AHS Rebuttal

The following links are for the AHS rebuttal to the prior post. A future post will identify the many errors in the rebuttal.

http://www.scottsdaleindependent.com/opinions/marcisz-responds-to-zimmerman-criticism-of-arizona-historical-society/

http://www.havasunews.com/opinion/here-s-what-taxpayers-get-in-return-from-the-historical/article_1540edf0-3ff5-11e5-9594-8742808f3ead.html


The Scottsdale Independent recently ran an opinion piece by Dick Zimmerman that was critical of the Arizona Historical Society. The principal assertion of the piece is that the Arizona Historical Society is inefficient and arrogant.

That opinion appears to be based on inaccurate and incomplete information — here are the facts.
Mr.  Zimmerman notes that AHS receives an appropriation of $3 million annually, but he neglects to mention that this budget has been cut nearly in half since 2011 (when it was $5.7 million). This “cost to taxpayers” is not “hidden,” all appropriations are publicly available on the state of Arizona website.

Mr. Zimmerman further asserts that the AHS executive director is paid more than the governor. While that is true, context is important: There are 690 state employees who are paid more than the governor. Astute readers of the Scottsdale Independent will know that it is common for conservatively run state, county and local governments to provide professional staff salaries that are higher than those of elected officials.

In his piece, Mr. Zimmerman asks, “what do taxpayers get in return?”

The answer is, “a lot.”

Since the Arizona Historical Society was established by the first territorial legislature in 1864, our charge has been to collect, preserve and publish the history of this great state. Not the government’s history — the people’s history. We save and share the stories of Arizona’s urban and rural communities, cultures, organizations, large industries, small businesses, families, and individuals.
We provide access to those stories via exhibits and archives at 21 buildings — not six as claimed by Mr. Zimmerman — we manage at four major locations across the state.

Last fiscal year we served 20,000 patrons and researchers at our archives and libraries and 70,000 visitors at our museums. 1,620 students, teachers and parents participated in our National History Day program this year. We do all that with a staff of 44 very dedicated historians and other professionals (down from 80 in 2002).  These services are delivered at the lowest per capita appropriated expense of any historical society in the West and Midwest — 46 cents per resident, as compared to 56 cents in Oregon and $4.99 in Colorado.

We leave it to readers of the Scottsdale Independent to judge whether this is efficient. As to the unsupported assertion that AHS is “arrogant,” we can only extend a welcoming hand to Mr. Zimmerman.

As the society’s president, I invite Mr. Zimmerman to contact me through the Arizona Historical Society at pkyle@azhs.gov. Dick, let’s chat over coffee.  I’m hopeful that our mutual dedication to Arizona history will lead to a more constructive relationship in the future.

Editor’s note: Mr. Marcisz is president of the Arizona Historical Society Board of Director

High priced history

The text below was distributed to media contacts across Arizona.  Some of the first to publish it included the following:

https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2015/07/27/arizonas-high-priced-history/

http://us.geosnews.com/p/us/az/pinal-county/arizona-city/arizona-s-high-priced-history_679788

http://www.scottsdaleindependent.com/news/opinion-arizona-historical-society-can-do-a-better-job/

https://arizonadailyindependent.com/tag/arizona-historical-society/

http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2015/150729/letters2e.html#letter9

http://www.wmicentral.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/

http://www.svherald.com/opinion/high-priced-history/article_2d687c98-43da-11e5-a848-afdd3d7127f1.html

http://www.10news.org/arizona+high

 

Reasonable people would not object to using some public resources to preserve history.  However, reasonable people would expect that all such public funds be used effectively and efficiently.  In the case of one Arizona state agency, that is not happening.

The Arizona Historical Society is a state agency that receives a cash allocation of over three million dollars every year.  That, however, is only a portion of the annual cost to taxpayers, who also pay to maintain six state history museum buildings in Tucson, Tempe, Flagstaff and Yuma. Those costs are hidden since they are not included in the AHS budget. The building costs are buried in the budget for the Arizona Department of Administration which manages and maintains all state owned buildings. The mortgage payment alone on the 80,000 square foot Tempe facility is $1.3 million per year. Therefore, the annual cost of maintaining the half dozen AHS facilities is easily more than the $3 million in cash.

 So, what do taxpayers get in return for the five to ten million dollars that the AHS consumes each year?  Not much.  Total attendance at all six history museums was less than 23,000 last year, and attendance has been declining rapidly for the past ten years.  Apparently, each museum visitor costs taxpayers hundreds of dollars.

The AHS does archive documents as well as operate State history museums. However, that function is redundant to the mission of the Arizona State Library, Archives, and Public Records. That state agency also operates a museum at the State Capitol.  Therefore, taxpayers are supporting the overhead for two state agencies that do basically the same thing.

The AHS, with approximately 40 employees, is a top heavy organization with some six figure and near six figure salaries. The director is paid more than the Governor.  The AHS museum in Tempe is especially wasteful.  It has ten state employees, a huge mortgage payment, and received less than 3,400 visitors last year.  That museum in particular has a history of incompetence and inefficiency.  It has received media ridicule with articles such as “The Museum that Couldn’t Think Straight” by Terry Greene Sterling in 1996. 

