Museoception

Archival Photo Finds: Evolving exhibitions

After a very intensive week in the Dawson City Museum archives, I am sorting, reading, and analyzing what I found. In order to help with analysis, I discussed archival documents as part of the Archival Research series. The Archival Photo Finds series similarly considers the stories archival photos can tell.

Within this post, I look at photos of the Museum’s permanent exhibitions from 1959 to today.

Photos

1959

Photograph of antique car located inside the first Dawson Museum. Possibly pre-1920 Dodge. Vaccuum/gravity feed gas line. — These photos were taken in 1959 by Charles W. Schneider. They are available in the Dawson City Museum photo archive here.

Interior view of the old Dawson City Museum located in the Firehall. Several artifacts, curios, and cupboards are visible. Two large oil paintings of nude women are hanging behind display. Items were subsequently damaged or lost in the fire — These photos were taken in 1959 by Charles W. Schneider. They are available in the Dawson City Museum photo archive here.

1962

1976 – 1978

An exhibit of animal bones — These photos were taken from 1976 to 1979. They were found in the Dawson City Museum’s corporate archives.

An exhibit containing a net, boots and other material — These photos were taken from 1976 to 1979. They were found in the Dawson City Museum’s corporate archives.

1989

2010s – 2020

These photos show the Museum exhibitions from around 2009 to 2020.

2021

Why do I find the pictures so exciting?

The photos demonstrate an evolution in how artifacts were displayed in a community museum with a relatively small budget.

Prior to the 1970s, the Museum objects were grouped together with some organization. However, the space had a “community attic” feel without a narrative. Here is an example:

Dawson City Museum Exhibits in Old Fire Hall, Front Street, pre 1960 (Canadian Photo Archive; 1984.66.1)

In the 1970s, the Museum began to employ a year-round director who used employment programs to hire staff. The paid staff worked to professionalize the Museum, organizing the exhibitions to tell stories. Here is an example, which shows the development of Dawson City chronologically with different eras:

The photo was found in the Dawson City Museum Corporate Archives with 1976-77 on the back (Box 41; 2000.16.152).

They also began creating dioramas, which organized artifacts according to themes (e.g., items seen in a store):

The photo was found in the Dawson City Museum Corporate Archives with 1977-78 on the back (Box 40; 2000.16.159)

In the 1980s, Parks Canada members were on the Museum’s board, participating on the display committee when dioramas were a popular way to exhibit materials in museums. As such, the Museum staff created more dioramic displays like the one below :

This image is of a postcard from the Dawson City Museum, showing a Miner’s Cabin. The Cabin was built as early as 1989 (see photo above).

The Museum opened a new permanent exhibition in the early 2000s, renovating part of the South Gallery. However, I do not have pictures illustrating this change. If you have any images of the “Lind Gallery,” please let me know!

In 2009 the Museum made mannequins that looked like community members. These mannequins then populated the exhibitions. Here is an example of a mannequin in the Miner’s Cabin from the photo above:

A Miner's Cabin diorama with a mannequin that looks like a community member.

Recently, the Museum opened their new exhibitions. They were created in partnership with a design team and use more contemporary methods of display. For example, information is considered thematically rather than chronologically, there are no dioramas, and some objects are behind glass.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Robin Nelson (@museoception)

Here are some photos of one of my favorite themes – Klondikephilia:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Robin Nelson (@museoception)

Interestingly, has kept a community museum feel with large groupings and collections of objects. There are so many artifacts on display! Here is an updated visible storage display:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Robin Nelson (@museoception)

What can we learn from the pictures?

The pictures demonstrate staffs’ commitment to creating professional museum displays despite limited resources. As expectations and best practices have changed, so has the Museum.

The pictures also help answer the research question – How has the Dawson City Museum developed in relation to government policy and community action?

Government policy: The creation of new exhibitions requires money. The Museum’s ability to update and renew the space, therefore, depends on government policy. Both the territorial and federal government have provided funding for exhibition development through programs that address museum or cultural policy goals. The Museum has also accessed funding from other programs, such as the territory’s Community Development Fund.
Community action: The community is reflected in the exhibitions, which tell stories about community action. Further:
- The dioramas reflect the approach taken to exhibitions within Dawson City’s heritage community.
- The objects displayed were donated from communities of people interested in the Klondike.
- The mannequins are a literal reflection of the local community.
- And, perhaps most importantly, the Museum is a vehicle through which the local community is presented to tourists. The permanent exhibitions have reflected the stories the Museum staff and board members, who are also members of the local community, feel are important to tell.

