Well-known and beloved San Antonio philanthropist, collector and Artpace founder Linda Pace passed away in early July of 2007, leaving the Linda Pace Foundation in the business-savvy hands of Rick Moore. Moore, Pace’s longtime in-house lawyer and financial expert, now runs the Foundation with the assistance of its other trustees, Jan Jarboe Russell, Dr. Anne Hodges Morgan, Kathryn Kanjo and Dennis Scholl. Recently, Moore sat down with …might be good to talk about the Foundation’s long-term mission and current projects.

The interview, printed here in full, clarified a number of aspects of the Foundation’s present and future role in San Antonio and beyond. First, he explained the special relationship between Artpace and the Linda Pace Foundation. Originally set up, in part, as the mechanism through which Pace funded Artpace, the Foundation continues to give $1 million a year to the non-profit art space and residency program. The amount represents a little over 40% of Artpace’s annual budget. Moore is also on the Artpace board, a position he holds “to watch the core mission of Artpace, which for Linda was the artist-in-residency program.”

Second, Moore discussed the current priorities of the Foundation, which appear to be getting finances, policies and procedures in order and getting a building built. Moore is carefully setting up policies and procedures for the Foundation that adhere to “IRS promulgated best practices.” In the future, he hopes that these policies can serve as a useful model for other foundations.

As for the building, Pace selected David Adjaye as the architect before her death, and his initial design includes all of four exhibition spaces. “Initial thoughts,” Moore tells us, “might be that only one of those spaces might contain a rotating selection of works from Linda’s collection. As for the other three spaces, we’re trying to figure out … what would work to create a vibrant building with these spaces.” In terms of time frame, within about a year Moore says he’s “hopeful that we will have completed the schematic design phase and moved to the design development phase so that we’ll be able to present a model to the public.” Regarding actual construction, Moore suggests that “absent further deterioration in the capital markets” (and this was pre-Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch meltdown last weekend), they might be able to break ground within a “four year window.” Acquisitions for the collection and granting activities (apart from the Foundation's ongoing relationship with Artpace) are on the back burner for now. First, finances must be sorted out, policies and procedures must be instituted and a design for the building must be agreed upon. Until then, we’ll have to hold our breath to find out what kind of a role the Linda Pace Foundation will play in the local and national art scene.

Because the Foundation has been somewhat shrouded in mystery for the past year, our editors print the interview with Moore here in full. Although it may seem rather long and dry at times, it is chalk full of information we wanted to be available to the public. Read on for all the gory details.

…might be good: There is an air of mystery around the Linda Pace Foundation right now. Can you explain the distinction between Artpace and the Foundation?

Rick Moore: Let me take you back to the original creation of Artpace. Artpace was incorporated in March 1993, but it didn’t open its doors until 1995. At that time, it was set up as a charitable trust and was called Artpace, A Foundation for Contemporary Art San Antonio. The rationale for this legal structure was that Linda [Pace] did not want a board. She wanted to be able to fund Artpace and make all the decisions relating to its artistic character. The only legal structure in the state of Texas that would allow this arrangement was a charitable trust. Artpace, A Foundation for Contemporary Art San Antonio, stayed in that legal form until January of 2004, when we re-organized Artpace as a charitable corporation. At that point, we transferred all the assets to the new Artpace corporate entity. Legally, you may not have a board unless such powers are specifically granted within the charitable trust document. Much of the public may have been unaware of this reorganization of Artpace.

In both forms, Artpace itself was a creative laboratory. It was always the place where Linda and Laurence [Miller], wanted artists to drive that creative process. Linda always described Artpace as purely the creative process and was very firm that she never wanted Artpace to be a collecting institution. She did not want the creative, artist-driven process to be in competition with collecting. That was the fundamental reason she formed the Linda Pace Foundation.

…mbg: When did she form the Pace Foundation?

RM: The Linda Pace Foundation was formed in April of 2003. In that first year, there were three trustees: Linda, myself, and her best friend and colleague, Jan Jarboe Russell. Linda set it up as a conduit foundation. This simply means that when Linda desired to fund something charitable, she placed money into the Linda Pace Foundation and then the Foundation distributed the funds directly to that charity, allowing Linda to receive an appropriate charitable deduction for her funding of charitable activity. Linda also began to fund her annual support of Artpace through the Linda Pace Foundation after it was formed.

During that first year of the Foundation, Linda was very focused on the question, “how do I get Artpace to survive beyond me?” Linda was still the sole trustee and Artpace had become extremely successful, both nationally and internationally. She was very concerned about Artpace’s continued growth and its ability to fundraise. Quite frankly, it was becoming quite difficult for Artpace to fundraise when Linda was the sole trustee, as the public perceived that Linda was Artpace’s sole means of support and did not feel that Artpace needed the public’s support. As the first step in creating a structure in which Artpace could sustain itself, we began to work very hard on identifying the people that Linda wanted on the initial board. Linda worked very closely with Kathryn Kanjo, the Executive Director of Artpace at that time, through this entire process. Artpace had its initial board meeting in January of 2004, with its new board of directors.

