says, the university must keep to the “spirit” of the agreement.
Recently, the question of the ownership of the art collection curated by the Art Gallery of Sudbury has also come into question. In a recent report of the monitor (Pg 11-12, click here to read), Ernst and Young of Toronto, which is handling the CCAA process before judge Morawetz of Toronto, some odd claims were made. The monitor claims the Art Gallery of Sudbury had not provided documentation to prove that it owns the art collection.The judge did not apply the same standard to the university, namely ask what documentation did the university produce to prove that it owned the collection, or simply held it in trust for the public which had donated it? In a dispute over property both sides usually have to produce evidence. In this and other aspects of the proceedings, the judge seems to demonstrate bias.
Once this issue came to public attention, under public pressure the university stated that it was not putting the art collection up for sale. That statement may be misleading, as pointed out by one of the participants, Mary Gordon, in the process of transition or divestment by the university of the collection to the art gallery in 1996–1997. She explained, in letters published by the local media, why the collection was not the university’s to sell, and why it belonged to the gallery, held in trust for the community.
Not being from our community, the judge and the monitor would not have known the background to this complex issue. However, one would think that with their legal training they would not simply accept one side’s word, but would examine the case in depth. The background to the gallery issue, which, while complicated, leads me to conclude the ownership of the collection technically rests with the university, but an obligation exists to assign it to the gallery.
Indeed, having mostly been donated under charity conditions, the collection is community property held in trust.
The background is that in 1966-1967, as a centennial project, the Sudbury Chamber of Commerce sought to create a cultural centre using the Bell Mansion as an anchor. They fundraised more than $100,000 to renovate the building after a fire had destroyed some of the interior. The contract that handed the building and grounds to the university for $1 was not finalized until 1969. That contract included that the university was to keep to the “spirit” of the gift and maintain a cultural and art education centre.The university duly organized the Laurentian University Museum and Art Centre (LUMAC). It hired an art curator. For 20 years that position was held by Pam Krueger who developed the gallery holdings into a reputable collection with strengths in Canadian and regional art. The Inuit print show recently held at the gallery is illustrative of the high quality.The collection, however, is not one unitary whole. It comprises art donated to or paid for by the university; it has art donated to and bought by LUMAC, and; it has art donated to and bought by the Art Gallery. The first consists of items such as the special Leland Bell mural in the entrance to the Fraser Auditorium at Laurentian and formal pictures of presidents and minor pieces in bequests. The second, the LUMAC collection which Krueger mainly developed through donations (though a former university president purchased 75 pictures for the collection), was transferred to the Art Gallery to curate as part of a transition when the gallery became independent of the university in 1996–1997. The third is items collected by the gallery since then. Illustrative of the LUMAC collection being part of the gallery, but acknowledging the original source of the art work, ownership information accompanying each piece in the recent Inuit show creditted “LUMAC/Art Gallery of Sudbury.”It did not say “Loaned by Laurentian University”. The same identification has been used for numerous exhibits over the years. Has Laurentian ever objected to this designation? Not as far as I know.
A sign by a picture, of course, does not prove ownership, but it does reflect that the university earlier agreed that the LUMAC collection was going to the gallery. Further proof is in the meetings held with the university during the transition. The university has the final agreement, but has it made the monitor and board aware of its contents? More people who were part of the group negotiating the terms by which the LUMAC collection went to the gallery may come forward to speak to the terms and intentions. The present board of governors has taken one proper step by saying it had no intention of trying to sell the collection. To avoid more legal entanglements, it needs to take the necessary second step and acknowledge that the LUMAC collection belongs to the Art Gallery of Sudbury. Let’s not spend more dollars meant for higher education in the courts. Instead, let’s focus on honouring agreements (keeping to the ‘spirit’) and doing what’s right for the Sudbury community. After I wrote the above using materials I had researched, two people who participated in the transition discussions — one as co-leader of the transition team and one as part of a large group known as Friends of LUMAC — provided me with additional detailed documentation covering the period 1995 to 2002. Some of the important facts and perspectives emerging from that material follow.In November 1995, after the curator of the gallery had been terminated and Laurentian insisted it could not afford the gallery, an advisory committee comprising university and community members discussed many aspects of the university’s involvement in community culture, LUMAC, Sudbury artists’ roles and what path forward might be taken. Included among the issues was “clarification needed with regards to legal ownership of LUMAC assets in relationship to public trust ownership” (from meeting of the Advisory Committee, LUMAC, November 27. 1995).The negotiations — including some bickering and disputes about the gallery, a consultant’s report and roles of interested parties — continued over the next two years. By January 1996, the discussions included the possibility of forming a new art centre, including a gallery and educational component, based in the Bell Mansion.