I look forward to seeing how the Museum continues to evolve over time!

Questions

What is your biggest take away from the pictures? What do you think that we can learn?

Do you agree with the connections I have made to government policy and community action?

Do you have any pictures of the Dawson City Museum’s interior that would enrich this presentation?

Archival Research: Reduced Student Positions

After a very intensive week in the Dawson City Museum (DCM) archives, I am sorting, reading, and analyzing what I found. The documents scanned are interesting and contributing to the narrative(s) about the DCM’s development. In order to help with the analysis, the “Archival Research” series considers the stories archival materials tell, looking at the items I found most exciting.

Within this post, I consider the effects of cuts to student employment programs experienced in the early 2000s. Here is an excerpt from a letter the Dawson City Museum’s Director sent to the territorial museums advisor:

2003, August. Letter to the Museum Advisor. Correspondence. Box 39a. Dawson City Museum Archives.

Why is the letter interesting?

As I have explained elsewhere, student employment programs are incredibly significant to community museums. In 2003, the Dawson City Museum (DCM) relied heavily on both Young Canada Works (YCW) and the HRDC Summer Career Placement (SCP). However, they received:

fewer student positions – that is, 6 fewer positions than they applied for.
fewer work hours a week per student – the SCP positions were reduced to 30 hours a week.
fewer work weeks per student.

As a result:

It was more difficult to staff the museum during opening hours.
Students quit partway through because they were not making enough money.
The Museum opened later than usual.
The Museum needed to pay out of pocket to have students working during Discovery Days – a significant holiday in Dawson City.
The Museum was unable to participate in Discovery Days and, therefore, saw a significant decrease in visitor numbers.
The Museum had to pay for a Gift Shop assistant out of their budget.

Fearing additional cuts, the Director wrote:

I feel that the Dawson City Museum and our reputation will be adversely affected if we continue to cut back hours, activities and services because we do not have the human or financial resources to do otherwise.
2003, August. Letter to the Museum Advisor. Correspondence. Box 39a. Dawson City Museum Archives.

Is there broader relevance?

During the 1990s, the DCM was able to take advantage of multiple employment programs, contributing to an expansion of museum activities. However, they began to experience cuts in those programs in the early 2000s. In addition to cuts, other government programs intersect to make funding more challenging to access as discussed here.

As I consider the development of the Dawson City Museum, I am looking at explanatory factors for change. The Museum experienced a significant change as it moved from the 1990s to the 2000s – that is, it went from being a hub of community activity, expanding its operations and engaging in significant projects, to being a tourist attraction more narrowly with seemingly less community engagement.

It is possible that the decline in summer student employment contributed to this change. With fewer people available to staff the Museum and provide programming during its busiest season, what affect does that have on the work of the permanent staff?

Questions

What do you think? Is this a potential explanation for a decline in museum activity / community engagement experienced in the 21st century?

Archival Research: Declining Role of the Museum Advisor

Within this post, I continue to examine the Museum Advisor’s role, which I started in The Importance of Presence. In particular, I consider the reduced relevance of the Museum Advisor to individual museums, like the Dawson City Museum, in the early 2000s.

As part of the consultations for the Museum Strategy in 2001, the Dawson City Museum’s Director submitted the following comments about the Museums Advisor:

The Museum Advisor currently is too overloaded with other
responsibilities to provide proper and timely services to museums. We have been waiting since April to hear word on Small Capital Grant
programme applications for summer work. It is now approaching the end
of August and there is no word yet on our success or failure. There will
not be sufficient time during the good weather remaining this fall to
complete the work contemplated. There seems to be no excuse for this
delay other than the fact that the Museum Advisor has too many other
responsibilities unrelated to museums. — Thistle, Paul. 2001, August. Response to Interview Questions. Strategy for Yukon museums. Box 29a. Dawson City Museum Archives.

Why is the submission interesting?

The submission is interesting because it outlines a change in the relationship between the Museum Advisor and individual museum workers.

