An Athenæum
of Philadelphia Symposium
December 4 - 5, 1998
An Athenæum
of Philadelphia Symposium
December 4 - 5, 1998
“Expectations” is a word that comes
to mind often when I’m thinking about museums, especially historic sites
and historic house museums. There are certainly a great expectations
by and for those of us in the museum community – expectations that we will
preserve the past, posses expertise in history, decorative arts, and other
academic subjects, be talented practitioners in community relations, tourism
development, marketing, fundraising and many more. Some days when
I look at how we are doing, I think of Dickens’ novel, Great Expectations,
and the tragic character of Mrs. Havisham. She’s the one who “shut
out the sun” after being left at the alter by her unscrupulous lover.
20 years later, the clocks are still stopped at 20 minutes to 9:00 and
she still wears her tattered wedding gown and refuses to remove the wedding
feast. Do we sometimes lock ourselves away in the historic zone,
retreating behind our professional expertise and standards? Are our
clocks stopped at our period of significance? Do we grieve for the appreciation
and support we should have had? Most days, however, I’m convinced
that we can adapt to the future, like Pip the blacksmith’s ward, who is
adopted by an unknown benefactor and reinvents himself to make his way
in a new world
I’ve been asked to talk about house museums within state history programs. In many ways these museums are like their non-profit counterparts. Some are large, some very small, some are part of historic sites or communities, some are remote and isolated. Like all museums, state history museums struggle to balance stewardship with education and insure that they are fairly representing our past, connecting with the present community, and taking care of our historic resources for the future. At State owned sites we strongly share the conviction that preserving the tangible remains of the past is important to the health of our society and culture. In fact one Commission chairman, Frank Melvin, used to argue “that one penny given to the Commission for every dollar spent on mental health programs would ultimately so improve the mental well-being of the public that the much greater expenditures could, in time, be reduced.”
But state museums differ from other museums in several key areas. State owned sites are connected to an often extensive system of museums, which is allied to a state history function that reaches beyond them in both context and administration. In addition to its museum program, my agency, the PHMC, has responsibility for preservation of state records and historic documents, placement of historical markers and monuments, historical publications and historic preservation regulation. Museums come into a state system through a variety of channels, some more sensible than others. But once they come, their governance is mandate by state legislation, and in a sense the 150 members of the General Assembly function like our Board of Directors. In many ways, state history agencies can never be in control of their own destiny, because new responsibilities are added all the time, and rarely subtracted.
By way of background, I’d like to give you an idea where these state historic sites came from, talk a little about the management environment for this program, and then talk about some new directions we should consider for the future.
The Pennsylvania Historical Commission, a board of history-minded citizens, was formed as a state agency in 1913 and focused its attention primarily on historical monuments and commemorative events to inspire patriotism and love of Pennsylvania’s heritage. In its early years, the Commission had almost no staff, a tiny budget, and operated in fits and starts as new appointments were made by each new Governor. Governors at this time could serve for only one four-year term and not succeed themselves, so a lot of time was lost at the beginning and end of each administration. The agency’s first historic site was acquired almost by accident. Old Economy Village was the last home of the German Harmony Society first settled Harmony, Pennsylvania, moved to New Harmony, Indiana, and finally returned to “Oekonomie” in the southwestern part of the state, near Pittsburgh. They left a rich heritage of buildings as well as fine and decorative arts, the society archives, and music library and a beautiful formal garden. This site came under the Commission’s stewardship in 1919 as the result of a law suit brought by the last members of the society and a local history organization to gain control of the real property of the communal group, which had dissolved on the departure of its last leader. Despite the remarkable integrity of the site and collection, the Historical Commission had little enthusiasm for this site in particular, nicknaming it “Old Nuisance,” or for historic site management, and they left the operation of the site to the local historical group.
