[Occupymendocino] Fw: library, Willits Museum & 10 parks, you can also send an e-mail to Carmel Angelo and the BOS tonight

[Microsoft account team]

________________________________
From: Annemarie <aweibel at mcn.org>
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 3:30 PM
To: Microsoft account team; Barbara Moller; richard karch; Reggie Bald; Rex Gressett; susan allen nutter; O/M lists; opcsteering at lists.mcn.org; Betty Carr; Daney Dawson
Subject: library, Willits Museum & 10 parks, you can also send an e-mail to Carmel Angelo and the BOS tonight

Hi,
Not just the library, but also the Willits Museum is at stake and the
Parks.
AVA had 1 or 2 letters by Sylvia Bartley and her husband Russell about
the Willits County Museum (see below unfortunately in reverse order
starting with letter 3, then 2, then 1 & additional letters from others
focusing more on the library issues.

By e-mailing <bos at mendocinocounty.org> it will get to all the members
including the CEO Carmen Angelo.

There might be duplications. See below, Annemarie

 From AVA:
DESPITE MAJOR OPPOSITION from Library advocates and defenders, County
CEO Carmel Angelo is pressing forward with her proposal to combine the
much more lushly funded county library with the County Museum and the
County’s remnant parks and rec department.

The below item is on next Tuesday’s March 27, Board of Supervisors
Agenda. We expect a parade of library people to be on hand to argue
against it. It will be interesting to see what is said about the note in
the attached “Fiscal Overview” which says 1) the library is running a
deficit, and 2) Library funding will not be intermingled with the
General Fund. So far, this proposal is very skimpy and at first glance
seems slap-dash. So, like many other proposals out of the CEO’s office,
there’s probably more to this than cliches like “greater access across
all demographics” and “Inspire personal growth,” etc. Gawd. If those are
the only reasons for it, the proposal should be immediately scrapped and
taken off the agenda.

WHAT’S NEXT? Combining the jail with the mental health department? (Oh
wait, they’re doing that.)

Item 5b:

CULTURAL SERVICES AGENCY (“DRAFT”)

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Core Values, Programs and Services:

* Provide greater access across all demographics to information,
cultural resources, opportunities for recreation and education, to
enhance the quality of life and well-being of residents and visitors to
Mendocino County

* Inspire personal growth, lifelong learning, healthy lifestyles,
connection to nature, and sense of community

* Share resources for greater marketing, finance, outreach and
interpretive programming

* Collaborate as an organization in service and program delivery to
connect our visitors and residents to educational, recreational and
cultural experiences

Fiscal overview charts
(Mark Scaramella)
______________________________________________________________________________
AB’S RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED CULTURAL SERVICES AGENCY (CSA)

A Cultural Services Agency, now under consideration by the County, would
incorporate three departments/programs: the Library, Museum, and County
Parks. Allegedly, these three existing departments/programs incorporate
similar vision and purpose, including providing informational,
educational and recreational access to Mendocino County communities.
Apparently the County believes that through the potential consolidation
of these departments/programs under one administrative umbrella, our
community will have greater access to resources. By forming an agency,
the County believes it will be better positioned to apply for grants
and/or funding streams, will increase administrative efficiency by
sharing resources for marketing, finance, outreach programs, and provide
the potential for Countywide collaboration between the three
departments/programs.

Discussion

Museum: The County has had a checkered history with the County Museum.
There are on-going damage control efforts to remediate staff shortages
and collections problems at the Museum. Over the course of many years
the County has alternately attempted to get rid of the Museum and
neglected the Museum ostensibly because this department is small. It
could be deduced that this is because the Museum is a drain on the
General Fund.

The former director worked in excess of fulltime capacity. Karen Horner
has worked as the Interim Director since November spending approximately
20-25% of her time trying to straighten out the problems of the Museum.
The CEO’s office has been active in the management as well. Apparently
the County was unaware until last year that the Museum had a problem
with its director, staff morale and a deteriorating collection.

In order for the Museum to thrive it needs a fulltime dedicated and
experienced director to actively safeguard its collection, plan new
exhibits, prepare publicity and supervise staff. The proposed CSA with a
10-25% director would abolish the validity of the Museum as a County
Department and forfeit its ability to shape itself as a tourist and
public entity.

Parks: There are seven parks and public access areas, which are mainly
historic properties. The Museum and Parks share a common purpose of
preserving the history of the County in that both occupy historic
properties that enhance tourism. Parks has never been a separate
department and has always been wrapped up in other agencies including
the General Services Agency. Currently they are part of Fleet and
Facilities, with a budget of $18,000, under the administration of the
CEO. In order for the Parks to thrive there must be enhanced promotion
and exposure of their resources. The County has provided only janitorial
services to the Parks. Otherwise they are nearly neglected. The proposed
CSA best suits the combination of the Museum and Parks, without the Library.

Library: The Library is self-funded through its pro-rata share of
property tax and Measure A sales tax revenue. By law, these funds are
dedicated to the Library. The CEO treats the Library as a County
Department, believes that the Library can be administered as such, and
that the County has the legal authority to fold the Library into the
proposed CSA. This may be contrary to California Code if the Grand
Jury’s finding are correct. (See GJ Report 2013-14, pages 8-9; Education
Code §19146).On several occasions the County has improperly charged the
Library for A-87 reimbursement on fully depreciated equipment. The Fort
Bragg Branch insurance funded facility and the Willits Branch’s grant
funded facility are two examples of improper charges to the Library. It
took two Grand Jury Reports and two years for the County to refund
$24,000 for building use charges and $31,000 for equipment charges to
the Fort Bragg and Willits branches. Additionally, the County refuses to
even consider that the Library Director’s salary should be paid by the
County as explicitly stated in the Education Code. Prior to the passage
of Measure A, the Board of Supervisors considered closing the Willits
Branch and the Bookmobile. The Library had no budget for materials. The
branches were open only three days per week. Measure A, approved by 75%
of the voters, reversed this dire condition.

Library Director Karen Horner and her staff have put considerable effort
into trying to correct the myriad problems at the Museum. Ms. Horner
believes she will be able to manage the Museum as if it were a library
branch. She is currently devoting approximately 25% of her and staff
time but intends to reduce it in the future. The LAB understands that
some of the impetus for the Library Director’s embrace of the CSA has
three components:

[1] Working conditions for the library ad/min staff at the Ukiah branch
are difficult. The back area of the Ukiah Branch is cramped, without
privacy, and with constant disruption. Ms. Horner believes that an
upstairs office in the museum could be used for ad/min offices.

[2] Ms. Horner believes with the creation of the CSA the County might
supplement the proposed agency with new ad/min employees.

[3] It is likely the CSA Director will have an enhanced salary for the
director.

Ms. Horner believes the Museum does not need a dedicated director.
Instead, she feels a curator and a part-time director or “branch-head”
with staff will be sufficient.

Arguments Against The Proposed Cultural Services Agency

[1] Today we have a thriving library system but the future of the
library is contingent on a renewal of Measure A funding in 2027. Any
actual or perceived co-mingling, diverting or misuse of the Library’s
dedicated funding or library reserve fund will detrimentally affect the
passage of voter approved future library funding, thus returning the
Library to its pre-2011 crisis condition.

