Cut Backs

According to an article in The Columbus Dispatch (Mark Niquette, “Society Board: 26 Jobs History”, April 12, 2008, pp. B1-B2), the Ohio Historical Society (OHS) is discharging 26 employees; curtailing its operations at its main facility, the Ohio Historical Center (OHC) in Columbus, from six days a week to four; and cutting hours at many of its 52 state-wide sites. Moreover, 21 open positions will not be filled and 49 current employees will be working fewer hours per week.

These cut backs are the result of a $2 million deficiency in OHS’s annual budget. This short fall, which accounts for approximately nine percent of the Society’s annual budget, has been primarily caused by the state legislature’s failure to support the OHS. State funding for the OHS accounts for nearly 60 percent of their total budget, according to the OHS Annual Report (2007). The State began reducing their support for the OHS in 2000 and there is no indication at present that either political party or the governor will reverse this trend.

The reduction in operating hours at the OHC adversely impacts my research on the Warren G. Harding papers and research for a proposed book on the history of the Ohio National Guard. The OHS Archives, which is essential for my research, is open only three days a week (Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday) eight hours each day.

These limited hours for research affect not just the scholarly researcher but every Ohio citizen who has a need or an interest in any of the OHS Archives holdings. Moreover, reduced hours at the other OHS locations severely diminishes the Society’s state-wide educational mission.

Regrettably, news stories about reduced funding for research, scholarship, education, historic preservation, or libraries and archives are no longer novel.

Comments

Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
20 April, 2008
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Scholarly Apparatus in a Popular History Book

In a recent post I called attention to three history books that were based on primary sources and, through the scholarly apparatus, let the reader check the interpretation against the sources. Moreover, all three books contributed a new and deeper understanding of their subjects and a provided fresh interpretations. The direct relationship between the usefulness of the interpretation and the reliance on primary sources is unavoidable. Let us consider a recent history book that was well reviewed and successful in the market place that did not contribute a new and deeper understanding or suggested a fresh interpretation: David Halberstam, The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War (New York: Hyperion), 2007. Halberstam was a long-time, successful journalist, a capable narrative writer, and winner of many awards. He was intelligent, a good interviewer, and an above average writer. The book is based mostly on secondary sources with a few author interviews. Halberstam’s book has 20
Read more

Veteran's Day 2009

A good friend with whom I served in Southeast Asia (SEA) in 1968 and 1969, made, during a recent email conversation, an observation about many in the draftee Army of that era. He wrote that many of the men with whom we served were draftees (as he was; I was RA and we were both enlisted) were upset about being drafted, being in the Army, and being in SEA. They resented that their lives and careers had not only been interrupted, but put on hold; that they had been placed in conditions that were at worst very dangerous and at best very miserable. Many, such as my friend, were college graduates who wanted to get on with the careers. Many had some college or technical school and wanted to complete their degree. Many were married or engaged and wanted to move on with their personal lives. They all had lives that markedly differed from the Army’s agenda. However, my friend went on to write that the vast majority of those with whom he served no matter how much they hated the Army, hated being
Read more

Lincoln's Walk

In September 2007 my wife, Ginny, and I took a “busman’s holiday” to Richmond, Virginia. Our plan was to trace Lincoln’s 1865 visit to Richmond and to travel the route of V Corps, Army of the Potomac, from Petersburg to Appomattox Court House. Let me discuss the Richmond visit first. James W. Loewen in his splendid book, Lies Across America: What Our Historic Sites Get Wrong (Simon & Schuster: New York), 1999, describes President Lincoln’s walking tour of Richmond, Virginia, 4 April 1865 (pp. 310-317). Five days later, General Lee would surrender at Appomattox Court House. Ten days after his walk, President Lincoln would be dead from assassination. Loewen provides a detailed account of the walk including a map, which we used to re-trace Lincoln’s steps (p. 311). In his book Loewen also noted that there were no historical markers indicating the landing site on the James River or the walk itself. Moreover, he was unable to find a brochure or a map that gave a self-guided tour of
Read more