In The Important of Presence, I looked at the Dawson City Museum’s Board meeting minutes to consider the assistance that both the territorial Heritage Branch Director and Museum Advisor provided to the Dawson City Museum. At the time, the Director and Advisor were physically present in the museum community and easily reachable by phone. As a result, they were able to provide assistance in response to issues.

The submission above indicates that the Museum Advisor was no longer as helpful as he once was. Historically, he had helped the Museum with their grant applications. However, in August 2001 the Museum had:

been waiting since April to hear word on Small Capital Grant programme applications for summer work.
see above

At the end of the summer, they had not heard anything from the Museum advisor. He was far less present in the Museum than he had been in the 1980s.

Is there broader relevance?

When the Museum Advisor was hired in 1984, six museums were receiving operational support. In 2001 – the date of the submission above – nine museums were receiving operational support from the territory and First Nations were beginning to develop cultural centers. At the same time, the territory had its own collections and opened the Beringia Centre.

As a result, the Museum Advisor had increasing responsibilities. In other words, he was becoming:

too overloaded with other responsibilities to provide proper and timely service to museums.
Thistle, Paul. 2001, August. Response to Interview Questions. Strategy for Yukon museums. Box 29a. Dawson City Museum Archives.

The addition of other museums, cultural centers, and territorial institutions to the Museum Advisors’ portfolio without the addition of more museum advisors provides an explanation for change. Although the articulated policy did not change, the policy changed in practice with fewer resources available to the museums through the advisor.

Questions

What do you think? Have I properly understood and explained this change in territorial policy?

References

Thistle, Paul. 2001, August. Response to Interview Questions. Strategy for Yukon museums. Box 29a. Dawson City Museum Archives.

Other Archival Research Posts

The Importance of Presence

Early Federal Influence

The Issue of Rent

The Beringia Center as Competitor

A Community of Community Museums?

Arguments Against Centralization

Community Mobilized

Too Much for One Person

Overwhelming Obstacles

Archival Research: The Importance of Presence

Within this post, I am considering the importance of a person’s physical presence and availability when providing support to community museums. In particular, the Dawson City Museum’s (DCM) Board Minutes from the 1980s demonstrate that the territorial Heritage Branch’s Director and the Museum Advisor attended meetings, providing reactive support in response to issues.

Please note: unlike past archival research posts, I am not including a picture because there are a lot of names in these reports and I am respecting confidentiality.

Why are these meetings interesting?

The Minutes show tangible examples of the assistance that can be provided when government actors are physically present in a museum space to learn about problems. For example, the Heritage Branch’s Director attended a meeting in 1983 and offered the following assistance:

The Museum Board members were upset because the Canadian Conservation Institute (CCI) was only going to Whitehorse and would not visit Dawson. The Director agreed the Museum had a definite need and noted:

He will be seeing a woman from the CCI later this month and will see what he can do.
DCM Minutes May 3, 1983

He provided insider advice on how to be more successful in grant applications. The Minutes state:

It was suggested that when we apply for capital grants we should try to emphasize visible projects that will have more direct approval from politicians and the public.
DCM Minutes May 3, 1983

He agreed to try and send a bookkeeper to help museum staff who were struggling with bookkeeping.
He volunteered to help the Museum buy a second hand microfilm reader from the territory.

In 1984, the territorial Heritage Branch hired a Museum Advisor. This advisor also began attending occasional Dawson City Museum Board meetings. Examples of assistance provided include:

He worked with Museum staff on grant applications (DCM Meeting minutes June 12, 1984).
He provided unofficial information on granted amounts to help with planning (DCM Meeting minutes June 12, 1984).
He facilitated a better relationship with national funding agencies (DCM 1984 Annual General Meeting Minutes).

More importantly, the Minutes and the Museum’s reports indicate that he was also available by phone to regularly help Museum staff.

In short, during the 1980s both the Director of the Heritage Branch and Museum Advisor went to the Dawson City Museum (or were easily available by phone) and were able to assist the Museum in response to problems.

Is there broader relevance?

Presence facilitates support.

When the Director and/or Museum Advisor were present in the Museum, they were able to hear about problems and offer solutions. For example, in the microfilm reader example above, the Museum had already tried purchasing a used machine from government without success. As a government actor, the Heritage Branch’s Director was able to make the connections needed to be successful.

