-
- Kim Pham
Administrator General of the Louvre
Photo: Musée du Louvre - See the image in its page
We have been writing this regularly since the theft of October 19 at the Louvre: the accumulating evidence demonstrating the mismanagement of the Louvre’s presidency would, in any democracy that respects itself, warrant the resignation of Laurence des Cars. The relentlessness is not ours, but that of the Élysée and, by extension, the Ministry of Culture, who stubbornly insist on keeping her in her position.
Yet, heads will roll. We know from a reliable source - and those who read La Tribune de l’Art know our information is trustworthy - that two of the Louvre’s executives are firmly in the hot seat: the number two, Administrator General Kim Pham, and the Director of Security, Dominique Buffin.
If their responsibility is, obviously, engaged in this fiasco, making them take the blame alone would be unacceptable. They would thus serve as scapegoats for the president-director who, within the museum, has almost all the powers. This would also be viewed very poorly by the rest of the staff, who are not fooled.
Let us recall the facts: Laurence des Cars is not only the president of the public institution, she is also its director, which means she exercises a fundamental operational role, all the more significant as a public institution like the Louvre enjoys broad autonomy: it has legal personality and its own budget. If its oversight lies with the Ministry of Culture, which proposes the appointment of the president-director to the President of the Republic, its independence is real, even if it must report to the Ministry. This is all the truer since ministers change - on average every two years - whereas president-directors remain - appointed for five years, they can be renewed twice for three years.
We have already said this, and the Court of Auditors has as well: the Louvre is wealthy, and it could have acted much more quickly in terms of security. Yet it has - contrary to what Laurence des Cars repeatedly asserts - neglected this aspect in order to carry out the "Nouvelle Renaissance" project, which she herself conceived and convinced the President of the Republic to make his grand achievement. She is the one responsible, far more than the Administrator General, who is under her orders, and the Director of Public Reception and Security, who reports directly to her.
Yes, responsibilities must be assumed. But not at the level of sacrificial victims, who were moreover appointed by the current president. The Louvre cannot continue on this trajectory, led by someone who does not question herself and who clearly has no place in this position.