<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} --></style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;" dir="ltr">
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0"><br>
</p>
<br>
<br>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> Annemarie <aweibel@mcn.org><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, March 26, 2018 3:30 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Microsoft account team; Barbara Moller; richard karch; Reggie Bald; Rex Gressett; susan allen nutter; O/M lists; opcsteering@lists.mcn.org; Betty Carr; Daney Dawson<br>
<b>Subject:</b> library, Willits Museum & 10 parks, you can also send an e-mail to Carmel Angelo and the BOS tonight</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="BodyFragment"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;">
<div class="PlainText">Hi,<br>
Not just the library, but also the Willits Museum is at stake and the <br>
Parks.<br>
AVA had 1 or 2 letters by Sylvia Bartley and her husband Russell about <br>
the Willits County Museum (see below unfortunately in reverse order <br>
starting with letter 3, then 2, then 1 & additional letters from others <br>
focusing more on the library issues.<br>
<br>
By e-mailing <bos@mendocinocounty.org> it will get to all the members <br>
including the CEO Carmen Angelo.<br>
<br>
There might be duplications. See below, Annemarie<br>
<br>
From AVA:<br>
DESPITE MAJOR OPPOSITION from Library advocates and defenders, County <br>
CEO Carmel Angelo is pressing forward with her proposal to combine the <br>
much more lushly funded county library with the County Museum and the <br>
County’s remnant parks and rec department.<br>
<br>
The below item is on next Tuesday’s March 27, Board of Supervisors <br>
Agenda. We expect a parade of library people to be on hand to argue <br>
against it. It will be interesting to see what is said about the note in <br>
the attached “Fiscal Overview” which says 1) the library is running a <br>
deficit, and 2) Library funding will not be intermingled with the <br>
General Fund. So far, this proposal is very skimpy and at first glance <br>
seems slap-dash. So, like many other proposals out of the CEO’s office, <br>
there’s probably more to this than cliches like “greater access across <br>
all demographics” and “Inspire personal growth,” etc. Gawd. If those are <br>
the only reasons for it, the proposal should be immediately scrapped and <br>
taken off the agenda.<br>
<br>
WHAT’S NEXT? Combining the jail with the mental health department? (Oh <br>
wait, they’re doing that.)<br>
<br>
Item 5b:<br>
<br>
CULTURAL SERVICES AGENCY (“DRAFT”)<br>
<br>
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK<br>
<br>
Core Values, Programs and Services:<br>
<br>
* Provide greater access across all demographics to information, <br>
cultural resources, opportunities for recreation and education, to <br>
enhance the quality of life and well-being of residents and visitors to <br>
Mendocino County<br>
<br>
* Inspire personal growth, lifelong learning, healthy lifestyles, <br>
connection to nature, and sense of community<br>
<br>
* Share resources for greater marketing, finance, outreach and <br>
interpretive programming<br>
<br>
* Collaborate as an organization in service and program delivery to <br>
connect our visitors and residents to educational, recreational and <br>
cultural experiences<br>
<br>
Fiscal overview charts<br>
(Mark Scaramella)<br>
______________________________________________________________________________<br>
AB’S RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED CULTURAL SERVICES AGENCY (CSA)<br>
<br>
A Cultural Services Agency, now under consideration by the County, would <br>
incorporate three departments/programs: the Library, Museum, and County <br>
Parks. Allegedly, these three existing departments/programs incorporate <br>
similar vision and purpose, including providing informational, <br>
educational and recreational access to Mendocino County communities. <br>
Apparently the County believes that through the potential consolidation <br>
of these departments/programs under one administrative umbrella, our <br>
community will have greater access to resources. By forming an agency, <br>
the County believes it will be better positioned to apply for grants <br>
and/or funding streams, will increase administrative efficiency by <br>
sharing resources for marketing, finance, outreach programs, and provide <br>
the potential for Countywide collaboration between the three <br>
departments/programs.<br>
<br>
Discussion<br>
<br>
Museum: The County has had a checkered history with the County Museum. <br>
There are on-going damage control efforts to remediate staff shortages <br>
and collections problems at the Museum. Over the course of many years <br>
the County has alternately attempted to get rid of the Museum and <br>
neglected the Museum ostensibly because this department is small. It <br>
could be deduced that this is because the Museum is a drain on the <br>
General Fund.<br>
<br>
The former director worked in excess of fulltime capacity. Karen Horner <br>
has worked as the Interim Director since November spending approximately <br>
20-25% of her time trying to straighten out the problems of the Museum. <br>
The CEO’s office has been active in the management as well. Apparently <br>
the County was unaware until last year that the Museum had a problem <br>
with its director, staff morale and a deteriorating collection.<br>
<br>
In order for the Museum to thrive it needs a fulltime dedicated and <br>
experienced director to actively safeguard its collection, plan new <br>
exhibits, prepare publicity and supervise staff. The proposed CSA with a <br>
10-25% director would abolish the validity of the Museum as a County <br>
Department and forfeit its ability to shape itself as a tourist and <br>
public entity.<br>
<br>
Parks: There are seven parks and public access areas, which are mainly <br>
historic properties. The Museum and Parks share a common purpose of <br>
preserving the history of the County in that both occupy historic <br>
properties that enhance tourism. Parks has never been a separate <br>
department and has always been wrapped up in other agencies including <br>
the General Services Agency. Currently they are part of Fleet and <br>
Facilities, with a budget of $18,000, under the administration of the <br>
CEO. In order for the Parks to thrive there must be enhanced promotion <br>
and exposure of their resources. The County has provided only janitorial <br>
services to the Parks. Otherwise they are nearly neglected. The proposed <br>
CSA best suits the combination of the Museum and Parks, without the Library.<br>
<br>
Library: The Library is self-funded through its pro-rata share of <br>
property tax and Measure A sales tax revenue. By law, these funds are <br>
dedicated to the Library. The CEO treats the Library as a County <br>
Department, believes that the Library can be administered as such, and <br>
that the County has the legal authority to fold the Library into the <br>
proposed CSA. This may be contrary to California Code if the Grand <br>
Jury’s finding are correct. (See GJ Report 2013-14, pages 8-9; Education <br>
Code §19146).On several occasions the County has improperly charged the <br>
Library for A-87 reimbursement on fully depreciated equipment. The Fort <br>
Bragg Branch insurance funded facility and the Willits Branch’s grant <br>
funded facility are two examples of improper charges to the Library. It <br>
took two Grand Jury Reports and two years for the County to refund <br>
$24,000 for building use charges and $31,000 for equipment charges to <br>
the Fort Bragg and Willits branches. Additionally, the County refuses to <br>
even consider that the Library Director’s salary should be paid by the <br>
County as explicitly stated in the Education Code. Prior to the passage <br>
of Measure A, the Board of Supervisors considered closing the Willits <br>
Branch and the Bookmobile. The Library had no budget for materials. The <br>
branches were open only three days per week. Measure A, approved by 75% <br>
of the voters, reversed this dire condition.<br>
<br>
Library Director Karen Horner and her staff have put considerable effort <br>
into trying to correct the myriad problems at the Museum. Ms. Horner <br>
believes she will be able to manage the Museum as if it were a library <br>
branch. She is currently devoting approximately 25% of her and staff <br>
time but intends to reduce it in the future. The LAB understands that <br>
some of the impetus for the Library Director’s embrace of the CSA has <br>
three components:<br>
<br>
[1] Working conditions for the library ad/min staff at the Ukiah branch <br>
are difficult. The back area of the Ukiah Branch is cramped, without <br>
privacy, and with constant disruption. Ms. Horner believes that an <br>
upstairs office in the museum could be used for ad/min offices.<br>
<br>
[2] Ms. Horner believes with the creation of the CSA the County might <br>
supplement the proposed agency with new ad/min employees.<br>
<br>
[3] It is likely the CSA Director will have an enhanced salary for the <br>
director.<br>
<br>
Ms. Horner believes the Museum does not need a dedicated director. <br>
Instead, she feels a curator and a part-time director or “branch-head” <br>
with staff will be sufficient.<br>
<br>
Arguments Against The Proposed Cultural Services Agency<br>
<br>
[1] Today we have a thriving library system but the future of the <br>
library is contingent on a renewal of Measure A funding in 2027. Any <br>
actual or perceived co-mingling, diverting or misuse of the Library’s <br>
dedicated funding or library reserve fund will detrimentally affect the <br>
