I note that this thread started in June of 2008 and a lot of topics regarding management and subvet versus civilian management have been aired. Those who realize each museum boat is unique unto itself in so many significant ways have, at least in my opinion, come closer to seeing the truth. Each boat is indeed unique form of ownership, management, availability of funding, relations with subvets, etc. None of this is a "one size fits all" situation.
Start with ownership - all but a couple of the US boats in the Museum Fleet are "owned" conditionally due to the six or seven page donation contract the Navy issued. From an accounting standpoint, for example, PAMPANITO is carried at zero value on the Association's books due to the conditions of ownership imposed in that particular contract. That "book value" has nothing to do with the cost of operating the boat as a museum or the costs of maintaining her according to Navy standards - and annual inspections which the Association must, indeed, account for. But, because the Association does not have the right to dispose of PAMPANITO either by donation or by sending her off to the scrapyard, the Association "owns" only the responsibility to be a good and faithful steward of the boat.
Management of a memorial submarine has been a point of controversy for years - as is evidenced by posts in this forum as well as elsewhere. I'm a subvet - in fact, I qualified both silver and gold - which makes me NOT an authority, but I certainly believe I can grasp most of the management issues. Again, back to my opening thought - each museum boat is unique. So, considering management, whether it be "civilian" or subvet, some boats have had success with each model - and others have had their asses handed to them under the same models.
I'm of the opinion subvets have literally saved some of these treasures from the scrap yard - and in other cases, subvets have caused significant harm to museum boats. Ditto civilian management. Or, said another way, seeking the perfect form of management is much akin to looking for a virgin in a cathouse. Good luck.
Funding is a major issue in either scenario - subvet or civilian managed. There are no easy answers and again, even the so-called basics do not conform with a “one size fits all” approach. I’m aware of a couple of museum submarines who have benefitted from former crew - or their families - making major donations. In other cases, the museum boats are located in areas that benefit from either high tourism or strong local support and commitment. Others are simply dying on the vine despite everyone’s concerted efforts to the contrary.
Someone posted in this thread to the effect “just because you have a passion for a museum boat, don’t expect that everyone you meet will share that passion.” Well stated.
So, raising funding is as much an individual museum boat issue as the rest of the picture is an individual boat issue.
Relations with subvets are the non-linear piece of the equation. Some posters comment that all the subvets want to do is hang out and swap no-shitters. Those posters, from their particular perspectives, are probably 100% correct. Other posters point to a dedicated handful of subvets literally saving a boat from the scrapyard. You know what? They are also 100% correct. Again, the individual museum boat is the focus, not the entire museum boat fleet.
Sadly, there are no easy answers here either. But I have to agree with those posters who hold that no matter who owns the boat or manages it, it is always a precious historic artifact that requires preservation, restoration, and interpretation (that’s a polite word for telling the public what the boat is all about and its historic role in service to our country).
All of these challenges have been with us from day one and will persist long past our respective lifetimes with little net change as a whole. Some museum boats will repair their problems and at the same time, others will find a way to let their problems bound out of control and adversely impact them.
All of that being said, I see an even bigger problem - we know our WWII brothers are dying off at a horrible rate. Look around, you cold war vets, especially the DBFers - we are also getting into our declining years.
So if a museum boat is going to depend upon subvets, they need to make a major shift in focus to getting the nuke types involved as docents and repair gangs. I don’t see this happening on a consistent basis. Instead, unfortunately, what I’m seeing and hearing of is that dastardly “them-vs-us” attitude. Even the DBFers who ultimately went Nuke are in that same group of cold war vets.
PAMPANITO has a strong cadre of WWII and cold war DBFers - docents as well as repair and restoration folks. We also have some dedicated civilians -- and, behold, a few Nukes now joining our ranks. Bless ‘em all!
The docent “script” for PAMPANITO’s role in WWII is the backbone of our interpretation program and in some cases - yes, I’ll stick my neck out and say this - the Nukes and civilians in general get a far better grasp on that portion of our mission than some of the DBFers do.
Yes, with regard to our interpretative mission, our esteemed WWII boys can speak with authority because they BTDT. The DBFers generally can translate their experience back a few years.
But to the Nukes and civilians, this is an entirely new world.
Our latest Volunteer Manual has this to say:
“3.0.2 DIESEL AND NUCLEAR - A GUT ISSUE TO SETTLE RIGHT UP FRONT
PAMPANITO’s Docent corps increasingly includes more nuclear submariners with very little or no diesel boat experience. A major influx of non-submariner Docents cannot be that far off.
Indeed, some memorial museum boats already have a high percentage of civilian Docents who never served in the military, let alone submarines. Many are college students studying museum management who are required to perform intern work. PAMPANITO has had the services of such interns, but thus far, never as Docents.
This is an obvious progression from DBF to NBF and civilians because, unfortunately, the infirmities of age are catching up with our diesel boat brothers and they are becoming too infirm to serve as Docents. Each year, we see the DBF content of our Docent program dropping.
The day is not far off when PAMPANITO will no longer be blessed with WWII subvet Docents and soon thereafter, our Cold War diesel boat veterans will join that same chapter of bygone days.
This inevitable, disheartening progression underscores an essential point, however:
Your role as a PAMPANITO Docent is to assist our visitors in understanding what life was like aboard a WWII submarine such as PAMPANITO.
Thus, your commentary should never dwell on nuclear submarines except to briefly answer questions that may arise about the differences between nuclear and diesel submarines’ capabilities.
Out of respect to our WWII brothers, Docents should never engage in discussions whether nuclear or diesel boats were “better.”
Each was “best” for its own reasons. Each served or serves its purpose capably and with distinction. Denigrating the other is simply churlish behavior that the Association will not tolerate.
The plain fact of life is that from USS HOLLAND in 1900 on, throughout WWI and WWII and for many years into the Cold War, the United States Navy only had internal combustion engine-powered boats. Today, the USN only has nuclear powered boats.
Irrespective of the source of propulsion power, those who sailed in harm’s way aboard submarines in service to our country served in boats the Navy assigned them to -- and they made the best possible use of the warfighting machines they served in, no matter how it was propelled.
Honoring the memory of ALL submariners -- of all times, wars, and propulsion power -- is an important mission that PAMPANITO serves.
Docents must continue to demonstrate respect for all submariners.”[/size]
