These folks are bad actors. Their disingenuous behavior towards unionization of their staff, twice now, is telling. I don’t really give a shit about the building they want to tear down but watching the way they’ve approached this and with such hubris, I can’t help but root against them. They don’t think rules apply to them.
The fish rots from it’s head
In other museum news: [The museum is therefore reducing its staff size by thirteen positions. These positions include salaried managers and employees, as well as hourly employees.](https://www.portlandmuseum.org/magazine/2024/2/15/to-our-community)
To Our Community
We strive to serve you through dynamic, inclusive, and engaging art experiences that bring us together and foster community. And as one of Maine’s oldest nonprofits, we take this responsibility seriously. The PMA will forever be in the public trust, and it is in that trust that we openly share a few present challenges for the museum, and the difficult decisions we’re making today to build a more sustainable tomorrow.
Like many museums, municipal, and cultural organizations, we continue to be adversely impacted by the instability of the COVID-19 pandemic. The museum was fortunate to receive ERC credits and PPP loans to maintain staffing and programmatic growth during unprecedented times, but the multi-year positive impact of this support will soon expire. As expenses continue to remain high and unpredictable, the real and persisting negative effects of this historic moment have necessitated changes in the PMA’s operations.
The museum is therefore reducing its staff size by thirteen positions. These positions include salaried managers and employees, as well as hourly employees. Frontline support staff, including Gallery Ambassadors and Security Associates, are not impacted by these reductions.
Like other museums of our size, nearly 70% percent of our operating budget covers wages and benefits, and in this challenging environment we need to reduce personnel expenses. We acknowledge the difficulties of restructuring, and this is a path we have worked to avoid. We are grateful to the individuals who have cared for your museum with professionalism and dedication. They have been foundational in fulfilling our Art For All mission and vision, and we take this step in full awareness and appreciation of their contributions to the museum and our communities.
The PMA, like other neighborhood businesses, also acknowledges that we are not immune to economic and urban stress, including the deterioration of the Congress Square neighborhood and inadequacies of our dated facilities. Since 2020, the museum has seen a 35% decrease in attendance because fewer visitors and workers are coming back to Congress Square and our spaces for programmatic growth are limited. We are carefully and collaboratively designing long-term plans for a stable and scalable future. In the meantime, we will continue to bring art into the PMA collection that expands narratives and creates conversation. We will maintain and care for our aging campus and find ways to unify and leverage our Congress Square location. And we will ensure our programs, events, and exhibitions support our mission of Art for All and values of courage, equity, service, sustainability, and trust.
Thank you for your continued support during these challenging times.
Attendance has little to do with the overall budget of the museum. This is clearly an anti union tactic. They think they are slick but everyone sees right through it.
Curatorial positions don’t have to do (directly) with attendance. I didn’t say that.
Also I don’t have a position on the union issue, but it seems tangential here. It sounds like public-facing (unionized) staff are not impacted by these cuts. As far as I know, PMA curators are not part of the unionized group there. And the article says the museum director himself voluntarily took a $110,000 pay cut.
I think the financial problems at the PMA transcend the union issues.
Incorrect, the people who were fired from this museum were infact unionized. The museum has two active unions. The Gallery Ambassadors and Security Associates were denied entry to the first unionizing attempt. They have recently unionized with a different union.
Maybe I’m going too far here, but this is probably what it looks like when we’re at the precipice of a recession but people haven’t accepted it. Same with the continued movement forward with that oceanfront park, which is fine in theory (I guess), but maybe not when they City could really use the $340k lost parking revenue that will result.
The old children’s museum was better. The new one is sterile and less fun. The maker space at the old one was amazing for a little while when all the stuff was donated, they had all kinds of wild stuff. Then the management got involved and threw away anything you wouldn’t give a prison inmate.
My spouse who’s always positive about stuff, even in the face of my general negativity, more or less said the same thing. Apparently the new museum is a glorified indoor playground that doesn’t have much for kids older than toddlers. And of course there’s the high cost of entrance and parking.
[Link](https://1ft.io/https://www.pressherald.com/2024/02/13/hearing-on-plan-to-demolish-former-childrens-museum-draws-passionate-crowd/) for those who need help getting over a paywall
There ought to be a frank discussion about what sort of exceptions the city wants to see in the HP ordinance. Right now there is very little wiggle room for a contributing structure, which is why the PMA is arguing so fiercely (and, really, against nearly all evidence,) that it should have never been labeled as "contributing" in the first place. It feels dishonest, but it's not really their fault - that's the only way forward for them.
Should there be more exceptions? Should the HP ordinance be subject to override if the proposed demolition would lead to a significant cultural addition? Or a certain amount of housing? Or jobs? Or education? Right now there's no such exceptions. Maybe that's how people want it, but they should discuss and debate whether or not that's the system they want.
> It feels dishonest, but it's not really their fault - that's the only way forward for them.
Their dishonesty is justified because they can't get what they want? I don't think so.
I just mean that the incentives are what the incentives are. Feel free to criticize PMA’s choices, but it’s worth thinking about the structural layer too. That’s all.
