Collings Foundation under fire?

[Chuck Giese]

And this is why it's controversial (also from the article, written by a Town Councilor):

It is my belief that the intentions of this law when it was written; was to protect non-profit educational schools from being discriminated against in towns or cities throughout the Commonwealth.... The original intent of this law was directed toward the town of Dover, Massachusetts. It was designed to protect the religious and non-profit educational facilities from being discriminated against....I do believe the educational part of this bill was directed toward schools of learning, as in education from Elementary Schools through Colleges that are not for profit.

I still think Collings will prevail.

[Nathan]

We're all accustomed to people who complain about airport noise after they move next to an airport that was built 50 years before they were born. This Collings-versus-Stow situation is the reverse.

Stow has been there since 1660, which is three and a half CENTURIES ago. It is a beautiful rural town with an enormous amount of Colonial and Revolutionary history and a populace of individuals who very much want to live in a town of that sort. (I don't live in Stow, but I do live in a Hudson Valley (NY) town something like it.) Okay, so the Collings Foundation moves its offices to the Stow airport, no big deal, Stow can deal with the occasional warbird movement. But now Collings wants to establish a tourist attraction, an amusement park with tanks and stuff, lots of traffic, lots of people from "outside." I don't mean to sound like a snob, but if you lived in a small, quiet, rural town and suddenly there were people emptying their beer coolers (and worse) on your lawn, you wouldn't be happy.

Yeah, NIMBY: Not In My Back Yard. But imagine if you hadn't the slightest interest in performance cars and some entrepreneur wanted to build a drag strip across the road from your rural home. And don't tell me I don't know from cars: I was the editor of Car and Driver for several years and have probably been at more drag strips that you'll ever want to visit.

Collings needs to go build its amusement park somewhere else. In fact they'll have to, since they'll never win this battle.

I don't have a dog in the fight but know Collings does things right and are a world class organization that seem to be growing positively. This is just a power grab by some local do wig. Too much time on their hands perhaps? This is suppose to be the land of the free. Just another example of people pushing their agenda on others. My mother used to tell me mind my own business. If no one is getting hurt, go about your way.

[k5083]

And, if you're wondering what this Dover Amendment is all about, I found this analysis of it helpful.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140708 ... s-amending

Remember, as I stated earlier IANAL, but it seems to me that Collings would qualify. However; the definition of educational corporation is not clear, and case law (and most likely a judge they way it's going) will apply.

Here is the part of that article that will have to be ruled on by the courts:
"Just because an agency falls under non-profit status, doesn't automatically give them the protection of the Dover Amendment unless the main source of the facility’s use is “education”. The bill specifically states that education must be the primary source in order for non-profit educational facilities to be protected."

The town will have to answer as to why/how they consider a museum not educational.

Perhaps the real question is whether it is really a museum?

What is the level of day-to-day public access? What are its regular opening hours? What level of engagement and access is provided to researchers? These are things museums do.

There has been a history of collectors of warbirds and similar artifacts calling their toyboxes "museums," accepting the tax breaks and other benefits, but allowing little or no public access to the collection and just appearing at the occasional airshow when they feel like it. I'm not saying this is Collings. My point is just that it takes more than calling yourself a museum, and it should.

We all respect what Collings does, but most of it is invisible to people in and around Stow. From my perspective, lack of interface with the local public has contributed to the organization's problems.

P.S. the posts on the Collings facebook page, with the repeated references to three members of the Stow planning board blah blah blah, come off as immature, confrontational and petty. There is a better way to put it, such as "Another example of the educational programs offered by the Foundation."

August

[kmiles]

And, if you're wondering what this Dover Amendment is all about, I found this analysis of it helpful.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140708 ... s-amending

Remember, as I stated earlier IANAL, but it seems to me that Collings would qualify. However; the definition of educational corporation is not clear, and case law (and most likely a judge they way it's going) will apply.