Sometimes, museum workers discuss a decline in support, but the number of advisory services remain the same. I think the change is actually in the accessibility of the government actor(s). Who is accessible? How accessible are they?

The next post will provide a contrasting example to show this difference.

Questions

What do you think? Have I fully understood the significance of presence?

Other Archival Research Posts

Early Federal Influence

The Issue of Rent

The Beringia Center as Competitor

A Community of Community Museums?

Arguments Against Centralization

Community Mobilized

Too Much for One Person

Overwhelming Obstacles

Archival Research: Early Federal Influence

Within this post, I am considering an instance of early federal influence on Yukon community museum policy. The federal government started a grant for operating funding to community museums in Yukon. When they stopped, the Yukon government stepped up. Here is a letter describing the change:

MacKenzie, K. 1961, December. Letter to the Dawson Museum & Historical Society. Correspondence Roy minister 1961-2. Box 39. Dawson City Museum Archives.

Why is this letter interesting?

The letter shows that the federal government originated operational funding to Yukon community museums. They gave the Dawson City Museum (DCM) and MacBride $500 each, starting in the late 1950s. However, the grant did not last.

When the grant ended in 1961-62, these museums began receiving funding from the territorial government as registered societies engaged in tourism related activities. In other words, the territory continued a source of funding originally established by the federal government.

Is there broader relevance?

Federal influence on Yukon community museum policy is a significant theme in my research. The operating grant provides an early example.

The Old Territorial Administration Building is another. When the Museum began occupying the space for 5$ a month, it was under federal jurisdiction. Then, when the territorial government became responsible for the building, the Museum was already there and continued to occupy the space. I discuss the issue of rent here.

Moving forward, I will continue to consider federal action when seeking explanations for territorial policy development. As this letter demonstrates, federal initiative seems to be critical to explaining the development of Yukon community museum policy.

Questions

What do you think? Do you know of other instances where federal action significantly influenced territorial activity?

Other Archival Research Posts

The Issue of Rent

The Beringia Center as Competitor

A Community of Community Museums?

Arguments Against Centralization

Community Mobilized

Too Much for One Person

Overwhelming Obstacles

Government Relationships

Archival Research: The Issue of Rent

Within this post, I am looking at the letter that gave the Dawson City Museum permission to occupy the Old Territorial Administration Building for 5$ a month after their first location burnt down. Here it is:

Correspondence Minister 1961-2, Box 39c. Dawson City Museum Archives.

Why is the letter interesting?

The Dawson City Museum (DCM) was housed in the old fire hall until it burned down in 1960.

Old Dawson City Museum on Fire, June 5, 1960 (Artist: Roy McLeod; Dawson City Museum Archive 1993.3.11)

The DCM began looking for a new building immediately because they wanted to open for the Gold Rush Festival in 1962. In an appeal to occupy the Old Territorial Administration Building (OTAB), a Museum representative wrote:

It is imperative to assist the Festival that we have accommodations. Until we can have assurance it is not possible to get going on this important project as we will need to start from scratch.
Shaw 1962

Fortunately, the federal Department of Public Works agreed to lease the space at a rate of $5 for the festival period.

In the late 70s Parks Canada planned to take over the space, but their budget for the Klondike National Historic Site program was cut from $1.5 to $1 million, meaning they were unable to include the OTAB in their renovations (Northern Times 1979). As such, it became a territorial building and the DCM continued to grow in the space.

The DCM did not pay rent or have a lease for most of its time in OTAB. In 1998, they entered into negotiations at the request of Yukon Property Management, which proposed a rent of $10,000 a year (DCM Minutes 14 January 1998). The Museum could not afford this, but began to pay $4,000 a year in 1999. Despite inflation, the Museum continues to pay the same rent for the space.

The Old Territorial Administration Building

Is there broader relevance?

Most obviously, the Museum never left. The original rental price referred to the period of the Festival. Then, there was no lease agreement but the Museum remained and eventually expanded into the unused rooms. In other words, the Old Territorial Administration Building has been the Museum’s home since 1962 thanks to a decision made by Public Works to provide the Museum with space in time for the Gold Rush Festival.