But the agency continued to be a reluctant recipient of historic property. Between 1929 and 1931 alone, the Commission was charged, through individual acts of legislation, with preservation of eight additional historic sites, including Conrad Weiser Homestead, home of the Penn family’s Indian negotiator, Cornwall Iron Furnace, one of the most intact iron furnace complexes in the world, the Flagship Niagara, the 1812 Battle of Lake Erie warship, which at this time had been reconstructed once and was in serious need of another make over, Drake Well, site of the first commercially viable oil well in the world, and Daniel Boone Homestead, which had been developed by a local group near Reading as a “Shrine to the American Boy” and Boy Scout meeting spot. Also acquired was the site of William Penn’s country manor, Pennsbury, in Bucks County. The manor house was gone, but archaeological research was planned. Roy Nichols reports in his history of the Commission, that in 1931, the Commission was most interested in historical research and publications, and “As there was some doubt about the desirability of so much property, the … Commission, in a rather fruitless gesture, secured the transfer of the Conrad Weiser and Drake Well parks to the Department of Forests and Waters.” Both were later returned to the Commission’s stewardship.
In the mid 1930’s Frank Melvin took over as chairman of the Commission. He was very interested in the opportunities to present and promote history at historic sites. He also believed that historic sites would expand the Commission’s base and improve appropriations for the whole agency. His tenure happily coincided with a period during which federal funds were available for history projects though the Works Progress Administration (WPA). Melvin pushed through an ambitious and controversial project to reconstruct Pennsbury Manor along with major restoration projects at Old Economy Village, Morton Homestead, and Daniel Boone Homestead. At the same time, plans to acquire and restore buildings of the 18th c. religious community at Ephrata Cloister in Lancaster County were made. These restoration projects were somewhat uneven in quality. Later, commenting on restoration work of this period, architect Edwin Brumbaugh described the work on Morton Homestead as “an irreparable loss.” Each of these projects proceeded at a much slower pace than originally hoped, because the appropriations were occasional and inadequate. At one point Charles Stotz, restoration architect for Old Economy was asked by the Commission “for no more than 60% of the plans” for his work. In the case of Ephrata, the restoration of the site continued through the mid 1960’s.
In 1945 the legislature expanded the Historical Commission’s mandate to include the State Museum and the State Archives under a renamed Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission or PHMC. S.K. Stevens, State Historian, reviewed the Commission’s historic preservation efforts to date and raised questions about the haphazard process of adding sites to the agency and the management problems this created. He recommended development of a private statewide organization to take pressure off PHMC at a time “when practically every local interest in Pennsylvania which has any property or building of historic interest is now planning and scheming to saddle its control and administration upon the state.”
Stevens was appointed Executive Director in 1956, and was able to articulate a more strategic and coherent vision for development of PHMC’s museum program. He wanted to move away from being the “preservation option of last resort” and advocated development of thematic museums which would be related not so much to earlier ideas about fostering patriotism but to an appreciation of the broad scope of Pennsylvania history, particularly its industrial heritage. Remarkably for the time, his plan encompassed not just the great men and entrepreneurs of these industries, but to the working people who built the industries and the ethnic cultures they reflected. These thematic museums, starting with the Farm Museum at Landis Valley, eventually included the Railroad Museum in Strasburg, the Lumber Museum in Coudersport, and three Anthracite Museums, including one in Scranton and Eckley Miners’ Village.
But at the same time, between 1941 and 1975, 41 separate acts of the legislature authorized PHMC acquisition of property. Many were of marginal significance or integrity. One of these which we are currently hoping to return to local ownership is Old Mill Village in Susquehanna County, a property developed by a trail-riding association which came into the ownership of a small rural bank through a foreclosure on a loan. As my staff says, there are only three problems with it: it isn’t a village, there’s no mill, and it isn’t old. More significant properties added during this period included Hope Lodge and Graeme Park north of Philadelphia, and the Joseph Priestley House in Northumberland.
But with growing state budgets, postwar prosperity, and the astute political leadership of Stevens and key Commission members, particularly legislative members, the agency was able to build Stevens’ thematic museum program and improve a core of significant historic sites with “reception centers and visual displays in the form of pictures, film strips, dioaramas, and the like.” At the rest of the historic properties, maintenance problems abounded, operation was sporadic, and staffing was sparse. Between the end of the pre-bicentennial “Project 70” and the early 1980’s almost no maintenance or improvement of historic sites was done, and a significant backlog of preservation needs developed. At the end of Stevens’ tenure in 1972, the Commission had responsibility for 60 historic sites and museums. Only about 25 had any real staff presence or a semblance of professional operation. Many were overseen by a live-in caretaker or no staff at all. The post bicentennial let down, the retrenchment of government begun in the late 1970’s, and the recession of the early 1980’s made it apparent that the agency’s historic site program could not live up to the expectations of the public, the history community or the legislature and administration.