passage of voter approved future library funding, thus returning the <br>
Library to its pre-2011 crisis condition.<br>
<br>
[2] The Library deserves the time and attention of a fulltime Library <br>
Director. Additional ad/min staff should be hired on as needed basis. <br>
Library staffing is not contingent on a proposed CSA. There is no reason <br>
the Museum facilities could not be used now by the Library for office <br>
space without being part of a CSA. Agencies often rent space to each <br>
other. The best intentions of the County to safeguard proper use of <br>
Library funds in the proposed agency budget would be impossible to track <br>
and would lead to public mistrust.<br>
<br>
[3] It is likely that what the CEO means by [the agency] will have <br>
“greater access [to] shared resources” is that the Museum and Parks will <br>
have the potential to utilize Library funds through ambiguous accounting <br>
and unspecified co-mingled costs of ad/min and A-87 expenditures. The <br>
County’s opaque accounting practices, past attempts to inaccurately <br>
assess A-87 charges and refusal to consider following state law <br>
regarding the proper source of the Director’s salary are reasons to <br>
doubt the intentions of the County in its attempt to combine the Library <br>
with the Museum and Parks into an agency. The Library, Museum and Parks <br>
have disparate missions and volume of public use. The Library had a door <br>
count of approximately 417,000 in 2017, while the Museum had <br>
approximately 8,000-10,000 visitors in 2017, including special events. <br>
The Library is free while the Museum requests an admission fee. The <br>
Library and Museum provide educational opportunities but have differing <br>
use of resources. Their appeal is not congruent. Libraries are dynamic. <br>
They strive to adapt to charging community needs and serve as vibrant <br>
community centers. The Museum’s mission is the preservation of <br>
historical artifacts. It is a tourist destination and a resource for <br>
County residents. Our Parks are mainly gifted properties to the County <br>
and have more in common with the Museum as historic sites with limited <br>
use as recreational facilities. Both the Museum and Parks clearly need <br>
attention and deserve dedicated leadership to improve, maintain and <br>
promote the use of their assets and properties.<br>
<br>
[4] It is dubious logic that says that combining the Museum with the <br>
Library and Parks will serve the public any better than they are now. It <br>
is feasible for any of the three to work on joint grants and programs <br>
now. We believe the Library, Museum and Parks are and have been capable <br>
of applying for grants independently and have no need for affiliation. <br>
For example, the Bookmobile was procured in part by a Department of <br>
Agriculture grant with the strong support of Supervisor Brown. Outreach <br>
can be accomplished collaboratively between agencies. There does not <br>
need to be a combined agency or budget. There is no evidence that <br>
demonstrates that combining departments/programs is a more effective <br>
management system in providing services to communities. The proposed CSA <br>
is contingent on a convenient and reductionist approach rather than <br>
being a forward thinking structural change that takes into account the <br>
best interests of the Library, Museum and Parks.<br>
<br>
Conclusions<br>
<br>
The LAB believes the proposed Cultural Services Agency will harm the <br>
Library for the following reasons:<br>
<br>
[1] Jeopardize future library funding.<br>
<br>
[2] Reduce the director and ad/min staff to part-time with diminished <br>
focus on library services and programs.<br>
<br>
[3] Loss of control of the library budget and library reserve fund <br>
through the potential for co-mingling and improper use of dedicated <br>
library funds.<br>
<br>
[4] Prop up the Museum and Parks at the Library's expense.<br>
<br>
[5] Less effective administration and loss of services.<br>
<br>
We advise The Board Of Supervisors To Reject The Proposed Cultural <br>
Services Agency.<br>
<br>
Submitted by the Mendocino County Library Advisory Board<br>
<br>
Marc Komer, Chair<br>
George DornerReply<br>
March 17, 2018 at 12:18 pm<br>
<br>
When Prop A passed to provide needed funding for the library, I wondered <br>
how long it would take for the pols and bureaucrats to steal the money <br>
from the library for their pet purposes. Now we know.<br>
_______________________________________________________________________________________<br>
ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO CARMEL’S NEW AGENCY<br>
<br>
Dear Editor:<br>
<br>
Unfortunately, the County is attempting to siphon dedicated Library <br>
funds for other departments. The Library Advisory Board (LAB) is <br>
adamantly opposed to the the proposed Cultural Services Agency and we <br>
need the help of media to alert the public.<br>
<br>
Attached is the LAB's statement with our arguments against the CSA.<br>
<br>
Interested users and lovers of the Library can help by:<br>
<br>
Attend the Board of Supervisor meeting on Tuesday, March 27th where a <br>
presentation will be made about the Cultural Services Agency. Give input <br>
in the public comment period. Check the county website for the time of <br>
the meeting.<br>
Contact your supervisor.<br>
Write a letter to the editor.<br>
Join Friends of the Library groups throughout the County. The Library <br>
needs a loud response to the County's attempt to divert Library funds.<br>
Marc Komer<br>
<br>
Mendocino County Library Advisory Board, chair<br>
<br>
* * *<br>
<br>
LAB’S RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED CULTURAL SERVICES AGENCY (CSA)<br>
<br>
A Cultural Services Agency, now under consideration by the County, would <br>
incorporate three departments/programs: the Library, Museum, and County <br>
Parks. Allegedly, these three existing<br>
<br>
departments/programs incorporate similar vision and purpose, including <br>
providing informational, educational and recreational access to <br>
Mendocino County communities. Apparently the County believes that <br>
through the potential consolidation of these departments/programs under <br>
one administrative umbrella, our community will have greater access to <br>
resources. By forming an agency, the County believes it will be better <br>
positioned to apply for grants and/or funding streams, will increase <br>
administrative efficiency by sharing resources for marketing, finance, <br>
outreach programs, and provide the potential for Countywide <br>
collaboration between the three departments/programs.<br>
<br>
Discussion:<br>
<br>
Museum:<br>
<br>
The County has had a checkered history with the County Museum. There are <br>
on-going damage control efforts to remediate staff shortages and <br>
collections problems at the Museum. Over the course of many years the <br>
County has alternately attempted to get rid of the Museum and neglected <br>
the Museum ostensibly because this department is small. It could be <br>
deduced that this is because the Museum is a drain on the General Fund.<br>
<br>
The former director worked in excess of fulltime capacity. Karen Horner <br>
has worked as the Interim Director since November spending approximately <br>
20-25% of her time trying to straighten out the problems of the Museum. <br>
The CEO’s office has been active in the management as well. Apparently <br>
the County was unaware until last year that the Museum had a problem <br>
with its director, staff morale and a deteriorating collection.<br>
<br>
In order for the Museum to thrive it needs a fulltime dedicated and <br>
experienced director to actively safeguard its collection, plan new <br>
exhibits, prepare publicity and supervise staff. The proposed CSA with a <br>
10-25% director would abolish the validity of the Museum as a County <br>
Department and forfeit its ability to shape itself as a tourist and <br>
public entity.<br>
<br>
Parks: There are seven parks and public access areas, which are mainly <br>
historic properties. The Museum and Parks share a common purpose of <br>
preserving the history of the County in that both occupy historic <br>
properties that enhance tourism. Parks has never been a separate <br>
department and has always been wrapped up in other agencies including <br>
the General Services Agency. Currently they are part of Fleet and <br>
Facilities, with a budget of $18,000, under the administration of the <br>
CEO. In order for the Parks to thrive there must be enhanced promotion <br>
and exposure of their resources. The County has provided only janitorial <br>
services to the Parks. Otherwise they are nearly neglected. The proposed <br>
CSA best suits the combination of the Museum and Parks, without the Library.<br>
<br>
Library: The Library is self-funded through its pro-rata share of <br>
property tax and Measure A sales tax revenue. By law, these funds are <br>
dedicated to the Library. The CEO treats the Library as a County <br>
Department, believes that the Library can be administered as such, and <br>
that the County has the legal authority to fold the Library into the <br>
proposed CSA. This may be contrary to California Code if the Grand <br>
Jury’s finding are correct. (See GJ Report 2013-14, pages 8-9; Education <br>
Code §19146).On several occasions the County has improperly charged the <br>
Library for A-87 reimbursement on fully depreciated equipment. The Fort <br>
Bragg Branch insurance funded facility and the Willits Branch’s grant <br>
funded facility are two examples of improper charges to the Library. It <br>
took two Grand Jury Reports and two years for the County to refund <br>
$24,000 for building use charges and $31,000 for equipment charges to <br>
