The following “Open Letter to the People of Hawaii” concerning the situation at Bishop Museum was posted on Facebook last week by noted Hawaiiana collector Mark Blackburn.
In a comment to his post, he gave permission for it to be shared.
Other comments on his post seem to indicate a lot of public concern in the community.
And as supporters of and contributors to the museum, Meda and I agree that the continued silence from the museum’s board is most distressing and can result in lasting damage to the institution.
An open letter to the people of Hawaii:
As someone who honors Bishop Museum and its legacy, this letter is written in the hope that things will change for the better. I am a well-known collector of Polynesian art with a history of exhibitions worldwide, and close contacts at virtually every institution in the world. My background provides me with a well-informed perspective on the current turmoil at the museum.
The Bishop Museum is extremely special, born in the era of Victorian natural history museums, yet uniquely rooted in both scientific and indigenous knowledge, and possessing an amazing, world class collection of Pacific art and ethnology from all areas of the Pacific. Its truly illustrious past is steeped in numerous scientific expeditions, enhanced by a rich Hawaii history and a huge catalog published under the Bishop Museum Press. Countless top scholars have passed through its doors, including Sir Peter Buck (once a director), Adrienne Kaeppler, and Roger Rose, just to name a few.
Yet, the museum has suffered greatly under a host of horrific directors since Donald Duckworth. The Bishop Museum was literally re-energized under the leadership of Melanie Ide, who not only brought a new vision, but also new exhibitions and public engagement under her direction. She changed the museum overnight with her energy and foresight. Melanie even obtained a 17.5-million-dollar pledge for support from the State legislature, the first time in many years, as well as other community pledges. The latest toxic episode at the Bishop Museum, triggered by the museum’s misguided board of directors, has put these pledges for funding in jeopardy. To date, the board’s actions have resulted in nothing more than a big, billable event for a Bishop Street law firm, and greatly damaged the museum’s reputation worldwide.
The current issue at hand appears to be a minor HR problem that should have been sorted out inhouse and within the ranks of the museum, instead of becoming a public spectacle. The removal of the institution’s top three officers without notice invited unhelpful and damaging speculation about serious misconduct at the museum. As someone who ran a large company on the East Coast for 36 years, I know that these issues should be dealt with internally and with discretion to avoid damage to the parties involved as well as the institution. Not only is the current situation shameful and a continued blight on the Bishop Museum, it may also prove to be the final nail in the coffin for this unique, world class institution.
Hopefully, the powers that be can remove the board of directors, set term limits for board members, and reinstate Melanie Ide as the museum’s active director. The Bishop Museum must reach out for new board members worldwide with a background in science and ethnology as well as seeking out Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners who can add a much-needed voice on the board. Once this is done, the museum can rebuild under the leadership of Melanie Ide and a new board of directors. I also suggest that the Bishop Museum mark such a new beginning by removing entrance fees for kama ‘aina and make it accessible to all the people of Hawaii in celebration of what is a remarkable Hawaii treasure.
Respectfully,
Mark Blackburn
Marfa, Texas
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Amen,
Especially on the entraance fees
Museums struggle for funding, how else can they pay staff, to present new exhibitions and for conservation. Entrance fees are rarely enough to cover costs. It will be interesting to see how this is resolved.
For some reason, the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum is simultaneously identified as the Hawai?i State Museum of Natural and Cultural History, yet appears to remain a wholly private entity. Was this a polite fig leaf bestowed to justify increasing requests for state taxpayer support, or something else? Serious question. Does the state now have some duty of stewardship or fiduciary obligation besides quietly handing over money? And how much taxpayer money are we talking about? Because if it’s not being managed effectively, that makes this much more than an in-house squabble.
Section 6E-40 Hawaii Revised Statutes:
§6E-40 Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum. The official designation of the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum shall be the State of Hawaii Museum of Natural and Cultural History. The qualifying standards and conditions related to the receipt of funds contained in chapter 42F shall not apply to funds received by the State of Hawaii Museum of Natural and Cultural History; provided that if the museum in turn contracts with a recipient or provider, then the qualifying standards, conditions, and other provisions of chapter 42F shall apply to the recipient or provider and the contract. [L 1988, c 398, §4; am L 1991, c 335, §3; am L 1997, c 190, §6]
Sounds like Mark, who lives in Texas, is trying to cover for his friend while being out of touch with the internal happenings at the museum.
There was an article in Honolulu Magazine in the 1990s that covered the tenure of Donald Duckworth. Duckworth’s leadership represented a shift in power over Bishop Museum from the old white elite and Native Hawaiians to the local Democratic Party which had little nostalgia for the period of the past that the museum emphasized. The new agenda of the museum was to cease being a museum. Instead, it would become an educational outreach program for Hawaii’s young people, with a special emphasis on science education. The culmination of this change in mission was the Richard T. Mamiya Science Adventure Center, which opened in November 2005. The building is designed as a learning center for children, and includes many interactive exhibits focused on marine science, volcanology, and related sciences. This is an upsetting development for scholars and museum specialists. However, how many people nowadays really want to visit a museum? It’s a group limited to the kind of people who watch PBS and listen to NPR.
There is the bigger issue of who dominates philanthropic and public service organizations in Hawaii, and how this has changed. The Hawaiian Humane Society was founded by the family of the shipping magnate Samuel Gardner Wilder, in particular, Helen Kinau Wilder. Up until recently the family was still leading the institution because their social circle was the source of big philanthropic donations historically. This began to change in 2002 when the local Humane Society spent $50,000 to rescue a dog left on an abandoned ship. Huge donations poured into the Humane Society, and this was a wake up call. The leadership figured out that with a little bit of savvy publicity, the real fundraising money is in the general population. Consequently, the HHS has gone on a building boom. No further need for the old guard.
Also, local daily newspapers like the LA Times are owned by old local elites, who are usually conservative. However, in times of crisis, these newspapers pushed for pragmatic reform. With the rise of the internet, the old elites sold off their dailies which are now owned by outsiders who have little newspaper experience and who are purely focused on profit.
Blackburn’s comments about the Bishop Museum sound surprisingly reasonable. However calling a character like Blackburn noted seems naive. His eye popping history surprisingly has not had many investigative journalists connect the dots. It warrants a deep dive although fair warning – very litigious.
Melanie Ide was a breath of fresh air, having done major work at the Smithsonian and American Museum of Natural History. Losing her and two other top leaders at the museum is bizarre. I haven’t seen an explanation. The intelligent thing would be for a couple of the board to resign, the rest bring her back and move forward. Or an investigative reporter might look into the relation between the board and its law firm. That would be interesting.
As a long time member of the community, and former Museum staff, I find the parallels between what is happening at the museum today and 1992 truly disturbing. It is truly amazing that in 30 years and multiple changes to leadership at the highest levels the internal strife and non-functional culture of the Museum still persists. Maybe they should start looking at the commonalities between now and then, in particular those in charge and running things then and now. Those on staff for 30+ years and that have been in administration each time this happens might have a lot to do with the long standing and deeply divisive culture that exists and will continue to exists long after the current crop of VPs and CEO are gone. Just as in the past, those that have fostered the toxic and unproductive culture will be the ones that remain, only to repeat the process again in 5-7 years. Maybe doing the same thing over and over again and expecting something different is not the best strategy. The details of issues raised in letters submitted on behalf of the Friends of the Bishop Museum in 1992 are nearly identical to the issues being raised today. Maybe it is time to clean house, and not just play the game of removing.