In 1981, a radical redirection engineered by a new executive director, Larry Tise, and Chairman Vivian Piasecki reduced the PHMC’s commitment to historic sites. A panel of experts was assembled to evaluate the significance of the historic sites within the Commission’s care. A number of properties were considered to be of only local significance. It was proposed that these would no longer be staffed or administered by the Commission. They were to be “placed” with local groups for management and operation though a management agreement. Remarkably the plan succeeded for the most part, except where local and legislative political pressure could be effectively mounted to block the plan. Several properties were found to be more significant than originally thought, as the list made its way through the approval process. For example, Somerset Historical Center was removed from the “placement” list when an influential member of the General Assembly indicated that until Somerset was restored to the “A” list, the Commission’s annual appropriation would not be passed. It took a number of years to find a local management group for some sites, in some cases they reverted to PHMC management for lack of an alternative. However, many sites were placed, and resources were redirected to the operation of the remaining 27 historic sites and museums.
This allowed for greater professionalization of the museum program. Site Administrators were selected on the basis of professional training, and a number of curators and educators were added as well. A new sensitivity, informed by the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and the historic preservation program then growing within the PHMC, guided preservation and restoration efforts. At the same time, state government across the board was reducing staffing, out-sourcing, and trimming. The motto “do more with less” was in vogue.
One way of doing more with less state resources was to rely more heavily on private sector support. A number of sites had some organization that supported their work, such as the Pennsbury Society, or the Friends of Hope Lodge. In a few cases there were archaic local Commissions or Advisory Boards, such as the Daniel Boone National Foundation, or the Twenty-eighth Division Memorial Shrine Advisory Board. In many cases, these groups were difficult to manage, had their own agenda and felt free to skew priorities of PHMC by demanding more resources for “their sites.” They continued a pattern described by Commission director, Cadzow in 1942 as follows: “These Boards consist of very influential men in the areas where these properties exist. It is the job of the [Commission] Executive Secretary to influence these groups so they will not ask for so much money that the rest of the Commission’s program will be jeopardized.” In a few cases, existing friends groups had raised funds on behalf of the site but refused to spend the money, preferring to stockpile it for greater leverage over the Commission and its staff. But moving toward a new relationship, a new, standard agreement was developed which required joint annual planning and expanded friends’ ability to generate revenue through museum stores, fundraising events and licensed programs. In return, each group agreed to dedicate all the funds they raised to support the program in line with the joint plan. In the mid 1980’s all the existing groups signed partnership agreements, and since then associate or friends groups have been developed for every one of our historic sites and museums. These support groups (associates or friends) have become an essential component of our program, and overall, they generate about 30% of our operating budget.
Just two years ago, continuing resource limitations, questions about the value of operating so many museums, and an interest in doing more in other program areas led a new Commission to call for a new review of historic properties with an eye to reducing the number of the historic sites and museums under PHMC care. This review, conducted by a Blue Ribbon Committee of history and museum professionals, interestingly, gave the sites ratings somewhat different than the 1981 review. In some cases this was based on development at the sites. For example, a new visitor center, research and a development plan assured Somerset Historical Center a higher ranking among the committee. Sites which had unquestioned significance in the 1981 review were rated lower in come cases, either because of their limited potential to serve a large and diverse audience or reflecting a different value for certain historical themes. In particular, sites related to military history did less well in this review. The panel made very modest recommendations regarding adjustment to operations in a few cases and suggested placement for three sites. Constituencies for sites that were to be reduced or placed (with memories of 1981 still very fresh) immediately mobilized political support, and as a result, flaws in the procedures for developing the report were used as a reason to make no change in the Commission’s historic site/museum inventory.
This history shows that management of a system of historic sites and museums in a political environment presents dynamic tensions which cannot be resolved, but must be negotiated. The “authorizing authority” for the agency – including Commissioners, legislators, members of the administration, and local constituencies directs us to accept new responsibilities and continue existing ones, without providing new resources to manage them. First, there is a tension in resource allocation within the agency between the museum program and other history, archaeology, and preservation programs. Secondly, there is a tension between the history “professionals” as program managers and public expectations about the role and mission of the sites. And finally, a tension between the agency’s history mission and the public policy agenda for state government and the expectations that the history program will play a role in fulfilling that agenda.