the Fort Bragg and Willits branches. Additionally, the County refuses to <br>
even consider that the Library Director’s salary should be paid by the <br>
County as explicitly stated in the Education Code. Prior to the passage <br>
of Measure A, the Board of Supervisors considered closing the Willits <br>
Branch and the Bookmobile. The Library had no budget for materials. The <br>
branches were open only three days per week. Measure A, approved by 75% <br>
of the voters, reversed this dire condition.<br>
<br>
Library Director Karen Horner and her staff have put considerable effort <br>
into trying to correct the myriad problems at the Museum. Ms. Horner <br>
believes she will be able to manage the Museum as if it were a library <br>
branch. She is currently devoting approximately 25% of her and staff <br>
time but intends to reduce it in the future. The LAB understands that <br>
some of the impetus for the Library Director’s embrace of the CSA has <br>
three components:<br>
<br>
[x] Working conditions for the library ad/min staff at the Ukiah branch <br>
are difficult. The back area of the Ukiah Branch is cramped, without <br>
privacy, and with constant disruption. Ms. Horner believes that an <br>
upstairs office in the museum could be used for ad/min offices.<br>
<br>
[x] Ms. Horner believes with the creation of the CSA the County might <br>
supplement the proposed agency with new ad/min employees.<br>
<br>
[x] It is likely the CSA Director will have an enhanced salary for the <br>
director.<br>
<br>
Ms. Horner believes the Museum does not need a dedicated director. <br>
Instead, she feels a curator and a part-time director or “branch-head” <br>
with staff will be sufficient.<br>
<br>
Arguments Against The Proposed Cultural Services Agency<br>
<br>
[x] Today we have a thriving library system but the future of the <br>
library is contingent on a renewal of Measure A funding in 2027. Any <br>
actual or perceived co-mingling, diverting or misuse of the Library’s <br>
dedicated funding or library reserve fund will detrimentally affect the <br>
passage of voter approved future library funding, thus returning the <br>
Library to its pre-2011 crisis condition.<br>
<br>
[x] The Library deserves the time and attention of a fulltime Library <br>
Director. Additional ad/min staff should be hired on as needed basis. <br>
Library staffing is not contingent on a proposed CSA. There is no reason <br>
the Museum facilities could not be used now by the Library for office <br>
space without being part of a CSA. Agencies often rent space to each <br>
other. The best intentions of the County to safeguard proper use of <br>
Library funds in the proposed agency budget would be impossible to track <br>
and would lead to public mistrust.<br>
<br>
[x] It is likely that what the CEO means by [the agency] will have <br>
“greater access [to] shared resources” is that the Museum and Parks will <br>
have the potential to utilize Library funds through ambiguous accounting <br>
and unspecified co-mingled costs of ad/min and A-87 expenditures. The <br>
County’s opaque accounting practices, past attempts to inaccurately <br>
assess A-87 charges and refusal to consider following state law <br>
regarding the proper source of the Director’s salary are reasons to <br>
doubt the intentions of the County in its attempt to combine the Library <br>
with the Museum and Parks into an agency. The Library, Museum and Parks <br>
have disparate missions and volume of public use. The Library had a door <br>
count of approximately 417,000 in 2017, while the Museum had <br>
approximately 8,000-10,000 visitors in 2017, including special events. <br>
The Library is free while the Museum requests an admission fee. The <br>
Library and Museum provide educational opportunities but have differing <br>
use of resources. Their appeal is not congruent. Libraries are dynamic. <br>
They strive to adapt to charging community needs and serve as vibrant <br>
community centers. The Museum’s mission is the preservation of <br>
historical artifacts. It is a tourist destination and a resource for <br>
County residents. Our Parks are mainly gifted properties to the County <br>
and have more in common with the Museum as historic sites with limited <br>
use as recreational facilities. Both the Museum and Parks clearly need <br>
attention and deserve dedicated leadership to improve, maintain and <br>
promote the use of their assets and properties.<br>
<br>
[x] It is dubious logic that says that combining the Museum with the <br>
Library and Parks will serve the public any better than they are now. It <br>
is feasible for any of the three to work on joint grants and programs <br>
now. We believe the Library, Museum and Parks are and have been capable <br>
of applying for grants independently and have no need for affiliation. <br>
For example, the Bookmobile was procured in part by a Department of <br>
Agriculture grant with the strong support of Supervisor Brown. Outreach <br>
can be accomplished collaboratively between agencies. There does not <br>
need to be a combined agency or budget. There is no evidence that <br>
demonstrates that combining departments/programs is a more effective <br>
management system in providing services to communities. The proposed CSA <br>
is contingent on a convenient and reductionist approach rather than <br>
being a forward thinking structural change that takes into account the <br>
best interests of the Library, Museum and Parks.<br>
<br>
Conclusions<br>
<br>
The LAB believes the proposed Cultural Services Agency will harm the <br>
Library for the following reasons:<br>
<br>
[x] Jeopardize future library funding.<br>
<br>
[x] Reduce the director and ad/min staff to part-time with diminished <br>
focus on library services and programs.<br>
<br>
[x] Loss of control of the library budget and library reserve fund <br>
through the potential for co-mingling and improper use of dedicated <br>
library funds.<br>
<br>
[x] Prop up the Museum and Parks at the Library's expense.<br>
<br>
[x] Less effective administration and loss of services.<br>
<br>
We advise The Board Of Supervisors To Reject The Proposed Cultural <br>
Services Agency.<br>
<br>
Submitted by the Mendocino County Library Advisory Board<br>
<br>
Marc Komer, Chair<br>
_____________________________________________________________<br>
<br>
LIBRARY UNDER THREAT<br>
<br>
An open letter to the Board of Supervisors:<br>
<br>
The proposal to create a county department, the Cultural Services <br>
Agency, out of the Library, the Museum and Parks, combining the <br>
administration of all, is a bad idea from many perspectives. It usurps <br>
the role of the County Librarian, combines two very different funding <br>
sources (dedicated property tax plus restricted sales tax vs. the <br>
general fund), two different jurisdictions (only the library includes <br>
both the incorporated an unincorporated areas) and greatly diminishes <br>
the accountability of county government to its residents. Different <br>
professional expertise is needed for each proposed component. Basically, <br>
it seems a proposal to skim money from the Library while at the same <br>
time weakening all three institutions.<br>
<br>
If the County is unwilling to adequately oversee and fund the County <br>
Museum, it should close it down and return the artifacts and archives to <br>
the donors or organizations that can safeguard them. The building and <br>
the collections need an infusion of money. It could be an attraction for <br>
tourists, boosting the Willit’s economy and drawing motorists from the <br>
bypass, i.e., economic development. Yet, this proposal seems to include <br>
putting the this year’s unspent budgeted dollars into the general fund, <br>
rather than using it for needed improvements, and cutting next year’s <br>
budget. (Maybe you’ll buy more county vehicles if $800,000 last year <br>
wasn’t enough.) Nothing now prevents the Library and the Museum from <br>
cooperating on mutually beneficial events.<br>
<br>
The duties and responsibilities of the County Librarian are set forth is <br>
state law. He/she “shall , subject to the general rules adopted by the <br>
board of supervisors, build up and manage, according to the accepted <br>
principled of library management, a library for the use of the people of <br>
the county...” (Ed Code sec. 19146) and shall “authorize and approve” <br>
“each claim against the county free library fund”. (Ed Code 19176). <br>
Sounds like an administrator to me. Wherein lies the authority of the <br>
board of supervisors to give those powers to a county agency <br>
administrator? Already, a lot the Librarian’s administrative time has <br>
been devoted to the Museum; even if reimbursed, it is a significant <br>
diversion of time and attention.<br>
<br>
Of far greater concern is the accounting and accountability nightmare <br>
this proposal will create for supporters of the Museum, the Library and <br>
the Parks. The broad brush of the published county budget--”operating <br>
transfers in”, “operating transfers out”, “intra fund transfers”, “A-87 <br>
charges”--create a fog impenetrable to the average citizen. In two <br>
years, the depreciation and overhead charges against the Library (A-87) <br>
have increased from 12% of its dedicated property tax revenue to 19%. To <br>
whom, for what, and why is unknowable from published information. For <br>
good government efficiency is less important than accountability, which <br>
in turn rests upon transparency.<br>
<br>
Transparency is particularly important in regards to the sales tax <br>
authorized by Measure A, crucial to the viability of the Library (twice <br>
in the past the County has been willing to completely shut down or <br>
