Council narrowly approves pact with Museums Inc.
The St. Joseph City Council put an end to a much-debated museum issue. But the ending could signify the beginning of a new battle.
The council voted 5-4 Monday evening to approve a one-year contract between the city and St. Joseph Museums Inc.
Critics of the contract, including Ellis Cross and the Friends of the Museum Hill Mansion, call the contract “unconstitutional” and have said they’d sue the city if it approved the contract. Following the vote, Mr. Cross wouldn’t comment on his next move.
The city’s museum property tax used to only fund the Wyeth-Tootle mansion. The new contract gives Museums Inc. $300,000 a year for operations at any of its sites, including the private complex on Frederick Avenue. The Museums’ Wyeth-Tootle will receive $100,000 a year.
The tax could generate additional funding, and City Manager Vince Capell has proposed putting some of it toward the city’s new nature center.
Opponents of the contract took issue with wording in the contract, worrying that potential language loopholes could hurt museums and taxpayers.
Ed Catron, chairman of the council-appointed Museum Oversight Board, asked the council to postpone voting on the contract until the two groups could have an outside attorney review the contract. To avoid more time and arguments on the issue, he said another opinion on conflicts, such as the definition of “municipal,” were needed.
Heated, across-the-board public comment and council discussion on the issue included a comparison between a the city/museum squabble and the war in Iraq as well as confusion over voting procedures that provoked audience outbursts.
Council members opposing the contract agreed with the oversight board that consulting an independent attorney and having more discussion could help iron out issues before they become problems.
Council members supporting the contract questioned what could be accomplished in two weeks.
“This has been going on for two years. I have a file on this that’s bigger than a phone book. It’s time to vote on this,” said Mike Hirter.
Members who voted in favor of the contract were Roger Baker, Donna Jean Boyer, Gary Roach, Joyce Starr and Mr. Hirter. Members who voted against the contract were Mayor Ken Shearin, Mike Bozarth, Bill Falkner and Barbara LaBass.
Nancy Hull can be reached at nancyhull@npgco.com.
- More Headlines
- Recently Discussed
Its done. Time to move forward with progression to expand and improve and get more people to visit the museums. This fight needs to stop. Friends of the Museum please keep in mind if you pursue a lawsuit against the City, you are costing me more tax dollars and your cause is not one I support. I encourage other paths and find future solutions instead of a lawsuit. Help not hinder. In a year this contract will be up again, find another alternative one that is progressive and positive with a plan.
Posted by MichaelH on July 15, 2008 at 7:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)If it's not about museums, something else will be the center of squabble.
I'm excited to see what our museums do with the dollars.
Even more so, I think we need to get on board with more contemporary approaches to our displays to sort of balance the old with the new.
Our kids are force-fed this stuff (our local history/museums) in field trips (I know I was). In light of that, when we get older we feel we've already been there, done that. And that's too bad.
How about somethine new? I'm not certain the nature center is, "it," though I will certainly visit it. I think it's along the right idea.
Isn't there something else our city can host that is, "new and different?"
Kansas City has some amazing exhibits - wouldn't be hard to pick an idea from them here and there.
Posted by lamplighter on July 15, 2008 at 7:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)I agree with you, Wildwest. it's time to move on and find a proactive way to revitalize the mansion and museums. Instead of spending thousands of dollars on attorneys, set up a trust for the preservation of the mansion, appoint NEUTRAL trustees to oversee, set conditions for dispersal of the funds and challenge the general public and museums members to match the funds in the trust. There are lots of ways to turn negatives into positives, but, personalities have to stay out of the fight and everyone needs to begin with a positive/cohesive frame of mind.
Posted by njones60 on July 15, 2008 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)MichaelH - Like you, we visited all of the local museums when we were in grade school. I have children in 5th, 3rd, and 2nd grades. That is 13 years of school combined and not one of them has gone to a local museum on a field trip. I loved the Patee House when I was a kid. I don't know if it's shabbier now than it was (I haven't been in 5 years or so), or if I just grew up and realized it's shabby. Anyway, I am not well versed on this subject so I offer no comment of any value here... just wistful of the good old days when the museums held my imagination and wonder...
Posted by Arthur on July 15, 2008 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)Yes, now that "the museum squabble is over" let's spend a lot of money on a building that really has nothing to do with St. Joe history unless you include "robber baron" as a historical classification.
The property at 1100 Charles has tried and tried to be a tourist attraction for over 50 years to no avail. In spite of huge efforts by the St. Joseph Museums Inc, visitors strain to go over the 6-per day mark over the course of a year. Don't know how much has been spent on marketing? Inform yourself by asking SJM board or staff. There has been a lot of money poured down that rat-hole.
Building maintenance has been ignored? No way, St.Jose, as over $200,000 00 has been spent there over the lst several years.
Handicapped accessable not tried? For years and years a solution has been searched for, concluding with $150,000.00 for an elevator.
With that, and everything else, it's too bad Ed and Linda Hood were chased off when they wanted to buy it. Good luck,City of St. Joe!
Oh, yeah, why don't the Friends of the Mansion come up with a $4,000,000.00 fundraiser?
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them.
Rules: We don't allow comments that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability. Epithets, abusive language and obscene comments will not be tolerated... nor will defamation.Robust, even heated debate we like. Straying off-topic or flaming, we don't. Please read our user agreement.
Requires free stjoenews.net registration.