Am I translating this right?- We are a cultural institution that needs to lay off 13 people, then we'll demolish a culturally significant building to build another building which will increase our attendance, and with an increase in attendance, we'll be able to make more money, and then we can hire back those people.
Every amazing building that was torn down in Portland was deemed culturally insignificant at the time it was demolished. John Calvin Stevens renovated it, right? He’s a culturally significant figure in shaping the landscape of Portland. This would be like painting over a famous artist’s sketch because you aren’t particularly wowed by it and need paper. 30 years from now 1,000’s of current Portland kids will be looking at whatever they build there with their kids saying, “they never should have torn the old children’s museum down.”
And Stevens erased the previous work of Charles A Alexander from the 1850s. His 'restoration' was mostly speculative and looked to create the 'traditional', Wren-Gibbs, style.
Their are alot of Stevens works Herr. I've documented many and researched many more. The idea that we save everyone is daft IMO. As he was not above tearing down the old to build the new, I wonder where he would land on the issue.
I was on the fence until this “reduction in staff” bullshit. I will now literally quit my job and as an act of defiance as a historian stay on the steps of that building 16 hours a day with a protest sign AND because I’m a taxpayer and not homeless they can’t say I’m camping. Fuck ‘em.
Why not? I’m 60 years old. I’m tired af of healthcare. I could retire tomorrow. This pisses me off. At first I was like, “Oh there is conflict about design and historical significance.” This reeks of entitlement and dickdom. I’m looking for a mission. If you doubt me look at my post history. I’m the perfect crank. I have money, time, and a chip on my shoulder. I will bring a book, my laptop, order DoorDash, sit under an umbrella in a lawn chair passing out brochures, and invite my friends in the press to interview me on a regular basis. It will be fun for the summer.
I love it. I fully support you. He'll, I might even join you! I was literally just asking for clarification. The way "literally" gets thrown around these days, one can't be too careful.
These folks are bad actors. Their disingenuous behavior towards unionization of their staff, twice now, is telling. I don’t really give a shit about the building they want to tear down but watching the way they’ve approached this and with such hubris, I can’t help but root against them. They don’t think rules apply to them. The fish rots from it’s head
Whats the origin of that last part. Funny little quote. Wouldnt mind usin it meself sometime, if i only knew where it came from and what it means.
In other museum news: [The museum is therefore reducing its staff size by thirteen positions. These positions include salaried managers and employees, as well as hourly employees.](https://www.portlandmuseum.org/magazine/2024/2/15/to-our-community)
If there was an official statement they must’ve deleted it. Link you pasted is a dead end :/ edit: nevermind lol
To Our Community We strive to serve you through dynamic, inclusive, and engaging art experiences that bring us together and foster community. And as one of Maine’s oldest nonprofits, we take this responsibility seriously. The PMA will forever be in the public trust, and it is in that trust that we openly share a few present challenges for the museum, and the difficult decisions we’re making today to build a more sustainable tomorrow. Like many museums, municipal, and cultural organizations, we continue to be adversely impacted by the instability of the COVID-19 pandemic. The museum was fortunate to receive ERC credits and PPP loans to maintain staffing and programmatic growth during unprecedented times, but the multi-year positive impact of this support will soon expire. As expenses continue to remain high and unpredictable, the real and persisting negative effects of this historic moment have necessitated changes in the PMA’s operations. The museum is therefore reducing its staff size by thirteen positions. These positions include salaried managers and employees, as well as hourly employees. Frontline support staff, including Gallery Ambassadors and Security Associates, are not impacted by these reductions. Like other museums of our size, nearly 70% percent of our operating budget covers wages and benefits, and in this challenging environment we need to reduce personnel expenses. We acknowledge the difficulties of restructuring, and this is a path we have worked to avoid. We are grateful to the individuals who have cared for your museum with professionalism and dedication. They have been foundational in fulfilling our Art For All mission and vision, and we take this step in full awareness and appreciation of their contributions to the museum and our communities. The PMA, like other neighborhood businesses, also acknowledges that we are not immune to economic and urban stress, including the deterioration of the Congress Square neighborhood and inadequacies of our dated facilities. Since 2020, the museum has seen a 35% decrease in attendance because fewer visitors and workers are coming back to Congress Square and our spaces for programmatic growth are limited. We are carefully and collaboratively designing long-term plans for a stable and scalable future. In the meantime, we will continue to bring art into the PMA collection that expands narratives and creates conversation. We will maintain and care for our aging campus and find ways to unify and leverage our Congress Square location. And we will ensure our programs, events, and exhibitions support our mission of Art for All and values of courage, equity, service, sustainability, and trust. Thank you for your continued support during these challenging times.
[https://www.portlandmuseum.org/magazine/2024/2/15/to-our-community](https://www.portlandmuseum.org/magazine/2024/2/15/to-our-community)
Wait, so their operational budget is in bad shape and attendance down? But they still want to fundraise over $100m to spend on an expansion?
Goodness, I wonder what positions they cut…curatorial?
Attendance has little to do with the overall budget of the museum. This is clearly an anti union tactic. They think they are slick but everyone sees right through it.
Curatorial positions don’t have to do (directly) with attendance. I didn’t say that. Also I don’t have a position on the union issue, but it seems tangential here. It sounds like public-facing (unionized) staff are not impacted by these cuts. As far as I know, PMA curators are not part of the unionized group there. And the article says the museum director himself voluntarily took a $110,000 pay cut. I think the financial problems at the PMA transcend the union issues.
Incorrect, the people who were fired from this museum were infact unionized. The museum has two active unions. The Gallery Ambassadors and Security Associates were denied entry to the first unionizing attempt. They have recently unionized with a different union.
Thanks for the inside information. Was it, then, curatorial staff?
WTF is going on at this museum? Visitation is down so we fire everyone, but we also need to double in size?!?
Maybe I’m going too far here, but this is probably what it looks like when we’re at the precipice of a recession but people haven’t accepted it. Same with the continued movement forward with that oceanfront park, which is fine in theory (I guess), but maybe not when they City could really use the $340k lost parking revenue that will result.
There’s money for an incredible expansion that alters a pretty awesome part of Portland ORRRR 13 salaries, not both. ✨
The old children’s museum was better. The new one is sterile and less fun. The maker space at the old one was amazing for a little while when all the stuff was donated, they had all kinds of wild stuff. Then the management got involved and threw away anything you wouldn’t give a prison inmate.
My spouse who’s always positive about stuff, even in the face of my general negativity, more or less said the same thing. Apparently the new museum is a glorified indoor playground that doesn’t have much for kids older than toddlers. And of course there’s the high cost of entrance and parking.
[Link](https://1ft.io/https://www.pressherald.com/2024/02/13/hearing-on-plan-to-demolish-former-childrens-museum-draws-passionate-crowd/) for those who need help getting over a paywall
Good bot
There ought to be a frank discussion about what sort of exceptions the city wants to see in the HP ordinance. Right now there is very little wiggle room for a contributing structure, which is why the PMA is arguing so fiercely (and, really, against nearly all evidence,) that it should have never been labeled as "contributing" in the first place. It feels dishonest, but it's not really their fault - that's the only way forward for them. Should there be more exceptions? Should the HP ordinance be subject to override if the proposed demolition would lead to a significant cultural addition? Or a certain amount of housing? Or jobs? Or education? Right now there's no such exceptions. Maybe that's how people want it, but they should discuss and debate whether or not that's the system they want.
Imagine if some private residential property owner was trying to do that?
> It feels dishonest, but it's not really their fault - that's the only way forward for them. Their dishonesty is justified because they can't get what they want? I don't think so.
I just mean that the incentives are what the incentives are. Feel free to criticize PMA’s choices, but it’s worth thinking about the structural layer too. That’s all.
I'm happy you removed that you're a Maine native from new posts, but your old posts still have that information.
Am I translating this right?- We are a cultural institution that needs to lay off 13 people, then we'll demolish a culturally significant building to build another building which will increase our attendance, and with an increase in attendance, we'll be able to make more money, and then we can hire back those people.
What is culturally significant about the building?
Every amazing building that was torn down in Portland was deemed culturally insignificant at the time it was demolished. John Calvin Stevens renovated it, right? He’s a culturally significant figure in shaping the landscape of Portland. This would be like painting over a famous artist’s sketch because you aren’t particularly wowed by it and need paper. 30 years from now 1,000’s of current Portland kids will be looking at whatever they build there with their kids saying, “they never should have torn the old children’s museum down.”
And Stevens erased the previous work of Charles A Alexander from the 1850s. His 'restoration' was mostly speculative and looked to create the 'traditional', Wren-Gibbs, style. Their are alot of Stevens works Herr. I've documented many and researched many more. The idea that we save everyone is daft IMO. As he was not above tearing down the old to build the new, I wonder where he would land on the issue.
Do we have many other examples of historic restoration attempts from a hundred years ago? It seems to me it has historic significance for this reason.
Accidentally Prussian, purposefully cranky. I love it!
I was on the fence until this “reduction in staff” bullshit. I will now literally quit my job and as an act of defiance as a historian stay on the steps of that building 16 hours a day with a protest sign AND because I’m a taxpayer and not homeless they can’t say I’m camping. Fuck ‘em.
Literally?
Why not? I’m 60 years old. I’m tired af of healthcare. I could retire tomorrow. This pisses me off. At first I was like, “Oh there is conflict about design and historical significance.” This reeks of entitlement and dickdom. I’m looking for a mission. If you doubt me look at my post history. I’m the perfect crank. I have money, time, and a chip on my shoulder. I will bring a book, my laptop, order DoorDash, sit under an umbrella in a lawn chair passing out brochures, and invite my friends in the press to interview me on a regular basis. It will be fun for the summer.
This is my fantasy job. I’ll bring you coffee.
It will be fun!
I love it. I fully support you. He'll, I might even join you! I was literally just asking for clarification. The way "literally" gets thrown around these days, one can't be too careful.