eliminate a branch thereof). Measure A has a clause requiring <br>
continuation of funding existing in 2012. It has a sunset clause. It is <br>
difficult to envisage the support of nearly 75% , or even 63%, if the <br>
voters are unsure whether funds are being siphoned off to support other <br>
amenities or if the Library has lost its identity.<br>
<br>
The board of supervisors will be hearing this proposal Tuesday, March <br>
27. I urge each of you who feel that any or all of the Museum, the <br>
Library, the Parks have a positive impact on your life to attend and let <br>
your voice be heard. Or write or call your supervisor. I personally care <br>
about all three.<br>
<br>
In all of the above I am speaking as a private citizen, not as part of <br>
any organization to which I may belong.<br>
<br>
Linda Bailey<br>
<br>
Boonville<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
<br>
MENDOCINO COUNTY MUSEUM CRISIS<br>
MEMORANDUM OF CITIZEN CONCERN (3)<br>
<br>
TO: MCM Advisory Board chair Rebecca Montes<br>
MCM Advisory Board vice chair Saprina Rodriguez<br>
County Supervisor Carre Brown<br>
MCM Interim Director Karen Horner<br>
<br>
FROM: MCM contract archivists (suspended) Russell & Sylvia Bartley<br>
<br>
RE: Status of the County Museum’s archival collections<br>
<br>
DATE: 14 February 2018<br>
<br>
<br>
We are moved to address this third memorandum of concern to the <br>
individuals most immediately involved in overseeing the administrative <br>
and operational reorganization of our County Museum by (1) CEO Carmel <br>
Angelo and Deputy CEO Janelle Rau’s recent denigration of our archival <br>
work and of us personally in the February 11th edition of the Ukiah <br>
Daily Journal (Ariel Carmona, “Mendocino County Museum controversy not <br>
going away”), and (2) by the manifest lack of understanding on the part <br>
of County officials as to the nature of archival work and its critical <br>
importance for the effective fulfillment of the Museum’s public mission.<br>
First, we are dismayed and appalled that the CEO and Deputy CEO have so <br>
irresponsibly called into question both our professionalism and our <br>
personal motivation as contract archivists when they have not once <br>
deigned to meet with us about the work we have been doing at the County <br>
Museum nor to seriously inform themselves about the nature of that work <br>
and its critical importance for future Museum operations. For the <br>
record: Russell is a fully credentialed academic historian (Stanford <br>
Ph.D., 1972) with a career’s worth of archival experience; since 1991 he <br>
and Sylvia have operated (without any personal financial gain) the Fort <br>
Bragg-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit Noyo Hill House, which they created to <br>
serve as a safety net for historical source materials in danger of being <br>
lost or destroyed and through that institutional vehicle have <br>
facilitated the placement and permanent preservation of numerous bodies <br>
of valuable historical records in appropriate archival institutions in <br>
northern California and elsewhere around the country, including our own <br>
County Museum. Additionally, since its founding in 1999, Sylvia has <br>
administered on a volunteer basis the Fort Bragg-Mendocino Coast <br>
Historical Society’s archives, located in Fort Bragg’s City Hall, while <br>
Russell has assisted her in that locally important endeavor as time has <br>
allowed.<br>
We also call to your attention that, on 16 December 2008, the Mendocino <br>
County Board of Supervisors issued a Proclamation in recognition of our <br>
“exceptional service to Mendocino County” (copy attached), the opening <br>
Whereas of which stated that we had “worked diligently, professionally, <br>
and reliably to make Mendocino County’s archival collections a real <br>
asset to our community,” while the fifth and final Whereas concluded <br>
that we had been “instrumental in comprehensive compilation of County <br>
archival collections” and that, “due to the dedication and commitment” <br>
we had demonstrated over the years, the Museum’s “archive module” would <br>
eventually have all of the institution’s archival data and collections <br>
in one accessible location.<br>
Status of MCM archival collections: The now 46-year-old Mendocino <br>
County Museum never had an archivist on its staff before former director <br>
Herb Pruett invited us in 2004 to begin the process of properly <br>
organizing its by then extensive and invaluable archival holdings. <br>
Without going into detail, it is important to understand that historical <br>
archives are not administered the same way as artifact collections. <br>
While most professionally experienced museum curators are knowledgeable <br>
about the physical preservation techniques applied to paper-based items, <br>
including documents, correspondence, photographs, and books, they are <br>
not as a rule qualified to evaluate, inventory, organize, and oversee <br>
archival collections. That is because archival collections are <br>
inherently complex in ways that discrete artifacts are not: they <br>
comprise tens, hundreds, thousands or more of individual written, <br>
graphic and/or photographic items that must be evaluated, arranged in <br>
coherent groupings, inventoried and described so as to facilitate their <br>
utilization by Museum staff, County employees, professional researchers, <br>
and interested members of the general public.<br>
The hands-on process is often tedious and always time-consuming. When <br>
we started our work under Pruett’s directorship, the Museum’s archival <br>
holdings were chaotic. Most were in proper archival containers but had <br>
not been curated within those containers, nor, in most cases, had they <br>
been inventoried. Storage was on steel shelving in the Museum’s original <br>
storage area, often stacked so high and compactly that retrieval was <br>
difficult, while a few particular collections seemed to reside on <br>
shelving, or occasionally the floor, in the upstairs curatorial area. <br>
Working part time for two and a half years under Pruett, we moved a <br>
portion of the archival holdings into the enclosed space within the new <br>
storage area now referred to as the archival suite (or unit) and made <br>
initial progress processing a number of collections, including some of <br>
the boxed County records. When Pruett retired in 2007, funding for our <br>
archival work ended and there was a six-year hiatus until Alison Glassey <br>
brought us back to continue the work.<br>
When we returned in 2013, we found part of the archival suite occupied <br>
by tables with Pomo baskets being boxed for storage by an experienced <br>
volunteer curator and his assistants. We agreed to divide the main <br>
central room between us, with the largest of the adjoining rooms <br>
reserved exclusively for archival storage. A few weeks later, it was <br>
decided to convert one of the other adjoining rooms that had been used <br>
as a work space for archival researchers into an artifact curation lab <br>
and to utilize all of the main room for archival tasks. We installed <br>
banks of steel library shelving for reference materials, in-process <br>
collections, and some interim storage; added additional steel utility <br>
shelving to the inner archival storage area, and began to relocate key <br>
collections from other areas of the Museum. We had ourselves previously <br>
donated significant historical collections to the Museum (e.g., <br>
ex-County Supervisor Norman De Vall’s papers; the records of the citizen <br>
activist group People for a Nuclear Free Future) and over the next four <br>
years would bring in others for eventual incorporation into the Museum’s <br>
archival holdings.<br>
Over the next three years (2013-2016) we made substantial progress <br>
toward our goal of transforming the Museum’s important but seriously <br>
disorganized archival holdings into an accessible, professionally <br>
organized, historical resource. Sylvia concentrated on entering <br>
collection data into the Museum’s PastPerfect computer program, <br>
processing photographic collections, answering constant research <br>
inquiries, and inventorying collections, including the extensive John <br>
Keller local and regional history library. (Stanford University offered <br>
to purchase Keller’s library but he chose to donate it to the County <br>
Museum.) Russell concentrated on the processing of paper and memorial <br>
book collections, including a significant amount of time on a massive <br>
body of County government records spanning a fifty-year period from the <br>
1930s to the 1980s. For one nine-month period he oversaw and was <br>
assisted by an exceptionally talented volunteer with previous archival <br>
(film) experience.<br>
Much of 2016-2017 was spent ensuring the physical integrity of the <br>
Museum’s archival holdings during the massive remediation effort <br>
necessitated by the discovery of a serious black mold infestation. When <br>
it developed that the remediators needed to remove part of the ceiling <br>
in the main part of the archival suite, we had to remove all archival <br>
materials from that room. We insisted on overseeing that major task, <br>
which we performed personally to prevent the disruption of archival <br>
integrity and organization that likely would have occurred had it been <br>
carried out by remediator personnel. When we returned following <br>
remediation, we found the desks and shelving all piled and covered with <br>
plastic sheets in the middle of room and had to spend several weeks <br>
fully restoring the physical work space we had developed previously.<br>
We provide some of these details because, with all of the talk about <br>
