My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historical Commission Agenda and Packet 2011 04 20
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORICAL MUSEUM ADVISORY BOARD (pka HISTORICAL COMMISSION)
>
2006-2019 Historical Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2011 Historical Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historical Commission Agenda and Packet 2011 04 20
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:15:04 PM
Creation date
6/9/2011 4:28:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HCPKT 2011 04 20
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
HistoricalCommission <br />Minutes <br />February 12, 2011 <br />Page 4 of 4 <br />dues, donations, grants, and special events and may where appropriate be pursued in <br />partnership with the City(for example grants with matching funds). <br />The mission of anadvisory board would includeadvisingCityCouncilabout the Museum, <br />beinginvolved in the annual Study Session with City Council,promotingthe Museum, and <br />approvingdonationsto the Museum’s collection.The advisory board would continue to be <br />appointed by City Council. <br />There could be people who are members of both boards who could provide aliaison <br />function. <br />The overall general mission of both boards would be to preserve, interpret and share <br />Louisville’s history and to enrich the overall Louisville community residential, business and <br />visitor experience by doing so, although the two boards would have different functions and <br />would achieve this mission through different activities. <br />C.Getting a clearer picture: <br />There was discussionabout what exactly each board would do using practical examples <br />and current Commissionactivities to gain more clarity. It was noted that the number of <br />people currently serving onthe Commission, which as the largest board or commission in <br />the City is currently 12, would make it possible to divideinto two separate boards. The <br />overall number of meetings held per year would be the same or fewer. The treasury would <br />be held by the fundraising board. Quarterlysalestaxes would be paid by the fundraising <br />side. Membership outreach and renewals would be a fundraising board task. Creating <br />content for the Louisville Historianwould stay with the Museumstaff, but additional pages <br />or sections could be contributed by eitherboard, such as for the purposeof promoting <br />events. The oral history project would continueto be a programadministered by Museum <br />staffand would be funded by the fundraising board.Planning of eventscould be done by <br />both boards as well as bythe Museumstaff. <br />D.Goals: <br />Some Commission members included in their comments what they envision the Louisville <br />Historical Museum to becomein the future and expressed that they would like to see the <br />full use of the campus, a new building for storage of the collection, and more open hours for <br />the public. <br />E. Pros and Cons: <br />Considerations mentioned in favor of changing the structure of the Commissionincluded <br />providing clarity of roles,the potential to have a more active focus both onfundraisingand <br />on advising City Council, the possibility to achieve goals that the Commissionhas so far not <br />been able to achieve, less time spent meeting, potentially more time for productive <br />activities, more ability for members to find a “niche” for their interests, and trying a new <br />approach. <br />Considerations mentioned in oppositionto changing the structure included a possibility for <br />disconnection between the two boards, unnecessary separation of goals, the possibility that <br />an unappointed board might not prioritize the way the appointed board would, and that it <br />might not be necessary. <br />F.Conclusion: <br />No conclusion was reached. Dan Mellish indicated that agendas for future meetings will be <br />restructured in order to differentiate the two roles of the Commission, and a decision of <br />whether to divide into two separate boards will be made at a future time. <br />XV. The next regular meeting is Wednesday, March 16at 6:30 p.m. <br />XVI. Adjourn, 12 noon. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.