…mbg: Apart from funding Artpace, what was the role of the Linda Pace Foundation at that point?

RM: Once Artpace’s board was in place, the Linda Pace Foundation became focused on Linda’s vision for the future. She viewed the Linda Pace Foundation as the other side of the creative process, a compliment to Artpace and a continuation of a process that she began in creating CHRISpark. Artpace, CHRISpark, and the possible exhibition space which would display part of her collection represent the trilogy of creation, contemplation and reflection that Linda envisioned as a philanthropist and for the citizens of San Antonio. This was a journey for Linda that really encompassed that last twenty-plus years of her life.

…mbg: So when did you come on board, Rick?

RM: I first met Linda in 2000. I became involved through Dr. Ann Hodges Morgan, who’s also a trustee of the Linda Pace Foundation and who also had been a personal advisor to Linda Pace since the mid 1990s. At the time Linda contacted me, she was concerned about the legal and financial aspects of her various entities. She was also providing all the financial support to Artpace in terms of a staff to manage the financial operations of Artpace, and she was concerned about the issues surrounding the proper operation of a non-profit, the prudent management of her personal portfolio and the legal and financial compliance of the various entities that she operated. I came to see Linda Pace in San Antonio in January of 2001. I spent three days with her and did a legal audit of her various entities and their operations. I interviewed all the employees at Artpace and the other employees who worked for Linda; I also examined many legal documents. At the end of that visit, I shared my observations with Linda and empowered her with different ways for her to think about how she was running her business enterprises and charitable operations. After that visit, both Linda and her employees engaged in constant dialogue with me regarding strategic planning and different responses to operating issues and strategies. From the time of that visit, Linda and I developed a very close working relationship that included additional visits to San Antonio.

In May of 2001, Linda invited me down in conjunction with the opening of her Red Project (1999-2001) at the San Antonio Museum of Art. I remember when I received the call. as she was quite emphatic about me coming to her opening at the San Antonio Museum of Art. After the night of the opening, the following day, we went to lunch, just the two of us. We sat down, and she looked at me and said, “Will you come to work for me? I need the financial and legal expertise to come in-house and I need someone who will look out for my interests.”

…mbg: What was your background?

RM: I was with a large law firm in Oklahoma City for seventeen years and I’m also a CPA. At the time I left the firm I was the managing partner for a law firm with approximately 250 employees. For about 3 or 4 years prior to my departure, I began to be increasingly dissatisfied with the formal practice of law in a traditional legal setting. I had a couple of intervening job offers along the way, both in the for-profit and non-profit sectors, but none of those offers satisfied what I was seeking in my career.

When I met Linda, it was different: I saw a person with very real needs and organizations which needed greater legal and financial oversight. So I left that career of seventeen years with the law firm and came to work in-house for Linda. For me, it fulfilled a need to help in a different way. The pure lawyer role, in which you bill a client for everything you say, has an oppressive side to it as it relates to the client. I was doing a lot of non-profit work and lectured nationally on non-profit operations and stewardship, but my practice also included a typical corporate, transactional practice, so the transition to come to work for Linda had a short learning curve, as the type of work I was doing in private practice was very similar to the work for Linda and her various entities.

…mbg: Do you have a background in contemporary art?

RM: As Linda and I used to joke with each other, she didn’t hire me for my contemporary art expertise; she hired me for the overlay of a business model in both the for-profit and non-profit aspects of her world. It helped her bring a logical, realistic basis to the various activities in which she was engaged.

Really, bringing me on-board gave Linda a sense of confidence because she had immediate access to information and she knew there was someone dedicated solely to protecting her interests and helping her achieve her objectives. It empowered Linda in a very unique way. I worked with Linda in the same way I’ve worked with other people in my career. I would provide her with information and knowledge and say, “Here’s the information that I’ve observed, here are the issues I see, here’s what the law says about those issues, here’s your financial situation, here are these facts.” Then Linda would make an informed decision from those facts and her own observations. So Linda and I had a very collaborative-type process through the years that was based on trust. Linda was incredibly bright and creative which only added to my personal enjoyment in working with her. She taught me a lot about art, and I taught her a lot about legal, business and financial issues as they related to her journey as a major philanthropist.

…mbg: How did you become the Foundation’s president?

RM: After her diagnosis, Linda specifically asked me to stay because I was the person who knew the most about her world from the standpoint of operations and her own personal issues. She and I, along with the other trustees, had the opportunity to discuss the operation of the Linda Pace Foundation and what she envisioned in the future. My bosses are now my fellow trustees on the board of the Linda Pace Foundation which consists of four other people. Linda died on July 2, 2007, and on June 30 we had a board meeting and I was elected to this position by the Trustees of the Foundation. I agreed to accept the position, but not until after Linda’s death, as I wanted Linda to remain the President of her Foundation until her death.