“starting from a clean slate to put the Museum on a sound footing,” we <br>
have heard talk about intentions to hire a new archivist to work with <br>
the new curator, Karen Mattson, which from our professional (not <br>
financial!) perspective, would be a serious mistake. No archivist coming <br>
in from the outside at this point will possess the requisite knowledge <br>
base to pick up where we have left off. Objectively, the only reasonable <br>
approach to the Museum’s archival holdings is to let us continue the <br>
work we have begun—now more than half completed.<br>
__________________________________________________________<br>
<br>
MENDOCINO COUNTY MUSEUM CRISIS<br>
MEMORANDUM OF CITIZEN CONCERN (2)<br>
<br>
TO: Chair, Mendocino County Board of Supervisors, Dan Hamburg<br>
COPY TO: 4th District Supervisor Dan Gjerde<br>
FROM: County Museum contract archivists (suspended) Russell & Sylvia Bartley<br>
DATE: 28 January 2018<br>
<br>
Dan – Sylvia and I are moved to address this second Memorandum of <br>
Citizen Concern to you most immediately by last Friday’s Ukiah Daily <br>
Journal article (“Mendocino County hires museum curator,” 26 January) <br>
about MCM’s new curator, Karen Mattson. It is a transparent PR response <br>
to Ariel Carmona’s previous UDJ article exposing serious mismanagement <br>
issues at the Museum (“Mendocino County Museum advisory members <br>
concerned over museum management,” Tuesday, 16 January) that <br>
conveniently ignores the basic administrative and operational problems <br>
facing our County Museum. As one active local heritage preservationist <br>
expressed it to us in an email sent the day this latest gloss-over <br>
appeared, it is “a bit of a spin on damage control” so as “not to let <br>
the public ask too many questions.”<br>
Our primary reason for addressing this memorandum to you, however, is <br>
the Board’s failure to respond to us and the very serious issues we have <br>
raised based on our many years of hands-on involvement in the curation <br>
of County Museum records and archival holdings. We take the liberty here <br>
to remind you that your oath of office obliges you “to devote time, <br>
thought and study to your duties” in order to “render effective and <br>
credible public service;” to work “in a spirit of cooperation so all <br>
issues, especially those which are controversial, may be debated openly <br>
and fairly;” and “to base decisions on all available facts, without <br>
bias.” Objectively, you have not adhered to these principles of office <br>
in your oversight of the County Museum.<br>
How can you properly and responsibly delegate that oversight to your <br>
Chief Executive Officer, Carmel Angelo, who, her meritorious handling of <br>
last fall’s wildfire crisis notwithstanding, knows nothing about the <br>
operational principles and requirements of a local heritage museum? How <br>
can you defensibly neglect to discuss the issues we have raised with us, <br>
the two individuals most familiar with the Museum’s institutional <br>
history, with its current operational needs, and, above all, with the <br>
Museum’s archival collections on which all other operations depend? How <br>
can you defend failing to keep the Museum Advisory Board apprised of <br>
your intentions with regard to the Museum’s future when they are <br>
supposed to be your administrative link to the Museum?<br>
What the public needs to understand is that the current, potentially <br>
fatal, institutional crisis at our County Museum is the fault of County <br>
government (BOS and CEO), not Alison Glassey. While Glassey, like most <br>
administrators, had her shortcomings and did create more than one <br>
administrative difficulty, she also made significant contributions to <br>
the Museum and its public service role, for which she deserves to be <br>
duly recognized. Moreover, whatever her administrative missteps, it was <br>
Carmel Angelo who chose to place her in the Museum’s directorship rather <br>
than recruit a professional public historian as had been done in the <br>
past and should have been done when former director Herb Pruett retired.<br>
We cannot dismiss in this context our sense that there may have been a <br>
competitive bureaucratic personality clash here between the CEO and <br>
Glassey and that we ourselves have been removed from the Museum because <br>
of the CEO’s perception that we were somehow in league with Glassey, <br>
which was never, in fact, the case. We also know too much, it seems, <br>
about BOS/CEO mismanagement of the County Museum over the past two <br>
decades, which would explain our having become the unnamed subjects of <br>
the latest Museum public relations coverage in the Ukiah Daily Journal. <br>
In this light, we can only conclude that our new two-year archival <br>
contracts, requested by Glassey and authorized by Carmel Angelo, then <br>
summarily suspended five weeks later, were not issued in good faith.<br>
We respectfully suggest that the following empirical facts must receive <br>
your and your Board colleagues’ sober attention:<br>
<br>
(1) If the Mendocino County Museum is to achieve its defining public <br>
cultural purposes, it must be staffed by a trained/experienced public <br>
historian director; a curator of artifact collections; a curator of <br>
exhibits and programs; and a curator of archival collections; plus an <br>
executive secretary, part-time receptionists, and a part-time museum <br>
store supervisor.<br>
<br>
(2) The Museum cannot be run properly by one “museum curator” and <br>
“talented volunteers.”<br>
<br>
(3) No matter how talented and experienced recently hired curator Karen <br>
Mattson may be, she faces a daunting task of gaining adequate <br>
familiarity with the Museum’s artifact collections and will be incapable <br>
of doing so in a timely fashion if, as a practical matter, she must also <br>
perform the duties of Museum director, concern herself with exhibits and <br>
programs, and generally deal with innumerable other operational calls on <br>
her time.<br>
<br>
(4) Key to everything our County Museum does are its institutional <br>
records and archival holdings, which is where we have been devoting our <br>
time for several years now as contract archivists. (We, in fact, created <br>
the archival unit, which is an area commented on in last Friday’s UDJ <br>
article by County librarian Karen Horner as exemplifying the “amazing” <br>
job done by “current staff members and volunteers” to organize and <br>
maintain Museum collections. What she neglected to say to the reporter, <br>
but has acknowledged to us personally, is that that particular “amazing <br>
job” was our work, not the effort of “staff and volunteers.” We don’t <br>
know how much you took in, Dan, but we showed you around the Museum’s <br>
archival suite the day you donated your records re. the Round Valley <br>
historical monument at Inspiration Point.)<br>
<br>
(5) The work we have been doing over the past several years to bring <br>
order out of chaos in the Museum’s archival collections has accomplished <br>
much, yet leaves a great deal to be done, none of which Karen Mattson is <br>
qualified to do, nor, as we have said before, is anyone else for the <br>
simple reason that nobody coming in cold from the outside can possibly <br>
have a coherent idea of where we are in the archival process, of the <br>
rationale and historical significance of particular collections, or how <br>
to complete in-process inventories of unfamiliar holdings. Our purpose <br>
is simply to bring sufficient order to the Museum’s archival holdings, <br>
with the requisite collection inventories, established accessions <br>
priorities and developed administrative policies, so that an experienced <br>
archivist can then take charge of those holdings and effectively manage <br>
them into the future. If we are not allowed to complete the job we are <br>
professionally motivated and have been contracted to do, much <br>
irreplaceable County history will be lost and with it invaluable <br>
insights into who we are as a community.<br>
<br>
Finally, please be advised that in the event it is decided not to <br>
reactivate our County contracts and allow us to complete the work for <br>
which those contracts were issued, we will be obliged to recover some <br>
exceptionally significant historical materials that we ourselves have <br>
contributed to the Museum’s archival holdings and for which we remain <br>
personally responsible to the original donors.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Russell & Sylvia Bartley<br>
P.O. Box 219<br>
Fort Bragg, CA 95437-0219<br>
Email: nhh@mcn.org<br>
___________________________________________________________________________<br>
MENDOCINO COUNTY MUSEUM:<br>
A THREATENED PUBLIC TRUST<br>
MEMORANDUM OF CITIZEN CONCERN<br>
TO: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors<br>
Mendocino County Museum Advisory Board<br>
Mendocino County Heritage Network<br>
Other concerned parties and the public at large<br>
FROM: County Museum contract archivists Russell & Sylvia Bartley<br>
DATE: 1 December 2017<br>
What is the issue?<br>
The Mendocino County Museum (MCM) was created by the Mendocino County <br>
Historical<br>
Society (MCHS) over a several-year period in the 1960s and early 1970s, <br>
then donated to Mendocino<br>
County by formal agreement with the County Board of Supervisors (BOS) <br>
for the permanent<br>
preservation of the County’s historical heritage. During the fi rst two <br>
decades of the Museum’s existence<br>
it developed a remarkable collection of historical artifacts and <br>
documentary records, created exemplary<br>
exhibits, and offered the public a creative and enlightening series of <br>
