Museum fundraising takes off on wrong foot
By CHARLES S. JOHNSON - IR State Bureau - 08/07/08
Former First Lady Betty Babcock said Wednesday that the group trying to raise $13 million privately for a new Montana history museum faces difficulty because the lack of a unified effort behind it.
Babcock said she fears the Montana Historical Society is “lukewarm” in its support for a museum at the site of Helena’s aging mall.
Anything but a united front between the private Montana History Foundation and the Montana Historical Society will jeopardize efforts to raise $13 million by the mid-November deadline, she told Gov. Brian Schweitzer in a letter and a meeting.
On May 7, Schweitzer tentatively agreed to buy 13.5 acres where Helena’s Capital Hill Mall is located for $6.5 million as a site for the history museum, using money provided by the 2005 Legislature. However, Schweitzer made that purchase contingent on the Montana History Foundation raising $13 million privately by mid-November as the first stage of a larger fund-raising campaign for the new building.
Schweitzer made it clear then he would put no more state money in the project nor seek a tax increase to do so.
Babcock, wife of former Gov. Tim Babcock, expressed confidence the group can raise the money, with a united effort. Asked afterward, how much it had raised since May, Babcock said some money had been donated and some pledges made, but she couldn’t say how much yet. The group plans a formal fund-raising kickoff in early September.
Babcock is co-chair of the Montana History Center, which is helping the Montana History Foundation raise money.
Schweitzer said he would visit again with Richard Sims, Montana Historical Society director, and “have him say once again ‘I’m supportive.’ ”
But Schweitzer also wondered aloud whether the Montana History Foundation wasn’t looking for someone to blame for not raising the money. He said, “We don’t want to hear any excuses.”
“I don’t want the MHF saying things are not working out and saying who’s responsible? The MHS,” Schweitzer said.
Babcock sought the meeting after receiving a July 22 letter from Jim Murry of Clancy, president of the Montana Historical Society board of directors, in response to her request to join fund-raising efforts.
Murry replied that Schweitzer’s challenge to raise $13 million for the purchase of the mall site was made to the History Foundation and Babcock, not the society, and tossed the ball back in their court.
“The challenge, which was publicly accepted by both of you, did not include the MHS,” Murry said. “Therefore, we feel it would be inappropriate for us, representing a state agency, to involve ourselves in an agreement between you, the MHF and the governor.”
Murry repeated offers for the society to lend its expertise in planning or helping in other ways.
Schweitzer told Babcock he’s fully supportive, but added: “I’m a little frustrated that some think that there is a mixed message.”
The meeting was the latest in the drawn-out battle that’s played out since last fall — and in recent years — over where a new historical museum should be built. The current museum is overcrowded, and many of the Historical Society’s valuable pieces of art and artifacts are crammed in basement storage areas and warehouses, unavailable for public viewing.
Sims and the Historical Society board support the location recommended by the state’s architect after consultants’ studies. This site is on what’s now a parking lot across the street and to the north of the current historical museum. The plan calls for remodeling the current building and connecting it with the new facility by an underground tunnel.
However, Babcock and some Helena business people favor the site on the mall, which is five blocks north of the current museum. They argue it was the intent of the 2005 Legislature, which set aside $7.5 million in bonding authority, to use it for the mall site. The state’s Capitol Complex Advisory Council also voted 4-2 for the mall site in October 2007.
Schweitzer reaffirmed his support for a new museum on the mall site. His wife, First Lady Nancy Schweitzer, taped some public service announcements with Babcock on behalf of the fund-raising drive.
“It’s a big task and not impossible,” Schweitzer said.
Babcock said she fears the Montana Historical Society is “lukewarm” in its support for a museum at the site of Helena’s aging mall.
Anything but a united front between the private Montana History Foundation and the Montana Historical Society will jeopardize efforts to raise $13 million by the mid-November deadline, she told Gov. Brian Schweitzer in a letter and a meeting.
On May 7, Schweitzer tentatively agreed to buy 13.5 acres where Helena’s Capital Hill Mall is located for $6.5 million as a site for the history museum, using money provided by the 2005 Legislature. However, Schweitzer made that purchase contingent on the Montana History Foundation raising $13 million privately by mid-November as the first stage of a larger fund-raising campaign for the new building.
Schweitzer made it clear then he would put no more state money in the project nor seek a tax increase to do so.
