|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Deciding the number of posters to print each year
2. Selection of sales staff
3. Declining sales and poster price
4. Sales throughout the year and via the website
Ray pointed out concerns about the cost of producing posters and that the Tucson Club may want to resume sales responsibilities. After some discussion, Genie moved that the Foundation should continue selling posters per the original agreement unless the Tucson Club votes to take back the sales responsibilities and pays the Foundation for past posters. Paul Harter seconded the motion. The motion passed.
2. Other old business
None
New Business
1. Fifty Year History of the Tucson Show
Ray mentioned that Bob Jones has written a 50 year history of the Tucson Gem and Mineral Show. This retrospective will appear in the Mineralogical Record and will be on sale at the Tucson Show. Bob added that there is a special program to publish a hard bound edition. Individuals or groups donating $200 will receive a copy of the book and will be recognized on a sponsors page. Ray proposed that the Foundation send the Mineralogical Record a $200 donation and the following message:
From the Arizona Mineral and Mining Museum Foundation in Memory of A. L. Flagg
Les made the motion, while Paul seconded. The motion passed.
2. Other new business
Susan Celestian raised an issue involving the Peralta Stones and having a Foundation member present to escort people interested in taking photos and collect fees. The Museum staff had to fill in for the Foundation for some recent visitors. There was some discussion on storing the stones at a different location, providing photos for a usage/printing fee, and publishing a pamphlet.
Situation with the Department of Mines and Mineral Resources
Ray opened the discussion by pointing out the need to air out concerns. He added that everyone supports the Museum, wants to maintain a good Museum, but that there may be different approaches to reaching this goal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Susan indicated that she is incredibly stressed out by the situation and pointed out the following issues:
The assumption that the Department and the Museum are separate entities is false.
The Foundation's presumption to speak for the Department at the March 10 Joint Appropriation Subcommittee on Education Meeting was offensive given the Department has not been afforded much opportunity to speak for itself.
The Foundation's proposal to take possession of the collection and run the Museum was disheartening, while the lack of consultation was very unprofessional.
The proposal didn't seem to have Board approval , while the Foundation's ability to act on the proposal is questionable.
A lot of misinformation/misrepresentation is being circulated.
A clear working relationship between the Department and the Foundation needs to be developed before the Foundation makes policy recommendations involving the Museum.
Les responded by reviewing what he presented at the March 10 meeting:
The proposal, which was done without Board approval, was aimed at putting out in public the possibility of privatizing the Museum and avoid shutting down the Museum.
The proposal addressed the key concern of shifting the Department's expenses from the General Fund.
The proposal outlines a phased plan over 5-7 years for some non-profit organization, not necessarily the Foundation, to take over running the Museum.
He apologized for any angst/concerns caused by the above suggestion; it was intended to provide an alternative to closing the Museum.
There was additional discussion on the role of the Foundation, the proposal, and next steps. Bob suggested communicating to the Senators on the Joint Subcommittee the Board's position on the issue: It supports the House members' recommendation to fund the Department. Ray indicated that he would send a letter and that a small group of Department, Museum, and Foundation members should meet to
|
|
|
|
|
|