Here is the part of that article that will have to be ruled on by the courts:
"Just because an agency falls under non-profit status, doesn't automatically give them the protection of the Dover Amendment unless the main source of the facility’s use is “education”. The bill specifically states that education must be the primary source in order for non-profit educational facilities to be protected."

The town will have to answer as to why/how they consider a museum not educational.

Perhaps the real question is whether it is really a museum?

What is the level of day-to-day public access? What are its regular opening hours? What level of engagement and access is provided to researchers? These are things museums do.

There has been a history of collectors of warbirds and similar artifacts calling their toyboxes "museums," accepting the tax breaks and other benefits, but allowing little or no public access to the collection and just appearing at the occasional airshow when they feel like it. I'm not saying this is Collings. My point is just that it takes more than calling yourself a museum, and it should.

We all respect what Collings does, but most of it is invisible to people in and around Stow. From my perspective, lack of interface with the local public has contributed to the organization's problems.

P.S. the posts on the Collings facebook page, with the repeated references to three members of the Stow planning board blah blah blah, come off as immature, confrontational and petty. There is a better way to put it, such as "Another example of the educational programs offered by the Foundation."

August

The current facility at Stow is not under question (except the flying issue, but that is for another conversation). We have people here almost every weekend from May thru October. Just because it does not appear on the internet or the local papers, does not mean that there is no activity going on here. 98% of the activity that goes on here goes unnoticed even by the closest of neighbors. When the new facility is approved and the access from the main road is put in, the neighbors will be even less aware of people coming and going from here. The lack of interest and interaction on part of the planning board is simply their issue. We have invited them all out here for private tours and to view tours being conducted for other groups. We have invited them out here to view the open house programs. The one member of the planning board that is the most strongly against the new facility is the one who has never stepped foot on the property here. It is not because of the lack of invitation. We had over 10,000 people come through the facility here last year from Stow and the surrounding towns, so we are not as inactive as some people may think. Just most of our activity goes on without interruption to the neighborhood. Events are designed that way on purpose. If you have ever been here you would understand why.

It is the new facility that is before the planning board. The new facility will be open 3 days a week, and has a 2000+ sf research library with over 20,000 vehicle manuals and books. If you had access to the plans for the new museum that the planning board does, you would be better able to judge what we plan to do in the future. It is not going to be a "warehouse of tanks" that people can just come and walk through. We are working with a world class museum design company on the exhibits that will put the new facility far ahead of any national museum. It will be more interactive and informative than even the WWII Museum in New Orleans or the Museum of The Pacific in Fredericksburg, TX. They are probably the two closest facilities of what we are trying to achieve here as far as visitor experience.

[Warbird Kid]

It will be more interactive and informative than even the WWII Museum in New Orleans or the Museum of The Pacific in Fredericksburg, TX. They are probably the two closest facilities of what we are trying to achieve here as far as visitor experience.

That kind of immersion / interaction for the visitor usually means building the artifacts (i.e. tanks and other vehicles in this case) into the displays. Usually meaning that they are static and not running. Will this be the case? Or will the vehicles be still runnable and removed from their displays periodically?

[kmiles]

It will be more interactive and informative than even the WWII Museum in New Orleans or the Museum of The Pacific in Fredericksburg, TX. They are probably the two closest facilities of what we are trying to achieve here as far as visitor experience.

That kind of immersion / interaction for the visitor usually means building the artifacts (i.e. tanks and other vehicles in this case) into the displays. Usually meaning that they are static and not running. Will this be the case? Or will the vehicles be still runnable and removed from their displays periodically?

It will be a combination of both static and running vehicles. There will be vehicles that are placed strategically near doors for easy access when we want to move them. There are some vehicles that are going to be static only. Trying to maintain 80+ vehicles in running order would be a monumental task. There is not a lot of reason to run 50+ ton vehicles on a regular basis because it it not like we can take them out to parades and such. Some of the smaller vehicles like the Sherman, M-18 Hellcat and Stuart will be part of the museum in a way that they can be pulled out when needed.

