What the Public Record Shows About the Milwaukee Public Museum

This post is not about exhibits, nostalgia, or museum design.

It exists to document what appears in public records related to the Milwaukee Public Museum — and to clearly identify where the public record does not yet provide answers.

The museum itself is not the subject of this issue. The museum is the evidence.

For more than a decade, the nonprofit operator of the Milwaukee Public Museum made sworn statements to the federal government regarding ownership of museum assets. In multiple Form 990 filings submitted to the Internal Revenue Service, the operator stated that Milwaukee County held legal title to the museum’s exhibits and artifacts, that the nonprofit merely leased and managed those assets, and that the assets were not recorded on the nonprofit’s financial statements because the nonprofit did not own them. Those filings further stated that even building additions and improvements would revert to Milwaukee County if the nonprofit vacated the facility.

These statements were made under penalty of perjury and reflect a consistent institutional position: the museum’s collections were treated as publicly owned assets.

In 2024, Milwaukee County entered into a new Funding & Management Agreement governing the museum’s transition. This agreement replaces the prior Lease & Management Agreement and was executed by Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley.

Section 2 of that agreement introduces new language, including the following clause:

“The County does hereby assign to WMNC all rights, title, and interest of the County in the Collections.”

The phrase “assign all rights, title, and interest” is commonly used in legal contexts to describe a transfer of ownership, rather than custodial care or stewardship. This language differs materially from the terms historically used to describe the County’s relationship to the museum and its collections.

What the public record does not currently include is documentation clearly reconciling this ownership-level language with the County’s previously stated ownership position. Public records do not clearly show whether the agreement executed by County Executive David Crowley was intended to transfer ownership of publicly funded collections, what legal authority was relied upon to make such a transfer if intended, whether County ownership protections or reversion rights remain in place, whether museum assets may be sold, exchanged, or otherwise disposed of without County approval, or how proceeds from any disposition would be returned to the public.

The absence of clarification does not establish intent or outcome.

It does, however, establish material unanswered governance questions.

Language matters when public assets are involved. Agreements governing publicly funded institutions typically rely on terms such as custody, care, management, or stewardship on behalf of the owner. The 2024 agreement executed by County Executive David Crowley instead uses ownership-level assignment language. When ownership language changes, it can affect who controls assets, who decides disposition, who benefits from proceeds, and who bears long-term risk and responsibility.

The Funding & Management Agreement was executed by the County Executive and replaced the prior lease framework. A review of the public record does not show a separate approval vote by the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors for this agreement. This post does not assert whether such approval was required; it documents what appears — and does not appear — in the public record.

This review is not a critique of museum professionals or staff, not a debate about exhibits or programming, not a political endorsement or opposition, and not an allegation of wrongdoing. It is a record-based examination of governance language affecting publicly funded assets.

The Milwaukee Public Museum and its collections were built, expanded, and maintained with public funds over generations. When an agreement executed by a County Executive alters the language governing ownership and control of those assets, the public deserves clear authority, clear safeguards, and clear records.

Public records show a long-standing public ownership framework, a new agreement executed by County Executive David Crowley using ownership-level assignment language, and no public reconciliation explaining the change. That combination raises legitimate governance questions.

If additional records clarify these issues, they should be made publicly available.

This post will be updated if and when new information appears in the public record.