The university insisted on cutting its base funding, but provided bridging funds for the transition. The university board of governors agreed on Feb. 16, 1996, to support the development “of an independently funded and operated art facility.” It continued to be pointed out to the university that, since charity receipts had been given for donations, they had a collection “held in trust by you for the people of Ontario.”
The community group, which termed themselves Friends of LUMAC, pointed out those obligations again in an article in the Sudbury Star on April 9, 1996, and underscored that “nearly 100 per cent of the art in the collection has been donated by individuals.” By May 10 of that year, a transition team comprised of university and community members had been formed to organize an independent art centre. In its minutes of May 21, 1996, André LaCroix, board of governors representative, stated the assumption of the group is “that Laurentian should retain the ownership of the facilities and art collection until the new board is established.”That surely is an indication the mansion and the collection were intended to become gallery property. By June 1996, the university committed itself to supporting an Art Centre North corporation with the transition team overseeing the shift of responsibility from Laurentian to a community group.
Included in the university proposal was bridge funding of $100,000, transfer of a bequest (B.A. MacDonald house and assets), continuation of in-kind support services, rental of the LUMAC collection for $1 a year plus storage facilities and rental of the Bell estate for $1 a year “as long as Art Centre North is a viable entity.” The university’s continued contribution to Sudbury’s cultural development involved in this offer must be acknowledged. So, too, must the fact the art gallery that emerged from these negotiations has been “a viable entity.” In a letter dated Aug. 7, 1996, to fellow board of governor members, Mary Weaver wrote to remind them, “The board is accountable to the Sudbury community that it has fulfilled its obligations as a trustee for all the assets and for obligations imposed on us by document and by implication.”The board, then and now, is the trustee, not the owner, of the mansion and collection.
Generally, the terms detailed above became the basis on which the university and the later incorporated Art Gallery of Sudbury worked for the next years. Agreements were made to continue this cooperation, though I understand that despite the contracts not being officially renewed, the working relationship continued as defined originally.Two reflections emerge out of these and other documents.
First, Sudbury from the 1970s through the 1990s had many people passionately concerned about developing the cultural core of the city. They wanted to demonstrate that the image of Sudbury as lacking culture should and could be changed. They wanted to share and enjoy the arts.For example, despite the difficulties of finding funding and the lack of infrastructure, a cohesive group worked to build a professional theatre. Another community group stood up for the university art collection and then fought to establish an independent gallery, exhibiting art from local and national artists.
University faculty organized a film club to assure seeing more than Hollywood offerings. The struggle for a gallery represented merely one part of the many activities on the cultural front. Who pays for such endeavours has always been one of the contentious issues.
Second, the Art Gallery of Sudbury has successfully fulfilled the mandate assigned to it for 25 years. The art donated to LUMAC has been curated, shown and combined with more recent donations and purchases. Among many shows, including those of local artists, the Daphne Odjig exhibition in cooperation with the National Gallery or the Ivan Wheale retrospective, illustrate well the gallery’s efforts. Why not celebrate the gallery’s success and acknowledge that it has been a responsible custodian of the LUMAC collection by Laurentian? And why not also acknowledge that since most of the art was donated and hence is a public trust, technical ownership is not as significant as managing and using the collection including for art educational purposes. That would be in keeping the “spirit” in which civic-minded organizations and dedicated patrons gifted the Bell mansion and built LUMAC.Dr. Dieter K. Buse is Professor Emeritus, History, Laurentian University. He has published many studies on modern European history and more recently on our region, including Come on Over: Northeastern Ontario (co-authored with Graeme S. Mount; prize for best non-fiction study on northern Ontario, 2012)) and the two volume work, Untold: Northeastern Ontario’s Military Past vol. 1: 1662-World War I and vol. 2: World War II-Peacekeeping (available from Latitude 46, Sudbury; Ontario Historical Society award as best regional study in past three years, 2020). He served as Laurentian University’s Director of Graduate Studies and Research, 1992-97 and on the board of the Art Gallery, 2002-2006.