[2] The Library deserves the time and attention of a fulltime Library
Director. Additional ad/min staff should be hired on as needed basis.
Library staffing is not contingent on a proposed CSA. There is no reason
the Museum facilities could not be used now by the Library for office
space without being part of a CSA. Agencies often rent space to each
other. The best intentions of the County to safeguard proper use of
Library funds in the proposed agency budget would be impossible to track
and would lead to public mistrust.

[3] It is likely that what the CEO means by [the agency] will have
“greater access [to] shared resources” is that the Museum and Parks will
have the potential to utilize Library funds through ambiguous accounting
and unspecified co-mingled costs of ad/min and A-87 expenditures. The
County’s opaque accounting practices, past attempts to inaccurately
assess A-87 charges and refusal to consider following state law
regarding the proper source of the Director’s salary are reasons to
doubt the intentions of the County in its attempt to combine the Library
with the Museum and Parks into an agency. The Library, Museum and Parks
have disparate missions and volume of public use. The Library had a door
count of approximately 417,000 in 2017, while the Museum had
approximately 8,000-10,000 visitors in 2017, including special events.
The Library is free while the Museum requests an admission fee. The
Library and Museum provide educational opportunities but have differing
use of resources. Their appeal is not congruent. Libraries are dynamic.
They strive to adapt to charging community needs and serve as vibrant
community centers. The Museum’s mission is the preservation of
historical artifacts. It is a tourist destination and a resource for
County residents. Our Parks are mainly gifted properties to the County
and have more in common with the Museum as historic sites with limited
use as recreational facilities. Both the Museum and Parks clearly need
attention and deserve dedicated leadership to improve, maintain and
promote the use of their assets and properties.

[4] It is dubious logic that says that combining the Museum with the
Library and Parks will serve the public any better than they are now. It
is feasible for any of the three to work on joint grants and programs
now. We believe the Library, Museum and Parks are and have been capable
of applying for grants independently and have no need for affiliation.
For example, the Bookmobile was procured in part by a Department of
Agriculture grant with the strong support of Supervisor Brown. Outreach
can be accomplished collaboratively between agencies. There does not
need to be a combined agency or budget. There is no evidence that
demonstrates that combining departments/programs is a more effective
management system in providing services to communities. The proposed CSA
is contingent on a convenient and reductionist approach rather than
being a forward thinking structural change that takes into account the
best interests of the Library, Museum and Parks.

Conclusions

The LAB believes the proposed Cultural Services Agency will harm the
Library for the following reasons:

[1] Jeopardize future library funding.

[2] Reduce the director and ad/min staff to part-time with diminished
focus on library services and programs.

[3] Loss of control of the library budget and library reserve fund
through the potential for co-mingling and improper use of dedicated
library funds.

[4] Prop up the Museum and Parks at the Library's expense.

[5] Less effective administration and loss of services.

We advise The Board Of Supervisors To Reject The Proposed Cultural
Services Agency.

Submitted by the Mendocino County Library Advisory Board

Marc Komer, Chair
George DornerReply
March 17, 2018 at 12:18 pm

When Prop A passed to provide needed funding for the library, I wondered
how long it would take for the pols and bureaucrats to steal the money
from the library for their pet purposes. Now we know.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO CARMEL’S NEW AGENCY

Dear Editor:

Unfortunately, the County is attempting to siphon dedicated Library
funds for other departments. The Library Advisory Board (LAB) is
adamantly opposed to the the proposed Cultural Services Agency and we
need the help of media to alert the public.

Attached is the LAB's statement with our arguments against the CSA.

Interested users and lovers of the Library can help by:

Attend the Board of Supervisor meeting on Tuesday, March 27th where a
presentation will be made about the Cultural Services Agency. Give input
in the public comment period. Check the county website for the time of
the meeting.
Contact your supervisor.
Write a letter to the editor.
Join Friends of the Library groups throughout the County. The Library
needs a loud response to the County's attempt to divert Library funds.
Marc Komer

Mendocino County Library Advisory Board, chair

* * *

LAB’S RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED CULTURAL SERVICES AGENCY (CSA)

A Cultural Services Agency, now under consideration by the County, would
incorporate three departments/programs: the Library, Museum, and County
Parks. Allegedly, these three existing

departments/programs incorporate similar vision and purpose, including
providing informational, educational and recreational access to
Mendocino County communities. Apparently the County believes that
through the potential consolidation of these departments/programs under
one administrative umbrella, our community will have greater access to
resources. By forming an agency, the County believes it will be better
positioned to apply for grants and/or funding streams, will increase
administrative efficiency by sharing resources for marketing, finance,
outreach programs, and provide the potential for Countywide
collaboration between the three departments/programs.

Discussion:

Museum:

The County has had a checkered history with the County Museum. There are
on-going damage control efforts to remediate staff shortages and
collections problems at the Museum. Over the course of many years the
County has alternately attempted to get rid of the Museum and neglected
the Museum ostensibly because this department is small. It could be
deduced that this is because the Museum is a drain on the General Fund.

The former director worked in excess of fulltime capacity. Karen Horner
has worked as the Interim Director since November spending approximately
20-25% of her time trying to straighten out the problems of the Museum.
The CEO’s office has been active in the management as well. Apparently
the County was unaware until last year that the Museum had a problem
with its director, staff morale and a deteriorating collection.

In order for the Museum to thrive it needs a fulltime dedicated and
experienced director to actively safeguard its collection, plan new
exhibits, prepare publicity and supervise staff. The proposed CSA with a
10-25% director would abolish the validity of the Museum as a County
Department and forfeit its ability to shape itself as a tourist and
public entity.

Parks: There are seven parks and public access areas, which are mainly
historic properties. The Museum and Parks share a common purpose of
preserving the history of the County in that both occupy historic
properties that enhance tourism. Parks has never been a separate
department and has always been wrapped up in other agencies including
the General Services Agency. Currently they are part of Fleet and
Facilities, with a budget of $18,000, under the administration of the
CEO. In order for the Parks to thrive there must be enhanced promotion
and exposure of their resources. The County has provided only janitorial
services to the Parks. Otherwise they are nearly neglected. The proposed
CSA best suits the combination of the Museum and Parks, without the Library.

Library: The Library is self-funded through its pro-rata share of
property tax and Measure A sales tax revenue. By law, these funds are
dedicated to the Library. The CEO treats the Library as a County
Department, believes that the Library can be administered as such, and
that the County has the legal authority to fold the Library into the
proposed CSA. This may be contrary to California Code if the Grand
Jury’s finding are correct. (See GJ Report 2013-14, pages 8-9; Education
Code §19146).On several occasions the County has improperly charged the
Library for A-87 reimbursement on fully depreciated equipment. The Fort
Bragg Branch insurance funded facility and the Willits Branch’s grant
funded facility are two examples of improper charges to the Library. It
took two Grand Jury Reports and two years for the County to refund
$24,000 for building use charges and $31,000 for equipment charges to
the Fort Bragg and Willits branches. Additionally, the County refuses to
even consider that the Library Director’s salary should be paid by the
County as explicitly stated in the Education Code. Prior to the passage
of Measure A, the Board of Supervisors considered closing the Willits
Branch and the Bookmobile. The Library had no budget for materials. The
branches were open only three days per week. Measure A, approved by 75%
of the voters, reversed this dire condition.

