.A Struggle For MAH’s Soul After Nina Simon

It’s never easy for an organization to move on from its leader of eight years, says Bella Babot, a trustee for the Museum of Art and History (MAH).

But it is especially difficult, Babot explains, when a nonprofit’s leader is a visionary who’s as dynamic as Nina Simon, the former executive director of the Santa Cruz MAH, who announced in November that she would be moving on from her post.

“Every organization has got to push reset and understand exactly what the role is, because under Nina, it’s one role,” she says. “But maybe there’s an evolution around there. Maybe we want to tweak that role a little bit.” 

Those “tweaks” have apparently proven tricky to master to everyone’s liking. That’s evidenced by the fact that the museum still hasn’t hired a full-time executive director 10 months after Simon told the board she was leaving.

The museum, no doubt, has weathered more challenging storms in the past. It was in financial turmoil when Simon was hired in 2011. She quickly righted the ship, and under her leadership, the budget grew to $2.5 million from $700,000 in 2011, says Interim Executive Director Antonia Franco, who served on the board for three years before she was appointed to the temporary post in July. Attendance grew exponentially over Simon’s eight-year run, Franco adds.

secure document shredding

In addition to the overall positive trends, there were several noteworthy moments in Simon’s tenure at the MAH. The museum brought back to Santa Cruz the first surfboards ever surfed outside of Hawaii. Those boards were shaped locally and ridden by three Hawaiian princes at Santa Cruz’s San Lorenzo River mouth in 1885. The museum also has hosted social justice-oriented exhibits, including one about the challenges of foster youth and another about seniors in isolation that’s on currently on display. Among her many other successes, Simon spearheaded the reinvention of Abbott Square—from a quiet, mostly forgotten concrete slab into a food court and bustling community space.

Simon’s departure, though, left a vacuum in an organization known for thinking big. Now, a new letter from influential county residents is attempting to push the MAH in a different direction. With no full-time director at the helm, the MAH’s leaders, donors and fans have begun asking big-picture questions—about management, transparency, what constitutes art, and the balance between honoring the past and looking into the future.


On Sept. 3, Former MAH Board President Wayne Palmer emailed a letter to the museum’s current Board of Trustees.

He included a statement with 101 signatures from former board members, donors and community members, including former Redevelopment Director Ceil Cerillo, former Capitola Mayor Gayle Ortiz, and philanthropists Pat and Rowland Rebele.

The statement argues that the museum has strayed from its art and history focus. 

Palmer admits that, in a way, he and his long list of acquaintances are “stirring the pot” with this letter. He assumes that current staffers and ardent supporters of the MAH have scoffed at it, and are snickering about how he doesn’t understand the changing world of art.

Since early April, the exhibit We’re Still Here: Stories of Seniors and Social Isolation has been on display in the second-floor Solari Gallery, offering an examination of how an aging population experiences loneliness. Artists took input from 186 senior citizens for interactive features, including rotary phones that guests can hold up to their ears to listen to pre-recorded words of wisdom from local seniors. If I’m being honest, I found it hard to walk through the exhibit without getting a little choked up.

But critics like Palmer believe that type of exhibit would be better suited for a community forum like Louden Nelson Community Center, not an art museum. 

In recent years, the museum also overhauled its history gallery to diversify and incorporate more voices from more people of color. 

However, some community members, like the History Forum’s Cynthia Rees—a longtime donor—say they are frustrated by how the transition was handled. Rees says the History Forum should have been asked for more input. “It’s unrecognizable compared to what it used to be,” she says.

Simon has not read the letter. She glanced briefly at it and decided that she has heard similar criticisms for years about the changes at the museum. She says she always focused on bringing in high-quality exhibits, even if some of them are different than shows that may have come through in the past.

“Our commitment to great art and history hasn’t wavered, but many of the great shows we showcased were by people who were not white, who were not men, and people who had radical new ways of looking at things,” Simon says. “I don’t see this as an issue about art and history. I see this as an issue of elitism and gatekeeping.”

The MAH, she notes, has become renowned worldwide as a vibrant, multicultural venue that gives a platform to new voices and welcomes those who may have never set foot in a museum before. The British Arts Marketing Association released a case study of the MAH’s business and engagement strategies in 2015, deeming its approach “future-proof” in a changing world. 

Simon has continued evangelizing her vision for museums with a new nonprofit she’s started called Of/By/For All, a movement she’s working on to help make public institutions “more relevant, resilient, and inclusive,” according to its website.


In the wake of the letter to the MAH, critics are talking about other issues as well.

One issue raised by Palmer and donors like Rees is financial transparency. Although some figures are available on the museum website, the MAH hasn’t released an annual report in recent years. Franco is working on a “State of the MAH” report, which will come out in the next couple of weeks. She says that the museum will release a full report in June 2020.

The statement from Palmer also discusses plaques with donor names that are no longer hanging in the museum. MAH Trustees Peter Orr and Ken Doctor both say the donor names came down, and that, however that decision transpired, it was wrong. Franco says she is “doing the research right now” to determine how many names came down.

Simon insists that if any names did come down, it wasn’t during her tenure. The one exception, she says, is that, in the transition to build Abbott Square, staff did mistakenly take down a sign honoring Santa Cruz County Supervisor Bruce McPherson’s family, whose generous gift helped make the whole museum possible in the first place. When she realized what had happened, Simon worked with McPherson to put a new sign up. She says that she’s found no record of any of the other donor names coming down at the MAH during her tenure.