Babcock, wife of former Gov. Tim Babcock, expressed confidence the group can raise the money, with a united effort. Asked afterward, how much it had raised since May, Babcock said some money had been donated and some pledges made, but she couldn’t say how much yet. The group plans a formal fund-raising kickoff in early September.
Babcock is co-chair of the Montana History Center, which is helping the Montana History Foundation raise money.
Schweitzer said he would visit again with Richard Sims, Montana Historical Society director, and “have him say once again ‘I’m supportive.’ ”
But Schweitzer also wondered aloud whether the Montana History Foundation wasn’t looking for someone to blame for not raising the money. He said, “We don’t want to hear any excuses.”
“I don’t want the MHF saying things are not working out and saying who’s responsible? The MHS,” Schweitzer said.
Babcock sought the meeting after receiving a July 22 letter from Jim Murry of Clancy, president of the Montana Historical Society board of directors, in response to her request to join fund-raising efforts.
Murry replied that Schweitzer’s challenge to raise $13 million for the purchase of the mall site was made to the History Foundation and Babcock, not the society, and tossed the ball back in their court.
“The challenge, which was publicly accepted by both of you, did not include the MHS,” Murry said. “Therefore, we feel it would be inappropriate for us, representing a state agency, to involve ourselves in an agreement between you, the MHF and the governor.”
Murry repeated offers for the society to lend its expertise in planning or helping in other ways.
Schweitzer told Babcock he’s fully supportive, but added: “I’m a little frustrated that some think that there is a mixed message.”
The meeting was the latest in the drawn-out battle that’s played out since last fall — and in recent years — over where a new historical museum should be built. The current museum is overcrowded, and many of the Historical Society’s valuable pieces of art and artifacts are crammed in basement storage areas and warehouses, unavailable for public viewing.
Sims and the Historical Society board support the location recommended by the state’s architect after consultants’ studies. This site is on what’s now a parking lot across the street and to the north of the current historical museum. The plan calls for remodeling the current building and connecting it with the new facility by an underground tunnel.
However, Babcock and some Helena business people favor the site on the mall, which is five blocks north of the current museum. They argue it was the intent of the 2005 Legislature, which set aside $7.5 million in bonding authority, to use it for the mall site. The state’s Capitol Complex Advisory Council also voted 4-2 for the mall site in October 2007.
Schweitzer reaffirmed his support for a new museum on the mall site. His wife, First Lady Nancy Schweitzer, taped some public service announcements with Babcock on behalf of the fund-raising drive.
“It’s a big task and not impossible,” Schweitzer said.
Current rating: 4.1 with 20 ratings.
Click here to register
Reader Comments:
Nutmeg wrote on Aug 9, 2008 12:38 PM:
" So True! Hopefully MHS board will join in and get in gear. Otherwise it will be their own fault if this fails. "
RED wrote on Aug 8, 2008 6:23 PM:
" The argument about the site for the museum is over! The Governor has diligently negotiated an affordable price for the purchase of the Mall less than the total that the 2005 Legislature voted for that purpose. He has asked the MHF to get started raising the money to build the museum to have $13,000,000 raised by Nov. 15. This is THE DRIVE to build the Museum. The MHS board of Trustees have indicated that they do not plan to take an active part. It is not their responsibility to do the fundraising themselves, but to actively support the efforts of the drive is essential. This is our (the people of Montana's) one chance to get the Museum built. It will take everyone working together to get the job done! That is what Betty Babcock is asking, and what the Governor is encouraging. This will be a positive good for the State, this community and the future generations that will use a World Class facility! "
Nutmeg wrote on Aug 7, 2008 7:59 PM:
" I think it is cool that Mrs. Schwietzer is joining the effort to raise $13 million. And cool that the Gov figured out how to get the Mall and push this project so far along.
I just find it very odd that the he can't figure out why MHS is not functioning...
It reminds me of a family with an addicted child. Until they learn to practice 'tough love' the kid just keeps lying and everyone stays in denial. "
I just find it very odd that the he can't figure out why MHS is not functioning...
