Partly Cloudy   70.0F
Bookmark and Share Email this page Email Print this page Print Feed Feed

Saving History

The Charlotte Museum of History was flying high in the late 1990s, with a brand-new building and scads of donors. But it fell on hard times and closed earlier this spring. In a city that some say doesn’t value history, can the museum find its way again?

Docent Robert Bemis fires a musket outside the 1774 Hezekiah Alexander House, a beautifully preserved structure that stands on the museum’s grounds.

Docent Robert Bemis fires a musket outside the 1774 Hezekiah Alexander House, a beautifully preserved structure that stands on the museum’s grounds.

Logan Cyrus

On a warm Saturday evening in September, three food trucks lined the driveway of the Charlotte Museum of History’s packed parking lot, and curious guests attending an open house were directed by upbeat, smiling museum volunteers:

That noise? That’d be the muskets. Head over to the Hezekiah Alexander House to see the docents in costume, you don’t want to miss that. But maybe you’d like to start inside, with the exhibits? You’re free to roam and see everything we have. Don’t forget to go upstairs. And we’d love to hear from you during the community forums; the next one’s starting in fifteen minutes.

Inside the sunny conference room, interim museum director Kathy Ridge, giving a community forum presentation, is on the fourth screen of her PowerPoint: “Financial History.”

Speaking to a group of fifteen, Ridge runs down a list of long-ago administrators, from the Daughters of the American Revolution and the Mint Museum, to city government and the county Parks and Recreation Department. She clicks over to the fifth slide. “Financial Crisis Point.”

From the back row, Sheryl Jacoppo raises her hand with a question. She pauses, as if to explain herself.

“I used to work here,” Jacoppo says.

The open house, with all its cheer, wasn’t the September bash the museum had planned to hold.

Awarded a delegate welcoming party during the Democratic National Con-vention—an extraordinary historic moment for Charlotte—the museum should have been basking in an unprecedented opportunity to show off the grand vaulted ceilings, the custom staircase, and most of all, the story of the city.

But the Charlotte Museum of History wouldn’t or couldn’t be kept open, not even long enough for the convention. When it closed in May because of financial difficulties, staff members like Jacoppo had already been laid off, and the museum has been reorganizing since. The delegate party was reassigned, as if the museum had been whisked away by a vaudeville hook from stage right.

When ground broke fifteen years ago on the gleaming white, 36,000-square-foot, $7 million museum building off Shamrock Drive, replacing a small building that once served as a quaint welcome center to visitors bound for the historic Hezekiah Alexander house, six-figure checks were coming in from donors. The new museum building made a statement: We’re an institution, here to do big, serious, permanent things.   

A lot led to the museum’s closing. Talk to people who’ve been involved with the museum at some point and you’ll find heartstrings wrapped around the buildings, the grounds, the memories made there, and perhaps most of all, the dazzle of potential.

But history, especially American history, is full of multiple acts. Fans want to find a way to make it possible for the museum to come back, stronger and wiser this time. And in the process, they’re going to be answering an unforgiving question: In a city known for bulldozing its own history and an obsession with the future, are people willing to commit to this place once and for all?

 

No one wants a museum to stumble. That’d be like cheering for a public library’s closure, or reduced benefits for injured veterans. To do so would fall somewhere between unseemly and unpatriotic. Perhaps that’s part of why when Charlotte magazine spoke with nearly two dozen people with ties to the museum for this piece—some with old ties, some new, some on a volunteer level, others paid staff—there was one common thread: People answered questions with nostalgic sighs. They launched into stories about the good times. They asked whether the magazine had uncovered any promising updates pointing toward a swift, vibrant recovery.

Several described themselves as wistfully waiting for a call saying it’s time to come back. “The docent corps was very strong until about six months before the closing,” says Jim Williams, treasurer of the Mecklenburg Historical Association. “A lot of these people are still standing around asking: ‘What happened?’”

The concept for the museum and grounds was launched in the 1940s, as an effort by the DAR to restore the Hezekiah Alexander House. (Alexander was a signer of the controversial Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence.)