Library Director Karen Horner and her staff have put considerable effort
into trying to correct the myriad problems at the Museum. Ms. Horner
believes she will be able to manage the Museum as if it were a library
branch. She is currently devoting approximately 25% of her and staff
time but intends to reduce it in the future. The LAB understands that
some of the impetus for the Library Director’s embrace of the CSA has
three components:

[x] Working conditions for the library ad/min staff at the Ukiah branch
are difficult. The back area of the Ukiah Branch is cramped, without
privacy, and with constant disruption. Ms. Horner believes that an
upstairs office in the museum could be used for ad/min offices.

[x] Ms. Horner believes with the creation of the CSA the County might
supplement the proposed agency with new ad/min employees.

[x] It is likely the CSA Director will have an enhanced salary for the
director.

Ms. Horner believes the Museum does not need a dedicated director.
Instead, she feels a curator and a part-time director or “branch-head”
with staff will be sufficient.

Arguments Against The Proposed Cultural Services Agency

[x] Today we have a thriving library system but the future of the
library is contingent on a renewal of Measure A funding in 2027. Any
actual or perceived co-mingling, diverting or misuse of the Library’s
dedicated funding or library reserve fund will detrimentally affect the
passage of voter approved future library funding, thus returning the
Library to its pre-2011 crisis condition.

[x] The Library deserves the time and attention of a fulltime Library
Director. Additional ad/min staff should be hired on as needed basis.
Library staffing is not contingent on a proposed CSA. There is no reason
the Museum facilities could not be used now by the Library for office
space without being part of a CSA. Agencies often rent space to each
other. The best intentions of the County to safeguard proper use of
Library funds in the proposed agency budget would be impossible to track
and would lead to public mistrust.

[x] It is likely that what the CEO means by [the agency] will have
“greater access [to] shared resources” is that the Museum and Parks will
have the potential to utilize Library funds through ambiguous accounting
and unspecified co-mingled costs of ad/min and A-87 expenditures. The
County’s opaque accounting practices, past attempts to inaccurately
assess A-87 charges and refusal to consider following state law
regarding the proper source of the Director’s salary are reasons to
doubt the intentions of the County in its attempt to combine the Library
with the Museum and Parks into an agency. The Library, Museum and Parks
have disparate missions and volume of public use. The Library had a door
count of approximately 417,000 in 2017, while the Museum had
approximately 8,000-10,000 visitors in 2017, including special events.
The Library is free while the Museum requests an admission fee. The
Library and Museum provide educational opportunities but have differing
use of resources. Their appeal is not congruent. Libraries are dynamic.
They strive to adapt to charging community needs and serve as vibrant
community centers. The Museum’s mission is the preservation of
historical artifacts. It is a tourist destination and a resource for
County residents. Our Parks are mainly gifted properties to the County
and have more in common with the Museum as historic sites with limited
use as recreational facilities. Both the Museum and Parks clearly need
attention and deserve dedicated leadership to improve, maintain and
promote the use of their assets and properties.

[x] It is dubious logic that says that combining the Museum with the
Library and Parks will serve the public any better than they are now. It
is feasible for any of the three to work on joint grants and programs
now. We believe the Library, Museum and Parks are and have been capable
of applying for grants independently and have no need for affiliation.
For example, the Bookmobile was procured in part by a Department of
Agriculture grant with the strong support of Supervisor Brown. Outreach
can be accomplished collaboratively between agencies. There does not
need to be a combined agency or budget. There is no evidence that
demonstrates that combining departments/programs is a more effective
management system in providing services to communities. The proposed CSA
is contingent on a convenient and reductionist approach rather than
being a forward thinking structural change that takes into account the
best interests of the Library, Museum and Parks.

Conclusions

The LAB believes the proposed Cultural Services Agency will harm the
Library for the following reasons:

[x] Jeopardize future library funding.

[x] Reduce the director and ad/min staff to part-time with diminished
focus on library services and programs.

[x] Loss of control of the library budget and library reserve fund
through the potential for co-mingling and improper use of dedicated
library funds.

[x] Prop up the Museum and Parks at the Library's expense.

[x] Less effective administration and loss of services.

We advise The Board Of Supervisors To Reject The Proposed Cultural
Services Agency.

Submitted by the Mendocino County Library Advisory Board

Marc Komer, Chair
_____________________________________________________________

LIBRARY UNDER THREAT

An open letter to the Board of Supervisors:

The proposal to create a county department, the Cultural Services
Agency, out of the Library, the Museum and Parks, combining the
administration of all, is a bad idea from many perspectives. It usurps
the role of the County Librarian, combines two very different funding
sources (dedicated property tax plus restricted sales tax vs. the
general fund), two different jurisdictions (only the library includes
both the incorporated an unincorporated areas) and greatly diminishes
the accountability of county government to its residents. Different
professional expertise is needed for each proposed component. Basically,
it seems a proposal to skim money from the Library while at the same
time weakening all three institutions.

If the County is unwilling to adequately oversee and fund the County
Museum, it should close it down and return the artifacts and archives to
the donors or organizations that can safeguard them. The building and
the collections need an infusion of money. It could be an attraction for
tourists, boosting the Willit’s economy and drawing motorists from the
bypass, i.e., economic development. Yet, this proposal seems to include
putting the this year’s unspent budgeted dollars into the general fund,
rather than using it for needed improvements, and cutting next year’s
budget. (Maybe you’ll buy more county vehicles if $800,000 last year
wasn’t enough.) Nothing now prevents the Library and the Museum from
cooperating on mutually beneficial events.

The duties and responsibilities of the County Librarian are set forth is
state law. He/she “shall , subject to the general rules adopted by the
board of supervisors, build up and manage, according to the accepted
principled of library management, a library for the use of the people of
the county...” (Ed Code sec. 19146) and shall “authorize and approve”
“each claim against the county free library fund”. (Ed Code 19176).
Sounds like an administrator to me. Wherein lies the authority of the
board of supervisors to give those powers to a county agency
administrator? Already, a lot the Librarian’s administrative time has
been devoted to the Museum; even if reimbursed, it is a significant
diversion of time and attention.

Of far greater concern is the accounting and accountability nightmare
this proposal will create for supporters of the Museum, the Library and
the Parks. The broad brush of the published county budget--”operating
transfers in”, “operating transfers out”, “intra fund transfers”, “A-87
charges”--create a fog impenetrable to the average citizen. In two
years, the depreciation and overhead charges against the Library (A-87)
have increased from 12% of its dedicated property tax revenue to 19%. To
whom, for what, and why is unknowable from published information. For
good government efficiency is less important than accountability, which
in turn rests upon transparency.

Transparency is particularly important in regards to the sales tax
authorized by Measure A, crucial to the viability of the Library (twice
in the past the County has been willing to completely shut down or
eliminate a branch thereof). Measure A has a clause requiring
continuation of funding existing in 2012. It has a sunset clause. It is
difficult to envisage the support of nearly 75% , or even 63%, if the
voters are unsure whether funds are being siphoned off to support other
amenities or if the Library has lost its identity.