typically well-attended programs.<br>
The County Museum is a public trust, to which the BOS committed County <br>
Government by<br>
formally accepting ownership on terms stipulated by MCHS, most <br>
importantly that henceforth the<br>
County would provide appropriate Museum staffi ng and would maintain its <br>
physical plant. The one<br>
term of donation that would become, and remains, an administrative issue <br>
is that the Museum was<br>
to be a department of County Government, which had salary implications <br>
for MCM directors who<br>
simultaneously wore two directorial hats. This became a critical problem <br>
in the late 1990s when,<br>
seeking administrative economies, the BOS brought in an outside <br>
consulting fi rm to review County<br>
Government’s organizational chart and operations and in that fi rm’s fi <br>
nal report it was suggested that the<br>
Museum’s small staff did not warrant departmental status.<br>
There typically being little institutional memory in government <br>
bureaucracies, in this instance<br>
with regard to the specifi c terms of transfer to the County, the BOS <br>
began to discuss folding MCM into<br>
the County Library or some other department of County Government, at <br>
which point the Museum’s<br>
then serving director, contemplating a signifi cant salary reduction, <br>
left the Museum for a senior position<br>
in another County department. The most logical and experienced person to <br>
replace the departed MCM<br>
director and who actually did serve briefl y as interim director, was <br>
the Museum’s curator of collections,<br>
Rebecca Snetselaar. (She was the person primarily responsible for and <br>
most familiar with the Museum’s<br>
2<br>
growing collections, so much so that more than a dozen years since her <br>
departure we and others still<br>
consult with her about unclear aspects of collections development and <br>
administration.) Snetselaar<br>
was eliminated, however, from serious consideration in favor of a wine <br>
promoter with no professional<br>
qualifi cations for the job but favored by the County Executive <br>
Administrator (now CEO) and some<br>
members of the BOS with a view to linking the Museum to the local wine <br>
economy as a potential<br>
revenue source.<br>
The result was public outrage, especially among members of the Mendocino <br>
County Heritage<br>
Network, a mutual support organization of County museums and historical <br>
interpretive sites established<br>
in 1986 by MCM director Mark Rawitsch. So blatant was the violation of <br>
the public trust on the part<br>
of County Government and so strong the resulting public protest that the <br>
BOS was forced to conduct a<br>
proper search for a professionally qualifi ed director. An appropriately <br>
experienced candidate was found<br>
in Wisconsin, an offer was made and accepted, then unexpectedly turned <br>
down when the candidate’s<br>
spouse refused to relocate to Willits. At that point, MCM founding <br>
director Herb Pruett agreed to come<br>
out of retirement to serve as interim director, then subsequently to <br>
serve again as the Museum’s full-time<br>
director.<br>
When Pruett retired from that position in 2007, longtime County employee <br>
Alison Glassey was<br>
assigned from the County Executive’s Offi ce to serve as interim MCM <br>
director, then chose and was<br>
allowed to continue as full-time director. In contrast to other senior <br>
County employees, Glassey had a<br>
genuine interest in and concern for the Museum’s future. What she lacked <br>
for the job was any museum<br>
administrative experience but, unlike other County administrators, she <br>
made a serious effort to learn<br>
and over the course of her directorship made notable contributions to <br>
the Museum’s legacy. By way of<br>
example, we cite the permanent Woven World’s exhibit on the regional <br>
Native American experience<br>
and the very popular Museum Road Show. The administrative issues that <br>
ostensibly led to her recent<br>
removal from the Museum’s directorship plunge us once again into County <br>
Government’s all too<br>
familiar mismanagement of this invaluable public trust. That is the <br>
overriding issue confronting all who<br>
care about the preservation of our County heritage and the vital role of <br>
the County Museum in assuring<br>
that preservation.<br>
Who are the Bartleys? Why might it be prudent to hear them out?<br>
Sylvia Bartley is a third-generation Mendocino County resident, her <br>
paternal grandparents<br>
having emigrated from Finland to the Fort Bragg area in the 1890s. She <br>
was educated at Reed College,<br>
San Francisco State (B.A.) and the University of Wisconsin (M.A.), <br>
taught in the Fort Bragg school<br>
district and at the Mendocino Coast campus of College of the Redwoods, <br>
and has a long-standing<br>
interest in local history. She is a founding member of the Fort <br>
Bragg-Mendocino Coast Historical<br>
Society (FB-MCHS) and director of the Society’s archives. Together with <br>
her husband Russell, she has<br>
also served on the Board of Directors of the County Historical Society.<br>
Russell Bartley is a retired history professor from the University of <br>
Wisconsin (Milwaukee<br>
campus), where in addition to his Hispanic world specialization he <br>
taught both undergraduate and<br>
3<br>
graduate-level courses in historical research methods. He completed his <br>
doctoral studies at Stanford<br>
University, which included extensive familiarization with manuscript <br>
collections and archival practices.<br>
Russell has been a legal resident of Mendocino County since the early <br>
1980s and a full-time resident<br>
since his retirement in 1996. Like Sylvia, he has an abiding interest in <br>
local history and especially in<br>
the critical relationship between life at the local level and historical <br>
developments in the larger world<br>
beyond. He, too, is a founding member of the FB-MCHS and serves as a <br>
Society archivist.<br>
Two of our primary concerns are (1) deepening the public’s interest in <br>
and appreciation of<br>
local history, and (2) preservation of the often elusive and vulnerable <br>
historical record. To that end, in<br>
1991 we incorporated a 501(c)(3) nonprofi t entity called Noyo Hill <br>
House (NHH) to serve as a local<br>
historical records safety net. Our boilerplate statement of purpose was <br>
and remains: “The preservation<br>
of perishable historical source materials and the promotion of public <br>
interest in history.” Over the course<br>
of NHH’s now 26-year history we have identifi ed and facilitated the <br>
permanent placement of numerous<br>
important collections of Mendocino County-related historical records, <br>
including Union Lumber<br>
Company records donated to FB-MCHS by Georgia-Pacifi c Corp., <br>
little-known McCarthy-era political<br>
materials documenting Communist Party activities in the County, and <br>
several collections now placed at<br>
the County Museum, among them: the political papers of former four-term <br>
County Supervisor Norman<br>
de Vall; the fi les and library of the Fort Bragg-based citizens’ <br>
activist group People for a Nuclear Free<br>
Future; the Nelson Brothers Collection, documenting the life stories of <br>
two politically active Mendocino<br>
Coast Finns, one of whom emigrated from Fort Bragg to Soviet Russia in <br>
1922, fathered two sons,<br>
fell victim to the Stalinist purges, then one of whose grandsons and <br>
great-grandson (also namesake)<br>
emigrated back to Fort Bragg in 1997; and the fi eld notes, maps and <br>
related documentation of Samuel<br>
Gilbert Clark (1896-1944), the fi rst geologist to conduct extensive fi <br>
eld work in Mendocino County.<br>
In pursuit of NHH public outreach objectives we began in the latter <br>
1990s to collaborate on a<br>
volunteer basis with the County Museum, initially during the <br>
directorship of Dan Taylor, then under<br>
the direction of collections curator Snetselaar. Sylvia focused on <br>
processing photographic collections<br>
(identifying and coding images), while Russell concentrated on the <br>
curation of manuscript holdings.<br>
When Pruett reassumed directorship, he quickly appreciated the need to <br>
get administrative control of the<br>
Museum’s archival holdings and worked out a contractual arrangement with <br>
us to address that need.<br>
We began that challenging task by physically concentrating archival <br>
operations in an enclosed<br>
suite of rooms within the unfi nished storage structure that had been <br>
added to the original Museum<br>
building at the beginning of the new millennium. While not fully climate <br>
controlled, what has now<br>
become the Museum’s archival suite was insulated, had heating and air <br>
conditioning, and could be<br>
locked for necessary security. What Pruett envisioned and remains an <br>
ultimate objective of Museum<br>
operations was to create a substantial partitioned area within the new <br>
addition, duly climate controlled,<br>
exclusively for the long-term storage of the Museum’s archival <br>
collections. His thought was to transfer<br>
all artifact and archival holdings into the new addition, then <br>
rehabilitate the old storage area for<br>
additional exhibit space.<br>
Pruett personally retrieved a large quantity of library shelving donated <br>
to MCM by the<br>
4<br>
Livermore Public Library and drove it back to Willits, where we <br>
reassembled it in the archival suite and<br>
an adjacent area of the outer storage area. We then began to relocate <br>
key but incompletely processed<br>
documentary collections from both the old storage space and the <br>
second-fl oor curatorial work area<br>
onto the new shelving in the archival suite. We also began to develop a <br>