In the years that followed, unofficial tours began, and then in 1976, a small welcome center and museum was built. By 1990, a private foundation then named after the homesite took over administration and raised more than $3 million for an endowment. The 1990s were a decade of momentum, excitement, and ambitious ideas; supporters began talking about a much larger, iconic, artifact-collecting museum. By 1999, they had one.

But still, challenges nagged. The museum, many people say, didn’t build a reputation as the place to experience the story of Charlotte. The exhibits didn’t always tell a clear, compelling narrative of the city, and the museum faltered by never picking one path and committing to it. In one room, there was a display of equipment from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg police department. In another, a diorama of the city before it was developed. The exhibits were popular on their own but made for an incongruous whole. Just out back, on a path leading to the historic home, there’s a bell meant to remind people of major moments in Charlotte’s past. Unlike the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia, which had a supporting role in real events, the “American Freedom Bell,” a gift from the Belk Foundation in 1999, is meant only to “symbolize the patriotic heritage of the people of Charlotte.” Pretty? Sure. But something was missing.

Some felt the museum should focus on pre–Civil War history, both to reflect the museum’s Revolutionary heritage and to avoid encroaching on Levine Museum of the New South, which opened in 1991 and which most everyone agreed has nailed 1865 through the present in a concise and engaging way. A strategic plan, which the history museum commissioned in 2007 for $193,000 (a gift from a patron), recommended telling the story of all three centuries and not viewing 1865 as some sort of artificial line; the board agreed.

Still, ten former employees or volunteers, independent of each other, used the same phrase when describing the museum leadership’s biggest misstep: You can’t be all things to all people.

Some worried visitors to a Southern museum expected more about the Civil War, in which Charlotte didn’t play a pivotal role. Others felt recent programming focusing on new immigrant groups received far too much emphasis.

There were leadership issues, too: the director position at the museum turned over five times in the last dozen years. The most recent director, Angelica Docog, left the museum to run the Institute for Texan Cultures in San Antonio. Docog would not comment for this piece.

But Ridge says the museum’s problems aren’t limited to internal issues—research shows that Americans are losing interest in history, she says.

Local attorney Scott Syfert, a cofounder and vice chair of the May 20th Society (another Mecklenburg County history appreciation group), doesn’t buy that. Syfert says thousands of people have either taken part in the city’s just-launched Liberty Walk uptown or attended the 2010 unveiling of the Captain James Jack statue on the corner of Fourth Street and Kings Drive.

“In the last ten years, [the museum’s] market share has been gradually eroded by uptown museums like the Levine, the Bechtler, and really focused groups, like the greenway project [the Mecklenburg Trail of History, along the Little Sugar Creek greenway],” Syfert says. “Like any business, they need to retool their plan.”

In 2011, 22,403 people visited the museum, compared to Latta Planta-tion’s 35,941 and Levine Museum of the New South’s 68,802 visitors, according to the Arts & Science Council.

 

We invite your responses and discussion. Please refrain from personal attacks, profanity, commercial promotion, or non sequiturs.

Reader Comments:
Old to new | New to old
Oct 30, 2012 02:53 am
 Posted by  Susan Benton

History does still sell, the problem primary has been Ms. Ridge and Angela Docog, two of the Directors. And if they are thinking of an interactive exhibits - now that is really historical (about 1995, very passe, and very expensive to buy and maintain, plus they often break down). But then I don't know who is a bigger dolt Ridge or Turk-Meena who both bear responsibility for the failure of this museum and for the hiring of Ms. Docog who is a failed academic, not too bright, and a very unpleasant to deal with. There is nothing wrong with a hush-hush atmosphere at a museum - having kids running all over (which is very often the case when the bring in loads of public school kids) will drive away home-schoolers and adults.

You don't necessarily need a full time person to book events - but you do need someone who works full time when they are there. The only thing that building is good for is events and not having it booked full-time was a major mistake. Another mistake was not asking multiple archivists and curators for their input before the building was put up. This article does address these two issues but does not make it sufficiently clear how bad it really is. There was a serious lack of competency on the part of board members, the architect, archivist,curator and events planners.

This museum needs to replace the entire board with people who actually understand history and museums, not some crony history professors who know nothing about museums either. And this provides a spendid opportunity for some investigative journalism in Charlotte - if only someone will dare take a stand.