…mbg: Was Linda involved in that decision?

RM: She was unable to be at that board meeting, but she had shared with everyone before that meeting that she wanted Rick to run the daily operations of her foundation due to the level of trust that had been established between us and my working relationship with the other trustees.

…mbg: Can you talk a little bit more about the selection of the other trustees for the Pace Foundation?

RM: In addition to herself, Linda initially chose the two people she trusted most in her life: Jan Jarboe Russell, her closest personal friend, and myself. The three of us were the only trustees until January of 2005, when Linda added Dr. Anne Hodges Morgan. As I indicated, Dr. Morgan had been a consultant for Linda since the mid 1990s and is a bright, intelligent person for whom Linda had a lot of respect. Dr. Morgan is an integral part of our Board and her history and relationship with Linda are invaluable to the trustees.

It was not until Linda was diagnosed with her illness that Jan and I and Anne looked at Linda and said, “You need to get some people on the board that are art-world savvy and have extensive contemporary art world experience.” At that point, Linda asked Kathryn Kanjo [former Director of Artpace] to join the board as its fourth trustee. About two weeks after that, Linda added Dennis Scholl, who’s a lawyer and CPA like me, but also a significant collector in the contemporary art world, and a highly successful businessman.

…mbg: In the Linda Pace Foundation’s mission statement, it sounds as if grants to artists will be your primary focus. What kind of granting programs are you considering?

RW: Grants to artists are included in our mission statement; however, while we’re in this ramp-up stage, we are not actively making grants. Right now, we’re classified as an operating foundation, which just means that we’re using our budget to run our own programs, such as CHRISpark. Our predominant focus right now is figuring out the component of the mission relating to the public exhibition of Linda’s collection.

Let me introduce the concept of the building from a historical perspective. Jan and Linda and I, in late 2004 or early 2005, had a meeting of the Foundation trustee’s and Linda was talking about a building in San Antonio, some day in the future, for her collection. And Jan asked, "If this building were to be built, who would you want to be the architect?" Linda gave us five names. Zaha Hadid was one of them, who was very popular at the time. Another person on the short list was David Adjaye. Linda also identified certain architects that she did not want involved with her building.

In early 2007, Linda and I were discussing the future and the possible gift of the Hondo Partners building to Artpace as a component of her estate plan. As we talked about that gift, Linda wondered aloud where the offices of the Linda Pace Foundation would be. And I said, “Linda, that really doesn’t matter. What matters is what the Linda Pace Foundation does. It doesn’t matter where it is; it could be in any building downtown.” Well, I didn’t realize it at that moment but I had provoked her. I’d provoked her in a very positive way. When we gathered for a meeting that evening, she looked at me and the other Trustees and she said, “The Linda Pace Foundation offices will not be in just any building downtown. They will be in a building that is distinct and significant and meaningful to the public. And I’ve contacted David Adjaye and I told him to get on with this building program.” That’s the genesis of David actively starting to work on the building itself.

…mbg: What can you tell me about the building?

RM: That building is the most significant aspect of the mission that Linda left us that we are trying to accomplish. We are in the early schematic design phase. We do not yet know the final design of the building or its buidability or affordability. The financial markets and the economic conditions are not helping the journey right now. But all of the Trustees are strongly committed to the building because it fulfills the last component of the mission statement for the Foundation that Linda gave to us. Linda was actively working on the building prior to her death and for Linda and the rest of the Trustees, the building is incredibly important to San Antonio. Linda was absolutely committed to David Adjaye as the architect due, in part, to his strong artist sensibility, but also because Linda wanted San Antonio to not only experience the Collection, but almost equally important was the introduction of a new kind of architecture to San Antonio. Linda, as I always say, was a frustrated architect. She was anxious for the people of San Antonio to see architecture in a different way, and David was the one that Linda chose to make this introduction to San Antonio.

…mbg: Did Linda have a chance to see any of Adjaye’s design proposals?

RM: That’s actually a beautiful part of the journey. She had met David about two years earlier on a trip to London. Isaac Julien had introduced them and I have a picture of them together. Linda and David had a number of different conversations and he was able to do some initial sketches for her and get her reactions and even met in person with Linda, Jan and Laurence Miller, in June, 2008, about the building. So there was some incredible dialogue between Linda and David Adjaye that occurred and that is reflected in the architect’s current drawings.

…mbg: What are your initial thoughts about the way the new building might look?

