Call that rang the changes at museum
By Leigh Dayton
December 27, 2003
For Michael Archer, the trouble began with a phone call last October.
Although he wasn't part of the conversation, the impact on the now outgoing director of the Australian Museum in Sydney was enormous. The trickle-down of events has seen his managerial expertise publicly pummelled, the financial woes of the museum laid bare and the Independent Commission Against Corruption intervening in a bizarre tale of passion and theft involving more than 2000 specimens from the museum.
"It would be dishonest to say it hasn't been a difficult and challenging year," Archer admitted. "It's also been very frustrating not being able to respond to the erroneous claims that appeared in the press."
According to Archer, he has not told his side of the complicated story of interpersonal politics and pilfering for good reason. "We were all committed to silence while our own investigation (into the thefts) was under way because we didn't want to alert any possible suspect. "Later, (the) ICAC insisted on no discussion of the matter at all and the ministry said that, if anyone made a statement, the appropriate person had to be the trust president, Brian Sherman," said Archer, noting that the museum fell under the purview of the NSW Arts Ministry.
But now that the ICAC has reported and turned the matter over to the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions -- and Archer is vacating the director's chair -- he can go public. He did so this week in a series of candid conversations with The Weekend Australian.
First up, that pivotal phone call. The participants were Sherman and Tim Flannery, director of the South Australian Museum. As Sherman later told The Australian, Flannery had rung him in "my capacity as a philanthropist" to ask for project money. In the course of the conversation, Flannery -- who applied for Archer's job and is rumoured to be one of four shortlisted candidates -- raised the matter of specimens going missing from the museum, many of which he had collected at great personal risk in Papua New Guinea. He claimed Archer had not replied to his emails and that nothing was being done to investigate the thefts. Sherman immediately rang Archer. "Brian came to me about a report from an outside person, he wouldn't say who. I knew it had to be Tim as he was the only outside person I had discussed it with," Archer recalled.
"I immediately rang Tim to say what on earth had he done. There was a long silence, then Tim said, 'I didn't mean to cause any trouble', and apologised for not telling Brian that I'd brought him up to speed and kept him in the loop." Flannery is currently on leave and was unavailable for comment. Previously, The Australian reported Flannery's claims that "the museum had not taken the theft seriously enough and that efforts to recover the material have been inadequate".
The truth, according to Archer, is that in 1997, when previous museum managers first became aware that items were missing, steps were taken to find the culprit and stop further losses. Police were called twice, but they found no evidence and recommended tightened security. Documents obtained by The Weekend Australian confirm Archer's claim that between 1997 and 2003 major security improvements were made. An electronic swipe-card system was installed in 1998, doors were replaced, recording cameras installed and new collection access guidelines established.
"From before the time I arrived in 1999, the thefts from the collections had stopped because of the implementation of the measures police had recommended," said Archer. "The only specimens that went missing after 1998 were some skulls of bats and other small mammals taken from three parcels in the mail room, and a frozen parrot from a freezer behind a door that was being fixed."
The perpetrator himself later admitted this to the ICAC.
As well, in November 1998, managers began a stocktake of all specimens listed under an international convention on trade in endangered species after staff found that a rare clouded leopard skin had vanished. About 120 specimens were identified as missing, including three Tasmanian tiger skulls. Since the museum holds roughly 13 million specimens, managers focused on prized specimens, assuming the thief stole for financial gain. As the subsequent ICAC investigation revealed, however, self-confessed culprit Hank van Leeuwen was a wildly eclectic collector who had toyed with opening a private museum, filled with his purloined treasures.
As Archer settled into his new job, he began to hear rumours about thefts and asked former executives for a briefing. "They told me what had happened, that the (then) trust and the police had been informed and that the matter was under control," Archer recalled.
"It was presented to me as a problem that had already been fixed." Still, collection managers occasionally discovered that more items were gone. Again, security was beefed up and efforts to tally and value missing material continued. Archer planned an insurance claim if police wouldn't investigate for a third time. Meanwhile, Archer asked staff to report any evidence or misbehaviour on the part of any suspect. After investigating three allegations "focused on van Leeuwen", Archer found nothing to support them. "You can't accuse or harass people without evidence," he said.
Earlier, in 1999, Archer had transferred van Leeuwen because the then pest inspector didn't get on with his department head, and had moulding and casting skills sorely needed elsewhere. "It seemed nuts not to use him in that context. I had no idea who the thief was; it wasn't even clear to us that the thief was still in the museum," he recalled. According to Archer, Flannery contacted him in early 2002. "At that time I fully briefed him, not holding anything back, although, as it turned out, he'd known about the thefts as early as 1997 but not mentioned them to me until 2002. "I told him -- and only him -- about everything that had been done, and would be done, such as briefing the trust for a second time when our ongoing investigation was complete and we knew what to tell them," Archer added. "That's why Tim's assertion (to Sherman) that I hadn't replied to him and was doing nothing was very surprising." Archer also bridles at the suggestion that -- right or wrong -- Flannery's call to Sherman was the only reason the ICAC was brought into the picture, leading to the identification of van Leeuwen. "We had a thorough process in place."
He is also angry that someone made "selective leaks" about the conversation between Sherman and Flannery and subsequent events.
"We don't know who, but we have our suspicions," Archer said, speaking for other senior managers. Archer believes the leaks fuelled "inappropriate" media and public interest in the case. And now? Most of the lost specimens are home, and Archer says the odds they'll go walkabout again are "virtually zero". So what about allegations of staff unrest and financial and accommodation troubles? What will face the next director? "That's all another story," sighed Archer.