When the Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington — one of the nation’s oldest privately supported museums — announced in May that its artwork, landmark building and venerable school would be taken over by the National Gallery of Art and George Washington University, the arrangement was presented as a done deal.  But on Wednesday, a group of museum donors, current and former students, and former faculty and staff members went to court to try to block the dismantling of the Corcoran, saying it would violate the 1869 deed and the charter of the museum’s founder, William W. Corcoran, a banker who gave his art for the “perpetual establishment and maintenance of a public gallery and museum” to promote painting, sculpture and other fine arts. The opponents, members of a group called Save the Corcoran, contend in court papers that museum trustees want to “commit the gravest form of fiduciary breach: to destroy the very institution they are charged with protecting.”  Officials at the Corcoran — which has run operating deficits for more than a decade — filed papers last month asking to override Corcoran’s 1869 deed, saying it was “financially impossible” to carry on the museum and school in their present form and that they believe the plan is the “most closely aligned with the original intent of Mr. Corcoran.”  Under the deal announced in May, which must be approved by a District of Columbia judge, the defunct Corcoran would cede its collection of more than 17,000 pieces, rich in American art, to the National Gallery, its much larger neighbor. The National Gallery would preserve a “Legacy Gallery” within the Corcoran’s building on 17th Street, a block from the White House, and organize its own exhibitions of modern and contemporary art there. The much-admired building would become the property of George Washington University, which would use it for classes for students of the Corcoran College of Art + Design.  Opponents contend that the Corcoran would exist as little more than a name under the plan and that the historic building would no longer function as a museum.  They also claim in court papers that in recent years the Corcoran’s board has put scant effort into fund-raising and has mismanaged the institution’s money through “self-dealing, conflicts of interest, hiring unqualified management and profligate spending on consultants whose advice was ultimately ignored.”  As an example of mismanagement claimed in the suit, opponents say that a neighbor of the Corcoran’s board chairman, Harry F. Hopper III, was hired to be the Corcoran’s chief of operations in 2011, though the woman had a background in “homeland-security contracting, not museum operations or organizations involved in the arts.”  As finances dwindled, the board explored selling the 17th Street building and relocating the museum to Alexandria, Va., or elsewhere; it later explored a partnership with the University of Maryland that failed to materialize.  A spokeswoman for the Corcoran said Wednesday morning that the museum’s lawyers had not had a chance to review the new court papers and would not have a comment until they had done so.  The opponents argue that as bad as the financial situation is, “the charitable purpose of the trust may yet be practicable, if managed properly,” and they ask the judge, Robert Okun, of the District of Columbia Superior Court, to prevent a “midsummer rush to judgment” by closely examining the Corcoran’s financial records. “If one of the oldest and most vaunted art museums in Washington, D.C., is permitted to disappear overnight,” the opponents said in court papers, “the public interest demands that such an undertaking proceed with the utmost consideration and with due regard for all interested voices.”  Jayme McLellan, an artist who has taught at the school for many years and is a leader of the opposition, said in an interview that “the Corcoran hasn’t had a series of checks and balances for decades — it’s been run like a mom and pop shop or a small gallery.”  The museum’s situation echoes in some respects that of the Barnes Foundation, created in a Philadelphia suburb in 1922 by another wealthy collector, Albert C. Barnes, who died in 1951. The foundation, in financial trouble, waged a long court battle beginning in 2002 to override the wishes of Barnes, who stipulated that none of the paintings in the collection could be lent, sold or moved. But the foundation prevailed and relocated the works to a new building in downtown Philadelphia.  In the case of the Corcoran, the most important parts of the collection would go to the National Gallery and would be identified as Corcoran works, though how many of them would be displayed and how often would be determined by the National Gallery. Other works that the National Gallery would not be able to absorb would be dispersed to other museums, with a preference for keeping them in Washington. Earl A. Powell III, the director of the National Gallery, has said that “more art probably will be in the public view in these arrangements than before” and praised the arrangement for creating what he called “one of the great collections — if not the greatest collection — of American art in the country.”  As in the Barnes case, at issue is whether the opponents to the plan have legal standing to block it. In court papers, Corcoran patrons, students and others opposing the move argue that they have “crucial rights, legal obligations and financial and reputational interests at stake.” The attorney general for the District of Columbia, which is charged with oversight of charitable institutions, has been in discussions with the Corcoran’s trustees and has expressed no opposition thus far to the dissolution plan. In interviews, former and current Corcoran staff members describe a steady downward spiral for the institution that began after a hugely ambitious plan to build a $170 million addition to the museum, designed by Frank Gehry, fell apart in 2005 amid fund-raising shortfalls and board disagreements. Patrons with substantial resources left the board; trustees struggled to meet operating expenses and turned toward selling museum-owned land as one stopgap fund-raising measure. But opponents to the planned merger contend that the institution — with its renowned Beaux-Arts building, world-class collection and status as a revered Washington art destination — could have dug itself out of the hole if trustees had worked hard enough, managed properly and sought new benefactors.  “There really needs to be an independent review,” said Carolyn Campbell, the museum’s first public relations chief in the 1970s and 1980s, and who is a party to the opposition lawsuit. “We need to figure out what’s really happened there.”  A version of this article appears in print on July 3, 2014, on page C1 of the New York edition with the headline: Suit Seeks To Block Corcoran Takeover . Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe
Opponents of the plan to fold the historic Corcoran Gallery in Washington into the National Gallery have filed a lawsuit criticizing the museum’s board.