In addition to being wasteful, the AHS is a rather arrogant state agency. As public records show, it has never had a satisfactory performance review because it refuses to comply with State policies.  State Agencies are reviewed by the Office of the Arizona Auditor General.  The Auditor’s records show that deficiencies identified by past audits and reviews have never been corrected.

Arizona deserves better. The AHS needs to be combined with another, better managed, state agency. It’s redundant management structure and most wasteful museums need to be eliminated.  Taxpayers deserve better performance for the funding they provide to preserve Arizona history.

Triple dipping

The prior post reported details on the absurd AHS claim that it would cost $2.1 million to reopen the mineral museum. In addition to that, the AHS asked for $294,500 per year to operate the reopened museum.  The first level breakdown of those costs is as follows:

Basic Mineral Museum Annual AHS Operating Costs

Tour Add on Program                $5,000

Community Events                    $3,000

One Day Workshop                   $5,000

Webinars                                    $2,000

Educator Nights                         $2,000

Traveling Exhibits                   $30,000

Virtual Exhibits                       $15,000

Education Curator (staff)         $56,000

Collections Management

Internships                                 $8,000

Online Database Renewal         $1,500

General Operating Supplies     $20,000

Collections Curator (staff)       $63,000

Museums Director (staff)         $84,000

Total                                       $294.500

Note that the above costs do not include the building rent.

The former mineral museum was far more successful than any existing AHS museum. Why does the AHS think they would have to triple the management staff to reopen it (director, collection curator, and education curator)?

The total cost for operating the former mineral museum was the salary for the curator (only one) and the use of the historic, state owned building. So, the AHS, which has never produced a museum anywhere nearly as successful as the former mineral museum, wants about 6 times the operational funding the mineral museum received previously to reopen it.

Is waste on this extreme scale typical of all existing AHS facilities?

$2.1 million hoax

In 2014, the Legislature directed the AHS to estimate how much it would cost to reopen the mineral museum. Prior posts reported that the AHS and DOA (Department of Administration) told the Legislature that it would cost $2.1 million to reopen the mineral museum. That number has been widely reported in the media, and the DOA has reportedly claimed that there are no discretionary items in that number. According to a Dec 18^th DOA letter to the Joint Legislative budget Committee, the first level breakdown of the $2.1 million dollar estimate is as follows:

Exhibits and Operating Space

Exhibits Space Reconfiguration                              $230,000

Technology and Multimedia improvements           $175,000

Gift Store Equipment                                                $15,000

Classroom upgrades                                                  $10,000

Collection storage upgrades                                    $100,000

Major Building System Upgrades

Demo and Interior Finishes                                    $450,000

Mechanical System Upgrades                                $200,000

Electrical Upgrades                                                $275,000

Fire Alarm Upgrades                                                $84,000

Fire Sprinkler Upgrades                                          $56,000

Exterior Upgrades                                                    $78,000

ADA Upgrades                                                      $100,000

Other Construction

Construction Contingency                                     $177,300

Hazardous Material Abatement                               $20,000

Design Fees                                                            $150,000

Total                                                                    $2,120,300

Perhaps the fire sprinklers and fire alarms should be upgraded before the building is reoccupied. But how many of the other upgrades necessary to simply reopen a functioning mineral museum?

Why is $150,000 of design work necessary?  Why must the interior of the exhibit space be reconfigured for $230,000?

Is $15,000 of gift store equipment needed because the AHS threw out existing equipment that was in an operating gift shop?

How much of the $2.1 million is really necessary to reopen the mineral museum? Is the AHS trying to resuscitate their posh Centennial Museum under another name?

New AHS board

In an attempt to correct chronic problems in the AHS, the board of directors is being restructured. Prior posts reported on how SB1201 will accomplish this.

Currently, a search for qualified individuals is being conducted.  New members of the Board will be appointed by the Governor and approved by the Senate. Their term of office will be four years. Each person considered for appointment will have to pass a background check. They are required to have an interest in Arizona history and a willingness to assist the AHS in policy-making, fundraising, and promoting Arizona history.

 

Individuals interested in serving on the Board should contact Ryan Peters, Director of Boards and Commissions, at rpeters@az.gov.

AHS board

Prior posts described how SB1201 will restructure the AHS board in an attempt to correct decades long problems in the state agency. Thirteen new members are now needed. Names and contact information for potential board members should be submitted to Ryan Peters, Director of Boards and Commissions, at rpeters@az.gov, or to Senator Griffin, sponsor of the bill.

Lobbyist controversey

As reported in the June 24th post, the mineral musuem mess now involves a conflict with the interests of lobbyists.

Lobbyists working for and paid by government agencies is obviously a controversial issue in itself.  The June 24 post described how it not only wastes money, but can derail the democratic process.

Historically, the use of lobbyists by the AHS was even controversial within the AHS. A March 2000 issue of the Tucson Weekly article described the conflict as follows:
http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/arizonas-hysterical-society/Content?oid=1066024