DISCUSIÓN DE LOS RESULTADOS

Described on its web site as a “sub business of the Swan Hill Rural City Council” the attraction appears to be almost entirely dependant on local government for recurrent funding. From its origins in 1963, its relationship with variously constituted councils has been tenuous at best. As a council bureaucrat and directly involved in the operation of the museum observes “The Pioneer Settlement has been in defensive mode for a long, long, time” [SPC1].

Akin to Sovereign Hill, it began its life as a community project in 1963 but was ultimately ceded to the then city council because; in the community view it had become too big for the community to operate [with] volunteers. The village was in turn placed

By 1984, however, it had begun to run at a deficit and came under increasing pressure to justify its existence. The absence of any systems for even the tabulation of visitor numbers made budgeting and planning an impossibility. Anecdotally, at least there was a general reluctance on the part of government to provide further funding.

Amalgamation of many rural councils in 1992 resulted in the Settlement returning to the control of the newly constituted Swan Hill Rural City Council from what had previously been a community board of management established under section 86 of the local government Act (1992). Effectively what this meant was a centralisation of control within council with the incoming CEO assuming direct responsibility based on his apparent perception that the Settlement was literally ‘haemorrhaging money’. Anecdotally this was not, at least an overstatement.

Despite the commitment of a small band of people, many of whom are still involved today, the absence of money for maintenance, curatorial, or capital works resulted in the Settlement falling into decay.

So began a period of dependence on local government which in the view of many people has severely retarded the success of the attraction. According to a number of stakeholders involved in the interview process, the problem has been exacerbated by a lack of clear direction, and to some extent disagreement, as to whether the Settlement is a ‘theme park’ or a museum.

Given that the latter category is a traditional recipient of public funding, and the former generally considered a commercial enterprise, the distinction becomes critical. Many respondents considered that this remains an unresolved issue despite the Settlement recently appending the word ‘museum’ to its operating title.

As early as 1995 there is evidence of a significant division of opinion amongst councillors of the time over the definitional problem. Although many felt that that the responsibility vested in the protection and conservation of local heritage was inescapable, there was a reluctance to ascribe the title museum [anecdotally because of the funding implications], and an almost equally strong conviction that it should not promote itself as a theme park which, in the view of many had connotations of ‘false’.

In reflecting on the events of the last eight years, site management [SPS1] observes that there has been a gradual shift towards designating the Settlement as a museum. “I think that when the council finally decided it was a museum and not a theme park [it was a significant turning point], in that it had “professional connotations” with respect to collections management and a “professional attitude”.

Such a change of direction culminated in 2002 with the Settlement being moved from the business arm of council to the cultural arm, which, although a significant shift appears not to have substantially changed council’s attitude to funding. One respondent’s observation perhaps best depicts the current mood.

I mean they made a decision it was a museum but they wanted it to be a museum that made money. There are still council members who think that it should be self funding but the bulk of council understand that its like the library, the gallery and the performing arts in that you need to contribute, it will produce money in the community but it needs to have back up. [SPS1]

According to SPS1, there was even a push to gain museum accreditation which may have opened the way for grant funding from other sources than council.

Many respondents felt that such an attitudinal shift, although at the mercies of inevitable changes in council composition, represents a glimmer of hope. That said, it should be observed that as recently as 2005 there was still discussion amongst council and Settlement staff as to threatened closure.

There have been direct attempts to place the site on a more commercial footing including a somewhat ambitious plan in 1995 which saw council entering into a joint venture with William Angliss Institute of TAFE which, by agreement was to operate the Settlement as a training facility for tourism and hospitality students. This was unfortunately short lived and once again the Settlement returned to direct council control.

Although the precise history of the Settlement from its inception to the present day was elusive, mainly because of differing perspectives of events, and the attrition of key stakeholders, the recurring theme appears to be an inescapable dependence on local

It is perhaps for the same reason that management of the site has been, at best inconsistent with little if any line of continuity. This has, and will continue to present a significant barrier given the dichotomous priorities of council and on-site management. Even the priorities of on-site management have lacked consistency over time with successive incumbents having either a management or curatorial background but rarely, if ever, both. Indeed as SPC1 observes “it didn’t matter what calibre of management you put in the Settlement, the systems weren’t there for a person to manage”. It is also worth observing that council has frequently designated responsibility within council for the overall operation of the site to people with little of no expertise in the area.

Since the research interviews by intent captured as wide a variety of stakeholders as possible, it is of note that almost without exception most viewed these issues as significant barriers yet there appears to be little resolve to address them. Most felt that council’s attitude is largely born of constituent pressure. Despite a broader community that is generally “very supportive of the Pioneer Settlement” as SPC1 expresses it “they just don’t want to know how much it costs”.

As a former member of the community committee which operated under government mandate observed “we have to justify why it is we’re having to cough up 350-400 thousand per year. That’s four percent; you know four percent increase every year in our rate payer’s money” [SPO1].

The link between the fortunes of the Settlement and community attitudes was palpable. As SPS1 observes “when it started to struggle, the community started to criticise, and the more the community criticised [the greater the pressure on council to justify resource allocation]”.

It may therefore seem somewhat trite to suggest that the Settlement should invigorate attempts to engage with the local community although there was some consensus that communicating the ‘worth’ of the site as a community resource would go at least some way towards overcoming community opposition. This appeared to be a current management direction. “We’ve actually been going through the process of community consultation because we want to put together a future vision. I see this as a cultural asset that the community should utilise” [SPS1].

A worthwhile direction in this area may be a greater utliisation of the community as a volunteer workforce. This not only has the potential to engage with a larger proportion of local residents but would have the added benefit of enhancing the interactivity of the site. With barely 50 active volunteers, bringing such a large and extensive collection ‘to life’ presents significant challenges. Further, since the site is desperately in need of greater levels of interactivity and engagement with visitors, the need to build a volunteer workforce is accentuated.

It is perhaps the breadth of the Settlement’s collection that makes this problematic. Unlike Sovereign Hill, that deliberately restricts its interpretive framework to just ten years; the Settlement depicts ‘pioneer life’ over more than a century, resulting in a disparate and sometimes confusing collection of themes. If anything, this increases the necessity to offer strong interpretation but equally it dissipates the possibility of strong scholarship in the level and sophistication of delivery.

Earlier discussion with respect to the appointment of a curator, and to the gradual move to the nomenclature of ‘museum’, has the potential to address these challenges. In some respects, however, this shift may be simply perpetuating the divide between profit orientation and curatorial priorities as once again the pendulum swings to the latter focus. Given that the reconciliation of these two objectives is seen as central to successful operation, this may be problematic.

From a positive perspective, current management’s vision for the future of the site appears set to bring with it a new wave of innovation. The fact that the Settlement’s collection has been gathered in a more or less incremental fashion, and that the Settlement has had little in the way of major innovation since early initiatives with the Sound and Light performance, and restoration of the paddle steamer “Gem’, suggests that the site has lacked the kind of innovation that generates and maintains consumer focus.

Unlike other attractions that hold the process of constant re-invention as central to the maintenance of market appeal, the Settlement’s inability or inclination to engage in this process has been yet another impediment to growth and survival. This is not to say that current management is not cognisant of the need for currency. As SPS1 observes, “I think cultural organisations need to reinvent constantly because your visitor profile is

widespread doubt as to the likelihood of being able to meet this objective given budget constraints.

What the site needs, according to SPS1, is a major infrastructure project that “includes a conservation restoration area and archive and an exhibition space so that we can then start doing internal exhibitions, telling the story, and also get traveling exhibitions because you find that people in this region don’t get access to lots of things that happen in the major centers”. Whilst this seems unlikely given funding pressures, the shift towards classification as a museum opens new opportunities for external funding by way of grants from bodies such as Arts Victoria.

Unlike Sovereign Hill, which has enjoyed considerable success in this area, there appears to have little effort or success in applying for such grants. Although there has been a shift in this direction in recent times anecdotally early applications have been refused on the grounds that ‘you don’t have the council behind you’. Many respondents viewed this as being distinctly problematic given that without major funds for innovation the Settlement’s ability to generate recurrent funding is correspondingly diminished. That this in turn exacerbates reliance on council completes a ‘vicious circle’ from which the Settlement appears unable and unlikely to extricate itself.

Despite the limitations imposed by this seeming litany of operational issues the simple destiny of the site rests on its ability to maintain and build its market share. Not only are visitation levels declining but there is some consensus that the site has little knowledge of potential markets beyond those of a local or domestic nature. Although there are reasonably accurate data as to raw visitor numbers, any demographic or geo-demographic information is virtually non existent. One external stakeholder commented that “[they] have no knowledge of the tourism market” [SPO1]

This may in part be a product of the Settlement’s apparent inability to forge critical alliances with key industry bodies. Taking the case of Sovereign Hill, the market intelligence and support flowing from its close relationship with Tourism Victoria is demonstrative of the point. There even appears to be some degree of animosity which has certainly not been conducive to a collaborative relationship. Comments similar to the following demonstrated a degree of frustration which is a serious impediment to the Settlement’s future success. As one respondent bluntly said, “that’s what I find so frustrating about Tourism Victoria because they seem to market to the chardonnay set” [SPS2]

From almost every conceivable perspective, therefore, the Settlement has some significant problems to overcome, many of which sadly appear to be almost intractable. Most if not all of these appear to stem from the Settlement’s adversarial relationship with Council and the resulting lack of adequate funding and operational autonomy. These in turn can be attributed to a lack of essential identity born of disparate opinions as to the implications of various nomenclatures.

There was a view that a clear articulation of mission and purpose would go a long way to resolving some of these issues. Were the Settlement to assume the mantle of a museum in a comprehensive sense the potential for attracting grants for capital works would be enhanced. It may also raise the profile of the site as a community resource and encourage council to contribute to its recurrent costs in a similar way to other community resources. Although there was a small but discernable move in this direction, with the change in title, and the employment of a curator, sustaining such a focus is somewhat more problematic. The inconstancy of local government structure and composition has resulted in significant shifts in the tenuous balance between support and opposition. Increased curatorial focus also has the potential to support development of greater levels of interpretation and interactivity which at present are viewed as being inadequate.

Even basic resolution of these issues would enable the articulation of a strategic plan; would facilitate more focused marketing; and may foster the development of key alliances with peak bodies whose influence could improve the Settlement’s stakes.