When reached for comment, McPherson reviewed his own records and sent GT a list of names that he says did come down from the walls. “I would like to see them recognized,” McPherson says. “What happened or when it happened—I don’t know,” 

Historian Geoffrey Dunn, who has supported Simon, thinks the criticisms have been overblown and unfair. 

“The complaints sound somewhere between bullshit and imbecilic to me,” Dunn, a GT contributor, writes in an email. “I could ask why organizations like the History Forum and the Santa Cruz Symphony aren’t more inclusive and reflective of the diversity of Santa Cruz County, but I don’t, because what’s the point? I’m intolerant of pettiness. If any plaques were taken down, put them back. Issue an annual report and financials. Simple. This isn’t rocket science. May 100 flowers bloom.”


Late last year, the MAH formed a recruitment committee—made up primarily of board members, but also with a couple of community members—to search for the museum’s next executive director.

Before they got started, the museum hired a recruitment firm. Committee members took input from the rest of the board, from donors and from staff on what they would all like to see in the next director and where they think the museum should go.

The committee did a few rounds of interviews, bringing in community members to help with interviews, and some staffers came to meet the candidates, says Trustee Ken Doctor, who led the recruitment committee. Committee members winnowed down the field from dozens of applicants, he says, to just two finalists, both of them women. But when the staff found out who the two finalists were, some administrators expressed dismay, and threatened to shut down the museum in protest, Doctor says. Both applicants withdrew their names from consideration.

“That pretty well chilled the process,” Doctor says. “As you can imagine, there was a lot of consternation about it.”

That is when the museum pushed the “reset” button, as Babot puts it. She adds that one of the two finalists was unsure if she was really ready to move to Santa Cruz, anyway—which was another reason to put everything on hold.

Going forward, Babot and fellow Trustee Peter Orr say that with the MAH under Franco’s careful guidance, trustees have the opportunity to take their time in finding its next leader—with a healthy dose of community involvement and discussions about what’s next.

“Everyone’s heart’s in the right place,” Orr says, “and we’re gonna restart the process when we’re ready, when we’re comfortable, and we have all our ducks in alignment.”


  1. actually the vision of the museum was given to her already though out by the volunteer committee which she managed to disband as soon as she got hold of the museum… all the credit got to her as if she did it all by herself.
    what an irony. be at the right place at the right time.

    • bbh, your statement is patently false. The reason she was hired was because of the vision that she pitched to the then board of directors. Ask any one of the team members that hired her. Oh yeah, look at her work and vision long *before* she applied for the job! You’ll see that it matches with what she applied to the museum!

  2. Burt Rees, former History Forum President & founding donor, was not quoted in the MAH article despite news editor’s request. Important information is lacking or misquoted. The History Forum donated $10,000 to refurbish the History Museum. New installations were done by a curator. They were subsequently ripped out; the museum today is not recognizable as it was. Donor names were also removed. Nina denies in the article that she was aware of the changes. How can this be, she was executive director and made decisions. This is dishonest misuse of designated funds. Nina also denies that she knew anything about donor plaque removal while she was director. Unfortunately, the MAH has seriously damaged the relationship with the community who built and have continuously supported the museum. I sincerely hope our museum can include some of Nina Simon’s innovations together with, not at the expense of, the original purpose for which MAH was founded.

    • CCR, I’d like to address your comments as a volunteer at the MAH for over 15 years and one who is well acquainted with a couple of the directors of the board who were there at the beginning of Nina’s hiring.

      I’m not sure what time-frame you are talking about when referring to the $10,000 refurbishment of the History Gallery. If you are referring to the design done by Nikki Silva, that was well over 20 years ago. A few years ago, yes, the gallery was completely made-over although several areas were kept intact. The gallery now feels more spacious and the focus has become more community oriented as it has to do with history. I do think the level of refinement that Nikki brought to the gallery is missing. I hope improvements are made.

      Donor names: where have they been removed from!? There is that huge round plaque in the atrium that was not removed, although there was talk about it. How long do you need to see your name up there and where is there room for new substantial donor’s names? Do you get to be honored in perpetuity because you were one of the first donors? Maybe, but never mind. Nina certainly did not knowing remove donor names. If she is nothing else, she is honest. Also, “a dishonest misuse of designated funds” makes no sense. I’m not seeing your context.

      The MAH is (still) thriving so much more than it ever had. If you feel Nina has damaged the relationship of the original supporters that’s sad. But think of this: the museum would not exist if Nina hadn’t come along and involved the community. Paul Figueroa ran the museum into the ground and it was just a few months away from going bankrupt (there are other reasons for his quick exit.) All the donor names/donor plaques would have disappeared for good. The museum would not exit today had it not been for Nina.

  3. Please!!! The names WERE removed. We all noticed it without any prompting. I was part of the original fundraising committee back before the earthquake, so I know how we went from donor to donor, promising the naming rights if they would give $50,000 or $100,000 or $200,000. or a million dollars. These people expected that their names would be kept as gallery names or classroom names. Yes, the big circular donor list is still in the lobby. But that’s not the same. By your logic, we should remove the name of Louden Nelson from his named community center because it’s been there long enough. Or the Cowell Foundation should remove the name of Cowell College because, well, it’s been long enough.

    Did Simon have a creative vision? Yes. I loved many of the exhibitions and activities that opened the museum to more people… including those who normally don;t visit a museum. It became more inclusive and more relevant. After all, art is more than framed paintings hung on walls in silent galleries. Art is the expression of human creativity, and that should encompass whatever form it happens to take.

    But don’t say that donor names were not removed. It was embarrassing and it did not compel people to donate any further.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Good Times E-edition Good Times E-edition
music in the park san jose