Is the Board Bored .....

I know many men and women who serve on the boards of local historical societies. Most of them are extremely dedicated to their sites. They bake cookies, serve at various fundraisers, buy and sell tickets (tons and TONS of tickets), and often give up precious summer weekends to lead walking tours and introduce new visitors to a bit of local history.

These individuals read minutes and financial reports, and they know about grant deadlines, proposals, and matching funds. They represent the voice of the membership in forming policy, and they reach out - good board members do - into the community and find out what people think of and how they use the local historical association.

But with all the education board members receive concerning policy and board etiquette, rarely do they ever receive any education about history.

When was the last time a Murfreesboro Historical Association board meeting agenda contained an item about history; how it's done, why one topic is considered more important than another, or about a subject that has been suggested by recent academic interest. When was the last time a discussion was held at an MHA board meeting about what makes a particular book of history popular - or not? Or about a debate in the media over a controversial historical exhibition? These are national issues, but concern ideas that could easily be applied to local sites.



I understand that board meetings are times to move along agendas, to vote for resolutions, and to listen to administrative reports. But, members of history boards should be able to bring historical perspectives to their conversations. They should be able to talk about more than just the need for money or for new members.

Shouldn't a history board devote time to questions of interpreting history?

Shouldn't this happen at least some of the time?