Historic military aircraft on display at March Field Air Museum, where community members and the museum board are debating the institution's future direction following the October departure of five staff members. (Bob Sirotnik)
Two fundamentally different philosophies have emerged about the future of March Field Air Museum, each articulated by people who care deeply about the 46-year-old institution's survival and success.
The disagreement has sparked a remarkable level of community engagement. Hundreds of people have joined a "Save March" organizing effort, following the Oct. departure of five staff members, while the museum board has issued its first detailed public statement defending recent changes.
Museum Board Secretary Richard Lemire, in a Nov. 6 statement, outlined the board's philosophy: The museum must become "economically strong" by focusing resources on hiring a competitive executive director rather than maintaining full-time collections staff.
Lemire provided specific financial context: The museum operates on a $1.3 million annual budget with no government funding, relying entirely on admissions, gift shop sales, tours and event rentals. Board President Jamil Dada said in an interview the board's $85,000 salary offer wasn't competitive: "You can't get a qualified museum director" at that level.
The board paused archival work and new donations "until these activities can be reviewed and brought into alignment with the Museum's mission." The statement defended the board's decision to eliminate collections positions as necessary to afford director-level compensation, and noted the museum has passed recent audits "with no adverse findings."
Attorney Bethany Everson Na, who is leading the organizing effort, described her connection to the museum through her seven-year-old son Patrick, who "walks around, murmuring that it is his 'happy place.' It is mine, too."
The organizing effort's website, SaveMarch.org, states: "We believe in strong governance, financial transparency, and a commitment to the Museum's core mission of preserving and sharing aviation history."
Much of the current controversy stems from an Oct. 17 volunteer meeting where multiple attendees say museum Board President Jamil Dada and Vice President Mel Gutierrez discussed plans that contradicted the board's Nov. 6 statement.
Multiple attendees said Dada and Gutierrez described plans to eliminate the archives entirely, significantly reduce the artifact collection, and sell aircraft not directly related to March Field's specific history.
The museum's written statement, however, says: "There are no current plans to dispose of any aircraft or artifacts...The Museum has no plans to close the Archives."
Lemire acknowledged that "at a volunteer meeting, a member of the Executive Committee made statements that were taken to mean that excessive artifacts would be eliminated," but emphasized that any deaccessioning would follow "the high standards of the American Alliance of Museums" and that donors would be contacted. He reiterated: "We have no intentions of deaccessioning any aircraft in our collections."
The debate has surfaced questions about how the museum is governed and who participates in major decisions.
The Collections Committee recommended a temporary pause on accepting new donations, but "the decision to permanently lay off the collections staff was made by the executive committee and to allow the new executive director to set policy," Lemire said.
When asked about a sitting board member's public statement that board members are "never informed of any of the executive committee's decisions," Lemire responded that personnel matters couldn't be shared widely because "at least one board member, and one or two others, have consistently breached board confidentiality by leaking confidential information to staff and others. Personnel matters must be kept strictly confidential under California law."
Everson Na raised specific concerns about possible bylaw violations: "The foundation's bylaws require board approval for staffing changes. Any bypassing of this process raises serious governance concerns," listing alleged issues including "taking actions without prior board approval," "removing executive board members before their terms were up," and "forming committees without prior board approval."
The museum's bylaws require that committees "must be created, and the members thereof appointed, by resolution adopted by a majority of the authorized number of board members," according to a copy reviewed by the Raincross Gazette.
The board's position emphasizes financial sustainability and professional management. Collections work, in this view, should be "aligned with the Museum's mission" and guided by "qualified museum professionals."
"We're right across from a national cemetery, and families regularly donate boxes of military items," Dada said. "Museum professionals evaluated our collections and found significant redundancies - 82 pairs of identical boots, for example. They said the mission should drive the collection, not the other way around."
Lemire said the new executive director candidate is "extremely well qualified in museum management and collections stewardship, with strong experience in archive management. The candidate has the opportunity to select their own staff in order to move forward."
Critics argue eliminating all professional collections staff contradicts the museum's mission.
Jeff Houlihan, the former Director of Collections, Curation, and Restoration, resigned in protest after the board eliminated three positions on his collections team. Lemire said: "There were no plans to eliminate Mr. Houlihan's position...and it was hoped that he would be able to work with the new executive director."
Concerns have also circulated about memorial tiles being removed from the museum entrance, though the board said the tiles are being relocated inside as part of a garden renovation project.
When asked about complaints to the Attorney General and investigations by County Supervisor Jose Medina's office, Lemire responded: "There is no evidence of misappropriated funds. Any investigation would clearly prove this." He also addressed claims about selling artifacts to fund construction: "The false information now circulating is that artifacts will be sold off to pay for the new hangar which will honor Jamil Dada. This is absolutely incorrect. Mr. Dada made a $1.5 million donation from the Dada Family Trust for the construction of the new hangar. That money is in an interest bearing account at Altura Credit Union. No other museum funds have been allocated for this project."
Dada said: "The lies that they're putting out on social media that I'm going to sell airplanes to fund a hangar with my name. My wife and I donated $1.5 million."
Those on different sides of this debate share important common ground.
Everyone interviewed for this story expressed genuine care for the museum's future. Board members and critics alike emphasized March Field Air Museum's importance as the Inland Empire's premier aviation museum and its role in educating future generations about military aviation history.
Where they disagree is about how to achieve these shared goals—whether through professionalizing management while reducing collections staff, or by maintaining curatorial expertise as central to the museum's mission.
Everson Na described what success would look like: "Saving the museum would mean that my son can once again walk around murmuring it is his happy place. And that all of us could do the same, for years to come."
The board will vote on hiring a new executive director at its November meeting, scheduled for Nov. 21. That person will inherit an institution in transition, with significant community attention on how they approach collections management, board governance, and community engagement.
Community organizers say they will continue monitoring the museum's operations and advocating for transparency. The Save March Facebook group has grown to 572 members and continues to add new participants daily.
For now, the debate continues—fueled by passion, yes, but also by a shared recognition that March Field Air Museum is worth fighting for, even if people disagree about what that fight should look like.