The low rental cost also reflects a form of support from the territorial government. The amount has not increased with inflation and the building’s operation and maintenance costs are between 135 thousand and 158 thousand a year. As such, we see the same path dependent effects with the rental costs. The Museum pays $4000 a year in rent because that is the cost established over 20 years ago.

Questions

What do you think? Do you find the document as interesting as I do? If so, what lessons do you think we can draw when talking about the history of the Dawson City Museum?

References

Shaw, G. 1962. Letter to the Superintendent of Buildings. Correspondence Minister 1961-62, Box 39c. Dawson City Museum Archives.

Archival Research: The Beringia Centre as a Competitor

Within this post, I build on the centralization (support for a territorial museum) vs. decentralization (support for a network of museums) conversation in Yukon community museum policy. The first post on this topic is available here and the second here.

I am looking at the Minister of Tourism’s response to advocacy from the Yukon Historical and Museums association (YHMA). The YHMA articulated a concern that funding for new staffing positions at the Yukon Beringia Interpretive Centre, which is a territorial institution that opened in 1997 to exhibit natural heritage, would ultimately harm the community museums in the territory.

Here is an excerpt from the Minister’s letter:

Keenan, David. 1997, May 16. Letter to the Chair of the YHMA Committee. Correspondence director 1997 1998. Box 25. Dawson City Museum Archives.

Why is the letter interesting?

I find the letter interesting for two reasons:

First, the letter assumes that community museums are only hiring summer student staff and not permanent staff with the same “level of skills, training and experience” the government was looking to hire (Keenan 1997). It neglects the possibility that community museums, like the Dawson City Museum which has had a year round curator since 1975, may want to hire professional staff but struggle to compete with government positions due to their limited resources.

Second, the letter goes on to say:

Considering that Parks Canada has been hiring summer interpretive visitor service staff in Kluane National Park, Klondike National Historic Sites in Dawson, Chilkoot Trail National Historic Park and S.S. Klondike National Historic Site, year after year, with no impact on museum operations, it is extremely unlikely that Beringia Centre staffing would have any negative consequences.
Keenan 1997

The Minister assumed Parks Canada operations and staffing had not competed with community museum’s attempts to hire students. This assumption conflicts with my existing research. In Dawson City, the Museum does compete with Parks for staff and has less to offer in terms of salary and accommodations. I talk about that here.

In short, the letter shows little consideration of community museums’ concerns about a territorial center. In particular, the government representative does not seem to understand how a territorial centre may compete with the existing community museum program for funding and resources. Or, perhaps more accurately, community museums’ concerns were not a priority. As the letter stated:

I can appreciate your desire for more Yukon Government funding of museums activities but your interests have been and are consistently weighed against equally legitimate interests in all aspects of our Yukon Society. It is therefore important to recognize that Government of the Yukon has allocated additional O&M funds to community museums in the 1997/98 budget – particularly when many important non-governmental organizations either had reductions or saw no increases whatsoever.
Keenan 1997

Is there broader relevance?

I do not know if there is broader relevance. However, the creation of the Beringia Centre suggests a shift toward supporting centralized museums and museum-like institutions within Yukon. What is not clear is: Has that change been paired with a shift away from support for a decentralized system? Further, when considered with reference to government responses to museum problems in the 1980s (e.g., Government Relationships), was there a shift away from concern for and knowledge of community museums’ problems?

Questions

What do you think? Are these the same lessons you draw from the letter? Do you have potential answers to my questions?

References

Keenan, David. 1997, May 16. Letter to the Chair of the YHMA Committee. Correspondence director 1997 1998. Box 25. Dawson City Museum Archives.

Archival Research: A Community of Community Museums?

Within this post, I continue to look at the tensions between centralization (support for a territorial museum) and decentralization (support for a network of museums) within Yukon community museum policy. The first post on this topic is available here.

I am looking at the Minister of Tourism’s response to advocacy against exhibitions within a territorial Historic Resources Centre in 1989. Here are some excerpts from the letter, which I find most salient:

The following excerpts are quotes in the letter from the Yukon Historical and Museums Association’s (YHMA) advocacy on the topic:

Webster, Art. 1989, December 19. Letter to the President of the YHMA. YHMA museums committee. Box 16. Dawson City Museum Archives.