strategy for making accessible<br>
some 90 cartons of unorganized County records dating from the early 20th <br>
century into the 1980s.<br>
And we accessioned two signifi cant collections procured by Director <br>
Pruett: (1) a substantial body of<br>
Redwood Empire Association records; and (2) the personal and family <br>
records of prominent County<br>
resident William Lincoln Bittenbender, which at Pruett’s request we <br>
retrieved from the deceased’s Ukiah<br>
residence.<br>
When Herb Pruett retired in 2007, funding for our MCM archival work <br>
ended and would not<br>
be renewed for another six years, when Alison Glassey brought us back to <br>
pick up where we had<br>
left off. Before completing our fi nal contract period under Pruett and <br>
at his request, we produced<br>
an extensively illustrated booklet that described the Museum’s archival <br>
holdings and explained the<br>
administrative requirements for their conservation, further development <br>
and utilization by Museum staff,<br>
County employees and other interested researchers: Mendocino County <br>
Museum, Willits, California.<br>
Archival Holdings and Historical Research Collections Development, <br>
Description and Administrative<br>
Requirements (April 2007).<br>
“The Mendocino County Museum is a cultural asset of inestimable value to <br>
all of us who live<br>
in this part of the State,” we observed. “The size and scope of its <br>
archival holdings, together with its<br>
extensive reference collections, rich artifact holdings, exceptional <br>
physical plant and advantageous<br>
location all combine to make the Museum a cultural institution of <br>
potentially major signifi cance,”<br>
while recent development of its archival and reference collections “now <br>
afford it the possibility of<br>
becoming a full-service regional historical repository and research <br>
center on a par with comparably sized<br>
institutions across the country.” In that capacity, we noted, the Museum <br>
would be able to play “a highly<br>
visible networking role among numerous public, private and academic <br>
historical bodies throughout<br>
northwestern California,” which in turn would “further enhance its <br>
stature among heritage specialists,<br>
as well as the general public, and in so doing project an attractive <br>
cultural image of Mendocino County<br>
throughout the wider region.”<br>
Unfortunately, we concluded, in light of budgetary constraints “some in <br>
County government<br>
would cut allocations for Museum operations in pursuit of what seem to <br>
us to be false economies. Those<br>
budgetary reductions have already so hobbled MCM that for several years <br>
now it has been unable to<br>
function properly.” In our view, we concluded, “County government ought <br>
not view MCM as simply<br>
another piece on the game board of administrative monopoly, rather <br>
should see the Museum as the<br>
asset it is, endorse its purposes and objectives, then set about <br>
creatively in concert with Museum staff,<br>
the Museum’s Advisory Board and members of the County’s diverse <br>
historical community to devise<br>
the ways and means of achieving those ends.” Sadly, that has not <br>
happened and in 2017 we still have a<br>
County Executive Offi cer and one or two BOS members who do not believe <br>
that this now 45-year-old<br>
5<br>
County institution should remain a County responsibility.<br>
When County government brought in Alison Glassey to replace Herb Pruett <br>
rather than conduct<br>
a proper search for an experienced public historian to serve as Museum <br>
director, they made yet another<br>
bureaucratic move on their administrative monopoly board. Fortunately <br>
for the Museum, Glassey<br>
understood the issues we and Pruett had raised in our 2007 MCM-published <br>
booklet and took steps to<br>
address them. In March 2014 she brought us back on contractual terms <br>
that made it possible for us to<br>
continue the archival work we had initiated during Pruett’s <br>
directorship. That June she extended our<br>
contracts for the following fi scal year and did so again in 2015.<br>
In the spring of 2016 it was discovered that the Museum had a serious <br>
black mold infestation<br>
requiring immediate attention and in the operational disruption <br>
occasioned by that remediation (the<br>
Museum was closed to the public throughout the summer and early fall) <br>
Glassey neglected to renew<br>
our contracts within the established administrative time frame, all the <br>
while continuing to pay us and<br>
reassuring us that she would get the contracts renewed as soon as she <br>
could take a little time away from<br>
the disruptions of remediation. The County Executive’s Offi ce was not <br>
sympathetic to her explanation<br>
for the breach of established procedure but fi nally did authorize <br>
retroactive renewal of our contracts,<br>
albeit with the strange caveat that because of the amount of those <br>
contracts ($15,000 each), the next time<br>
around they would have to be “put out for bid” —a requirement not raised <br>
previously and which, we<br>
argued, was impractical given the nature of the archival tasks to be <br>
performed.<br>
In a memo to director Glassey about our role as contract archivists we <br>
pointed out that by then<br>
we had been working to remedy the Museum’s archival problems for several <br>
years and were de facto the<br>
only available professionals with the requisite skill set to complete <br>
the job as it needs to be done. The<br>
key components of that skill set, we noted, are: (1) knowledge of and <br>
practical experience with archival<br>
practices; (2) familiarity with the County Museum’s archival holdings; <br>
(3) knowledge of the Museum’s<br>
institutional history; and (4) knowledge of County and regional history. <br>
Now there is the additional<br>
problem that, having already introduced transitional changes into the <br>
preexisting order of the Museum’s<br>
archival holdings, we are as a practical matter the only individuals <br>
suffi ciently familiar with those<br>
changes to complete and integrate them into a properly reorganized <br>
archival management system. This is<br>
especially true for the inactive and historical County Government <br>
records housed at the Museum, many<br>
of which can no longer be located by referring to the original storage <br>
carton inventory prepared by the<br>
County.<br>
We further pointed out that the work we have contracted to do at the <br>
County Museum differs<br>
from plumbing, painting or paving contracts in that it is not a <br>
short-term job that can be completed in<br>
days, weeks or months. The curatorial aspect of archival administration, <br>
like other facets of museum<br>
operations, is of course ongoing and at some point will have to be taken <br>
over by a full-time qualifi ed<br>
staff person responsible for archival holdings. Our task has been and <br>
remains to get those holdings<br>
into a physical and organizational state where they can be effectively <br>
administered by anyone with the<br>
appropriate professional experience. We have made signifi cant progress <br>
toward that end, we observed,<br>
but a great deal remains to be accomplished: major collections yet to be <br>
evaluated, organized and<br>
6<br>
inventoried; physical development and utilization of archival storage <br>
space; determination of collecting<br>
priorities and the formalization of administrative policy and <br>
procedures. Realistically, we anticipated<br>
that on our current (and for us only feasible) part-time basis we would <br>
require another 2-3 years to<br>
accomplish those tasks, after which—health permitting—we would be <br>
available for consulting as<br>
needed.<br>
Apparently persuaded by our reasoning, on 22 June of this year the <br>
County Executive’s<br>
Offi ce granted us a two-year contract, renewable for a third, to <br>
continue our archival work. On that<br>
same date they notifi ed MCM director Glassey that they were placing her <br>
on administrative leave for<br>
alleged mishandling of Museum fi nances, then over the following weeks <br>
imposed a gag order on the<br>
increasingly demoralized staff while assigning day-to-day oversight of <br>
Museum operations to County<br>
Librarian Karen Horner. Nothing was communicated to us and we continued <br>
our normal work routine<br>
until Thursday afternoon, 10 August, when as Sylvia was performing <br>
archival tasks on her computer<br>
it suddenly froze up. When she contacted County IT to report the <br>
problem, she was instructed to call<br>
Deputy CEO Janelle Rau, who informed her that our contracts had been <br>
suspended, curtly adding that,<br>
as contractors, “we had no right to be using County equipment,” as <br>
though it were somehow possible<br>
to administer the archival collections without access to the Museum’s <br>
computer system. Sylvia further<br>
explained that we were then assisting a local researcher who was working <br>
on a book about local Pomos,<br>
to which Rau responded dismissively that that was just too bad and for <br>
the time being that individual<br>
would have to cease her research at the Museum. She then informed Sylvia <br>
that we were to turn in our<br>
keys and until further notice would only be allowed access to the public <br>
areas of the Museum. Another<br>
week would pass before we received written notifi cation of our contract <br>
suspension.<br>
Rau’s haughty attitude that day typifi ed County Executive Offi ce <br>
dealings with the Museum. In<br>
our specifi c case, neither the CEO nor anyone from her offi ce has <br>
taken the trouble to visit the archives<br>