Our first tension is Resource Allocation. Over the years, the appointed Commission as well as the staff leadership has questioned whether it would be more effective public policy to concentrate efforts on other history endeavors, and reduce the investment of operating funds in the staff and capital intensive property management responsibility. Research and publications; grants and support to other historical organizations; and archaeology have been favored activities at different times by the Commission and staff as well as administrations. In addition, because historic sites generate some revenue through admission fees and enjoy private sector support, there is a feeling that resources are needed less in that area. Resource allocation within the historic sites and museums program, and choices made to expand or reduce operations at certain sites are often questioned by legislators and our partners.
Secondly, there is a tension between “professional issues” and the public’s concerns. First, as professionals we feel that if we have inadequate resources our only logical choice is to reduce our commitments. I reviewed the many times over the years, the PHMC staff with outside professionals applied this logic with historical analysis to the interesting question of which historic sites and historic themes are worthy of inclusion in the STATE HISTORY program. Starting as early as S.K. Stevens work in 1941 and running up to our most recent experience in 1996, we history professionals have laid out the great themes of history (an interesting topic for a paper on its own) and measured our inventory of sites against them. Time and again, our customers, our clients, and our communities have demand a role in setting the agenda for our program, particularly within their community. They are not willing to accept our “logic” or the let the “professionals in Harrisburg, or anywhere else” tell them that their site is not important. Other expectations come from groups less closely tied to us – expectations that we will continue to teach the traditional history that they grew up with, and attract tourists to their community, and create business opportunities, and preserve open space and recreational opportunities. For legislators these sites are often a venue for investments of state resources in their constituency, and we have many, very supportive legislators who want to bring home the bacon. Our historic sites may be the only or one of a few state facilities in their community.
Recently we have seen a number of associate groups invite legislators to be members of the board. To the associate group this seems like a great opportunity, and it can be. But it can make the management of the system of sites just a little bit tricky. These legislators don’t always appreciate the demands on our resources across the program, or the impact of new initiatives on other sites or other parts of the agency. And they command high level attention. Often we are called upon to explain relatively routine decisions in a legislator’s office.
Finally, we are influenced by the agenda for state government of each new administration. On top of the dynamic forces within the agency and within the community, the expectations of each administration, new Commission members as well as the Governor’s office that appoints them, shape our program. During the Thornburgh administration, the agenda to limit the growth of government, outsource, downsize, and “do more with less” resulted in the property placement program. It also initiated a reduction in the staff of the agency overall and historic sites and museums in particular. Governor Casey saw the agency as a vehicle for delivering projects to key constituencies, and as a result we moved a number of agency priorities ahead, but also had two properties added directly to our placed property program to facilitate state investment in key projects: New Freedom Theater in Philadelphia, and the Scranton Cultural Center. And the current administration has a strong interest in tourism, marketing, and heritage as an ingredient in an economic development agenda, and the agency is now devoting resources to expanded marketing and tourism partnerships.
The growing belief that museums can drive tourism is encouraging local efforts to add sites to state agency care as a way to bring recognition, state resources, and tourism to their areas. We can expect the continued addition of properties to PHMC that are important to important people in Pennsylvania. A proposal is now in circulation from a legislator interested in starting a state Hunting and Fishing Museum in Tionesta, a very small community in northwestern Pennsylvania. The feasibility study projects that they will attract 25,000 visitors a year and earn 80% of their operating expenses through admission and other revenue. The state will pay to construct the building and develop the collection, of course.
These overlapping and interacting tensions boil down to a simple fact of life within state history programs: our expectations cannot be supported by the available resources. On the one hand, the political leadership is universally committed to the idea that government growth must be contained. On the other, there is little sympathy for the argument that there is a fixed amount of money to run state museums and that problems cannot be addressed at every site and new ones added, if we are to maintain a quality program. So, what strategies can we develop to manage these tensions in the 21st century and insure a quality history program for the state? I’d like to lay out a few ideas for managing within this environment and expanding support for the program by better connecting with our audiences.
