Ross Weeks <[log in to unmask]> wrote in article :

>         Your article-in-preparation, about overly optimistic
visitation/revenue
> forecasts and how boards may be using rose-colored glasses in projecting
> expenditures, could lead to a broadening in scope.  Solid museum leaders
> often get hurt in the process of a board's reacting to financial
>stresses.  An eminently successful fundraiser and museologist, Dr. Rupert
Cutler,
>  was ousted as director of Roanoke's Explore Park not long ago, and a career
> motel general manager is now its new director.


Mark L. Shanks 6/30/97 5:14 AM [log in to unmask] replied with a long
post that concluded in part:
Interesting that you should offer these two paragraphs back-to-back....

>As ex-Education Director of Explore Park, I'm afraid I have a differing
>perspective on this troubled project.  It has been going through rough
>times PRECISELY because of "overly optimistic visitation/revenue forecasts
>and... using rose-colored glasses in projecting expenditures...lead[ing] to
>a broadening in scope." The only difference is that it was not merely the
>Board's fault, but equally the professional staff's (Executive Director &
>General Manager) failure to do the job that museum people must do that lead
>them to this place...

>...In general, I'd say that rose-colored management both from boards and
>professionals have hurt the museum profession more than any other factor.


I add:

While preparing a reply to John Strand I reread the _Baltimore_  article
in Museum News while I kept up on the development of this thread and as
my mental processes trudged along it occurred to me what it was that made
that article so disturbing.  It was that it depicted the Baltimore as a
city with those same rose-colored glasses and overly optimistic
visitation/revenue forecasts the rest of you attribute to individual
museums.   Mr. Strand correctly points out that the article was about the
current mayor's attempts to build another Baltimore revitalization effort
around  museums with a biotechnological theme, _not_ about the financial
situation at BCLM.   However, the article does have a definite theme of
buoyant optimism for the present and future of Baltimore's Museums.
Hence the plethora of glossy photographs of museums that are not of a
biotechnological nature (2 of the exterior of the now closed and infamous
BCLM addition & not of the interior of the related and  also closed Peale
Museum and  its "dirt,decay, disregard for interpretive materials, and
general feeling of abandonment" as accurately described by Ellen Cutler
earlier on this topic) and repeated exhortations of what a great
supporter of museums Kurt Schmoke is, and recitations of some of the
recent developments and future plans for Baltimore Museums, again most of
a non-biotechnological theme.  The overwhelming message that most people
take away from this article is that, in the words of Robin Wagner in an
earlier incarnation of this thread, "Baltimore was a city that was doing
it right."  I have a hard time believing that was not intentional.

Why is this a problem for myself and so many other local heritage and
museum professionals?  Because this type of starry eyed optimism is just
the type of denial based planning that led the BCLM, and other museums on
this current thread,  toward trouble and  closure in the first place.
Just as BCLM may have over estimated attendance and income when it
planned their recent development, I believe Baltimore is over estimating
the amount of support that is available to museums and this problem will
be made worse as museums open and new ones are planned.  And Museum News
abets this head-in-the-sand approach by not questioning the official
statements of public officials or analyzing the economics of the
situation closely enough.

Two examples:
1) On page 43 in a paragraph that begins  "Thus, at a time when many city
governments are reducing funding for the arts, Schmoke's administration
is actively promoting museum development.  New museums are being built
all over town,"  the article lists a number of museums that have opened
recently as well as some in the works. It mentions specifically that an
institution devoted to African-American history is planned for the
future.  But the truth is Baltimore already has two African-American
institutions (Three if you count the Heritage Art Museum ,a fledgling
institution that, last I heard, was still lobbying for a permanent home,
and four if you count Banneker-Douglas near Annapolis, whatever is going
on down there, and five if you count the one in Columbia, about halfway
between DC and Baltimore )  and officials of at least one are worried
that the local economic situation will not support three museums with
such similar missions.  African-American museums are wonderful,
especially in a city with so many other ethnic based heritage
institutions, but I worry about the survival of the existing great
programs at these institutions if they must divide the money among even
more museums .  There are merits on all sides of this issue, but one
would never know that from reading this article.  It seems to treat new
museums as an unquestionably good thing, and allows only those who
support that view a voice.  Dissenters (and there are many) seem not to
be invited.  (Somewhere in the article it also mentions a fire museum
being planned or moved, I cannot at this time find the quote.  Again, we
have TWO fire museums in this town.  How many do people think we need??)

2)  Even if you know nothing about Baltimore, a close reading should
cause red lights to flash in most museum professionals.  Within its own
pages, this article describes four biotechnology institutions (the stated
theme of this article)  with widely overlapping themes and missions, that
are within a 15 minute walk of each other. (The Maryland Science Center,
The National Aquarium, The Columbus Center, and the soon to be opened
Port Discovery) And each one charges in the area of $7-$12 a person for
admission (I do not know what Port Discovery will charge).   I do not
think you need to question the merits of any of these institutions, and
the ones finished are top-notch, to wonder if they all can survive.

Baltimore is shrinking in terms of its economy as well as its population
and many people are nervous that by building so many similar institutions
we could be dooming them to failure and bring many of us who are trying
to attract the same visitors, government and private money, members, and
earned income down with them.   Could there be a better way?  Could we
have used already existing institutions to fulfill the Mayor's vision?
Is there such a thing as too many museums?  Does the merit of a proposed
museum automatically make it a good idea, regardless of its effect on
already existing museums?    Maybe, maybe not, but these issues go almost
completely unanalyzed in the local press, City Hall, and Museum News.
More seems to be better by definition.   And just as BCLM (and other
Museums mentioned on this thread) over estimated their future revenue and
attendance when making expansion plans and suffered for their hubris, I
am afraid Baltimore is doing the same on a much larger scale, and I
suspect other cities may be doing so as well.

Sorry that trip took so long



Matthew A. White
Director of Education and Internship Coordinator
Baltimore Museum of Industry
1415 Key Highway
Baltimore, MD 21230
(410)727-4808
[log in to unmask]