The NHN Board provided an email update to Associates in December, and has sent periodic email updates since this time. Reflecting on the upcoming NHN meeting with OHS Executive Director George Vogt, I wanted to provide a centralized, annotated compendium of the most recent (~2 weeks) news reports on issues related to OHS funding, administration, and access:
Steve Law, "Cash-strapped society explores history tax," Portland Tribune March 25, 2010.
Announcement of OHS Board's plans to introduce to the voters a "heritage taxing district" plan to collect "a modest amount of property taxes in Multnomah County." According to Executive Director George Vogt, "if the taxing district or alternative fundraising ideas don’t pan out, the 112-year-old nonprofit . . . expects to exhaust its cash reserves by late next year or early 2012."
Thom Jensen, "Historical Society's spending questioned as it asks for taxpayers' money," KATU TV March 26, 2010.
"The Oregon Historical Society is floating a few plans that could cost you more tax dollars to keep its downtown museum afloat, but we dug into its tax records to see how the non-profit is spending its money and you might be surprised to hear what we learned."[FYI, it seems that the 10 comments posted in response to this story have been deleted as of April 2, 2010]
D. K. Row, "Financial troubles continue to plague Oregon Historical Society," Oregonian March 31, 2010.
Brief online announcement that the paper will have "more on the goings on at OHS" upcoming.
David Gillaspie, "Find a better way to share state’s history," Portland Tribune April 1, 2010.
Guest opinion from a former OHS staff member, who asserts that the OHS' problem "isn’t just money – it’s trust". To support this contention, Gillaspie finds confusion in the organization's goals, questions the organizations management structure, and suggests that the organization has not done an adequate job of outreach and community building. Gillaspie uses these examples and the memories of his personal experience at the OHS to question the efficacy of rewarding this institution with increased funding.
If anyone knows of any additional media coverage between Dec. 10, 2009, and April 2, 2010, please post in the comments. Also, NHN Associates, feel free to send such links to the listserv. Periodically, the NHN Board will collate these materials into blog posts.
James V. Hillegas
----
* Not a hyperbolic statement in this instance.
Regarding Gillaspies' piece cited above, he's on to something important when he raises the issue of trust, and I appreciate his questioning of the way that the OHS is currently (for the past ~10 years) running things. It definitely seems an issue of trust to me, and the OHS board has not done anywhere near enough to address the fundamental issue of trust over the past year(plus).
ReplyDeleteI take issue with some of Gillaspie's points, however. These points are not central to his argument but are unnecessarily underhanded and dismissive. I can empathize with his desire to foment interest and passion in the issue, but to minimize complexity only undermines his case.
When he writes that the history of "Professors and museum experts . . . isn’t the same as your history; yours is more important," he's creating a us-vs-them, straw-man dynamic that has no place in this issue. There are many, many, trained historians and archivists who are as passionately dedicated to a thorough and representative view of our collective past. These "Professors and museum experts" work tirelessly and for minimal remuneration to preserve the ingredients of history that benefit the broad "yours" that Gillaspie is appealing to.
Second, I understand Gillaspie's populist appeal in attempting to empower everyone as historians ("We are all historians"). As a purported historian himself, he should know that this isn't true. Everyone is impacted by history, and many people have a deep interest in history, but to be a historian, one must be trained in the various threads of the art and craft of the various fields of history.* I don't want to come across as pedantic, and I'm more than happy to respond to thread comments asking for clarification on this point, but it is an important distinction that should not be glossed over.
Why do so many people with good points go off on tangents that undermine and distract the main point????
----
* I.e., oral historian, archivist, librarian, public historian, museologist, documentary film maker, editor, publisher, professor, project manager, author, etc.
@James V. Hillegas: Sir, posting comments on an aggregate blog instead of the larger public source article is a symptom of a bigger problem: putting problems like OHS into a greater context to engage a wider audience. The greater the number of readers, the better the odds of finding new donors.
ReplyDeleteHistory is hands on, history is sharing. When a museum closes, history is still hands on and sharing, just not at that museum. The history is still there, but the professors and museum experts move on.
You are the single post I've found regarding the Portland Tribune column, and I thank you for contributing.
Sincerely,
David Gillaspie