Turek was quietly replaced by his second-in-command, David Drent, who has now worked for 40 years at the War Memorial, including 15 as executive director. You might say change comes slowly to the War Memorial.

Meanwhile, the War Memorial has been slowly rotting. Back in 1994, a study of the facility by Kahler Slater architects and developer Gary Grunau found major problems at the 1957 facility and its 1975 Kahler addition. The study found $5.5 million was needed for repairs to the exterior and interior of the War Memorial, including nearly $1 million to replace the leaky art museum roof, which has allowed water into some gallery space.  Other repairs were needed to air conditioning and duct work, the report said, noting the museum “has a very dirty air distribution and duct system that contributes to a musty odor.”

The problems went back many years and had been slowly allowed to get worse. Then county supervisor Tom Bailey recommended Milwaukee County budget $7 million for the problem, but his proposal failed.

Milwaukee Art Museum officials would periodically complain that its art collection was at risk from the water damage and other problems, but nothing was done. In September 2007, water damage caused floors to buckle in the Kahler addition. Drent’s response was lethargic: “I don’t know if there’s a magic pill on this one,” he said. “But we need to find ways to minimize the damage.”

A 2005 editorial by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel about the facility’s problems suggested creating a public-private partnership that would enlist the aid of veterans groups to solve the problem. After all, local veterans groups had donated to other causes; why not to the city’s most important war memorial? The natural person to organize the effort would have been Drent, but no such campaign ever materialized.

Milwaukee's Lakefront

That, in essence, is what Milwaukee Art Museum art director Dan Keegan is proposing: the museum would raise $15 million in private dollars and the county would kick in $9.8 million (with much of the county money going to finally repair the same old problems). But Drent, who has in the past supported more funding from the county, now opposes the idea since Keegan’s plan calls for the museum to take over operation of the War Memorial. Keegan notes, reasonably enough, that the museum can’t spend money to repair and renovate a facility it doesn’t control — and whose landlord, he might have added, has long stood by as the museum’s art collection was periodically threatened by water damage.

“You’ve heard our plan,” Keegan says. “What is David Drent’s plan? I haven’t heard it yet.”

Drent will only say he needs more time: “We’re trying to figure out what we can do. It’s just very complicated.”

A county audit has suggested there are efficiencies to be realized if the museum and War Memorial merged operations. But Drent could lose his job — he earns $110,000 annually — if the museum took over the War Memorial.

Drent, however, contends his concern is the veterans. “We want to make sure the veterans will always be honored.”

But if this was truly Drent’s concern, why hasn’t he done more to stop the War Memorial’s deterioration?

Drent claims he works “closely” with the War Memorial veterans board, a kind of advisory board, but could not tell me their position on the art museum’s renovation plan. Nor could he supply a phone number for the board chairman.

As for the War Memorial Board of Trustees, its 15 member board includes just one member appointed by veterans. And the board might as well be invisible. The list of board members can’t be found at the War Memorial website or anywhere else online. When asked why, Drent says “I don’t have an answer for you. It should be.”

The reality is that the two groups most directly affected — the art museum and veterans — don’t really have much power over the War Memorial. Maybe that’s why its falling apart. Keegan’s proposal, once and for all, is a chance to solve the problem.

Southeast View

Many critics would argue that the War Memorial Center designed by Eero Saarinen is the city’s most important work of architecture, ranking it ahead of the Calatrava addition to the Milwaukee Art Museum. Yet the Saarinen has been allowed to slowly deteriorate. Worse, some of the resulting water seepage threatens the art museum’s collection of paintings, whose value is estimated at $1 billion. There is no similar concentration of great art and architecture to be found in Wisconsin, so you might think there would be great concern about fixing the problem. Curiously, that hasn’t been the case.

The reasons for that begin with the bizarre governance structure of the War Memorial. Though the art museum occupies 70 percent of the space in the Saarinen building and the Kahler addition built in 1975, it does not run the buildings. Instead they are run by War Memorial executive director David Drent, who answers to the War Memorial Board of directors, the majority of whose members are appointed by the County Executive and County Board because the county owns the buildings. The War Memorial Board also runs the Marcus Center for the Performing Arts, the Charles Allis Museum and Villa Terrace. The reasons for this convoluted governance are historical, but as a September audit by Milwaukee County concluded, “there are six separate boards of directors” running these facilities.

If you were looking for just the right governance structure to assure that a great work of architecture would fall apart, this would probably be it. The county audit called the War Memorial’s governance structure “antiquated” and noted that its Board of Trustees “oversight role is limited…meets only quarterly, for approximately one hour per meeting.”

The audit offered a rough, “preliminary estimate” that repairs to the War Memorial and Kahler addition would cost at least $5.3 million. The document was signed by Drent and Daniel Keegan, Director of the Milwaukee Art Museum, who jointly promised to present a detailed response with possible solutions to the Milwaukee County Board by April, 2012. Drent, however, tells me he wants still more time, but won’t say how long is needed. Keegan says action must be taken as soon as possible, and that a comprehensive plan to truly assure the repair and restoration of the two buildings will cost $25 million. His plan calls for the museum to raise $15 million and the county to kick in $9.8 million, and for the museum to assume operation of the War Memorial, to assure it doesn’t fall into disrepair in future years.

