Tweet
Re: Gettysburg Visitor's Center hikes fee to $10.50
Hi Folks,
Just wanted to add a few more comments to the discussion.
Gary,
$392,735 is a rather large salary compared to the average American. While I'm not very familiar with Robert Wilburn, it is my understanding that he is a very experienced professional who has transformed a number of institutions into viable, financially sustainable ventures. He's got a long list of successful experience in that department. Years ago when Gettysburg announced their long-term strategic plan, including the new visitors center, it was made clear that a new public-private business approach would be made. We've all heard that this new approach could potentially be a model for other parks, depending on its success. Many, if not most parks have been underfunded and unfortunately it is often very noticeable when you visit these places. Instead of merely asking for more tax dollars, the new business model was adapted to counter these difficulties. That's when you want to bring in an experienced guy like Robert Wilburn. So, is $392,735 a high salary? Maybe, but it definitely isn't on the order of multimillion CEOs that we've heard about on the news. I wonder what other folks in a comparable position make? I don’t know. In any case, if the new business model can bring in capital and make the park self sustainable, and justify that salary, that would be better than relying on an often underfunded and neglected tax-only model. Then, maybe, the salary is placed in a proper context? That said, perhaps the poor economy has hampered visitation and income, just like everything else. That could be a big factor. However, I don't know for sure, that's just speculation. What I do know is that new VC has only been open for a year. Hopefully, eventually, the economy will improve and folks may return to doing extracurricular stuff like visiting Gettysburg, etc. Will the new model be successful? We'll probably need to gauge that in the long-term, over years. It's too soon to tell. I would agree that a good, public explanation for raising the price would be the right thing to do.
Jim,
While I very much agree regarding the importance of the MOC and Confederate Memorial Hall Collections, from our standpoint, how well are they really doing? Last I heard MOC is on the chopping block, or at least ready to be dispersed. While Confederate Memorial Hall does have a lot of wonderful collection items, how well do they interpret these things? Do you think it is on the “must do” list for most folks that visit N.O.? No way. How professional is the staff? While they seemed like nice folks, I wouldn’t classify them as “professional”. Not to mention, Confederate Memorial Hall is a relatively small, outdated facility. Also, neither the MOC nor CMH maintain a large battlefield, newly restored cyclorama, large staff, research facilities, movie theater (whether you like the movie or not), and who knows what else. The new Gettysburg VC isn’t about the few thousand individuals like us that visit repeatedly. It’s about the millions of Americans who may only visit once, but at least learn some important lessons, or make important connections that otherwise would never happen. The vast majority need a modern interpretive facility to help them understand the myriad collection items. After all, the story behind these items is the real treasure.
While I too liked the old VC, did it really have the best facilities to store, display, and preserve the collection items? I don’t think so. It was outdated and inadequate. Also, while many folks on this forum have bashed the display, I would say the park probably used contemporary professional museum standards and practices to develop it. There are professional organizations that have developed these practices over decades, determining what works and what doesn’t from experience and study. They didn’t just pull the idea out of the air. In fact, you will see similar types of interpretive displays in most modern museums, such as the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial (NPS Museum under the St. Louis Gateway Arch). The prices there are comparable to Gettysburg. Another example, as far as display style and fees would be the John Heinz History Center here in Pittsburgh, PA. So, are these all “Disney-ish”.? Maybe, but I think its just more indicative of a contemporary interpretive model designed to reach more folks from a variety of backgrounds, ages, etc.
So, when I described the new VC as “the best”, I’m talking about the overall facility interpretive measures (whether we agree with all of them or not), research facilities, etc. We, as gear/uniform hounds tend to solely focus on the cool collection items. What I’m trying to assert is that the overall facility, in conjunction with the park itself, is much more likely to effectively tell the story of Gettysburg/Civil War to the majority of visitors. Since most of us are much more well versed in CW/Gettysburg history, it is only natural that many of us will have a more critical evaluation and see things from a different standpoint.
Paul,
You mentioned that “we destroyed more battlefield to build a new, ‘better’, ‘more professional’ museum”. The information provided by the NPS during the VC construction mentioned that the site was chosen because it was not part of the actual fighting and it would be out of the view shed of the actual battlefield. At least that’s what I’ve been led to believe up to this point. Also, the removal of the old VC is leading to the restoration of the Ziegler’s Grove and Cemetery Hill sectors of the battlefield, which of course, we know were extremely important positions and will add significantly to the interpretation of the field.
Of course, this reply has only been submitted most respectfully and with the best of intentions for discussion.
BTW, don’t forget that the Pennsylvania Cable Network will be airing Gettysburg battlefield walks this July 1,2, & 3. One of these years I’ve got to get out there for those anniversary tours (sans uniform), they are really neat.