The board of supervisors will be hearing this proposal Tuesday, March
27. I urge each of you who feel that any or all of the Museum, the
Library, the Parks have a positive impact on your life to attend and let
your voice be heard. Or write or call your supervisor. I personally care
about all three.

In all of the above I am speaking as a private citizen, not as part of
any organization to which I may belong.

Linda Bailey

Boonville
_______________________________________________

MENDOCINO COUNTY MUSEUM CRISIS
MEMORANDUM OF CITIZEN CONCERN (3)

TO:     MCM Advisory Board chair Rebecca Montes
        MCM Advisory Board vice chair Saprina Rodriguez
        County Supervisor Carre Brown
        MCM Interim Director Karen Horner

FROM:  MCM contract archivists (suspended) Russell & Sylvia Bartley

RE:     Status of the County Museum’s archival collections

DATE:  14 February 2018


We are moved to address this third memorandum of concern to the
individuals most immediately involved in overseeing the administrative
and operational reorganization of our County Museum by (1) CEO Carmel
Angelo and Deputy CEO Janelle Rau’s recent denigration of our archival
work and of us personally in the February 11th edition of the Ukiah
Daily Journal (Ariel Carmona, “Mendocino County Museum controversy not
going away”), and (2) by the manifest lack of understanding on the part
of County officials as to the nature of archival work and its critical
importance for the effective fulfillment of the Museum’s public mission.
        First, we are dismayed and appalled that the CEO and Deputy CEO have so
irresponsibly called into question both our professionalism and our
personal motivation as contract archivists when they have not once
deigned to meet with us about the work we have been doing at the County
Museum nor to seriously inform themselves about the nature of that work
and its critical importance for future Museum operations. For the
record: Russell is a fully credentialed academic historian (Stanford
Ph.D., 1972) with a career’s worth of archival experience; since 1991 he
and Sylvia have operated (without any personal financial gain) the Fort
Bragg-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit Noyo Hill House, which they created to
serve as a safety net for historical source materials in danger of being
lost or destroyed and through that institutional vehicle have
facilitated the placement and permanent preservation of numerous bodies
of valuable historical records in appropriate archival institutions in
northern California and elsewhere around the country, including our own
County Museum. Additionally, since its founding in 1999, Sylvia has
administered on a volunteer basis the Fort Bragg-Mendocino Coast
Historical Society’s archives, located in Fort Bragg’s City Hall, while
Russell has assisted her in that locally important endeavor as time has
allowed.
        We also call to your attention that, on 16 December 2008, the Mendocino
County Board of Supervisors issued a Proclamation in recognition of our
“exceptional service to Mendocino County” (copy attached), the opening
Whereas of which stated that we had “worked diligently, professionally,
and reliably to make Mendocino County’s archival collections a real
asset to our community,” while the fifth and final Whereas concluded
that we had been “instrumental in comprehensive compilation of County
archival collections” and that, “due to the dedication and commitment”
we had demonstrated over the years, the Museum’s “archive module” would
eventually have all of the institution’s archival data and collections
in one accessible location.
        Status of MCM archival collections: The now 46-year-old Mendocino
County Museum never had an archivist on its staff before former director
Herb Pruett invited us in 2004 to begin the process of properly
organizing its by then extensive and invaluable archival holdings.
Without going into detail, it is important to understand that historical
archives are not administered the same way as artifact collections.
While most professionally experienced museum curators are knowledgeable
about the physical preservation techniques applied to paper-based items,
including documents, correspondence, photographs, and books, they are
not as a rule qualified to evaluate, inventory, organize, and oversee
archival collections. That is because archival collections are
inherently complex in ways that discrete artifacts are not: they
comprise tens, hundreds, thousands or more of individual written,
graphic and/or photographic items that must be evaluated, arranged in
coherent groupings, inventoried and described so as to facilitate their
utilization by Museum staff, County employees, professional researchers,
and interested members of the general public.
        The hands-on process is often tedious and always time-consuming. When
we started our work under Pruett’s directorship, the Museum’s archival
holdings were chaotic. Most were in proper archival containers but had
not been curated within those containers, nor, in most cases, had they
been inventoried. Storage was on steel shelving in the Museum’s original
storage area, often stacked so high and compactly that retrieval was
difficult, while a few particular collections seemed to reside on
shelving, or occasionally the floor, in the upstairs curatorial area.
Working part time for two and a half years under Pruett, we moved a
portion of the archival holdings into the enclosed space within the new
storage area now referred to as the archival suite (or unit) and made
initial progress processing a number of collections, including some of
the boxed County records. When Pruett retired in 2007, funding for our
archival work ended and there was a six-year hiatus until Alison Glassey
brought us back to continue the work.
        When we returned in 2013, we found part of the archival suite occupied
by tables with Pomo baskets being boxed for storage by an experienced
volunteer curator and his assistants. We agreed to divide the main
central room between us, with the largest of the adjoining rooms
reserved exclusively for archival storage. A few weeks later, it was
decided to convert one of the other adjoining rooms that had been used
as a work space for archival researchers into an artifact curation lab
and to utilize all of the main room for archival tasks. We installed
banks of steel library shelving for reference materials, in-process
collections, and some interim storage; added additional steel utility
shelving to the inner archival storage area, and began to relocate key
collections from other areas of the Museum. We had ourselves previously
donated significant historical collections to the Museum (e.g.,
ex-County Supervisor Norman De Vall’s papers; the records of the citizen
activist group People for a Nuclear Free Future) and over the next four
years would bring in others for eventual incorporation into the Museum’s
archival holdings.
        Over the next three years (2013-2016) we made substantial progress
toward our goal of transforming the Museum’s important but seriously
disorganized archival holdings into an accessible, professionally
organized, historical resource. Sylvia concentrated on entering
collection data into the Museum’s PastPerfect computer program,
processing photographic collections, answering constant research
inquiries, and inventorying collections, including the extensive John
Keller local and regional history library. (Stanford University offered
to purchase Keller’s library but he chose to donate it to the County
Museum.) Russell concentrated on the processing of paper and memorial
book collections, including a significant amount of time on a massive
body of County government records spanning a fifty-year period from the
1930s to the 1980s. For one nine-month period he oversaw and was
assisted by an exceptionally talented volunteer with previous archival
(film) experience.
        Much of 2016-2017 was spent ensuring the physical integrity of the
Museum’s archival holdings during the massive remediation effort
necessitated by the discovery of a serious black mold infestation. When
it developed that the remediators needed to remove part of the ceiling
in the main part of the archival suite, we had to remove all archival
materials from that room. We insisted on overseeing that major task,
which we performed personally to prevent the disruption of archival
integrity and organization that likely would have occurred had it been
carried out by remediator personnel. When we returned following
remediation, we found the desks and shelving all piled and covered with
plastic sheets in the middle of room and had to spend several weeks
fully restoring the physical work space we had developed previously.
        We provide some of these details because, with all of the talk about
“starting from a clean slate to put the Museum on a sound footing,” we
have heard talk about intentions to hire a new archivist to work with
the new curator, Karen Mattson, which from our professional (not
financial!) perspective, would be a serious mistake. No archivist coming
in from the outside at this point will possess the requisite knowledge
base to pick up where we have left off. Objectively, the only reasonable
approach to the Museum’s archival holdings is to let us continue the
work we have begun—now more than half completed.
__________________________________________________________