It’s a sensible plan that’s long overdue and that constructively addresses the issues raised by the county audit, but sloppy reporting by the media and wrongheaded responses by county board members have already mired the plan in misunderstandings. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel led things off with a story incorrectly touting a $15 million plan, and Fox 6 echoed the figure in its story. (The Business Journal and, later, BizTimes.com, did get the figure right.) Among the many other misunderstandings are these:

The Veterans will be displaced: County Supervisor Michael Mayo blasted this plan as a “hostile invasion” by the art museum and called on the interest of veterans to be protected. Other board members suggested the museum and veterans groups should negotiate over control of the War Memorial. In fact, the veterans have little control over the War Memorial. They now appoint just one member of the War Memorial board. As the county audit noted, activity at the War Memorial is “heavily tilted” toward non-veteran activities, with veterans activities  accounting for just 20 percent of facility rentals and 11 percent of the office space used there.

Perhaps the best sign of how poorly their interests are served is that the city‘s major memorial has been allowed to deteriorate so badly.  The problems include cracked and broken glass, water seepage that has warped floors, crumbling concrete, rusting steel framing, a leaky roof and other problems. The War Memorial’s condition is “shameful,” Keegan says. “We believe that a memorial for veterans, for people who gave their lives for this country, needs to be treated better and we’ve put in place a plan to make that happen.”

Veterans weren’t consulted: As Mayo put it, they were “blindsided by surprise attacks.” Mayo offered not one example of a veteran who felt this way. Keegan says the art museum ran its plans by all the constituent groups overseen by the War Memorial Board, including the War Memorial veterans board, a kind of advisory board. “The veterans have said they don’t care one way or the other about the building’s governance,” Keegan says, “they just want the War Memorial to be preserved.” Drent concedes that the veterans group liked the museum’s plan. As to whether the veterans were concerned about the proposed governance change, Drent said “I can’t speak for the board.” Given that he opposes and could lose his job under Keegan’s plan, you can bet Drent would  present any evidence the veterans board was on his side.

Keegan’s plan calls for renovation of Fitch Plaza, a memorial to veterans toward the rear of the War Memorial, which has been neglected for years. It would become a memorial garden and green roof with paths leading toward a dramatic view of the lake. Veterans, he says, loved this idea.

The plan includes a new building: JS reporter Mary Louise Schumacher called it a “glassy new addition,” a “new structure” that would cost $5 million. That’s sort of accurate but conveys the idea this is a new building. It’s really just a refurbishing of two parts of the Kahler addition: the open air sculpture garden in the middle will be given a roof, to end water seepage problems and eliminate the hole in Fitch Plaza, much of which sits on the roof of the Kahler. The renovation will also give  the building a new East face, a glassy atrium that will replace the old glass wall that has leakage problems and allows no entry for visitors.  As the price tag suggests, this is just a renovation of an existing building.

The art museum is at fault for repair problems: This misleading claim was made by county supervisor John Weishan, who released a press release suggesting the county could have spent money to fix the War Memorial if the art museum would “simply start paying its utility bills” for use of the structure. Weishan doesn’t know his history. The War Memorial was created in 1957 with the dual purpose of creating both a veterans memorial and a home for what was then known as the Milwaukee Art Center; indeed, the lakefront project was originally supposed to include a performing arts hall as well, which was moved to Water Street and is today known as the Marcus Center. The county pledged to maintain this home for the art museum but in the last decade has slashed its support by more than $400,000 annually, as the audit noted, leaving the museum to make up the difference.

The reality is the county is the landlord and has let the structure deteriorate. You can’t blame that on the tenant. As Keegan puts it, “if we are going to put $15 million into two buildings we don’t own, it’s time for us to assume the responsibility for the buildings.”

Separate management is needed for the War Memorial: The county audit blew holes in this theory, by noting the potential to consolidate staff at the War Memorial and museum who now separately handle maintenance and engineering, facility rentals, parking, marketing and events planning. It also raised questions about the War Memorial’s management, noting that its parking system was “antiquated,” lacked sufficient control over cash collected, and charged “below market” rates. Other than preserving Drent’s job, it’s not clear why the War Memorial needs separate management.

Moreover, it makes no sense for the War Memorial board to be overseeing the Marcus Center, Charles Allis Museum and Villa Terrace. All three entities have asked to end this unwieldy governance structure, and the move is long overdue.

The reality is that both the city’s foremost veteran’s memorial and the community’s collection of $1 billion in art is gravely threatened by the deterioration of the War Memorial and a governance structure that makes no sense. This is not about the veterans versus the arts, but about better serving both groups.

-If you missed the big battle of AlderBobs Donovan and Baumann, check out Jeramey’s amusing story on it. 

-And yes, I’ve joined the tweeting, twittering masses. You can follow my opinions at Twitter at BruceMurphyMKE.

Urban Milwaukee and Fresh Coast Ventures, LLC would like to throw their support behind the “Bronze the Fonz” campaign. The urban, pedestrian-friendly location of the statue on the riverwalk will only give Milwaukee visitors one more reason to stay downtown, walk downtown, and spend their money downtown.

A couple grumpy art gallery owners in Milwaukee apparently are not seeing how the statue will encourage visitors to “stay downtown, walk downtown, and spend their money downtown”. This would inevitably help their business by increasing foot traffic in the area, but that doesn’t seem to matter to them.

Most important to these art gallery owners is the fact that the statue is an icon of mediocre public art. Milwaukee Art Museum Director David Gordon also appears to be upset that the bronze Fonz might interrupt the development of a fancy new public art development coming to Wisconsin Avenue in a few years (of which I can’t seem to actually find any details other than the artist is Janet Zweig,).

Fonz-implementers have claimed that the statue will be out of the Wisconsin Avenue sight lines of the Milwaukee Art Museum and new Wisconsin Avenue public art project by being placed on the riverwalk. Good, problem solved. Let’s build this statue.

No one is going to make fun of Milwaukee for having this statue and every first time visitor is going to want to see it and get their picture taken with it, just like that “bean” that our neighbor to the south has.

Build the statue. It’s only going to help people have one more thing to do in downtown Milwaukee.