RM: We haven’t quite figured it all out yet. In David’s initial design he has four exhibition spaces. Initial thoughts might be that only one of those spaces might contain a rotating selection of works from Linda’s collection. As for the other three spaces, we’re trying to figure out what that would mean. In terms of the public’s involvement, in terms of Artpace’s involvement, what would work to create a vibrant building with these spaces?

…mbg: So you’ve been focusing on the building but you’re continuing to give grants to Artpace, correct?

RM: Yes, we continue to give Artpace $1 million a year in quarterly installments.

…mbg: It appears that you have a special relationship with Artpace in terms of granting. How is that set up?

RM: We do. I am actually on the Artpace board. And we, the Linda Pace Foundation, also have a second audited position on the Artpace board. It’s rotated between the Foundation’s board members, but that person doesn’t vote. They are just present to observe and interact and understand the dynamics of what is happening with Artpace.

The $1 million we give Artpace every year currently represents 42% of Artpace’s budget. Obviously we’re going to continue supporting Artpace. The only request that Linda had of her Trustees on this issue was to watch the core mission of Artpace, which for Linda was the artist-in- residency program. She did not want us to let Artpace deviate from that programmatic focus, because it was the whole reason that Artpace was legally separate from CHRISpark and the Linda Pace Foundation. As I said before, Linda did not want that residency program, that creative, artist driven process, to ever be diluted by by anything else, such as collecting.

…mbg: On the subject of collecting, I’ve noticed that you are still making acquisitions for the Pace collection.

RM: Since Linda’s death, we’ve made two acquisitions and committed to one more acquisition. The two we’ve recently completed are both by Daniel Joseph Martinez, represented by the text mural piece on the external side of our east façade of our office and the Carrara marble figures of the Black Panther Revolutionaries Hughey Newton and Bobby Seale. Both of these works were commissioned by Linda before her death.. The third acquisition is the 2007 Artist’s Multiple from Artpace by Do Ho Suh. As a part of her collecting, Linda had acquired every one of the Artpace multiples, and we wanted to continue the precedent that she set.

…mbg: So who’s doing the acquisitions at this point?

RM: We don’t have an acquisitions committee. It was the five of us who said, "Let’s acquire this piece," because Linda had acquired every single multiple that artists had made for Artpace up to that point, so we wanted to go ahead and continue that process. So those two aspects of our mission—granting to artists and collecting—really are not developed and are not the directed focus of the Foundation right now.

…mbg: Will you need a curator?

RM: That’s something that we will try to figure out with Kathryn and Dennis’s help but we don’t know yet whether that’s something we’d need for the new building. It is under consideration by the Trustees.

…mbg: What’s your relationship to contemporary art these days?

RM: I was around Linda for six and a half years and she taught me a lot about contemporary art. For me, it’s about appreciating Linda’s mission, vision and journey and protecting what she put in place. Contemporary art is a central part of that journey, but the journey contains so much more. It’s about Linda’s legacy as a philanthropist and helping people continue to understand and appreciate the impact that Linda has made not only in San Antonio, but in the broader contemporary art world.

I used to say to Linda that Artpace will be your greatest creative contribution recognized in the art world, but the public doesn’t understand that as much as they do CHRISpark. And on numerous occasions when Linda and I were walking in CHRISpark, I witnessed people coming up to her and saying “Are you Ms. Pace? Thank you for giving us this park.” It’s something that the public understood. She used to smile at me when I said that, but one day, she said, I finally understand what you are saying and agree with you. The rest of her legacy is what the impact of the building will be on the landscape of San Antonio. And that’s exciting, but it’s also rather daunting for us, because if you look at CHRISpark and Artpace, the common element was Linda. And it’s very humbling to think about moving forward with the building without Linda as the main component of the creative process. But we also know that she trusted us with this project. Toward the end of her life, with the Trustees at her bedside, she looked at me and said “I had a lot of work to do.” We all remember this moment and it is quite empowering to us as we move forward with fulfilling Linda’s mission that she defined for her Foundation.

…mbg: What’s coming up for the Foundation in 2009?

RM: I am hopeful that we will have completed the schematic design phase with the building and moved to the design development phase so that we’ll be able to present a model to the public that we know that we can build. I cannot say for certain the time horizon for the building. Absent further deterioration in the capital markets, I would tell you a four year window but that could be longer depending on market uncertainties.

We also need to complete the administration of Linda’s estate and get the proceeds from remaining assets to the Foundation. Also, we’ve been setting up policies and procedures for the Foundation, following the IRS promulgated best practices guidelines for non-profits. We’ve been very particular about making sure that our policies and procedures can be used by other foundations as a model. In fact, I’ve already been asked by the Southwest Conference of Foundations to share some of our policies with them, which I’ve done, so that other member foundations may pattern their own policies after policies that we have created. Hopefully we’ll continue to be a role model for strong internal procedures and strong policies that will strengthen the integrity and openness of operations at foundations across the country.

Claire Ruud is Editor of ...might be good.