Feb.
3, 2004
Board
of Trustees accepts recommendations regarding Peabody Museum’s
future
The
Phillips Academy Board of Trustees approved and accepted the recommendations
included in the following report of the Peabody Planning Committee,
submitted to the board on January 21, 2004. The report recommends
that the school retain the R.S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and
to work to integrate the museum’s collection into the school’s
educational program.
Summary
of recommendations.
PEABODY
PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT TO
THE PHILLIPS ACADEMY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
January 21, 2004
A.
General background
The
purpose of the Robert S. Peabody gift in 1901 was to preserve Mr.
Peabody’s personal collection and to use it to promote the
study of archaeology at Phillips Academy. Although Mr. Peabody specified
a limited curriculum role and discouraged further archaeological
field research, after his death the trustees appointed a special
committee to reconsider the best use of the museum’s sizeable
resources.
This
committee recommended that a “panel of eminent experts”
be invited to review the Peabody and to make recommendations concerning
its future. In 1914 a report prepared by several of the foremost
scholars of the time was submitted to the Board of Trustees. Acknowledging
that the academy would not expand the role of archaeology in the
classroom, the most important recommendation was to develop an external
research program. A.V. Kidder was hired and his excavation of Pecos
Pueblo from 1915 to 1929 provided the academy with its largest and
most important archaeological collection.
Other
excavations followed and from 1938 to 1978 the Peabody Foundation
for Archaeological Research emerged as a preeminent archaeological
research institution in the United States. Regrettably, the increase
in professional stature was not paralleled by proportionate growth
in financial assets. A growing divide between the goals of the academy
and the Peabody was exacerbated by difficulties with the Peabody’s
finances. Following the departure of its fifth director in 1982,
the museum entered a period of dormancy. It was reopened in 1990.
During
the 1990s there was a shift from fieldwork to public outreach at
the Peabody. Although the museum aggressively re-built its external
programs, less success was achieved in establishing programmatic
connections with its parent institution and in securing the support
necessary for stabilizing the museum’s finances. The recent
economic downturn again brought the Peabody to the brink of closure
in 2001.
(1)
B. Appointment and Charge
At
its spring meeting in 2002, the Phillips Academy Board of Trustees
accepted the recommendation of the 2001-02 Peabody Planning and
Assessment committee (precursor of the present body) to allow the
Peabody to continue operations through June 2004 with a small staff
and annual budget. The Board also authorized the appointment of
the Peabody Planning Committee to explore and develop options for
the future of the museum.
In
September, 2002, Rebecca Sykes, Acting Head of School while Barbara
Chase was on sabbatical, appointed the committee and charged it
with making its recommendations to the Board in January, 2004. She
asked the committee to consider the following questions:
(2)
C. Membership and meetings:
Co-chaired
by Charter Trustee Sandy Urie ’70 and Dean of Studies Vincent
Avery, the committee’s thirteen additional members are drawn
from the academy community and professional museum and archaeological
circles. Committee members were aided by the April 2002 Report from
the Peabody Planning and Assessment Committee in approaching their
charge. The present committee has not presumed to repeat that work
as it serves as the foundation upon which its recommendations rest
and as essential reading to more fully understand the conclusions
presented below.
The
full body broke into subcommittees to investigate education, finances,
the building, alternative management models and the collections.
Teleconferenced deliberations from September 2002 to January 2004
culminated with the present report, which responds to each item
of the charge and presents thirteen recommendations.
(3)
D. Response to the charge:
1.
Does the Academy wish to integrate the Robert S. Peabody museum
further into its curriculum and activities? And if so, to what extent?
Yes.
The
committee acknowledges the significant contributions to archaeological
field research made by the Peabody Foundation for Archaeological
Research in the last century following the recommendations of the
1914 Advisory Committee. However, in the light of the academy’s
present statement of purpose and its educational program, considering
the resources available, and in keeping with the purposes of Mr.
Peabody’s gift and the fiduciary responsibilities attendant
to it, we believe that the Peabody Museum will be best served if
it reorients its activities to focus on the education of Phillips
Academy students and faculty.
The
committee understands that the motivation for greater academy use
of the Peabody’s resources must come from classroom teachers,
academic departments and the residential program rather than from
the museum itself. We also recognize that the brisk pace of faculty
life and decades of limited interaction between the Peabody and
the academy pose obstacles. Still, there are instructors in science,
history, art, English, and the residential course “Life Issues”,
who are increasingly interested in strengthening connections with
the Peabody. Collaboration with these faculty has already resulted
in the reworking of previous collections-based curriculum units
and the development of new ones.
Although
we are not yet able to determine the degree of involvement the program
will eventually demonstrate, the committee anticipates that the
museum’s faculty supporters will substantially influence the
scope and direction of the Peabody’s educational program.
The
museum’s greatly increased participation in the workduty program
has served to introduce 10th and 11th graders (between 40 and 45
each term) to the museum. Although the primary task of these students
is to assist with the ongoing collections inventory, staff make
an effort to break up the work with interesting and enjoyable activities
such as learning to throw a modern version of the ancient “atlatl,”
a stick used by the Aztecs and other cultures to throw spears. Some
students genuinely seem to value their workduty experience.
2.
What constitutes a program that is both educationally and financially
viable? Also what levels of support would such a program require?
The
committee believes that incorporating the Peabody into the academic
structure of the school will provide appropriate support and oversight
for matters pertaining to the collection, the educational program,
the operating budget, the endowed funds and the building. At the
same time we recognize that the Board, acting with the advice of
the head of school and the deans council, retains ultimate responsibility.
In
our opinion, changing the reporting structure will significantly
enhance the process. We recommend that, like the director of the
Oliver Wendell Holmes Library and directors of other departments
supporting the academic program, the Peabody director report to
the Dean of Studies.
Oversight
of the Peabody’s educational programming should become the
responsibility of a standing faculty committee composed of interested
teachers and chaired by the Peabody director, with the Dean of Studies
ex officio. This education program oversight committee would
develop a mission statement for the educational program (to be submitted
to the Board’s Education Committee for approval) that is consistent
with the recommendations in this report.
Committee
members expressed concern about ensuring a future for the Peabody
that is free of problematic finances and management. Providing the
Peabody director with very clear objectives and responsibilities
designed to keep operations within realistic parameters emerged
as a positive solution. Close cooperation with other departments
on campus, especially the Comptroller and OAR, is also recommended.
The
committee believes that a modest campaign could raise endowment
sufficient to offset much of the operating expenses for a small
and tightly controlled operation. At present, the Peabody meets
its obligations with minimal staff and an extremely spare program
budget. In time, it is hoped that endowment will provide the income
for a less bare-bones operation.
The
Peabody will continue to manage the collection with the assistance
of students in the workduty pool and unpaid interns from local colleges
and universities. The development of collections-based curriculum
units will continue to be extremely cost-effective. Teleconferencing
and email minimizes committee expenditures. In sum, cost projections
envision a flat operating budget for several years while the Peabody
addresses more immediate plans for increasing its endowment.
3.
What would the proposed program imply for the collection? What portion
of the collection does the program require and what would the associated
costs be to the Peabody for maintaining all or part of the collection?
With
the advice of counsel, the committee agreed that prudent stewardship
of the Peabody gift, including acceptance of the accompanying fiduciary
responsibilities and adherence to professional standards of museum
curation, recommends retention of the collection as an educational
resource of Phillips Academy, and for its integration into the school’s
wider educational program.
This
action does not preclude use of the Peabody by the Native American,
archaeological, scholarly and museum communities, nor by the general
public—with the caveat that object displays and public programming
must be undertaken only insofar as the appropriate financial resources
are assured.
The
committee recognizes the need to keep the collection accessible
(presently by appointment) to legitimate external audiences. This
action fosters good will, complies with federal and state laws regulating
management of Native American collections, opens the doors to unique
experiential education for our students and encourages positive
relationships with active non-academy supporters such as “The
Friends of the Peabody.”
The
committee proposes that a collections oversight committee be established
to consult with museum staff on accessions, deaccessions, displays
and loans of the Peabody’s holdings. This body would include
representatives from the Native American, museum and scholarly communities,
as well as members of the faculty, administration and the Board
of Trustees. The new committee, chaired by the director, would convene
regularly and submit its recommendations to the Board.
4.
What are the implications for the building? Would the proposed program
require use of the entire existing building? Would the proposed
program require additional or reconfigured space?
The
committee recommends that the academy continue using the Peabody
building as a principal means of fulfilling the purpose for which
the gift was given. It is further suggested that the Peabody building
be added to the strategic planning agenda of the academy in order
to integrate the planning for the Peabody Museum within the broader
academy strategic plan approval.
The
Peabody’s collection storage, and work and display areas presently
fill the building. None of these activities is expected to require
additional or reconfigured space. Discussions with OPP about building
systems suggest that significant renewal will not be needed for
three to five years, giving the museum time to devise a plan to
secure the resources for renovation.
5.
What steps need to be taken to implement the proposed plan?
The
committee’s response to this last question is the recommendations
that are presented below. Some summarize the preceding discussion;
others not addressed in the original charge were developed through
committee deliberation.
E.
Recommendations
The
Peabody Planning Committee recommends:
