Museum Institute at SagamoreSeptember 21st, 2011

Leading the Way, Engaging Controversy in Museums: Public,

Professional and Personal Perspectives

Institutional Controversy: Shelburne Museum Deaccessioning, 1996

Anyone ever hear of it?

Institutional Context

Institutional Context

Shelburne Museum in 1996 (from memory!)About 120,000 visitors annuallyTicket price of $17 Staff of 150, much of whom were seasonal staffProfessional staffing:

Curatorial, 5Education, 4Conservation, 2 + 2 grant funded positions

Endowment of $8 million and decliningOperating deficits of $250,000 +/- annually

Institutional Context

Creating a collections care endowment Senior staff and

board planning, 1980s – 1996

All revenue streams tapped out

Consulted other museums and professional organizations on defining “collections care”

Selecting Items to DeaccessMuseum trustees, outside

art historians and staff formed a team to identify possible sale items

Choices were based on condition, other like objects on public exhibit or relation to the collections

Throughout the process the museum communicated with AASLH and AAM

Auction ResultsOverall the Sotheby’s

auction of November, 1996 brought in $31.2 million

Auction charges reduced the actual income to about $25 million

Collections Care Endowment supported:ConservationCollections

Storage/ExhibitionCuratorial

The Empire Strikes Back Initial press reports about the

sale were neutral or positive with few outside comments

The former board chair and son of the founder communicated with a local reporter and a very negative story was published a month after the sale

The story was written without any input from museum staff or trustees and contained many inaccuracies.

To the Editor: Your article about Sotheby's recent major Impressionist and modern painting sale

(Arts Pages, Nov. 13) mentions that five major works given or bequeathed to the American people by Henry O. and Louisine Havemeyer and held in their trust at the Shelburne Museum were sold at this auction. Is no one outraged?

Donors of paintings usually receive tax credits. The United States Government in effect purchases these treasures for the benefit of the public instead of collecting taxes otherwise due. The works hang in major museums, accruing additional status and recognition. It is a national disgrace that such publicly supported work is later sold back into private hands. It reduces America's cultural heritage and demeans the generosity of donors. Imagine the outcry if the Government allowed our public libraries to sell historical mementoes like the Constitution.

If the Shelburne Museum has mismanaged its money and collections, let it close down and give its donated works to other more trustworthy custodians of the public's interest.

LOUIS RISPOLI Woodside, Queens, Nov. 15, 1996

Controversy Grows

Other ReactionsProfessional groups

recanted support for the sale

Museum received increased criticism from some local people

Core constituencies, members, donors and community remained committed to the museum’s decision

Expect the unexpectedConsistency of message within the

organization and externally was critical, but difficult to achieve

Transparency was the museum’s best defense. The financial situation was so critical that it was obvious that the sale was necessary

Look to professional organizations for guidance, but understand that they operate in their own world

Develop an internal team to lead the organization through the crisis

Key Lessons

Develop and understanding of where your institution is in it’s growth trajectory and work within that.

If you work with front line staff you should listen to their concerns about a situation and address them honestly and directly.

Understand that those most publicly critical of an institution may have little or no ties to it and respond professionally.

Personal Lessons

Staff report that the negative press in the community was short-lived

A negative perception lingered in the museum professional community for a few years

Some relationships were negatively impacted for a longer period of time

Overall the museum is in a much healthier place with growing visitation, strong donor support and an innovative exhibition and program base.

Shelburne Museum, 15 Years Later

Engaging Controversy , Part II, Gas Drilling in Upstate NY, Institutional, Community and Personal Impacts

My Introduction to Hydrofracking

Hydrofracking, a brief primer

Seems pretty innocuous?

Hydrofracking is a high-tech, high volume industrial activity

With many impacts on the land

Impacts Continued

Some of the impacts are personal

My personal response…

The Community and Museum Respond Hydrofracking for Shale Gas in Otsego County 12/9/10 Draft Position Statement by Cooperstown Chamber of Commerce   1.     WHEREAS...The gas industry has secured broad exemptions from Federal regulation under the

Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act in 2005 (the "Halliburton exemption"). Under New York State law, horizontal drilling is now stalled pending completion of a Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (dSGEIS), which could be finalized at any time. In the interim, drilling of vertical wells with hydrofracking is proceeding in our County under an outdated 1992 Generic Environmental Impact Statement. Thus, gas companies are now drilling and fracking in our County without substantive local review and both state and federal regulatory investigations into the risks of the process are mired in political delays.

2.     WHEREAS...Land-lease development in the region has already reached a high level without any meaningful regulatory control and with limited public awareness of the issues. Over 43,000 acres have already been leased by gas-drilling companies or their land agents and active drilling projects have started in Otsego County (principally by Gastem, a Canadian lease/exploration company).

3.     WHEREAS...The relative contribution of natural gas from hydrofracking to either the economy or the energy needs of the region is minimal and development does not materially contribute to a sustainable national or regional energy policy.

4.     WHEREAS...The number of documented spills, blowouts, leaking wells and other environmental accidents is significant and the environmental and human consequences have been serious in a number of states, including TX, PA, WY, and WV.

5.     WHEREAS...The withdrawal of huge quantities of fresh water estimated at 2-5 million gallons of water per frack cycle and the heavy impact of thousands of truck trips per well hauling water and chemicals to and from the drill pads on local infrastructure cannot be sustained in Otsego County. Effective technologies for the treatment of the millions of gallons of polluted processing waste do not exist and there are no locations for waste disposal in New York capable of supporting the proposed scale of drilling.

6.     WHEREAS...The most critical threat to the local area is contamination of the aquifers and surface water resources found directly above the Marcellus shale. Current plans for drilling present a strategic risk to the entire Otsego County water supply and the Susquehanna watershed. The New York City watershed has already been protected, which represents the clearest evidence that NY State already understands a potential risk.

7.     WHEREAS...On Nov 29th, the NYS Assembly approved a Moratorium on new permits for vertical and horizontal hydrofracking for shale gas in NY State until May 15th 2011. The Bill was vetoed by Governor Patterson on December 11 and an Executive Order was issued instead that puts a hold on horizontal hydrofracking until July 1st  2011, but allows for vertical hydrofracking. The status of existing permits or permits to re-frack existing drilling sites is not clear (eg: Cherry Valley, Crumhorn Mountain).  The Executive Order effectively slows down drilling development until next summer, but is a temporary hold and does not eliminate it.

  WE CONCLUDE THEREFORE, THAT:

The plans for drilling pose a direct and material threat to the interests of the Chamber membership. Industrial-scale hydrofracking in the upstate region will irreparably damage the essential qualities that make the Cooperstown area an excellent place to live, raise families, farm and work. It puts at risk much of the local economy, ranging from hotel and tourism to restaurant and retail businesses, most of which are driven by the hundreds of thousands of tourists who choose to visit the region every year.

 

The New York State Historical Association and The Farmers’ Museum value the historic landscape and the natural beauty of this region. These organizations recognize the importance of maintaining the distinctive qualities of the area as well as the very important water supply. We believe that there is need for more complete understanding of the impact of gas exploration and extraction, and a need for government regulations and oversight of these activities.

--This was the first take...

By the Spring of 2011 the debate heated up

On both sides of the debate

The Museum and Affiliated Cooperstown Organizations Response  The Farmers’ Museum and the New York State Historical

Association Statement on Hydrofracking

The Board of Directors of The Farmers’ Museum and the Board of Trustees of the New York State Historical Association share grave concerns about the consequences of hydrofracking for the long-term safety of the local water supply, public health, the irreplaceable historic landscape and natural beauty of this region, and our regional economy. Located on the pristine shores of Otsego Lake at the headwaters of the Susquehanna River, these organizations recognize the importance of safeguarding the distinctive qualities of the area.

For over 70 years The Farmers’ Museum and the New York State Historical Association and its showcase Fenimore Art Museum have drawn tens of thousands of visitors annually to Otsego County from all parts of the United States and internationally. Those visitors have consistently rated the serenity and beauty of the region as a major attraction of their visit. The natural gas industry’s use of hydrofracking practices endangers the very qualities that attract people to Central New York. Hydrofracking threatens not only to produce environmental damage and a blighted landscape, but also a negative perception of the region in the minds of potential visitors. If people choose to travel to other destinations unspoiled by the natural gas industry, the resulting decline in tourism would seriously harm the museums and our local economy, which depends on tourism to support area businesses and produce essential revenue for our town, county, and state.

  As museums our mission is the preservation of our heritage into the

future. We understand that conscientious stewardship of the land is critical to the future of our institutions and our community, and we believe that a more complete understanding of the long-term impact of gas exploration and extraction in our region is needed. We wholeheartedly support the efforts of our local officials to research and, with abundant caution, act in order to preserve our area's precious environment and its long-term economic well-being.

Hall of Fame Statement on Hydrofracking   As a member of the Cooperstown Chamber of

Commerce, the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum supports the Chamber’s recent resolution that hydrofracking for shale gas in Otsego County could cause serious damage to the qualities that make Cooperstown a world-renowned tourist destination and a unique community.

  The Hall of Fame is an internationally-renowned tourist

destination whose brand is fully synonymous with Cooperstown. As an American treasure, and the cornerstone to this region since 1939, the Museum and county would undoubtedly suffer repercussions in the event of problems from hydrofracking – or even the perception thereof. The natural beauty and quality of life are the essence of Cooperstown. Tourists, who view Cooperstown as a pristine and pastoral escape, would unquestionably consider other destinations unspoiled by the harmful ecological impact of hydrofracking. A significant drop in visitorship could severely impact the Hall of Fame on many fronts, from day-to-day operations to staffing levels, while also leading to a significant decrease in tourism-related revenue for the village, county and state.

  Like the Chamber of Commerce and virtually every

other area business, the Museum concludes that hydrofracking could present an unacceptable risk to the local environment, the economy and the quality of life for both local residents and tourists. As such, we believe that much more complete research and an understanding of the long-term impact of gas exploration and extraction is needed.

Response to the StatementsBuild it and they will

come! I would bet many baseball fans have never heard of hydrofracking. In the unlikely event of a mishap, I believe it would have very little impact on people visiting the hall of fame. Oh, isn't that lake Cooperstown sits on already polluted? Doesn't seem to impact attendance to me.

Statements only seemed to harden the divide in the public

Elected officials and advocates of both sides did take notice

There did not seem to be any direct impact at the gates of either museum

Another Institution's Experiences

Funded by $100,000 NSF grant to increase public knowledge

Project has produced publications, workshops and curriculum materials

Project focuses entirely on known scientific facts and encourages individual inquiry

Museum of the Earth Continued

Response has been very mixed, both in the Ithaca community and in the region

Most appreciate having good materials to use for their personal education

There has been some strident criticism from advocates on both sides about this initiative, usually directed at where MOE is sending people to for further information

As an individual it is very important to act on what you believe, but to keep very separate your personal views and your institution’s position.

When your community is involved in a major event like gas drilling, they will look to museums and other public institutions for input.

MOE staff felt very glad that they were dealing solely with the science of the issue rather than social or political issues.

They also felt that the institution’s stated policy of not taking sides was crucial to their being able to credibly present information and deal with upset people, many of whom had a preexisting relationship with the museum.

Lessons Learned: