In response to calls for privatization of their establishment's functions by the county comptroller, Frank Castagna, president of the Nassau County Museum of Art, and Arnold Saltzman, a former president of the museum, issued a statement which defended the museum's operations on both aesthetic and financial grounds.

The lengthy statement also chided the offices of Nassau County Comptroller Fred Parola for not fulfilling certain "legal and moral obligations" to the museum itself.

At a recent press conference, Mr. Parola called for both privatization and for the museum to issue a long-term strategic plan in order to maximize the "cultural benefits" of the Roslyn Harbor-based museum, and also to save money from the county budget.

Museum officials contend that the museum had, among other things, provided quality exhibitions to the public, while drawing more than 200,000 visitors to its grounds on a yearly basis.

Both Mr. Castagna and Mr. Saltzman expressed their dismay at Mr. Parola's motivation in going public with both his ideas and his audit findings. They noted that Mr. Parola's office had performed an audit of the museum nine months ago, an audit that museum officials claimed had an "obvious bias," in addition to reaching "inappropriate conclusions" about the museum's performance. Negotiations with the comptroller's office and museum officials resulted in a final audit which stated that what "issues" there were between the two parties were only bookkeeping ones, and not serious in their nature.

Both men then reiterated the terms of the agreement between the county and the museum. The 90-year lease allows the county to provide security, plus maintenance of the building and the grounds. The staff would be employed and paid for by the "new" museum. That same museum would also install its own "high quality" exhibitions, while transporting the art and insuring their high values. That process, both men said, had been previously paid for by the county.

In addition, the county was to provide an "environmentally friendly" building, one that the county "knew from its professional investigation" would have to be a new building, one that would give professional accreditation to the museum.

Most of all, the two officials defended the quality of the artwork displayed at the museum and the services it provides to local residents. They noted that the museum was recently named one of the ten best museums in the entire state. "That is pretty good company," the two claimed, "since New York has a number of the world's great museums."

Mr. Castagna and Mr. Saltzman also claimed the museum has gone above and beyond the work the lease has required. They cited art education for 18,000 area schoolchildren; special art lectures and tours for senior citizens; exhibits of "world masters from Picasso and Matisse to El Greco and Tintoretto, from Monet and Degas to Jackson Pollock and Dali"; the restoration of the formal gardens and the construction of a museum for miniature works of arts, a project that cost over $1 million, none of which was paid for by the county.

The statement criticized the county for not living up to its lease obligations to properly maintain the premises. "The resultant deterioration is causing additional expenses to the museum and greater difficulty in caring for the paintings," the document stated.

In addition, museum personnel, the statement continued, "have waited patiently for the new environmentally safe building approved three years ago by the various county departments." In the meantime, the museum has been "operating under great difficulty and increased costs as [it waits] for the county to fulfill its legal and moral obligations."

Both men were critical of the county's former stewardship of the museum. The statement claimed that when the county ran the museum, they spent up to $1 million per year on both security and maintenance, and administrative and curatorial staff, and exhibitions. "Their attendance was poor," both men said. "Their art was poor. [Now] they are saving more than $500,000 per year with....a great museum in place."

Finally, the statement said that no "new initiative" was needed, since any disruption in the current contract would "trigger an indemnity process with huge untold costs to the public."