I hope that they'll keep these points in mind:
Given Director Pott's mixed communication with staff about whether the Feast would be canceled, the board shouldn't be harsh if the event isn't as well-organized and marketed as it could be. Up until recently, Mr. Pott was paying an outside organizer to oversee it, even though staff wanted to do it themselves.
Mr. Pott dislikes the event, and kept it in limbo for quite some time. Had he let staff plan it and allowed for proper marketing and fundraising to support it, Feast 2013 would have fresh acts and more educational components, at the very least.
Last year, museum staff worked hard to make the Feast successful, after Feast founder Nancy Buchanan resigned. Its general success encouraged staff to make the 2013 event even better. But Mr. Pott insisted on the outside facilitator.
The facilitator either quit or was fired. Mr. Pott claims she decided "the goals we'd established weren't achievable." Question: Who are "we"? What specific goals?
Why not have both Feast and the agriculture expo Mr. Pott launched last fall? Why make a false choice between the two? Feast is a romantic evocation of the past. The ag event is more didactic. Each appeals to different interests in cultural history. Raise money for both. Promote both.
Mr. Pott wants to substitute one for the other. He says Feast attendance is falling and its cost increasing. Last year, he needed the Feast to succeed in advance of the millage election. He let it be known that attendance was steady and money was not a problem. But Mr. Pott cites statistics to serve his interests.
Again, kudos to museum trustees and best wishes for Feast 2013.
— Janet S. Tyson, Spring Lake