Andrew Colabella is a native Westporter, a Staples High School graduate, and a Representative Town Meeting member. He writes:
On Wednesday, the Westport Museum for History & Culture announced that it must raise $750,000 by January or face potentially drastic changes, including selling the historic Bradley Wheeler House, relocating its collections, and significantly reducing operations.
I am not surprised.
The announcement should concern every Westport resident. But the greater concern is not simply the financial shortfall. It is how an institution entrusted with preserving our town’s history arrived at this point.
Before asking the community for another $750,000, the museum owes that same community transparency, accountability, and an explanation of what went wrong.
In 2020, I publicly expressed concerns about the direction of the former Westport Historical Society. I questioned the removal of historic displays, the treatment of longtime donors and volunteers, and the growing practice of charging residents to access their own community’s history.
More than 6 years later, those concerns have not disappeared. They have become increasingly relevant.
The museum’s transformation was accompanied by controversy. The Sheffer family’s name was removed from the main exhibition gallery, despite generations of financial and civic contributions.
Period rooms were eliminated or repurposed. Historic collections were reorganized, and longtime supporters felt increasingly unwelcome.
After the Westport Historical Society became the Westport Museum for History & Culture, questions arose over the fate of the “Miss Liberty” and “Uncle Sam” kinetic sculptures, created by Westport artists Walter and Naiad Einsel. (Photo/Lynn Untermeyer Miller)
People such as Ann Sheffer, Dorothy Curran, Morley Boyd, Miggs Burroughs, Betsy Pollak, John Suggs, Joanne Woodward, Bill Scheffler and countless others represent something money cannot replace: institutional knowledge, volunteerism, community relationships, and historical continuity.
These individuals and families helped build, support and preserve the institution long before its rebranding.
You cannot alienate the people who helped build an institution, and then express surprise when community support becomes difficult to sustain.
To be fair, the museum has accomplished worthwhile projects, including restoring its historic barn, improving archival management, and expanding educational programming. Those achievements deserve recognition.
But accomplishments do not eliminate the responsibility to demonstrate financial sustainability.
The comments following the “06880” article raise important questions.
Fred Roberts questioned how a $750,000 emergency could emerge with such little public notice. Morley Boyd acknowledged the museum’s improvements while calling for fresh leadership. Ken Stamm described encountering membership requirements when attempting to research historical documents.
These are not unreasonable criticisms. They reflect a fundamental breakdown of confidence between a community institution and some of the people it exists to serve.
And now, with January approaching, residents are being asked to provide an extraordinary amount of money to preserve the museum’s current operating structure.
Three quarters of a million dollars in 80 days? Their problem lies in expenditures. A director’s salary almost doubled in 6 years. The board is just as culpable as the director, to allow such blown out spending to put their mission at risk, history being wiped out and removed, and a town born from the revolutionary war with nothing to show or share.
The Westport Historical Society was a popular spot for educational field trips, to give physical evidentiary proof and exercise to feel, see, and live what and how humanity and society existed in different times. Those rooms are now offices.
For many years, the Jennings Trail guide was available at the Westport Historical Society. Each spring, the WHS sponsored tours of town landmarks for elementary school students.
I believe Westport’s history deserves to be protected. I believe its archives, artifacts, photographs and historic properties must remain accessible to future generations. If donors feel uncomfortable about their artifacts being in the museum’s possession, they have a right to have them back.
The museum would benefit from rebuilding relationships with the families, volunteers, historians and donors who helped sustain it for decades. Preserving the museum and preserving its current management structure are not necessarily the same thing.
Before people donate, the board should provide a complete financial accounting, present a realistic recovery strategy, and engage the community in an open discussion about the institution’s future.
The museum belongs to a historical legacy much larger than any one executive director, board or organizational rebranding. Its mission should be preservation, education, accessibility and public trust.
Choosing between history and demanding accountability from those entrusted with protecting it is not appropriate.
(“06880” Opinion pages are open to all. Email submissions to 06880blog@gmail.com.)
In our experience public confusion is the lifeblood of review delays. As of today, we have seen no articulation of the plan and the stages at which the public can input. We anticipate each relevant committee chair will publish their review plans, in coordination with the 1st selectman’s office. This public review is the wild card in the timing of project completion.