First, we need to re-describe our role. We need to resist overselling the role we play in the economy of our communities and do a better job of explaining our core mission: stewardship of historic resources for the future and public education. In our search for moral and financial support we’ve encouraged and promoted the current fascination with heritage enterprise, earned revenue, and tourism. In looking at all kinds of museums, you can see that on average museums can “earn” around 30% of their operating costs through admission fees and sales. Colonial Williamsburg, the industry leader, does not earn more, even with its substantial admission fee, numerous restaurants, hotels, and shops and a $3 to 5 million advertising budget. And looking toward the future, we can expect heritage tourism, which has been on the increase over the last decade, to level off or decline. The fall, 1998, Travelometer, the seasonal forecast of American’s travel plans, reports “this is the first period since fall ’94 that interest in historic and cultural activities has dropped significantly.” Let us speak the truth: museums need to be subsidized. If we don’t explain and reinforce that among ourselves and within our communities, who will? Communicating this reality will be more important to our support in the future than the quality of our advertisements or brochures, or any “marketing plan” or packaging deal.
Second, we need to strengthen our key partnerships. Our partnerships with non-profit associate groups at each of our historic sites and museums is one of the major successes of the Pennsylvania program. These groups provide financial and political support for the sites and the agency, with over 30,000 members across the state. In addition, they give us entrée to the community and an avenue for community participation in the program. The value of their contribution cannot be overstated. However, I think that with some planning and strategic investments, they could be even more effective. We could capitalize more on the statewide network of sites, encourage cooperation in purchasing, professional services such as accounting, fundraising and marketing, and membership services. We could do a better job of sharing knowledge and best practices. And finally we need to work to make sure these groups truly reflect our communities and our potential audiences.
The American Association of Museums’ Principles of Excellence and Equity challenge us to know our community and emphasize the “public dimension” of the museum program. We all have a long way to go in this area. Museum professionals need to develop new job skills that include negotiation, intellectual as well as social. Do our institutions truly represent the diversity of our communities, or do we need to reach out and build partnerships with new and different groups? This is challenging work, but if we are going to survive in an increasingly diverse society, we need to start now.
We also need to open up the history-making process to a wider audience and demystify the work we do that is currently the private preserve of the museum professional—historic preservation, building conservation, working with collections, and interpretation. This, I think, will be essential to our efforts to engage the public as partners in our mission and secure continued support for the work of museums and historic sites.
Often, museum professionals see themselves in the role of “expert,” by training and inclination bringing extensive research and connoisoership to bear on questions of preservation, interpretation and meaning. We evaluate significance; we “tell the story,” speaking as the omniscient narrator for the benefit of the un-knowing public. Often people ask me what I do, at the doctor’s office or the dentist. Recently, I described my work to my dental hygienist. She said, “ I always think those museums are just there, that they run themselves.” It is nice to think that our management is so seamless that it appears inevitable, and the idea of disembodied, impersonal truth is one we have done quite a bit to foster. But this public perception that “sites run themselves” works against us when we try to convince the public, represented by their legislators and elected officials, that they should support the important work we do.
The public is anxious to benefit from our specialized knowledge about historic materials and resources, and they are willing to work to learn from us. For example, many of you must have seen advertisements for study tours during which you can actually dig at an archaeological site. At Hope Lodge, our Friends group has a historic preservation committee which sponsored historic paint research, raised money for some restoration work, and got training, and repainted several period rooms themselves, with other volunteers they recruited. These individuals got to be on the inside of the planning, research, and execution. And they really have an investment in the property—their enthusiasm generates new support in the community for the program.
We also need to create common cause with not accentuate the distance between our collecting activities and the collectors and buffs that pursue historic artifacts as a leisure activity. These collectors sometimes have a world-view and agenda that seems narrow if not reactionary, but they are researching and protecting historic material. They want to tap our expertise and resources in pursuing their interest. We can do more to provide opportunities and recognition for these “buffs.” We need to share our expertise and provide more access to our collections through study areas, open storage, artifact clinics and collector shows. We may never change the way these collectors think, but as John Fortier, my predecessor, commented, “Until we do more, it will be little wonder if the public doesn’t support our claims for public funding, think of our collections as being “locked away” from them, and not realize the educational or recreational potential of heritage resources.” We need to make the preservation of important places and objects personal and relevant to all kinds of people. To do this, we will have to share our knowledge about what we do and how we work.
