Behaviour, cause and effect

Following my earlier post on the traumas for volunteers and collection owners at a certain museum I feel I need to explain myself a little. The message was a bit to obscure for those who do not know me or the place and a bit too coy for those who do. So this is by way of an explanation for my coded message and my reasoning. I still do not feel free to fully explain the detail, complexities, and unpleasantness’s of some people’s behaviour at the museum, or identify the museum concerned, though I realise these items may be discerned from the detail and my location, but here goes in terms of trying better to explain/justify myself and my point of view. In terms of the identity of the museum, and so as to avoid my concerns being thought focused on the wrong one, the one in question is concerned with specialist activities during the last war. In fact that background of wartime activities seems to encourage in management and trustees an overly serious and military style attitude which fights against the need for a more digestible story telling format that would better fit the visitor expectation.Just because a museum has a military connection does not mean it needs to be run on military lines, far from it. A museum is a museum, is a museum and, as such, should be run to display well the objects and tell the story effectively that relates to the objects and activities displayed. Good communication is not isolated to the efficiency of the transmission but by the ability of the recipient to clearly understand the intent of the message.

First let me say that I find it very difficult to criticise those aspects of the situation that deserve to be exposed, the behaviour and policies of management staff, without feeling I am doing damage to the place itself, the museum and its contents, and the visitor’s expectations of the place.  I want to be precise in my attack but to use some unpleasant military jargon, there is likely to be collateral damage. There are also aspects of the history of the problems, at the root of some of the current conflicts, which are so convoluted that they almost defy explanation by me especially as my understanding of the twists and turns through the years is insufficient to be a reliable witness statement.

So all of this is at heart why I wanted to speak out but was fearful, and still am, of doing more harm than good. But then silence will not be effective at calling those responsible to account and will also seem to be tacitly accepting the situation, which I and many others most emphatically do not wish to do.

Next I need to say that I am not against progress, change, new starts or lottery funding for big changes and developments, they just need to be well thought out, effective, justifiable in terms of the end objective, well-handled in implementation and respect what has gone before and the efforts of those involved in creating the museum in the first place. That is quite an ask, but not unreasonable nor should it be. During my career I have been involved in a lot of projects big and small but have always endeavoured to get as close as I could to those ideals. In fact I would have thought I had failed if my endeavours had generated as much bad feeling and strife for the others involved as the changes at this museum have.

So why does it matter and why am I so stirred up by what is in essence the clumsy stupidity of some minor bureaucrats? Well first there is the wanton, some think connived, flaunting of the opinions and interests of those who have spent a large chunk of their lives rescuing, fighting for, assembling and explaining the significance of the place and what went on there. Then there is the flagrant disregard for anything but the core message of the place. The pre and post history of the place and its people has either been set aside, junked or suppressed, completely against the advice and recommendations of organizations who are there to monitor standards and the interconnectivity of the history of places and people. How can you refuse to talk about aspects of the history of the place because management wants to suppress those periods/relationships or fight those who hold that knowledge. Then we have the faintly ludicrous and self defeating arrogance of an imposed regime that is not only not what the customers (visitors) say they want, but flies in the face of creating a ‘must visit’ place for the increasing number of visitors that are needed to justify the expense and disruption and subsequent running costs. Days out for the majority of people are not a cramming session on a particular subject or period of history, they are entertainment and the gentle and hopefully the joyful experience of finding out new insights and surprises. What is the point of creating what they say will be a ‘world class museum’, if it fails to attract more than just the specialist visitors. What happens if you employ more staff but have fewer visitors? Have greater demands in terms of numbers of stewards and guides but have fewer of them to do the job? Getting a little more down to the small print there is also the apparent flaunting of the well-being and safety interests of visitors, staff and volunteers with initiatives being introduced that make the situation worse not better. That is just clear ignorance and bad management and completely against all advice and legislation on the subject.

I frankly am astonished at what has happened, continues to happen, and horrified at what it could mean for the future of the place. At a time when there is a much increased need for more volunteers to help do those things that otherwise can’t afford to be paid for, when the volunteers are normally described as being a cherished and vital part of our endeavours, it seems particularly perverse to find a place that, by the actions and attitudes of its management, makes a lie of such concepts. The only benefit to come out of it might be that other charitable endeavours and museums in the area are benefiting from the volunteers finding other outlets for their energies, time and commitment.