"The Friends have never claimed a right to dictate policies to NML. That is clearly not the Friends role. They are however intelligent people - some of them quite influential in the city - and see no reason why they should not express their views constructively in contacts with museum staff or elsewhere. They do not accept that public officials are the fount of all good ideas or that public bodies should attempt to sway public opinion in particular directions.

"In an article in the Museums Journal in June 2008, the Director stated that relations with the Friends were not good for several years. I myself was not on the Friends committee at the time of his appointment as Director but I have to say that according to information from a number of people who were, the Friends’ relations with his predecessor were extremely close and cordial, which has never been the case with the present incumbent.

"National Museums Liverpool and lovers of art and maritime history in the city are the losers from the NML Trust’s action in breaking off relations with the Friends. NML loses a source of funds, the service of volunteers, some of them highly qualified technically, and of informed constructive opinion, which will not be replaced by the in-house supporters’ organisation which NML has now set up. The Trust should examine its conscience over the matter. Why did it take the Director’s recommendation to break off relations with Friends without attempting to discuss the matter with the Friends? Why did all but two of them fail to respond to or even acknowledge my letter? Why did none of the Trustees attempt to contact the Friends’ officers until last December when a meeting was offered at one day’s notice, on a date when the Friends’ officers happened not to be available? Is this how government appointed Trustees are expected to carry out their responsibilities?"

Andrew Pearce

22 Jan 2009