Last night in class we discussed the “Gospel of Efficiency” rampant during the Progressive Era. Kind of ironic to see the same sentiments at work in our own state legislature this year. For the sake of efficiency, the legislature is proposing the closure of museums and gutting of historic sites.
"It's not just about money. We need to do things as efficiently as we can," said Representative Julia Howard, Republican member of the oversight committee that produced budgetary and structural recommendations for North Carolina’s “attractions,” including historic sites, museums, the N.C. Zoo, and whatnot.
Recommended for closure is the Museum of the Albemarle. Historic sites are slated for reduced hours or closure. But you know me—D-town all the way down baby—my favorite recommendation is this:
Implement a coordinated management structure for Bennett Place, Duke Homestead, and Historic Stagville located in Durham County and analyze site proximity and span of control to identify other historic sites that could adopt a coordinated management structure. One manager would oversee a group of closely located sites, non-managers would not be affected by this change, and sites would not be merged. In Finding 1 of this report, the Program Evaluation Division found coordinating management of historic sites in Durham County could result in cost savings by reducing the number of management positions. The three historic sites, each with a site manager, are within a 30-minute drive of each other in Durham County. Coordinated management of these three sites would eliminate the need for two management positions and produce recurring savings of $92,100 (based on the statewide average historic site manager salary and benefits of $46,053). With this combined management structure, the span of control for one manager for all three sites would be 8, which is no larger than the number of staff currently at the two largest historic sites. Costs associated with this change, such as travel, should be minimal.
I thought the Durham sites already shared resources, especially in the site maintainence area (lawn mowing). But I’ve always thought they should be more interpretively intertwined. I mean, how often do you get three great sites so close to one another that have as their topics people from the same time period but separated by race, class, and economic and political circumstances.
But that’s not what the recommendations argue for. Their entire justification for combining three sites into one is the opportunity to fire two people. (And bear in mind that the stated manager salary--$46,053—includes benefits. No manager is bringing home that kind of money in a paycheck.)
Any teacher or historian (public or otherwise) can tell you that the value of museums lies not in their cost to visitor ratio, the annual receipts, or attendance numbers. The value is in the immeasurable qualities of cultural literacy, civic sensibilities, and social benefits of sharing a past.
Firing two people in the name of efficiency hinders that goal, but that’s the bold legislative vision we can expect from our legislature.
Which relates to another thing we talked about in class last night. At the turn of the Twentieth Century, Americans recognized the social chaos gripping the nation as traditional modes of social responsibility (families, rural communities) lost power in the face of new technology and sociological circumstances (industrialization, immigration, urbanization). Americans had a gut check on the question of what responsibility society had toward fostering cultural life, education, and the welfare of its less fortunate. Though disputed, and not fully realized until the 1950s, Americans leaned toward the idea that we do have social and cultural responsibilities toward one another, and the state (whether local, state, or federal) has a key role to play in maintaining those relationships.
This business with strangling cultural resources to near-death before completely dispatching them is part of a larger effort to reject the governmental imperative of social responsibility that this country has been so successful with for the last one hundred years.
If nothing else, it’s a good lesson putting our present circumstances into historical perspective. We’ll have a lovely discussion in class next week. Thanks, assholes.
Comments