Why is this letter interesting?

I find this letter interesting because it demonstrates that, like the Dawson City Museum, the Yukon Historical and Museums Association (YHMA) was arguing against the development of a territorial museum or related institution in the late 1980s.

The Yukon Museums Policy (1989) mentions a Historic Resources Service Center, which would support the community museum sector. It states:

One of the Historic Resources Service Centre’s functions would be to support community museums by providing specialized services or services which are more economical when centralized. Such services would include a specialized computer data base for artifact collection management, and conservation support programs.
Museums Policy, 2

The YHMA had advocated for a Centre with this function in 1984 as part of heritage legislation consultations, stating:

YHMA RECOMMENDS that Government of Yukon act on these recommendations at the earliest possible time and that a Heritage Resource Centre be constructed which would minimally include facilities for collections management of archaeological and paleontological materials, as well as the capability to provide advice and assistance to community museums, as requested by them.
YHMA 1984, 23

Importantly, they did not advocate for a public education and display function, which was added to the Museums Policy (1989). The Policy gives the Centre a second function, stating:

Another function would be to provide public display and educational facilities as a means of heightening public awareness of Yukon’s historic resources.
Museums Policy, 2

The YHMA advocated against this function, expressing surprise at its inclusion. As quoted in the letter above:

All of the sudden it is going to the House looking more like the seeds of a Territorial Museum than a service centre for the heritage community.
See letter above

At the time (as a result of advocacy perhaps?), plans for a historic resource centre were not implemented.

Is there broader relevance?

The advocacy’s relevance is most apparent when compared to the YHMA’s reaction to a contemporary proposal for a Heritage Center. The re-elected Liberal’s promised a centralized Centre for “maintaining, conserving, exhibiting and interpreting” the Yukon’s collection as part of their election campaign (source).

The YHMA included a question about this proposal in their questions for parties during the campaign period. Here is the question and response:

Despite the question, I have found no evidence (yet?) the YHMA is campaigning against the centre, leading to a few questions:

Is the YHMA still actively advocating for community museums?
Is the creation of a museum-like institution no longer a concern for Yukon community museums?

I do not know the answers, but think the questions are relevant because they speak to a broader question – Is there a community of community museums working together in Yukon? In 1989, the answer seems to be yes. Currently, the answer seems less clear.

Questions

What do you think? Are these the same lessons you draw from the letter? Do you have potential answers to my questions?

References

Webster, Art. 1989, December 19. Letter to the President of the YHMA. YHMA museums committee. Box 16. Dawson City Museum Archives.

Yukon Historical and Museums Association. 1984. A Submission to the Government of Yukon Concerning the Proposed New Heritage Legislation.

Archival Research: Arguments Against Centralization

Within this post, I am looking at the Dawson City Museum’s submission to territorial museum policy consultations in 1986. In particular, I am considering their arguments against centralization – that is, the first two points in their submission. Here is an excerpt:

Dawson City Museum Board of Trustees. 1986, April 16. Letter to Lord Cultural Resources Planning and Management. Yukon museums planning study. Box 10. Dawson City Museum Archives.

Why is the submission interesting?

In order to understand why the submission is interesting, it is important to understand the history of territorial support to community museums up to the 1980s and how this support differed from other subnational governments.

When Yukon began museum policy consultations in 1986, it did not have any kind of territorial museum. However, it had supported community museums – that is, the Dawson City Museum and the MacBride Museum in Whitehorse – since the 1960s. The support was part of its tourism policy, which I discuss in the post: What rationale underlines and legitimizes government action targeting community museums in Yukon?

When the Yukon Historical and Museums Association formed in 1977, it began to advocate for a territorial museums advisor and policy. In particular, they commissioned the Kyte report in 1980, which called for the development of a museum policy.

