The "new normal": Is there one?

07 April 2014 – Angela Sirna

Lee White and Angela Sirna during the “New Normal” panel. Photo credit: Max Van Balgooy

“Sequester” was a dirty word during last year’s conference season. At the March 2013 conference of the George Wright Society in Denver, attendance was down nearly 75 percent because of travel limitations put into place right before the meeting. At the National Council on Public History meeting in Ottawa a few weeks later, I noticed a number of my colleagues were absent. Travel cutbacks were just at the top of a long list of issues caused by the recession and then the across-the-board US federal budget cuts known as sequestration. I was deeply disturbed by what I saw in Denver, and this was before I watched the gates close at Catoctin Mountain Park (where I was working at the time) in October 2013 when the federal government shut down. I hoped that public historians could talk openly at this year’s meeting in Monterey and share responses to their “new normal.” Fortunately the program committee agreed, and on Thursday, March 20, we held an open conversation in a session titled “Situation Normal? Ways Past Sequestrations, Shutdowns, and Budgetary Woes.”

Lee White, Executive Director of the National Coalition for History, kicked off our session by giving us the low down on the federal budget across key agencies. He described the situation as the “Christmas Truce.” Both Republicans and Democrats are playing well together right now, but we are in the eye of the storm. It will not be long before they start fighting over the next budget issue. The Coalition has been able to help form a History Caucus among congress members, and he encouraged audience members to contact their representatives and urge them to join.

I then read a paper written by Sam Tamburro, a National Park Service historian who could not travel to Monterey because of travel limitations in his office (here’s his pre-conference post about the session).  Sam talked (through his conference paper read by me) about his new normal and asked the audience to consider what they are doing to stay relevant and resilient.

Max van Balgooy, President of Engaging Places, LLC and part of the History Relevance Campaign, finished up the presentation portion with an insightful overview of trends among nonprofit historic sites. He noted that the number of buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places is increasing but so is the age of visitors to historic sites. He reframed Richard Moe’s question “Are there too many house museums?” by asking “Are there too few house museums or too many that are irrelevant or the same?”  Moe had served as President of the National Trust for Historic Preservation from 1993 to 2009.

We then invited audience members to talk about their own “new normal” and explain how they were reacting to it. We had about 30 participants from a broad range of backgrounds: US National Park Service, National Archives, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Navy, California State Parks, contractors, graduate students, and people from nonprofits. A National Archives Public Outreach Specialist explained that she did not have the resources to do outreach work. A contractor talked about having to organize a conference with a federal client without help and at the last minute. Jobs are not being filled, and a logjam is being created in the NPS with a high number of interns being trained with little hope for future job prospects in the agency.

The participants noted a new, somewhat defensive ethos among their colleagues. A Navy historian said his team is committed to working harder to show that they are not overpaid government workers, which is challenging since their work is not visible to the public. Others agreed that the shut down affected morale, with some employees being deemed “essential” workers while others were “nonessential.” The term “public servant” itself seems to be under attack. One participant noted a recent National Archives program that let children have a “Sleepover with the Constitution,” but the agency received pushback from people angry about this use of their tax dollars. This was just another reminder that doing history within and for these agencies is highly political.

The remainder of our session was spent trying to identify opportunities to overcome some of these issues. A contractor wanted a policy that would compel federal agencies to fulfill travel obligations when a commitment is made. Some participants said that now is the time for very creative hiring, and it is critical for hiring mangers to know regulations inside and out. They also noted that they have to remind administrators of their legal obligations when it comes to cultural resources management. A master’s student on the cusp of graduation asked what opportunities are out there for her in light of this job market. Someone said to put in your time and hopefully something will come through. I disagree. I think everyone involved in the training of new public historians—educators, supervisors, and students themselves—needs to look broadly at the skills needed to work in a range of organizations rather than focusing on just single destinations.

At the end of the conversation, an audience member remarked that this is not a new normal. This is the way it has always been. Another participant answered on Twitter that you just have to “ride the wave.”  I do not take these comments as a mandate to keep doing the same thing but as encouragements to remain flexible and creative. Lee White and Max van Balgooy highlighted the importance of actively advocating for history programs and restoring the positive meaning of “public servant.” I also believe in creating reciprocal, dynamic partnerships to ensure that public history projects can keep going despite budget cuts or shut downs.

The Twitter conversation has been Storified here, and a set of notes on the session can be found on this Google doc.

~ Angela Sirna is a PhD candidate at Middle Tennessee State University and is currently the Public Historian in Residence at Catoctin Mountain Park. She writes about the history of the National Park Service and intersections between natural conservation, historic preservation, and social reform.