MENDOCINO COUNTY MUSEUM CRISIS
MEMORANDUM OF CITIZEN CONCERN (2)

TO: Chair, Mendocino County Board of Supervisors, Dan Hamburg
COPY TO: 4th District Supervisor Dan Gjerde
FROM: County Museum contract archivists (suspended) Russell & Sylvia Bartley
DATE: 28 January 2018

Dan – Sylvia and I are moved to address this second Memorandum of
Citizen Concern to you most immediately by last Friday’s Ukiah Daily
Journal article (“Mendocino County hires museum curator,” 26 January)
about MCM’s new curator, Karen Mattson. It is a transparent PR response
to Ariel Carmona’s previous UDJ article exposing serious mismanagement
issues at the Museum (“Mendocino County Museum advisory members
concerned over museum management,” Tuesday, 16 January) that
conveniently ignores the basic administrative and operational problems
facing our County Museum. As one active local heritage preservationist
expressed it to us in an email sent the day this latest gloss-over
appeared, it is “a bit of a spin on damage control” so as “not to let
the public ask too many questions.”
        Our primary reason for addressing this memorandum to you, however, is
the Board’s failure to respond to us and the very serious issues we have
raised based on our many years of hands-on involvement in the curation
of County Museum records and archival holdings. We take the liberty here
to remind you that your oath of office obliges you “to devote time,
thought and study to your duties” in order to “render effective and
credible public service;” to work “in a spirit of cooperation so all
issues, especially those which are controversial, may be debated openly
and fairly;” and “to base decisions on all available facts, without
bias.” Objectively, you have not adhered to these principles of office
in your oversight of the County Museum.
        How can you properly and responsibly delegate that oversight to your
Chief Executive Officer, Carmel Angelo, who, her meritorious handling of
last fall’s wildfire crisis notwithstanding, knows nothing about the
operational principles and requirements of a local heritage museum? How
can you defensibly neglect to discuss the issues we have raised with us,
the two individuals most familiar with the Museum’s institutional
history, with its current operational needs, and, above all, with the
Museum’s archival collections on which all other operations depend? How
can you defend failing to keep the Museum Advisory Board apprised of
your intentions with regard to the Museum’s future when they are
supposed to be your administrative link to the Museum?
        What the public needs to understand is that the current, potentially
fatal, institutional crisis at our County Museum is the fault of County
government (BOS and CEO), not Alison Glassey. While Glassey, like most
administrators, had her shortcomings and did create more than one
administrative difficulty, she also made significant contributions to
the Museum and its public service role, for which she deserves to be
duly recognized. Moreover, whatever her administrative missteps, it was
Carmel Angelo who chose to place her in the Museum’s directorship rather
than recruit a professional public historian as had been done in the
past and should have been done when former director Herb Pruett retired.
        We cannot dismiss in this context our sense that there may have been a
competitive bureaucratic personality clash here between the CEO and
Glassey and that we ourselves have been removed from the Museum because
of the CEO’s perception that we were somehow in league with Glassey,
which was never, in fact, the case. We also know too much, it seems,
about BOS/CEO mismanagement of the County Museum over the past two
decades, which would explain our having become the unnamed subjects of
the latest Museum public relations coverage in the Ukiah Daily Journal.
In this light, we can only conclude that our new two-year archival
contracts, requested by Glassey and authorized by Carmel Angelo, then
summarily suspended five weeks later, were not issued in good faith.
        We respectfully suggest that the following empirical facts must receive
your and your Board colleagues’ sober attention:

(1) If the Mendocino County Museum is to achieve its defining public
cultural purposes, it must be staffed by a trained/experienced public
historian director; a curator of artifact collections; a curator of
exhibits and programs; and a curator of archival collections; plus an
executive secretary, part-time receptionists, and a part-time museum
store supervisor.

(2) The Museum cannot be run properly by one “museum curator” and
“talented volunteers.”

(3) No matter how talented and experienced recently hired curator Karen
Mattson may be, she faces a daunting task of gaining adequate
familiarity with the Museum’s artifact collections and will be incapable
of doing so in a timely fashion if, as a practical matter, she must also
perform the duties of Museum director, concern herself with exhibits and
programs, and generally deal with innumerable other operational calls on
her time.

(4) Key to everything our County Museum does are its institutional
records and archival holdings, which is where we have been devoting our
time for several years now as contract archivists. (We, in fact, created
the archival unit, which is an area commented on in last Friday’s UDJ
article by County librarian Karen Horner as exemplifying the “amazing”
job done by “current staff members and volunteers” to organize and
maintain Museum collections. What she neglected to say to the reporter,
but has acknowledged to us personally, is that that particular “amazing
job” was our work, not the effort of “staff and volunteers.” We don’t
know how much you took in, Dan, but we showed you around the Museum’s
archival suite the day you donated your records re. the Round Valley
historical monument at Inspiration Point.)

(5) The work we have been doing over the past several years to bring
order out of chaos in the Museum’s archival collections has accomplished
much, yet leaves a great deal to be done, none of which Karen Mattson is
qualified to do, nor, as we have said before, is anyone else for the
simple reason that nobody coming in cold from the outside can possibly
have a coherent idea of where we are in the archival process, of the
rationale and historical significance of particular collections, or how
to complete in-process inventories of unfamiliar holdings. Our purpose
is simply to bring sufficient order to the Museum’s archival holdings,
with the requisite collection inventories, established accessions
priorities and developed administrative policies, so that an experienced
archivist can then take charge of those holdings and effectively manage
them into the future. If we are not allowed to complete the job we are
professionally motivated and have been contracted to do, much
irreplaceable County history will be lost and with it invaluable
insights into who we are as a community.

        Finally, please be advised that in the event it is decided not to
reactivate our County contracts and allow us to complete the work for
which those contracts were issued, we will be obliged to recover some
exceptionally significant historical materials that we ourselves have
contributed to the Museum’s archival holdings and for which we remain
personally responsible to the original donors.