As a result, the territorial government began to reorganize in 1981, forming a Heritage Branch for the first time in a short lived Department of Heritage and Cultural Resources. The Department and Branch were formed with the explicit intent to help museums access more federal funding. A Minister stated:

The department will hope to have a liaison function, and a facilitating function. For instance, through the Department, we hope that we will have more access to federal money.
YLA 24.4.20

The Northwest Territories had already opened a territorial museum with federal funds, leading to an opposition member remarking:

When I was last in Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories, I went through a museum building that is an excellent building. It is obviously a multi-multi-million dollar complex, built with federal funds. I wonder if the Minister is negotiating with the federal a similar building in Yukon?
YLA 24.4.20

The Minister responded by describing a quandary in the Yukon – that is, should there be a centralized or dispersed system of museums. She responded:

I do not know. There is a quandary in the Yukon whether the museums should be as they are now, in different places, or whether there should be one, big Territorial Museum.
YLA 24.4.20

Importantly, the Minister in question represented the Klondike – that is, the Dawson City Museum’s jurisdiction. And, as stated above, the Dawson City Museum was very much against centralization, which they feared would re-direct support away from museums outside of Whitehorse.

The new Branch continued to support the dispersed museum system, developing museum programs to help existing institutions better access federal support in the mid 1980s. Community museums began receiving operational funding as community museums rather than one kind of tourist attraction.

The eventual Yukon Museums Policy (1989) affirmed this commitment to a network of museums, stating:

The Yukon Government is committed to the integrity of strong, independent community museums operated by local, non-profit volunteer boards.
Museum s Policy

In other words, in theory the Dawson City Museum got what it advocated for – a museum policy committed to a decentralized museum structure and no territorial museum.

Is there broader relevance?

In practice, Yukon has implemented a decentralized museum policy with staff mandated to support museums and funding for both operations and special projects. However, staff remained centralized in Whitehorse, despite the Dawson City Museum’s advocacy against this centralization. For example, a president’s report from 1993 stated:

Our efforts to decentralize parts of the Heritage Branch to Dawson City are continuing. In particular, we feel that the Territorial Registration Advisor’s position should be based in Dawson. With over half of the Yukon’s collection located here, and so much work to be done in registration and cataloguing of the collection, we believe that the Heritage Branch should be locating more resource people in Dawson.
DCM Newsletter, vol. 11 no. 2

The DCM’s efforts to decentralize staff were not successful.

Importantly, the Dawson City Museum’s concern that a centralized system may divert resources from decentralized community museums remains relevant. In the 1990s, Yukon began to develop museum-like territorial institutions. The Yukon Arts Center, which hosts exhibits, opened in 1992. The Beringia Interpretive Centre, which exhibits Yukon’s natural heritage, opened in 1997. During interviews, I heard concerns that these centers divert Heritage Branch resources and focus Yukon support on their own salaried positions.

More recently, re-elected Liberals promised a new Arts and Heritage Centre as part of their campaign (source). Further, there is no longer a true Museum Advisor position as the Manager of Museums and Manager of Heritage positions have become merged, meaning the responsible person has a broad range of responsibilities.

I do not have a conclusion here, but rather a concern. What does the creation of centralized heritage centers mean for the support of a decentralized community museum system?

Questions

What do you think? Are these the same lessons you draw from the submission? Do you think this is an important event in the development of the Dawson City Museum in relation to government policy?

Archival Research: Community Mobilized

Within this post, I build on my considerations of Director task saturation and the obstacles community museums face. I am looking at letters sent to the territorial government advocating for more support to the Dawson City Museum at a time when the Museum faced severe financial difficulties. Importantly, Museum representatives sent these letters (e.g., board members and the Director), but so did community members and organizations.

For example, Bombay Peggy’s Victorian Inn & Pub wrote a general letter of support stating:

As a business involved in tourism we view the Dawson City Museum as a key attraction as well as an essential community organization dedicated to preserving and interpreting our heritage. Not only have we sent visitors to see its exhibits and to research relatives
involved in the Gold Rush at its archives, but we, ourselves, have used the museum's services to research the building we restored in which to house our business. We have also called upon museum staff to go well beyond the call of duty and take visitors through
the exhibits during the winter months when they are officially closed to the public, a task
they have always been happy to do. — 2002, January. Letter to whom it may concern. O & M Correspondence. Box 29b. Dawson City Museum Archives.

