I think there are many different ways that you can look at this. Again, from my own experience in looking at how government funding works, one of the best ways is to look at funding that doesn't simply go on a project basis. It's funding that may carry on for three, four, five years, because that's what allows museums to start looking at resource mobilization and increasing their capacities. That, to me, is very important. I think that the project funding unfortunately gives you a nice kick. It allows you to get a program done, but it doesn't allow you to train people, to keep people as well. I think that's an important thing. A lot of project work is done by people who are brought in for a very short-term basis, and that's where I think extending the horizon for how funding works is absolutely essential.
I think also that the nature of government funding programs needs to be looked at very strongly. Right now, the federal government operates a very important fund, the museums assistance program . Again, I think that's a very good program, but it may be something that needs significant revision. When you look at the opportunities there, you see they are quite limited. As a museum, we've looked at the MAP program many a time, but in truth it doesn't address the concerns or the needs that we're looking at. There are very few opportunities that fit within what we do because, from our point of view, that program is very much about travelling exhibitions. There's work that can be done in enhancing collections management, but our collections management is relatively simple. We have only 1,000 objects. I worry about museums that have hundreds of thousands of objects.