while we’ve been present or otherwise meet with us to learn something <br>
about the administrative issues<br>
posed by this aspect of Museum operations. That, we conclude, is because <br>
County administrators do not<br>
conceive of the Museum as anything more than a Disneyesque entertainment <br>
attraction, much less as a<br>
public trust of inestimable educational value.<br>
How to salvage our County Museum? Can it be salvaged?<br>
When Herb Pruett was replaced in 2008 by Alison Glassey rather than a <br>
professionally<br>
experienced museum director, the Mendocino County Heritage Network <br>
expressed immediate alarm in a<br>
public statement addressed to the BOS under the heading: OUR COUNTY <br>
MUSEUM ON LIFE SUPPORT.<br>
It read as follows:<br>
“The Mendocino County Museum on East Commercial Street in Willits is in <br>
dire straits as a<br>
consequence of long-standing neglect by our elected County <br>
representatives and their appointed<br>
public servants in the County Executive Offi ce. In the name of <br>
budgetary belt tightening over the<br>
past decade, the Supervisors have progressively eliminated the Museum’s <br>
professional staff to<br>
7<br>
the point where, after the last round of budget cuts, it is left to <br>
function with an interim director<br>
(fortunately, one with invaluable public administrative experience and a <br>
sound understanding<br>
of the Museum’s real needs), a receptionist, and whatever volunteers can <br>
be found to perform<br>
stopgap tasks. There is currently no one on the County Museum’s staff <br>
with professional museum<br>
training and the Museum has not had a curator of collections now for the <br>
past seven years. The<br>
present CEO, Carmel Angelo, has even gone so far as to propose that the <br>
Mendocino County<br>
Museum simply be boarded up and its remaining staff laid off.<br>
“As the principal representatives of the County’s historical <br>
preservation and heritage<br>
community, we of the Mendocino County Heritage Network wish to alert <br>
local residents to the<br>
serious threat now faced by the County Museum. It is important for all <br>
of us to understand that<br>
this is not a matter of legitimate economies necessitated by the larger <br>
fi nancial crisis, as the<br>
Museum is one of the County’s smallest departments and reductions in its <br>
former annual budget of<br>
approximately $300,000 contribute virtually nothing to alleviating <br>
shortfalls in the County’s multimillion<br>
dollar budget. The objective fact is that, even in these diffi cult <br>
economic times, the County<br>
can afford this priceless cultural institution.<br>
“It is equally important to understand that the County Museum is not a <br>
luxury, rather a public<br>
trust as essential to the well-being of our local citizenry as law <br>
enforcement, public health, and<br>
social services. The Museum is the conservator of our collective memory, <br>
the repository of our<br>
historical records, and the interpreter of our shared heritage. It was <br>
created many years ago by<br>
concerned citizens who recognized the importance of remembering and <br>
learning from the past.<br>
Through the Mendocino County Historical Society they planned, funded and <br>
built the Museum,<br>
then gifted it to the County, which accepted the Museum as a public <br>
trust to be preserved and<br>
sustained in perpetuity out of the County treasury. It was a solemn <br>
commitment by County<br>
Government to the citizenry, yet one which in recent years has not been <br>
kept.<br>
“Without competent professional staff, the County Museum cannot continue <br>
to function. It<br>
is not enough to keep the lights on and the doors open. Artifacts and <br>
archival holdings require<br>
ongoing care, as do exhibits, which also must be updated, supplemented <br>
and explained to the<br>
visiting public. In addition to the County’s ethical and legal <br>
obligations to the donors of family<br>
heirlooms, artifacts, photographic collections and historical records, <br>
by failing to provide for<br>
the proper care of these fragile holdings our County Government <br>
increasingly risks law suit and<br>
deaccessioning expenses far in excess of purported savings from the <br>
recent budget cuts. More<br>
seriously, these irreplaceable pieces of our collective heritage are in <br>
danger of being lost (as was<br>
the priceless Elsie Allen Pomo basket collection already several years <br>
ago) through the failure of<br>
our elected offi cials to exercise responsibly their public trust. We <br>
urge County residents to visit<br>
the Mendocino County Museum, to familiarize themselves with this <br>
extraordinary public asset<br>
and, above all, to call or write the Mendocino County Board of <br>
Supervisors to demand that they<br>
preserve the Museum as the public trust it has always been.”<br>
8<br>
That statement was endorsed by eighteen MCHN member organizations and, <br>
in a gesture of support,<br>
also by the Lake County Historical Society.<br>
Now eight years later we can detect no lessening of County government’s <br>
unenlightened rigidity<br>
in its handling of Museum oversight. CEO Carmel Angelo assures concerned <br>
parties that she is going to<br>
put the County Museum on a sound footing but lacks all appreciation of <br>
what is required to accomplish<br>
that long overdue task and in fact has given no indication that her <br>
long-standing negative view of the<br>
Museum as a County-run entity has in any substantive way changed. <br>
Objectively, the only way to<br>
achieve sound operational management of the Museum is to staff it with a <br>
professionally experienced<br>
director, a curator of collections, a curator of exhibits and programs, <br>
and a curator-archivist, all to<br>
be overseen by a Museum Advisory Board that reports directly to the BOS. <br>
The Mendocino County<br>
Museum remains the sole, non-transferable, responsibility of our County <br>
Supervisors.<br>
As for our own contribution to this diffi cult process of institutional <br>
recovery, if our currently<br>
suspended contracts are reinstated and we are allowed to complete the <br>
essential archival work on which<br>
we have been engaged over the past several years, then it will be <br>
possible to get this critical aspect of<br>
Museum operations to a point where an experienced curator-archivist can <br>
be brought in from outside the<br>
County to effectively and responsibly take over from us. If not, then no <br>
one else possesses the necessary<br>
familiarity with the Museum’s current archival collections to get this <br>
all-important job done.<br>
Contact information:Russell & Sylvia Bartley<br>
P. O. Box 219<br>
Fort Bragg, CA 95437-0219<br>
E-mail: nhh@mcn.org<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 3/26/2018 2:11 PM, Microsoft account team wrote:<br>
> Heads up! Our Library funding is in Jeopardy and a lot of folks need to <br>
> attend the BOS meeting tomorrow, where it may possibly be voted on at 11am!<br>
> <br>
> Come speak up for the Library A-87 fund voted on by 2/3 of the public! Ann<br>
> <br>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
> *From:* michele savoy <mbsavoy@gmail.com><br>
> *Sent:* Monday, March 26, 2018 9:03 AM<br>
> *To:* dollypriley@gmail.com<br>
> *Cc:* Marc Komer; lynnzimm@mcn.org; janice.marcell@yahoo.com; michael <br>
> schaeffer; ann rannaker; pearl watts; nolga@sbcglobal.net; <br>
> themoyouknow@gmail.com; nancy.morin@nau.edu; djmit@hughes.net; <br>
> ehtepas@yahoo.com; Patmcgee1@aol.com; whitaker@mcn.org; cahtosj@mcn.org; <br>
> shawn haven; Marna Carney; birdn@mendocinocounty.org; <br>
> frickd@mendocinocounty.org; Julia Larke; hessd@mendocinocounty.org; Josh <br>
> Bennett<br>
> *Subject:* Re: Poster<br>
> The subject got good coverage by the UDJ. Jonathan Middlebrook wrote <br>
> about it in his column. It also got front page on the Sunday edition.<br>
> I have Jury duty this am. Hopefully it won't go over to tomorrow.<br>
> Micheles<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 7:57 AM, <dollypriley@gmail.com <br>
> <<a href="mailto:dollypriley@gmail.com" id="LPlnk685988" previewremoved="true">mailto:dollypriley@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> Please see Ukiah Daily Journal, Sunday, March 25, page 5. Columnist<br>
> Jim Shields wrote about the “cultural services agency.“ Great article.<br>
> <br>
> Sent from my iPhone<br>
> <br>
> > On Mar 23, 2018, at 11:02 AM, Marc Komer <mkomer@pacific.net<br>
> <<a href="mailto:mkomer@pacific.net" id="LPlnk274875" previewremoved="true">mailto:mkomer@pacific.net</a>>> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > Hi,<br>
> ><br>
> > Attached is a poster that may be used to alert the public about<br>
> the Board of Supervisor's meeting on Tuesday, March 27th at 11:00.<br>
> ><br>
> > We need a large crowd to help persuade the supervisors to not<br>
> vote for the proposed Cultural Services Agency.<br>
> ><br>
> > Marc<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > ---<br>
> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>
> > <a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" id="LPlnk312303" previewremoved="true">
https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a> <<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" id="LPlnk915407" previewremoved="true">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a>><br>
> > <Poster.pdf><br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> -- <br>
> Michele Bisson Savoy<br>
> 11501 Pratt Ranch Road<br>
> Hopland, CA 95449<br>
> (707) 744-1831<br>
> mbsavoy@gmail.com <<a href="mailto:mbsavoy@gmail.com" id="LPlnk332063" previewremoved="true">mailto:mbsavoy@gmail.com</a>><br>
<br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>