Kennedy, Edward M.

Pell, Claiborne

English

DigitalCommons@URI

University of Rhode IslandDigitalCommons@URIMuseum Services Act (1984) Education: National Endowment for the Arts andHumanities, Subject Files II (1962-1996)1983Museum Services Act (1984): Correspondence 10Edward M. KennedyClaiborne PellFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/pell_neh_II_45This Correspondence is brought to you for free and open access by the Education: National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, Subject Files II(1962-1996) at DigitalCommons@URI. It has been accepted for inclusion in Museum Services Act (1984) by an authorized administrator ofDigitalCommons@URI. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@etal.uri.edu.Recommended CitationKennedy, Edward M. and Pell, Claiborne, "Museum Services Act (1984): Correspondence 10" (1983). Museum Services Act (1984).Paper 11.http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/pell_neh_II_45/11http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/pell_neh_II_45/11EDWARD M. Ki;NNEDV MASSACHUSETTS Mr. Christopher DeMuth Administrat:Qr WA$HINC?TON, Q.C. ~9510 Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs New EJ<;ecutive Office Building Washingtonj D.C~ 20S03 Dea.r Mr. DeMtith: February 17, 1983 Senator Pell and I would like to express our deep concern regatding the proposed revision of the .Institute of i11useum Servi<;e$ regulations as· published irt the Feder~l kegtster, December 21, 1982. The$e propo~ed Ghanges would have a substantial impact on the museum community and therefo~~ merit careful consideration~ Eligibility fdt tMS awards would be signific•ntly altered in a nµmber of ways. Assistance from the Institute would be limited to 3 yeats in any~succcssivc 5 year perio<l. This inconsistenty in funding woµld re5ult in a decline in the quality and services of mu~eum programs and would establish an arbitrary selection proeess that would preclude consideration of applicants ofi the basis of merit. This represehts a sigrtifitifit change in ratignele for the IMS progtam4 The restricting of Chillertge grantee~ from applying for.IMS funds irt the same year overlooks the acknowledged difference~ among these fundifig sources. ~ach sgµrce ii a distinct and impottint resource for mu$eums. Should this restri~tion be adopted, many museums whieh have already been awarded Chall~nge grants would lose general operating suppo~t ffibfiies in fiscal 1983. Museums would also be in-eligible to apply for both general operating sµpport and spetial project monies in a single year under the ndw qualifications. The .omission in the ptoposed IMS regulations of a ~tated minim.um award for museums that r~port budgets uf1der $50,000 i~ bf great cQncern, a~ the majority of the ffiu~eum co~unity falls under this budget category. Also, the Board would ~eteive the authority to d~termine that funds awarded from IMS be matched with non~fedetal dollars contributed. to the museum for its im1llediately preceding year. Given the current economic state, museums, de~pite aggressive ftihdtaising, woµl<} be forced to substantially reduce or elimiriate pfograms tAthet than seek other economic sources. the new ..rulings would establish a str:i.Gter ~tppr<cHtch to the application process. Fiilute to submit ~equired information at the time df filing would subject an applicant to rejectiort on technical gtoufids without ·consideration on merits. C011Jpl.iance with this reg~latign woµld be partituia~iy difficult in view of another new provision requiring financial statements from applicants ~ho previou~ly teteived IMS funds. We recommend that final provisions reflect la.nguage in the House Al)'pTotn·:i at:i.on Cammi t tee report on FY 198 3 app.rQpria t ions that supports an ~ppeil process ihd application reconsideration. · Finally, we urge the rein~tat~ment 9:f the tMS Emerg(~ncy Grants progta1fi to ensure timely emergency ass:Lstanc~ :for ins ti tµtic;ms that experience catastrophic circumstances. It is our hope that the final regulations will reflect a return to former qualification guidelines and the orig:i6nal IMS intent of encouragement and assistance to the museum community. · Sincerely, 

Museum Services Act (1984): Correspondence 10

University of Rhode IslandDigitalCommons@URIMuseum Services Act (1984) Education: National Endowment for the Arts andHumanities, Subject Files II (1962-1996)1983Museum Services Act (1984): Correspondence 09Edward M. KennedyClaiborne PellFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/pell_neh_II_45This Correspondence is brought to you for free and open access by the Education: National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, Subject Files II(1962-1996) at DigitalCommons@URI. It has been accepted for inclusion in Museum Services Act (1984) by an authorized administrator ofDigitalCommons@URI. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@etal.uri.edu.Recommended CitationKennedy, Edward M. and Pell, Claiborne, "Museum Services Act (1984): Correspondence 09" (1983). Museum Services Act (1984).Paper 12.http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/pell_neh_II_45/12http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/pell_neh_II_45/12.\ EDWARD M. KENNEDY MASSACHUSETTs Ms. Lilla Tower nireGtar· Institute of Museum Services 330 C street, SW Washington, D.C. 2~202 Dear Ms. TQw~r: lll(ASHINGTON, D.C. ZOSIO Pebruary 17, 1983 Sep~tor Pell and I woµld 1ike t6 expres~ out deep concern regarding the proposed. revision ()f the Institute of Museum Services regulations as published in the Federal Register., :December 21, 1982. These proposed changes wou'J..d have E1 substant.:i,~J.. impact on the museum colll.J.llun:i,ty and therefore merit careful consideration. Eligibility for IMS awards w9uld be signific,ntly altered in a number of ways. Assistance from the Institute would be limited to 3 years_ in any successive s year period .. This inconsistency ip funding would result in ' decline in the qµality and services of museum programs and would establish an arbitrary se1ection process that wquld preclude consideration of applicants on the basis of meritj This represents a significant change in rationale for the IMS program. The restricting of Challenge grantees from applying for IMS fiinds in the same yea.t overlooks the acknowledged di:fferenc;es ~mong these :funding sources. Each sour~e is a distinct and important resource for museums. Should this restriction be adopted, many' museums which have already been awarded Challenge grants.would lose general operating support monies in .fis·cal 1983. Museums would also be in-e1igib1e to apply for both general riperating support •nd special project monies in a single year under the new qualifications. The omission in the proposed IMS regulations of a st~te4_minimum award for museums that report budgets under $50,000 is of great con~ern, as the majority of the mµseum community f~ll~ under this Qudget category. Also, the Board wbuld receive the authority to determine that funds awarded from IMS be matched with non-federal dollars contributed to the museum. for· its immedicltely preceding yeat. Gi~ert the current economic state, m~seums, despite aggressive fundrai~ing, would be forced to substaritiallY reduce o.r eliminate progr~ms rather thi:JJl. seek other economic sources. Finally, we utgc the rc:i.ristatcment o:f the IMS l.\mergt~HGY Grant$ progra~ td ensure ti~ely emergeney a~sistartte fot institution$ that experi~:rice c;:c,ttastrophic cJrcl,lmstances. It is our hope that the final regulation§ will f6fl.ett a return to former qualifications guideline$ and the c:>rigionul itftefit Of eneoura~emefit and assistance to the museu-m community. Sincerely, c1~ e Claiborrte15ell .. 

Museum Services Act (1984): Correspondence 09

https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&amp;context=pell_neh_II_45

Museum Services Act (1984): Correspondence 09

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@URI

DigitalCommons@URI