Follow MNA on
Facebook
Twitter

Attendees: Board, Susie Garrettson (president), Susan Golightly, Carolyn Shoemaker, and Miguel Vásquez. Robert Breunig (CEO), and staff, Tracy Anderson, Sat Best, Dave Gillette, Elaine Hughes, Marlene Lloyd, and Laura Rogers.
The meeting was convened at 2:06 PM.

The agenda was to 1) discuss a report titled Parks, People and Change prepared by the Bay Area Open Space Council, 2) review the Master Plan draft and coordinate with the Institutional Plan, and 3) other business.

Susan Golightly introduced Parks, People and Change by summarizing its key points: change in demographics (ethnic diversity); lifestyle (values and technology); and institutional roles. Though the authors focus on parks and recreation in the San Francisco Bay Area, how does this report relate to change on the Colorado Plateau? There was a general consensus that MNA needs to evaluate socioeconomic and environmental changes over the next five years, and integrate responses into the institutional plan.

Robert affirmed that MNA needs to be more alert to changes in ethnic diversity, and shared population statistics in Coconino County and the entire state of Arizona.

Source: http://www.fedstats.gov/qf/states/04/04005.html

According to statewide statistics, there is potential for the Museum to attract much larger Hispanic/Latino audiences. According to county statistics, the Museum’s Native American visitation is also lower than preferred. Today MNA draws primarily Anglo, middle class, educated audiences. Acknowledging that maintaining and visiting museums is a Western tradition, are there structural and/or programmatic changes that MNA can make to diversify our audiences, esp. to attract more Hispanic/Latino and Native American visitors (i.e. relevant exhibits, family-oriented programs, picnic areas, running trails)?

The committee agreed that we should start an internal dialogue with staff and Board members from these cultural groups, such as Miguel, and then move out into the community. Robert noted that the National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI) generated much pride in Native populations; though there are barriers to overcome, there is potential for expanding audiences. Miguel commented about the experiences of his Native American anthropology students, who have expressed the difficulty of bridging anthropology, museums, and their own cultures. He has asked a current Native American student, and past NMAI intern, to create a list of right and wrong museum practices that reflect her cultural values. In the context of Flagstaff, Miguel said that attracting people of Mexican origin would require flexibility in admissions prices. Also if MNA were to make exhibits relevant to Mexican heritage and contemporary life such as immigration, those people would be more inclined to visit MNA. Sat had a similar opinion. Miguel then conveyed the popularity of the Museum of Anthropology in Mexico City. He attributed much of this popularity to school partnerships.

Tracy then gave a progress report about MNA’s collaboration with FUSD. Outreach began with a dialogue about the upcoming Therizinosaur exhibit after which Tracy was invited to serve on the Science Alliance Committee. This dialogue has continued, discussing how MNA can be a relevant part of local schools. Since then a Liaison Program, which would utilize docents as an essential link between schools and the Museum, has been presented to all principles. Eight elementary schools are interested in developing such a program. Also, MNA has gained access to FUSD’s mass email address, and has been sending E-notes about exhibits, curriculum, and teacher trainings. Tracy expects this email to have a huge impact on teacher participation.

At this point, the discussion shifted to the topic of sustainability. In addition to responding to changes in ethnic diversity (socieoeconomics), MNA needs to respond to environmental changes. Amidst urbanization and rapid technological developments, how can the Museum serve as a role model for green living and keep people in tune with nature?

Robert handed out two documents: Additional Suggestions for MNA’s Major Institutional Goals 2006-2011, and an article titled Is it Good for Collections? Noting additions to Goals IV, V, and VII related to socioeconomic change, he addressed Goal V as a place to address environmental change such as rehabilitation and new construction projects, recycling, and forest health. He quoted Is it Good for Collections?

“Green building design and construction are a form of stewardship based on deep respect for the natural environment, reductions in consumption, and the use of renewable and reusable resources, with a set of practical planning guidelines, technologies, high-efficiency systems, and non-toxic materials to build or renovate structures and achieve energy, economic, and environmental performance.”

He continued,

“Green building offers yet another value—teaching about the environment and natural systems, or what Oberlin College Professor Dr. David Orr calls “architecture as pedagogy.” As trusted public institutions, museums can use their buildings to teach and lead by example.”

The committee agreed that there are economic, social, and ethical benefits to sustainable practices and continued to brainstorm about structural and/or programmatic changes at MNA. A related topic was establishing a solution to the increased traffic on Fort Valley Road/Hwy 180. Can the Museum construct a bridge, a tunnel; petition for a stop light, a slow zone? Laura described the function and aesthetic of the Chihuly Bridge of Glass in Tacoma, Washington. It is a 500 foot-long pedestrian bridge that crosses Interstate 705 and links downtown Tacoma to the Museum of Glass. Symbolically, it was designed to be a unique gateway that welcomes people to Tacoma and includes two prominent crystal sculptures and a ceiling full of glass sea-forms. Perhaps MNA could do something similar though place-specific to the Colorado Plateau?

The agenda for the next meeting will include a discussion of the Colton Community Sustainability Project (and the Master Plan at large), and establishing more concrete deadlines and direction for Key Issue Committee leaders as they move forward with Institutional Planning.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:07 PM.

Respectfully submitted,
Laura C. Rogers