Recent research should be used to help us develop new models for communicating with visitors. A lot of research has been done on how people learn and make meaning of history in museums. Again, we often think that we are “telling the story,” pouring knowledge into the empty vessels that are our visitors. But visitors come with previous knowledge and world views. They use the museum in a number of ways, distinct from the kind of historical learning we think of, based on an academic model. Usually visiting with family or friends, they identify objects and exchange stories with each other about their own past, they empathize with the people who lived or worked at the site in the past, and they compare their own life to that other time. Most importantly, they evaluate the information that is provided through exhibits, labels, demonstration and tour guides, and decide what meaning it has for them. The construction of new meaning is much more a dialog and a negotiation than we have recognized in the past.
To really engage our visitors, we need to create more opportunities for this kind of interaction among our visitors, using techniques such as asking questions, offering choices, and giving people an opportunity to see how events and people have been interpreted over time. We also need to give visitors more opportunities to connect their own life with the past that is exhibited in our museum interpretation. Finally, we can challenge people to share experiences and discuss the past of their community, putting forward the questions or issues that people find difficult to discuss in other arenas. For example, new interpretation at Pennsbury Manor is built on recent research about the “other people” who lived at the site. In Sam and Sue’s Closet people can learn about William Penn’s slaves, Sam & Sue. We don’t know much about them, but we are able to use their stories to highlight the different experiences of different people at the site during the 17th and 18th centuries, and the complexities of historical figures that are often described as ideal beings.
Museums within a state history agency will serve themselves well if they serve the agency’s broader history mission better by becoming access centers for history. Our sites can play a role in community preservation and commemoration and provide opportunities for grass roots participation in the history endeavor, a venue for history programming, education, and community building. They are also, often, the only place in the region where the “official history agency” has a presence. We could be providing a way to get information about the past, other historic sites, museums, history programs, grants, historic markers, National Register listing, programming, and publications. This spreads the reach of the agency in much the same way as state parks made it part of their vision to have a state park within 25 miles of every citizen. Today’s technology can make this happen, linking visitors and community members with all the programs of the agency as well as other sites and other history programs.
Finally, we need to develop more diverse models of stewardship for historic sites in the future so that we can care for sites under our control without jeopardizing other sites or other agency programs. The traditional historic site operation is an effective way to preserve and interpret history, but we can’t count on having the resources to approach every historic preservation opportunity at this level, and the audience just isn’t there for all the worthy sites. Our Blue Ribbon Committee suggested the development of more customized interpretive techniques such as providing outdoor signage with more extensive interpretation only during special events, limited seasonal operation for some sites, and merging administration of thematically linked sites for more efficiency.
We have some more aggressive models to build on in this area as well. The Commission’s pioneering work in enlisting local management groups to operate historic sites owned by the Commonwealth has been copied in other states. And this program has worked fairly well. And we are actually turning back ownership of a few sites to local groups with preservation restrictions.
We recently prepared a prospectus for private development at Eckley Miners’ Village. Only 20 of the 55 buildings on the site are interpreted. A number are leased as residences, a few by former miners. A study conducted by Urban Partners of Philadelphia indicated that there might be private developers interested in restoring a group of buildings for vacation rentals. Unfortunately, in the end, we did not receive any proposals for large-scale private investment, but more and more, historic sites, particularly within larger agencies, will need to explore ways to bring commercial investment to bear on our extensive preservation problems. In several other states, creative programs have been developed within state park agencies to provide state owned historic buildings rent-free to individuals willing to invest in preservation and restoration. Massachusetts’ “curatorship” program is one example, and Maryland and New York have started similar programs. This idea seems to work well for properties which are not central to the agency’s mission, but which have historic significance and value. The number of individuals interested in taking on these historic properties is further evidence of the personal interest and commitment people have to preservation of our heritage.
And this extensive community people who support history in its many forms are truly our “benefactors.” They are literally from all parts of the state, every social and economic group, and they feel passionate about the Commonwealth’s past. And despite the challenges I’ve described of working within a political environment, and despite a strong sense that government as a whole should be doing less, this public underpins the consistent and strong political support for a government role in the preservation of historic sites and stories important in Pennsylvania’s history. If we can do a better job of connecting with our audience, supporting the efforts and interests of our communities, and finding a role for museums that is relevant to the larger concerns of government, we will be able to improve our programs and provide better service to our citizens and visitors.
Thank you.