[TAdan]

Any word on how the meeting went last night?

[p51]

Any word on how the meeting went last night?

What? You want actual news? This is the internet, man, we only speculate and pontificate here!

[kmiles]

Any word on how the meeting went last night?

Unfortunately there is not really any progress on part of The Planning Board. They have kicked the can down the road for another week with meetings scheduled next week on Monday and Tuesday August 10th and 11th. Has been going on this way since May, but they are running out of ways to kick the can (and up against a state imposed decision time schedule), so they will have to make a decision soon.

[Lon Moer]

Rejected, pending appeal.

http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/29887752/proposed-aircraft-museum-rejected-for-lack-of-educational-purpose

[kmiles]

The planning board last night voted 3-2 to reject the plan for the new facility. Interesting enough they agreed that the new facility was educational as proposed, but felt that our current open house weekends where we open the current facility to the public were entertainment, not educational. They decided that the proposal for the new facility should be combined with all of our activities, both current and planned, as to if we are primarily educational. As soon as their written decision is issued (had to be issued by the 4th of September) there will be an appeal filed in the court system. The town will have to defend their position to combine all activities (not just the proposed facility) as well as how they decided to redefine education to get their desired result. The unfortunate part is that this is going to delay the new facility for another 12-16 months meaning that the rest of the Jacques Littlefield collection will remain in California with very limited public access. It does not effect any of our current activities, and the "Battle for the Airfield" will continue to take place on Columbus Day Weekend.

On a side subject, there has been a decision by the appeals court of MA that the MADot does have the capacity to regulate aviation in the state. That means that the local bylaw that caused the cease and desist order on our local flying this summer is not legal. It gives us the legal standing that we need to go to a judge and get the order lifted so that we can start flying out of the Stow facility again.

[TAdan]

Thanks for the update Miles.

Glad to hear the court ruled in your favor about using the airfield, that's a little bit of headway...

[Noha307]

Perhaps the real question is whether it is really a museum?

What is the level of day-to-day public access? What are its regular opening hours? What level of engagement and access is provided to researchers? These are things museums do.

There has been a history of collectors of warbirds and similar artifacts calling their toyboxes "museums," accepting the tax breaks and other benefits, but allowing little or no public access to the collection and just appearing at the occasional airshow when they feel like it. I'm not saying this is Collings. My point is just that it takes more than calling yourself a museum, and it should.

...

P.S. the posts on the Collings facebook page, with the repeated references to three members of the Stow planning board blah blah blah, come off as immature, confrontational and petty. There is a better way to put it, such as "Another example of the educational programs offered by the Foundation."

I have to agree entirely with what you wrote. The museum-as-toybox-with-excuse-for-tax-write-off is a definite problem. (Also, like you said, not necessarily referring to Collings.) In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with having warbirds as toys. The problem is when that is the situation and yet you claim to be teaching the past and "honoring the veterans". If your primary motivation is entertainment, then it's wrong to claim to be a museum.

Museums have a duty to the public. It's why they're given non-profit status - because we recognize that they give something back to the community. It's because it allows them to not be beholden to a bottom line - which means that history is much less likely to be "bought".

I had the same reaction to the post on their Facebook page. My first thought after reading it was, "why would they write this? It's not going to help them and only going make them look bad." This issue is not something you "take to the people", or at very least not in this manner. Pissing off the people on the other side of the argument is just going to make the situation even worse.

[p51]

In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with having warbirds as toys. The problem is when that is the situation and yet you claim to be teaching the past and "honoring the veterans". If your primary motivation is entertainment, then it's wrong to claim to be a museum.

