Paris. The Court of Auditors for the first time looked specifically at the accounts of the Society of Friends of the Louvre (SAL), during its audit of the Louvre – highly publicized following the theft last October of the Crown jewels in the Apollo gallery. She expresses numerous criticisms which, in administrative language, take on disproportionate importance, but which in reality are less dramatic than they seem. The magistrates of rue Cambon point out in particular statutes and procedures unsuitable for an association which appeals to the generosity of the public, an inadequacy in the management of the ten employees employed by the SAL, and even excessive hoarding (€4 million). Reproaches that the new president and former diplomat very present on television sets, Gérard Araud, qualified in his regular address to the members of a “our country’s immoderate love for procedures”.
Managing membership cards
In reality, the Court regrets that the SAL holds a monopoly on membership cards. In fact, while museum friends’ societies are traditionally dedicated to seeking funding through patronage or donations, that of the Louvre – the oldest – offers its members free and unlimited access to the museum. A considerable advantage which contributes to the fact that in 2024 the association will have 67,000 members, from simple members (€95) to benefactors (€1,200) including members (€170) or “young people” (€22).
This “rent” brought in 4.8 million euros to the SAL that year, a sum far ahead of donations, legacies and patronage (€1 million). Once its operating costs have been deducted (€1.5 million), the Society of Friends pays a very large part of it to the museum, for the acquisition of works, the financing of restorations, or through a lump sum of 15% of contributions.
Without really explaining it while it has noted this particularity in each of its audits of the Louvre since 1995 – but this is not its mission – the Court considers that it is up to the Louvre to directly manage its loyalty policy through its membership cards, rather than leaving it to the SAL. Would the operating cost of card management be lower if the Louvre took care of it directly? Would the price list and special advantages be more attractive if the Louvre took over this prerogative? The magistrates do not enter the details. In their respective responses to the Court’s report on the museum itself, the Minister of Culture and the President-Director of the Louvre had taken issue, affirming that the Louvre was of course going to be more assertive on the loyalty policy while continuing to leave its management to the SAL.