Russell & Sylvia Bartley
P.O. Box 219
Fort Bragg, CA  95437-0219
Email: nhh at mcn.org
___________________________________________________________________________
MENDOCINO COUNTY MUSEUM:
A THREATENED PUBLIC TRUST
MEMORANDUM OF CITIZEN CONCERN
TO: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors
Mendocino County Museum Advisory Board
Mendocino County Heritage Network
Other concerned parties and the public at large
FROM: County Museum contract archivists Russell & Sylvia Bartley
DATE: 1 December 2017
What is the issue?
The Mendocino County Museum (MCM) was created by the Mendocino County
Historical
Society (MCHS) over a several-year period in the 1960s and early 1970s,
then donated to Mendocino
County by formal agreement with the County Board of Supervisors (BOS)
for the permanent
preservation of the County’s historical heritage. During the fi rst two
decades of the Museum’s existence
it developed a remarkable collection of historical artifacts and
documentary records, created exemplary
exhibits, and offered the public a creative and enlightening series of
typically well-attended programs.
The County Museum is a public trust, to which the BOS committed County
Government by
formally accepting ownership on terms stipulated by MCHS, most
importantly that henceforth the
County would provide appropriate Museum staffi ng and would maintain its
physical plant. The one
term of donation that would become, and remains, an administrative issue
is that the Museum was
to be a department of County Government, which had salary implications
for MCM directors who
simultaneously wore two directorial hats. This became a critical problem
in the late 1990s when,
seeking administrative economies, the BOS brought in an outside
consulting fi rm to review County
Government’s organizational chart and operations and in that fi rm’s fi
nal report it was suggested that the
Museum’s small staff did not warrant departmental status.
There typically being little institutional memory in government
bureaucracies, in this instance
with regard to the specifi c terms of transfer to the County, the BOS
began to discuss folding MCM into
the County Library or some other department of County Government, at
which point the Museum’s
then serving director, contemplating a signifi cant salary reduction,
left the Museum for a senior position
in another County department. The most logical and experienced person to
replace the departed MCM
director and who actually did serve briefl y as interim director, was
the Museum’s curator of collections,
Rebecca Snetselaar. (She was the person primarily responsible for and
most familiar with the Museum’s
2
growing collections, so much so that more than a dozen years since her
departure we and others still
consult with her about unclear aspects of collections development and
administration.) Snetselaar
was eliminated, however, from serious consideration in favor of a wine
promoter with no professional
qualifi cations for the job but favored by the County Executive
Administrator (now CEO) and some
members of the BOS with a view to linking the Museum to the local wine
economy as a potential
revenue source.
The result was public outrage, especially among members of the Mendocino
County Heritage
Network, a mutual support organization of County museums and historical
interpretive sites established
in 1986 by MCM director Mark Rawitsch. So blatant was the violation of
the public trust on the part
of County Government and so strong the resulting public protest that the
BOS was forced to conduct a
proper search for a professionally qualifi ed director. An appropriately
experienced candidate was found
in Wisconsin, an offer was made and accepted, then unexpectedly turned
down when the candidate’s
spouse refused to relocate to Willits. At that point, MCM founding
director Herb Pruett agreed to come
out of retirement to serve as interim director, then subsequently to
serve again as the Museum’s full-time
director.
When Pruett retired from that position in 2007, longtime County employee
Alison Glassey was
assigned from the County Executive’s Offi ce to serve as interim MCM
director, then chose and was
allowed to continue as full-time director. In contrast to other senior
County employees, Glassey had a
genuine interest in and concern for the Museum’s future. What she lacked
for the job was any museum
administrative experience but, unlike other County administrators, she
made a serious effort to learn
and over the course of her directorship made notable contributions to
the Museum’s legacy. By way of
example, we cite the permanent Woven World’s exhibit on the regional
Native American experience
and the very popular Museum Road Show. The administrative issues that
ostensibly led to her recent
removal from the Museum’s directorship plunge us once again into County
Government’s all too
familiar mismanagement of this invaluable public trust. That is the
overriding issue confronting all who
care about the preservation of our County heritage and the vital role of
the County Museum in assuring
that preservation.
Who are the Bartleys? Why might it be prudent to hear them out?
Sylvia Bartley is a third-generation Mendocino County resident, her
paternal grandparents
having emigrated from Finland to the Fort Bragg area in the 1890s. She
was educated at Reed College,
San Francisco State (B.A.) and the University of Wisconsin (M.A.),
taught in the Fort Bragg school
district and at the Mendocino Coast campus of College of the Redwoods,
and has a long-standing
interest in local history. She is a founding member of the Fort
Bragg-Mendocino Coast Historical
Society (FB-MCHS) and director of the Society’s archives. Together with
her husband Russell, she has
also served on the Board of Directors of the County Historical Society.
Russell Bartley is a retired history professor from the University of
Wisconsin (Milwaukee
campus), where in addition to his Hispanic world specialization he
taught both undergraduate and
3
graduate-level courses in historical research methods. He completed his
doctoral studies at Stanford
University, which included extensive familiarization with manuscript
collections and archival practices.
Russell has been a legal resident of Mendocino County since the early
1980s and a full-time resident
since his retirement in 1996. Like Sylvia, he has an abiding interest in
local history and especially in
the critical relationship between life at the local level and historical
developments in the larger world
beyond. He, too, is a founding member of the FB-MCHS and serves as a
Society archivist.
Two of our primary concerns are (1) deepening the public’s interest in
and appreciation of
local history, and (2) preservation of the often elusive and vulnerable
historical record. To that end, in
1991 we incorporated a 501(c)(3) nonprofi t entity called Noyo Hill
House (NHH) to serve as a local
historical records safety net. Our boilerplate statement of purpose was
and remains: “The preservation
of perishable historical source materials and the promotion of public
interest in history.” Over the course
of NHH’s now 26-year history we have identifi ed and facilitated the
permanent placement of numerous
important collections of Mendocino County-related historical records,
including Union Lumber
Company records donated to FB-MCHS by Georgia-Pacifi c Corp.,
little-known McCarthy-era political
materials documenting Communist Party activities in the County, and
several collections now placed at
the County Museum, among them: the political papers of former four-term
County Supervisor Norman
de Vall; the fi les and library of the Fort Bragg-based citizens’
activist group People for a Nuclear Free
Future; the Nelson Brothers Collection, documenting the life stories of
two politically active Mendocino
Coast Finns, one of whom emigrated from Fort Bragg to Soviet Russia in
1922, fathered two sons,
fell victim to the Stalinist purges, then one of whose grandsons and
great-grandson (also namesake)
emigrated back to Fort Bragg in 1997; and the fi eld notes, maps and
related documentation of Samuel
Gilbert Clark (1896-1944), the fi rst geologist to conduct extensive fi
eld work in Mendocino County.
In pursuit of NHH public outreach objectives we began in the latter
1990s to collaborate on a
volunteer basis with the County Museum, initially during the
directorship of Dan Taylor, then under
the direction of collections curator Snetselaar. Sylvia focused on
processing photographic collections
(identifying and coding images), while Russell concentrated on the
curation of manuscript holdings.
When Pruett reassumed directorship, he quickly appreciated the need to
get administrative control of the
Museum’s archival holdings and worked out a contractual arrangement with
us to address that need.
We began that challenging task by physically concentrating archival
operations in an enclosed
suite of rooms within the unfi nished storage structure that had been
added to the original Museum
building at the beginning of the new millennium. While not fully climate
controlled, what has now
become the Museum’s archival suite was insulated, had heating and air
conditioning, and could be
locked for necessary security. What Pruett envisioned and remains an
ultimate objective of Museum
operations was to create a substantial partitioned area within the new
addition, duly climate controlled,
exclusively for the long-term storage of the Museum’s archival
collections. His thought was to transfer
all artifact and archival holdings into the new addition, then
rehabilitate the old storage area for
additional exhibit space.
Pruett personally retrieved a large quantity of library shelving donated
to MCM by the
4
Livermore Public Library and drove it back to Willits, where we
reassembled it in the archival suite and
an adjacent area of the outer storage area. We then began to relocate
key but incompletely processed
documentary collections from both the old storage space and the
second-fl oor curatorial work area
onto the new shelving in the archival suite. We also began to develop a
strategy for making accessible
some 90 cartons of unorganized County records dating from the early 20th
century into the 1980s.
And we accessioned two signifi cant collections procured by Director
Pruett: (1) a substantial body of
Redwood Empire Association records; and (2) the personal and family
records of prominent County
resident William Lincoln Bittenbender, which at Pruett’s request we
retrieved from the deceased’s Ukiah
residence.
When Herb Pruett retired in 2007, funding for our MCM archival work
ended and would not
be renewed for another six years, when Alison Glassey brought us back to
pick up where we had
left off. Before completing our fi nal contract period under Pruett and
at his request, we produced
an extensively illustrated booklet that described the Museum’s archival
holdings and explained the
administrative requirements for their conservation, further development
and utilization by Museum staff,
County employees and other interested researchers: Mendocino County
Museum, Willits, California.
Archival Holdings and Historical Research Collections Development,
Description and Administrative
Requirements (April 2007).
“The Mendocino County Museum is a cultural asset of inestimable value to
all of us who live
in this part of the State,” we observed. “The size and scope of its
archival holdings, together with its
extensive reference collections, rich artifact holdings, exceptional
physical plant and advantageous
location all combine to make the Museum a cultural institution of
potentially major signifi cance,”
while recent development of its archival and reference collections “now
afford it the possibility of
becoming a full-service regional historical repository and research
center on a par with comparably sized
institutions across the country.” In that capacity, we noted, the Museum
would be able to play “a highly
visible networking role among numerous public, private and academic
historical bodies throughout
northwestern California,” which in turn would “further enhance its
stature among heritage specialists,
as well as the general public, and in so doing project an attractive
cultural image of Mendocino County
throughout the wider region.”
Unfortunately, we concluded, in light of budgetary constraints “some in
County government
would cut allocations for Museum operations in pursuit of what seem to
us to be false economies. Those
budgetary reductions have already so hobbled MCM that for several years
now it has been unable to