It reminds me of a family with an addicted child. Until they learn to practice 'tough love' the kid just keeps lying and everyone stays in denial. "
MTRICH wrote on Aug 7, 2008 7:30 PM:
" I guess I just do not understand most of the statements made here. I must be missing something. Would having tourist to Helena able to easily visit our museum really be all that bad? I thought that was much of the point of a museum. Would having a museum draw tourist to ANY part of Helena really be that bad? I can not think of any attraction that draws anyone to ALL of Helena. (as an example) Helenas downtown doesnt purposely do anything to draw people to anywhere but downtownbut they do attract people and hopefully those people may spend money somewhere in Helena. That DOES benefit ALL of Helena. One blogger noted: a major cultural institution should not be sited using the same criteria as a Wal-Mart. And what criteria should be usedthat of a semi-secret government agency hidden from public view and access? They then said of the alternate site by the capital being: a much more appropriate, campus-like environment for this type of institution. I do not think the Montana historical museum should feel like a campus or an institution. Learning may and should happen there but that does not mean it should feel like a college classroom. It is a museum not a research wing of The Helena College of Technology. Another blogger said of the overall plan: in effect using Montana's history to lure visitors into a retail environment. In my opinion, that's not what we should be about. So we should build a museum that does not attract visitors or just not any with money?
Close down the down town who uses its history to draw people to Helena? Stop the tour trainit not only promotes Montana History but also make money from itthis is bad? Our (Montanas) history is one of Montanas biggest tourist drawsand that is bad? That just does not make sense to me. "
Close down the down town who uses its history to draw people to Helena? Stop the tour trainit not only promotes Montana History but also make money from itthis is bad? Our (Montanas) history is one of Montanas biggest tourist drawsand that is bad? That just does not make sense to me. "
Readers Theater wrote on Aug 7, 2008 5:49 PM:
" Thanks 'al' for your fine comments on the MHS and MHF situation. It's emotionally charged. Everyone considers the state's history to be precious and worth our best efforts to honor and preserve.
If a large, accessible commercial property in proximity to the state capitol were available for a state agency to develop, the agency to design its highest and best use would be one whose staff, mission and resources touch a vast number of users, one with a long, successful history of public education, retail sales, customer service, professional journal production, policy formation and resource management, creative exhibit design and possessing the desire to research and provide for the needs of citizens and visitors.
That would be the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. "
If a large, accessible commercial property in proximity to the state capitol were available for a state agency to develop, the agency to design its highest and best use would be one whose staff, mission and resources touch a vast number of users, one with a long, successful history of public education, retail sales, customer service, professional journal production, policy formation and resource management, creative exhibit design and possessing the desire to research and provide for the needs of citizens and visitors.
That would be the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. "
Nutmeg wrote on Aug 7, 2008 1:06 PM:
" I also agree that the goal is for MHS to have integrity.
But, since the old site on 6th isn't even an option why would MHS want to squander an opportunity to build their new museum on land that the State is offering to pay for?
The Gov and MHF have stepped up... now the MHS Board needs to participate - fully.
PS - don't worry about those initial drawings. MHS created those as a place to start. I believe the architects have moved way past that. "
But, since the old site on 6th isn't even an option why would MHS want to squander an opportunity to build their new museum on land that the State is offering to pay for?
The Gov and MHF have stepped up... now the MHS Board needs to participate - fully.
PS - don't worry about those initial drawings. MHS created those as a place to start. I believe the architects have moved way past that. "
al wrote on Aug 7, 2008 12:26 PM:
" To clarify a point in my previous post in opposition to the Montana History Foundation's museum proposal: I realize that tourist trade, much of it revolving around Montana's rich history, is important to Helena's economy. The problem is, if the new museum is built as the MHF would like, on a busy commercial strip near the Interstate, Montana's primary repository of historical artifacts and research materials would draw visitors into a VERY SPECIFIC retail area -- the area which the MHF proposal touts. That clearly would not benefit Helena merchants as a whole. Thanks for letting me clarify. "
diazo wrote on Aug 7, 2008 12:19 PM:
" It may be that many of the museums potential deep-pocketed donors understand that a major cultural institution should not be sited using the same criteria as a Wal-Mart. Putting the museum on a commercial highway strip surrounded by fast food joints and parking lots would be an insult to our states rich heritage. The Capitol complex site chosen by the Montana Historical Society and the State Architect, makes much more sense fiscally and programmatically, and is simply a much more appropriate, campus-like environment for this type of institution. "
al wrote on Aug 7, 2008 9:04 AM:
" Speaking as a paid-up member of the Montana Historical Society, I would not be sad to see the failure of the private Montana History Foundation's fundraising effort for a new museum at the Capital Hill Mall location.
