March 28, 2010
Dear Fellow Genealogists:
There is a supplemental Department of Education Appropriations bill that has gone to the Governor for her signature. In that bill there is language that would prevent the library from disposing of the collections. This wording is also in the Department of Education’s budget bill for the next fiscal year. However, there is wording about which we as a community need to be very cautious. It states that the collections need not be made available to the public.
While we are encouraged by the legislators’ reaction to the plight of the Library of Michigan, we would like to remind everyone of a word of warning. There is a saying that says, “Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.” While this wording would keep the collection together at the library, there is nothing in the bill that says when the economy gets better, it would then be available to the public. This language, as currently written, would allow the library to mothball its entire collection. The genealogists would then have another battle on its hands when the economy gets better to open the collections back up to the public.
The MGC wants to inform the community that negotiations are being actively pursued to develop better options including the possibility of moving the collection from the Library over to the State Archives. This would keep the collection available to the public during the hours that the Archives operate. If the collections remained open to the public, then seminars could still take place and bring Michigan those much needed tourism dollars. Private funding could provide additional flexibility.
As Curt Witcher testified on March 15 to the Michigan Center for Innovation and Reinvention Board, Michigan could ride the increase in genealogy and heritage tourism due to the enthusiasm the “Who Do You Think You Are?” television series generates. If the collections are mothballed, then those tourism dollars would instead go elsewhere.
We do not object to this language being in the supplemental appropriations bill for this fiscal year. We consider it premature, however, for the community to endorse specific language for the next fiscal year’s appropriations bills that might have the effect of limiting available options.
Rather, we would suggest that any representations of community endorsement should be limited to urging solutions that would keep the collections in one building, open to the public, and bringing in tourism dollars.
We may be able to recommend more specific measures in a few weeks. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at president@mimgc.org.
Thank you.
Cynthia Grostick, President
