Thank you Councilor Neitzert for your well thought out comments and your research into this subject. I, too (along with many others) , wish for this collection to be kept by the city. I'm a little surprised that more thought wasn't put into the original decision in the first place. It seems obvious that advice from well known natural history organizations should have been looked into before making the original decision to close the exhibit.
Well said Councilor and well thought out. We owe it to the City to take all of these steps responsibly. Whether or not we can save the collection (and I think we can) we must try our best.
Rather than look back and "point fingers" I truly hope we can look forward realizing that we have an amazing collection that the City made "moral commitments" when it accepted the donation and the money "in trust" that went with it for its maintenance. Councilor Neitzert has laid out what appears to be a very reasonable plan to move forward getting truly expert opinions on the value, condition, and future. I have confidence that all our elected leaders can come together with a plan that is widely supported. If we fail at this it seems to me that it sends a potentially loud message to others who may be considering future bequests/gifts to our City and greater community organizations that their original intent could, in a few years, be cast away and abandoned without broad acceptance of the reasons. Over the years we all have been so blessed by literally billions of dollars in cash and property donated by benefactors who entrusted their "dreams and desires" to the present and future residents. Again, let's look ahead with community unity and "do the right thing."
The reckless decision-making that brought this issue to this point is an embarrassment. From the reporting to-date, it sounds like city officials relied more on in-house lawyers than world-class subject matter experts in the field of museum conservatorship (if at all). It sounds like there is still reluctance to get qualified “second opinions.” If so, that signals that the decision has already been made, the outcome predetermined and all that’s left is “PR spin.”
Thank you Councilor Neitzert for your well thought out comments and your research into this subject. I, too (along with many others) , wish for this collection to be kept by the city. I'm a little surprised that more thought wasn't put into the original decision in the first place. It seems obvious that advice from well known natural history organizations should have been looked into before making the original decision to close the exhibit.
Well said Councilor and well thought out. We owe it to the City to take all of these steps responsibly. Whether or not we can save the collection (and I think we can) we must try our best.
Rather than look back and "point fingers" I truly hope we can look forward realizing that we have an amazing collection that the City made "moral commitments" when it accepted the donation and the money "in trust" that went with it for its maintenance. Councilor Neitzert has laid out what appears to be a very reasonable plan to move forward getting truly expert opinions on the value, condition, and future. I have confidence that all our elected leaders can come together with a plan that is widely supported. If we fail at this it seems to me that it sends a potentially loud message to others who may be considering future bequests/gifts to our City and greater community organizations that their original intent could, in a few years, be cast away and abandoned without broad acceptance of the reasons. Over the years we all have been so blessed by literally billions of dollars in cash and property donated by benefactors who entrusted their "dreams and desires" to the present and future residents. Again, let's look ahead with community unity and "do the right thing."
Well put and thoughtful Greg!
Good for you Greg!! One bright spot. The world now knows where this valuable collection resides.
Save the collection. Keep it in Sioux Falls. Make it even better!!!
The reckless decision-making that brought this issue to this point is an embarrassment. From the reporting to-date, it sounds like city officials relied more on in-house lawyers than world-class subject matter experts in the field of museum conservatorship (if at all). It sounds like there is still reluctance to get qualified “second opinions.” If so, that signals that the decision has already been made, the outcome predetermined and all that’s left is “PR spin.”
Who would have benefited from obtaining ownership of the specimens?
they wanted to get rid of it, plain and sumple. the arsenic tests were just a scare tactic to back that decision.