Providing another example, the Dawson City Chamber of Commerce wrote to the Premier of Yukon, stating:

The Dawson Museum is recognized as one of the primary heritage attractions in the
Yukon. As well, they have the largest collectiun of artifacts in the Territory and are home
to the Klondike History Library. Their Archival Facility has allowed thousands of people
to research their family history, allowing them to access information that perbaps could
have been lost forever. Locals and visitors alike have been able to glimpse into the past
and experience the victories and hardshipsprevious generations of Klondike bound
travelers have endured. In addition to all of this, the Dawson Museum bas just been
named as a National Historic Site. It is very clear to our members that projects and
initiatives underaken by the Dawson City Museum & Hstorncal Sociery benefit Yukon
citizens tremendously.
In an effort to ensure continued operations, The Dawson Museum has worked hard to
increase attendance, enhance Gift Shop sales and annually coordinate fundraising
auctions, among other initiatives. Many localbusinesses support the Museums ventures
through corporate membership while they alsohave struggled to stay open for business
during these tough economic times — 2002, March. O & M Correspondence. Box 29b. Dawson City Museum Archives

Why are these letters interesting?

In the early 2000s, the Dawson City Museum (DCM) failed to receive expected grants partway through a project. It also experienced unanticipated difficulties, such as a bug infestation.

As a result, the Museum was in a dire financial position and sought additional support from the territorial government. Representatives and supporters engaged in a letter writing campaign (see examples above) and media interviews to address the immediate problem – that is, a lack of funding to pay for staff.

The territorial government and its representatives were far less supportive than they had been when the Museum faced difficulties in 1979 – 1980. To some extent, Yukon helped address the cash shortfall by letting the DCM reallocate some of its project funding. However, the responses to requests for additional funding and advocacy for change were, at times, hostile.

For example, while vocalizing a willingness to assist, the Deputy Minister stated:

We are sorry to hear that the museum has gotten itself into financial difficulty.
Brenan 2001

Further, responses tended to emphasize capital contributions as impressive when the Museum and its allies were advocating for operational support.

Despite the territorial government’s unwillingness to respond with more support, community organizations continued to advocate for the Museum. For example, the Premier responded to the Dawson City Chamber of Commerce’s letter above and outlined the support already provided to the DCM. The Chamber of Commerce was not deterred and continued to advocate, showing an understanding of the Museum’s plight – that is, a need for operational funding. They wrote:

You clearly stated in your letter the ways that the Territorial government assists the
Dawson Museum; by providing spaceat low costs, and contributing financial support for
the museum's gift shop, (allowing them to generate more earned revenue). As mentioned
in our original letter, we do appreciatethe current YTG funding for operating funds but
frankly, it's not enough. Looking at the increase in operating costs over the past ten years
for a museum that has grown to become a primary heritage attraction in the Yukon, how
can you expect a Museum to implement more programs and projects, maintain operating
costs of these initiatives as well as uphold adequate administrative staff and technical
support whie utilizing the sameamount of funds year after year?
In an effort to earn more revenue, the Museum works continuously to raise money
through lotteries. When all is said and done, the money raised scarcely pays the bills.
When applying for larger lottery applications, the museum is forced to withdrawal due to
criteria that seems to contradict itself. For example, it is discouraged to allow proceeds to
be spent on salaries, which in fact is the Museum's single largest category of
expenditures. The Museum Board hasestablished hiring more full-time permanent staff
as their highest priority, but criteria divert them from supporting this goal. It appears no
matter where they turn, there is always something that detours them. — 2002, August. Letter to the Premier. O & M Correspondence. Box 29b. Dawson City Museum Archives.

In short, the Dawson City business community responded to the Museum’s problems with letters showing an understanding of its plight and commitment to standing with the Museum in face of opposition.

Is there broader relevance?

In 2002, the letters did not lead to additional territorial support and the Director was let go. However, about a year later – that is, for the 2003-2004 fiscal year – the Museum’s operating grant increased from $23,500 to $80,000.

While the increase happened as part of a new Museum Strategy, its likely these letters and the Dawson City Museum’s plight during the consultation process had some effect in contributing to the change. I have not found anything indicating causation, but there is clearly a correlation between an advocacy effort by one of the most well established museums in the territory and then an increase to the museum program only a year later.

As such, I believe the examples demonstrate the importance of community mobilization in advocacy.

Questions

What do you think? Are these the same lessons you draw from the letter? Do you think this is an important event in the development of the Dawson City Museum?

References

Brenan, Dan. 2001, August. “Letter to DCM.” O&M correspondence. Box 29b. DCM.