But where's the cutoff? I know plenty of 'museums' that seem to be more focused on what some would call entertainment. So many have rides, big theaters and 'happenings' all the time, you have to wonder where that cutoff is.
Heck, I know of several museums that are simply there to be a tax-free shelter for someone's collection. We all know one like that somewhere.
I would assert that the WW2 museum in New Orleans might not meet the definition if you take some things into account, such as all the multi-media stuff, events, all the reproduction items (and there are a lot of them) on display. Especially with that museum, the screaming horde who defend anything said against it (who will tolerate no dissent or ill words about the museum to exist) will say that's an insane argument. Maybe so, but the argument then is under which matter of degree does your cutoff exist? Not open seven days a week? Has a theater in the museum? Have any simulator (or any other type of) rides? A restaurant on the grounds?
Any museum then would exist somewhere on that sliding scale. But where's the line on that scale between, "entertainment venue with some old stuff in the same building," v/s an actual "museum"?

[Noha307]

In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with having warbirds as toys. The problem is when that is the situation and yet you claim to be teaching the past and "honoring the veterans". If your primary motivation is entertainment, then it's wrong to claim to be a museum.

But where's the cutoff? I know plenty of 'museums' that seem to be more focused on what some would call entertainment. So many have rides, big theaters and 'happenings' all the time, you have to wonder where that cutoff is.
Heck, I know of several museums that are simply there to be a tax-free shelter for someone's collection. We all know one like that somewhere.
I would assert that the WW2 museum in New Orleans might not meet the definition if you take some things into account, such as all the multi-media stuff, events, all the reproduction items (and there are a lot of them) on display. Especially with that museum, the screaming horde who defend anything said against it (who will tolerate no dissent or ill words about the museum to exist) will say that's an insane argument. Maybe so, but the argument then is under which matter of degree does your cutoff exist? Not open seven days a week? Has a theater in the museum? Have any simulator (or any other type of) rides? A restaurant on the grounds?
Any museum then would exist somewhere on that sliding scale. But where's the line on that scale between, "entertainment venue with some old stuff in the same building," v/s an actual "museum"?

You're correct that it is both a spectrum and a very difficult question, but that doesn't mean the standard isn't useful.

First, I would point to the fact that you yourself said you "know plenty of 'museums'" that fit the entertainment category. I think you, and most other people, can distinguish between the two categories with common sense. Now, of course, "common sense" isn't a sufficient reason when one is trying to be very exacting and have a high professional standard, but I think it works for a good deal of the more basic discussions.

Second, I would like to clarify my argument. It is completely reasonable that warbirds have some entertainment value - it would be unrealistic to say otherwise. The key is that it is not the primary reason for the museum existing. Since you asked me to draw a line, what I think logically follows from that statement is that no more than 49% of a warbird museum's raison d'etre can be entertainment. Now, as before, I realize that things like this are hard to quantify, but it is not impossible.

Third, you mention that the National WWII Museum has "a lot" of reproduction items. Strictly speaking, that doesn't have much of a bearing on my argument, since it doesn't matter what the artifacts are (i.e. original or reproductions), but with what intent they are presented.

Let me try a few other standards for determining "reputable museum status". I said above:

Museums have a duty to the public. It's why they're given non-profit status - because we recognize that they give something back to the community.

If a museum violates that duty, they are no longer considered a museum. Why did the people behind the museum create it? I would argue that if they were motivated by majority selfish reason, that is to say a reason that is not based on the public's best interest, then it is not a "real museum".

Finally, I could use accreditation as a determinant. Determining legitimate museums is one of the very reasons that the idea of accreditation was created. For example, I think everyone can agree that the Smithsonian is one of the best museums in the country - if not the world. They also have an affiliate program. However, they don't hand out that status to just any museum and the standards are very rigorous. I would respect any museum that earns that status - such as the National World War II Museum. Now, of course, their might be other factors that I am not aware of that could change my opinion, but I find it to be a pretty good barometer.

To return to your question, the bottom line is I don't have a perfect answer to what an acceptable level of "entertainment" is, but I think 49% or less of the primary motivation is a good place to start.