function properly.” In our view, we concluded, “County government ought
not view MCM as simply
another piece on the game board of administrative monopoly, rather
should see the Museum as the
asset it is, endorse its purposes and objectives, then set about
creatively in concert with Museum staff,
the Museum’s Advisory Board and members of the County’s diverse
historical community to devise
the ways and means of achieving those ends.” Sadly, that has not
happened and in 2017 we still have a
County Executive Offi cer and one or two BOS members who do not believe
that this now 45-year-old
5
County institution should remain a County responsibility.
When County government brought in Alison Glassey to replace Herb Pruett
rather than conduct
a proper search for an experienced public historian to serve as Museum
director, they made yet another
bureaucratic move on their administrative monopoly board. Fortunately
for the Museum, Glassey
understood the issues we and Pruett had raised in our 2007 MCM-published
booklet and took steps to
address them. In March 2014 she brought us back on contractual terms
that made it possible for us to
continue the archival work we had initiated during Pruett’s
directorship. That June she extended our
contracts for the following fi scal year and did so again in 2015.
In the spring of 2016 it was discovered that the Museum had a serious
black mold infestation
requiring immediate attention and in the operational disruption
occasioned by that remediation (the
Museum was closed to the public throughout the summer and early fall)
Glassey neglected to renew
our contracts within the established administrative time frame, all the
while continuing to pay us and
reassuring us that she would get the contracts renewed as soon as she
could take a little time away from
the disruptions of remediation. The County Executive’s Offi ce was not
sympathetic to her explanation
for the breach of established procedure but fi nally did authorize
retroactive renewal of our contracts,
albeit with the strange caveat that because of the amount of those
contracts ($15,000 each), the next time
around they would have to be “put out for bid” —a requirement not raised
previously and which, we
argued, was impractical given the nature of the archival tasks to be
performed.
In a memo to director Glassey about our role as contract archivists we
pointed out that by then
we had been working to remedy the Museum’s archival problems for several
years and were de facto the
only available professionals with the requisite skill set to complete
the job as it needs to be done. The
key components of that skill set, we noted, are: (1) knowledge of and
practical experience with archival
practices; (2) familiarity with the County Museum’s archival holdings;
(3) knowledge of the Museum’s
institutional history; and (4) knowledge of County and regional history.
Now there is the additional
problem that, having already introduced transitional changes into the
preexisting order of the Museum’s
archival holdings, we are as a practical matter the only individuals
suffi ciently familiar with those
changes to complete and integrate them into a properly reorganized
archival management system. This is
especially true for the inactive and historical County Government
records housed at the Museum, many
of which can no longer be located by referring to the original storage
carton inventory prepared by the
County.
We further pointed out that the work we have contracted to do at the
County Museum differs
from plumbing, painting or paving contracts in that it is not a
short-term job that can be completed in
days, weeks or months. The curatorial aspect of archival administration,
like other facets of museum
operations, is of course ongoing and at some point will have to be taken
over by a full-time qualifi ed
staff person responsible for archival holdings. Our task has been and
remains to get those holdings
into a physical and organizational state where they can be effectively
administered by anyone with the
appropriate professional experience. We have made signifi cant progress
toward that end, we observed,
but a great deal remains to be accomplished: major collections yet to be
evaluated, organized and
6
inventoried; physical development and utilization of archival storage
space; determination of collecting
priorities and the formalization of administrative policy and
procedures. Realistically, we anticipated
that on our current (and for us only feasible) part-time basis we would
require another 2-3 years to
accomplish those tasks, after which—health permitting—we would be
available for consulting as
needed.
Apparently persuaded by our reasoning, on 22 June of this year the
County Executive’s
Offi ce granted us a two-year contract, renewable for a third, to
continue our archival work. On that
same date they notifi ed MCM director Glassey that they were placing her
on administrative leave for
alleged mishandling of Museum fi nances, then over the following weeks
imposed a gag order on the
increasingly demoralized staff while assigning day-to-day oversight of
Museum operations to County
Librarian Karen Horner. Nothing was communicated to us and we continued
our normal work routine
until Thursday afternoon, 10 August, when as Sylvia was performing
archival tasks on her computer
it suddenly froze up. When she contacted County IT to report the
problem, she was instructed to call
Deputy CEO Janelle Rau, who informed her that our contracts had been
suspended, curtly adding that,
as contractors, “we had no right to be using County equipment,” as
though it were somehow possible
to administer the archival collections without access to the Museum’s
computer system. Sylvia further
explained that we were then assisting a local researcher who was working
on a book about local Pomos,
to which Rau responded dismissively that that was just too bad and for
the time being that individual
would have to cease her research at the Museum. She then informed Sylvia
that we were to turn in our
keys and until further notice would only be allowed access to the public
areas of the Museum. Another
week would pass before we received written notifi cation of our contract
suspension.
Rau’s haughty attitude that day typifi ed County Executive Offi ce
dealings with the Museum. In
our specifi c case, neither the CEO nor anyone from her offi ce has
taken the trouble to visit the archives
while we’ve been present or otherwise meet with us to learn something
about the administrative issues
posed by this aspect of Museum operations. That, we conclude, is because
County administrators do not
conceive of the Museum as anything more than a Disneyesque entertainment
attraction, much less as a
public trust of inestimable educational value.
How to salvage our County Museum? Can it be salvaged?
When Herb Pruett was replaced in 2008 by Alison Glassey rather than a
professionally
experienced museum director, the Mendocino County Heritage Network
expressed immediate alarm in a
public statement addressed to the BOS under the heading: OUR COUNTY
MUSEUM ON LIFE SUPPORT.
It read as follows:
“The Mendocino County Museum on East Commercial Street in Willits is in
dire straits as a
consequence of long-standing neglect by our elected County
representatives and their appointed
public servants in the County Executive Offi ce. In the name of
budgetary belt tightening over the
past decade, the Supervisors have progressively eliminated the Museum’s
professional staff to
7
the point where, after the last round of budget cuts, it is left to
function with an interim director
(fortunately, one with invaluable public administrative experience and a
sound understanding
of the Museum’s real needs), a receptionist, and whatever volunteers can
be found to perform
stopgap tasks. There is currently no one on the County Museum’s staff
with professional museum
training and the Museum has not had a curator of collections now for the
past seven years. The
present CEO, Carmel Angelo, has even gone so far as to propose that the
Mendocino County
Museum simply be boarded up and its remaining staff laid off.
“As the principal representatives of the County’s historical
preservation and heritage
community, we of the Mendocino County Heritage Network wish to alert
local residents to the
serious threat now faced by the County Museum. It is important for all
of us to understand that
this is not a matter of legitimate economies necessitated by the larger
fi nancial crisis, as the
Museum is one of the County’s smallest departments and reductions in its
former annual budget of
approximately $300,000 contribute virtually nothing to alleviating
shortfalls in the County’s multimillion
dollar budget. The objective fact is that, even in these diffi cult
economic times, the County
can afford this priceless cultural institution.
“It is equally important to understand that the County Museum is not a
luxury, rather a public
trust as essential to the well-being of our local citizenry as law
enforcement, public health, and
social services. The Museum is the conservator of our collective memory,
the repository of our
historical records, and the interpreter of our shared heritage. It was
created many years ago by
concerned citizens who recognized the importance of remembering and
learning from the past.
Through the Mendocino County Historical Society they planned, funded and
built the Museum,
then gifted it to the County, which accepted the Museum as a public
trust to be preserved and
sustained in perpetuity out of the County treasury. It was a solemn
commitment by County
Government to the citizenry, yet one which in recent years has not been
kept.
“Without competent professional staff, the County Museum cannot continue
to function. It
is not enough to keep the lights on and the doors open. Artifacts and
archival holdings require
ongoing care, as do exhibits, which also must be updated, supplemented
and explained to the
visiting public. In addition to the County’s ethical and legal
obligations to the donors of family
heirlooms, artifacts, photographic collections and historical records,
by failing to provide for
the proper care of these fragile holdings our County Government
increasingly risks law suit and
deaccessioning expenses far in excess of purported savings from the
recent budget cuts. More
seriously, these irreplaceable pieces of our collective heritage are in
danger of being lost (as was
the priceless Elsie Allen Pomo basket collection already several years
ago) through the failure of
our elected offi cials to exercise responsibly their public trust. We
urge County residents to visit
the Mendocino County Museum, to familiarize themselves with this
extraordinary public asset
and, above all, to call or write the Mendocino County Board of
Supervisors to demand that they
preserve the Museum as the public trust it has always been.”
8
That statement was endorsed by eighteen MCHN member organizations and,
in a gesture of support,
also by the Lake County Historical Society.
Now eight years later we can detect no lessening of County government’s
unenlightened rigidity
in its handling of Museum oversight. CEO Carmel Angelo assures concerned
parties that she is going to
put the County Museum on a sound footing but lacks all appreciation of
what is required to accomplish
that long overdue task and in fact has given no indication that her
long-standing negative view of the
Museum as a County-run entity has in any substantive way changed.
Objectively, the only way to
achieve sound operational management of the Museum is to staff it with a
professionally experienced
director, a curator of collections, a curator of exhibits and programs,
and a curator-archivist, all to
be overseen by a Museum Advisory Board that reports directly to the BOS.
The Mendocino County
Museum remains the sole, non-transferable, responsibility of our County
Supervisors.
As for our own contribution to this diffi cult process of institutional
recovery, if our currently
suspended contracts are reinstated and we are allowed to complete the
essential archival work on which
we have been engaged over the past several years, then it will be
possible to get this critical aspect of
Museum operations to a point where an experienced curator-archivist can
be brought in from outside the
County to effectively and responsibly take over from us. If not, then no
one else possesses the necessary
familiarity with the Museum’s current archival collections to get this
all-important job done.
Contact information:Russell & Sylvia  Bartley
P. O. Box 219
Fort Bragg, CA 95437-0219
E-mail: nhh at mcn.org