First, I was quite unimpressed by the MHF's preliminary drawings of the proposed complex, looking as it does like a 1980's shopping mall with a "Museum" sign slapped onto it.
I'm also troubled by the emphasis the MHF proposal places on the development of commercial sprawl surrounding the museum site, in effect using Montana's history to lure visitors into a retail environment. In my opinion, that's not what we should be about.
By following the advice of both the Montana Historical Society Board of Directors and the State Architect, and erecting a new building across 6th. Ave from the present museum, the integrity of the institution as a place of learning, appreciation and research would not be compromised. That, I think, is far and away the primary consideration.
I'm a free-market capitalist, but I also believe that you can't put a price on some things -- and Montana's history should be one of them. "
First, I was quite unimpressed by the MHF's preliminary drawings of the proposed complex, looking as it does like a 1980's shopping mall with a "Museum" sign slapped onto it.
I'm also troubled by the emphasis the MHF proposal places on the development of commercial sprawl surrounding the museum site, in effect using Montana's history to lure visitors into a retail environment. In my opinion, that's not what we should be about.
By following the advice of both the Montana Historical Society Board of Directors and the State Architect, and erecting a new building across 6th. Ave from the present museum, the integrity of the institution as a place of learning, appreciation and research would not be compromised. That, I think, is far and away the primary consideration.
I'm a free-market capitalist, but I also believe that you can't put a price on some things -- and Montana's history should be one of them. "
fatherphondell wrote on Aug 7, 2008 8:45 AM:
" Betty! Didn't you learn anything after Armand Hammer got Timmy in all that trouble... Committee for Re-election of the President (CREEP)? Brian leans back in that big, soft chair looking at Jag as you leave his office and says "13 million by November..Right"... Suggested title for Tim's new book "We Are Gullible" "
Crabby1 wrote on Aug 7, 2008 8:22 AM:
" The Historical Society should quit playing politics and be grateful for the opportunity to move to any viable site to house and exhibit the artifacts that were donated to we, the people of Montana, for our enjoyment and learning. I support Mrs. Babcock and the efforts of the MHF. "
d wrote on Aug 7, 2008 8:10 AM:
" Once again, BS giving everyone more BS. Don't support the Museum!!!! The State is flush with money! Lets use it. It's a good idea started by uncapable people. This museum better be free of charge or I won't be going anytime. This is more of a fiasco than the fairgrounds. Yeah!!! I didn't go to the fair again. Kids went for a bit and said it sucked. Couldn't find any good food and there was no place to sit and rest. Welcome to Helena!! "
Nutmeg wrote on Aug 7, 2008 7:00 AM:
" Thank you Betty Babcock for shining a light on the inept MHS board. As I read in the IR once, they are a ship without a rudder. It seems the Governor gave MHS a huge gift when he handed them the brokered Mall deal, the History Foundation and Betty Babcock to lead the way. Could MHS be jealous? To me it really shows how ungrateful - and unable to function they are.
Go Betty Go! We need a new museum - So keep telling the truth. And Gov - please hear what she is saying. "
Go Betty Go! We need a new museum - So keep telling the truth. And Gov - please hear what she is saying. "
Text Size:
Small | Medium | Large
View/Post Comments
Email this story
Print this story
Rate Article
Share Article
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
- Fast attack stops potential wildfire
- Man held in Fla. on charge of threatening Obama
- Smokejumpers jump on fire southeast of Dillon
- Iraqis: US, Iraq close to deal
- Jobless claims hit highest point since March 2002
- State backs away from taproom regulations
- Montanan dies of injuries in Iraq
- Repairing the past
- Museum fundraising takes off on wrong foot
- Rehberg joins GOP energy protesters on House floor
- City opts to fix roads
- Democratic candidates withdraw from races
diazo wrote on Aug 10, 2008 7:17 PM:
On the other hand, can you think of any major museum anywhere that is located on a highway commercial strip? Location matters; that's why most museums are either in a downtown setting among other cultural institutions (oops, there's that term again) or are part of a larger campus (ouch, sorry).
Paying an additional $13 million dollars to build the museum on what seems to me to be an inferior site just doesn't make sense. My understanding from previous articles is that if Ms. Babcock and company can't come up with the 13 million dollars, the museum will be built at the Capitol Complex site. It may be that people are voting with their wallets. "