Oct 31, 2012 02:06 am
 Posted by  Eve

I am a retired museum professional and what shines through this article is the defensiveness of the directors and the incompetence of the board and staff. To have had all that money available and not put up a quality storage/exhibit space. To have invested in a showy bldg meant for rentals and yet not be fully supporting a rental program to bring in money. This is sheer idiocy.

It is very interesting that the last museum director, Ms. Docog refused to comment, yet when she was there she took the museum away from their mission statement, spent money like water, and with very little investigation I discovered that she hired people with no experience, straight out of college (or still in college)to do jobs for which they had no experience or training.

Why spend money for consultants then ignore their advice? Why not ask questions of experienced museum people BEFORE building? And why not listen to them?

The museum location is not the problem - the problem is the directors (Ridge had her chance, and now she is going to make things better!!!) and the board. All this rubbish about interactive exhibits is just rubbish. People go to museums to see authentic stuff. The Civil War may be big in the south, but the Revolutionary War is very important to American history and that still sells. Ridge should go.

Nov 2, 2012 10:30 am
 Posted by  cltparent75

I enjoyed taking my kids to the museum and participating in a couple of their classes. The museum exhibits were sometimes helpful when my kids were working on a school project. I was disappointed to see a turn from colonial history to world history. In my opinion, people (especially out of town visitors) came to see the original history of Charlotte, not current history of new immigrants. At one event I asked the person at the reception desk why they were having exhibits about China and the Philipines & he said it was a new direction and that the museum director's heritage was from the Philipines. It makes me wonder why the board would bring in someone who is clearly interested in promoting her own background and not the history of the area. Once I saw this was her possible agenda I never had any interest in going back. I hope a new board will take more of an interest in how this museum is run because it ultimately lies with the board to make the museum a success. If what the previous poster (Eve) said is true, hopefully they will hire experienced, qualified people next time.

Nov 2, 2012 09:21 pm
 Posted by  Charlotte

Please define history. It appears that the detractors and condemners see history as starting with European-descent colonization and should subsequently only track and tell that one-colored version. For all the hoopla about Charlotte embracing other cultures, that's just smoke and mirrors. Reality is that when this organization presented some perspectives of the diverse populations that are part of the fabric of this community it was considered "confusing." Open your eyes and minds, your story is not the only one. These are your neighbors, and you deny them the ability to share their story because they weren't here 200 years ago. Guess what, neither were you. And why is Charlotte's "early" history so sacred? Hezekiah Alexander and his cohorts enslaved other humans. Seriously, this is what you want to celebrate May 20th Society? For shame.

If you don't like what a cultural institution is doing, then don't go. The symphony's program not to your taste? Stay home. Not interested in the latest retrospective at an art museum? Go somewhere else. Why is anyone taking it as a personal affront that this museum presented exhibits and programs they weren't interested in attending? And, it would appear the financial problems had nothing to do with public offerings. So even if they focused on a narrow-minded version of history, the result would be the same. But hey, who doesn't like to kick something when it's down?

Nov 4, 2012 01:26 pm
 Posted by  Eve

No one said history was limited to a certain time/place. But this museum should be - that's all. Charlotte, like every museum must have a purpose and goal and it cannot embrace everything. That the museum embraced the history (which is European descent colonization) of Charlotte was only appropriate. After all they do have the Alexaner house, and from what I can tell they are very honest and up front about the fact that he did enslave others (who by the way were sold into slavery by other Africans). So what is the problem? It isn't about celebrating slavery.

The objection is that this museum was like a 12 year old who changes hobbies every month. And out of towners come to see the history of Charlotte - not the history and culture of places outside the USA. Other museums do that well and that is just fine. What is being 'kicked' is the incompetence of the board and staff of this museum who seemed to want the museum to be something it wasn't - a showcase for every ethnic group represented (or not) among the current Charlotte population. It really isn't that hard to understand, they did a bad job and now the museum is looking around trying to figure out what they did wrong (start with Ms. Docog and Ms. Ridge but I digress). The tragedy is that this museum could still be open, and doing well, but for the bad judgement of the board and the directors.

Add Your Comment