On 3/26/2018 2:11 PM, Microsoft account team wrote:
> Heads up! Our Library funding is in Jeopardy and a lot of folks need to
> attend the BOS meeting tomorrow, where it may possibly be voted on at 11am!
>
> Come speak up for the Library A-87 fund voted on by 2/3 of the public! Ann
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* michele savoy <mbsavoy at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, March 26, 2018 9:03 AM
> *To:* dollypriley at gmail.com
> *Cc:* Marc Komer; lynnzimm at mcn.org; janice.marcell at yahoo.com; michael
> schaeffer; ann rannaker; pearl watts; nolga at sbcglobal.net;
> themoyouknow at gmail.com; nancy.morin at nau.edu; djmit at hughes.net;
> ehtepas at yahoo.com; Patmcgee1 at aol.com; whitaker at mcn.org; cahtosj at mcn.org;
> shawn haven; Marna Carney; birdn at mendocinocounty.org;
> frickd at mendocinocounty.org; Julia Larke; hessd at mendocinocounty.org; Josh
> Bennett
> *Subject:* Re: Poster
> The subject got good coverage by the UDJ. Jonathan Middlebrook wrote
> about it in his column. It also got front page on the Sunday edition.
> I have Jury duty this am. Hopefully it won't go over to tomorrow.
> Micheles
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 7:57 AM, <dollypriley at gmail.com
> <mailto:dollypriley at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Please see Ukiah Daily Journal, Sunday, March 25, page 5. Columnist
>     Jim Shields wrote about the “cultural services agency.“ Great article.
>
>     Sent from my iPhone
>
>      > On Mar 23, 2018, at 11:02 AM, Marc Komer <mkomer at pacific.net
>     <mailto:mkomer at pacific.net>> wrote:
>      >
>      > Hi,
>      >
>      > Attached is a poster that may be used to alert the public about
>     the Board of Supervisor's meeting on Tuesday, March 27th at 11:00.
>      >
>      > We need a large crowd to help persuade the supervisors to not
>     vote for the proposed Cultural Services Agency.
>      >
>      > Marc
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > ---
>      > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>      > https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>      > <Poster.pdf>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Michele Bisson Savoy
> 11501 Pratt Ranch Road
> Hopland, CA 95449
> (707) 744-1831
> mbsavoy at gmail.com <mailto:mbsavoy at gmail.com>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mcn.org/pipermail/occupymendocino/attachments/20180326/328371ca/attachment.html