Chuck Sprowls
Hi Folks,
Just wanted to add a few more comments to the discussion.
Gary,
$392,735 is a rather large salary compared to the average American. While I'm not very familiar with Robert Wilburn, it is my understanding that he is a very experienced professional who has transformed a number of institutions into viable, financially sustainable ventures. He's got a long list of successful experience in that department. Years ago when Gettysburg announced their long-term strategic plan, including the new visitors center, it was made clear that a new public-private business approach would be made. We've all heard that this new approach could potentially be a model for other parks, depending on its success. Many, if not most parks have been underfunded and unfortunately it is often very noticeable when you visit these places. Instead of merely asking for more tax dollars, the new business model was adapted to counter these difficulties. That's when you want to bring in an experienced guy like Robert Wilburn. So, is $392,735 a high salary? Maybe, but it definitely isn't on the order of multimillion CEOs that we've heard about on the news. I wonder what other folks in a comparable position make? I don’t know. In any case, if the new business model can bring in capital and make the park self sustainable, and justify that salary, that would be better than relying on an often underfunded and neglected tax-only model. Then, maybe, the salary is placed in a proper context? That said, perhaps the poor economy has hampered visitation and income, just like everything else. That could be a big factor. However, I don't know for sure, that's just speculation. What I do know is that new VC has only been open for a year. Hopefully, eventually, the economy will improve and folks may return to doing extracurricular stuff like visiting Gettysburg, etc. Will the new model be successful? We'll probably need to gauge that in the long-term, over years. It's too soon to tell. I would agree that a good, public explanation for raising the price would be the right thing to do.
Jim,
While I very much agree regarding the importance of the MOC and Confederate Memorial Hall Collections, from our standpoint, how well are they really doing? Last I heard MOC is on the chopping block, or at least ready to be dispersed. While Confederate Memorial Hall does have a lot of wonderful collection items, how well do they interpret these things? Do you think it is on the “must do” list for most folks that visit N.O.? No way. How professional is the staff? While they seemed like nice folks, I wouldn’t classify them as “professional”. Not to mention, Confederate Memorial Hall is a relatively small, outdated facility. Also, neither the MOC nor CMH maintain a large battlefield, newly restored cyclorama, large staff, research facilities, movie theater (whether you like the movie or not), and who knows what else. The new Gettysburg VC isn’t about the few thousand individuals like us that visit repeatedly. It’s about the millions of Americans who may only visit once, but at least learn some important lessons, or make important connections that otherwise would never happen. The vast majority need a modern interpretive facility to help them understand the myriad collection items. After all, the story behind these items is the real treasure.
While I too liked the old VC, did it really have the best facilities to store, display, and preserve the collection items? I don’t think so. It was outdated and inadequate. Also, while many folks on this forum have bashed the display, I would say the park probably used contemporary professional museum standards and practices to develop it. There are professional organizations that have developed these practices over decades, determining what works and what doesn’t from experience and study. They didn’t just pull the idea out of the air. In fact, you will see similar types of interpretive displays in most modern museums, such as the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial (NPS Museum under the St. Louis Gateway Arch). The prices there are comparable to Gettysburg. Another example, as far as display style and fees would be the John Heinz History Center here in Pittsburgh, PA. So, are these all “Disney-ish”.? Maybe, but I think its just more indicative of a contemporary interpretive model designed to reach more folks from a variety of backgrounds, ages, etc.
So, when I described the new VC as “the best”, I’m talking about the overall facility interpretive measures (whether we agree with all of them or not), research facilities, etc. We, as gear/uniform hounds tend to solely focus on the cool collection items. What I’m trying to assert is that the overall facility, in conjunction with the park itself, is much more likely to effectively tell the story of Gettysburg/Civil War to the majority of visitors. Since most of us are much more well versed in CW/Gettysburg history, it is only natural that many of us will have a more critical evaluation and see things from a different standpoint.
Paul,
You mentioned that “we destroyed more battlefield to build a new, ‘better’, ‘more professional’ museum”. The information provided by the NPS during the VC construction mentioned that the site was chosen because it was not part of the actual fighting and it would be out of the view shed of the actual battlefield. At least that’s what I’ve been led to believe up to this point. Also, the removal of the old VC is leading to the restoration of the Ziegler’s Grove and Cemetery Hill sectors of the battlefield, which of course, we know were extremely important positions and will add significantly to the interpretation of the field.
Of course, this reply has only been submitted most respectfully and with the best of intentions for discussion.
BTW, don’t forget that the Pennsylvania Cable Network will be airing Gettysburg battlefield walks this July 1,2, & 3. One of these years I’ve got to get out there for those anniversary tours (sans uniform), they are really neat.
Chuck Sprowls
Comment