I'm just busy on the list today- but I saw Accreditation and had to jump in!


Accreditation requires a museum to have a full-time paid staff member with
museum knowledge and experience who is delegated authority and financial
resources for day-to-day operations.

I have extremely ambivalent feelings about the museums that don't do this,
especially since I'm the Accreditation Coordinator. I once worked for a
museum run by a national membership group. The management was
non-professionals without much interest in learning how a museum can best
operate and the lower staff were trained professionals trying to do our
best. It was a continual pushing that rock up the hill only to watch it roll
down and smash my car. And they definitely could not get accredited with
that structure.

But once I had gotten away from the frustration of working in that
environment every day, I have different views. Museums such as this are set
up for different purposes than public museums. They are there for their
constituency- whether it's their membership, students, employees. And my
museum's constituency loved how the museum was operated and what it did.
Changing to meet the standards of the industry, and thus Accreditation,
would not have made the primary constituency any happier and might have
alienated them. True, we could have done exhibits and programs which would
appeal to the local community to improve attendance and outreach, but the
members would have hated it. And we could have had a diverse board which
represented more than the membership of the organization, but that too would
have alienated. The museum was their plaything. And they paid for it, so
they were within rights to do so. Frustrating, but that was the museum's
purpose and although they paid lip service to industry standards, they
really made no qualms about how they were run. And they accepted that their
structure meant they could not be accredited. As much as we hate watching
museums operate like this, there's not much museum professionals or the
general public can do to change a governing body that doesn't care. Going to
such a museum you hope for the best- there are some parent organizations
that are wonderful and manage amazing museum and other ones that don't.

On the other hand, remember, accredited museums are not perfect. The
Accreditation process reveals problems in a museum's operations and helps
them to be corrected. Accredited museums have made a commitment to
continually improve to meet changing standards. However, people run museums
and they can change. Luckily in this case, the problems were caught (I would
guess during the required 10-year subsequent review) and when the museum
decides not to somehow address the situation, they could lose their
accredited status. There will always be some museum which made that
commitment to Accreditation and high standards but is unable to continue for
whatever reason (some voluntary, some beyond the leadership's control such
as the economy or Mother Nature).

Museums grew out of the general public and have been run for centuries by
volunteers (not always amateurs). As much as we hate seeing a museum do
something that we feel besmirches our overall professionalism or museums in
general, we have to realize that those people doing such things are doing
them out of love of museums, not evil intent.

Pamela





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anna Fariello [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 8:44 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Trickle-down Stickiness
>
> David, You raise an interesting point.  This is a problem in
> university museums in particular where, in my case anyway, the
> director answered to a dean who had little understanding or
> appreciation for museum practice.  The particular place where I
> worked (and left) wound up shooting itself in the foot.  With the
> support of half the art department (well trained in art history and
> studio practice but with little to no understanding of museums except
> for having exhibited in some), created an unworkable organizational
> structure that cost the institution its bid for AAM accreditation.
> What continues to amaze me is that individuals, especially those
> educated in related fields, think they've created/decided what's best
> for THEIR institution based on a very limited personal experience.
> Often they make these decisions while ignoring an entire body of
> knowledge that has evolved from decades of theory, practice,
> evaluation, and careful decision making.  With the "help" of the dean
> (in this case, a person who functioned like the corporate CEO of a
> major museum who has authority over staff with museum training or
> experience), this particular university gallery lost its full-time
> director, its university-wide application, much of its funding, AND
> an opportunity to become one of the few AAM accredited university
> museums in the state.  All this was done in the name of local
> control, "local" being the art department.  While I am not there to
> confirm this, I think they are proud of their "accomplishment."
> Anna Fariello
>

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).