As much as I hate the idea of entering this thread I feel compelled to
add my opinion....

Granted that the article by Heller and Biller has, shall we say, a
particular spin to it, and that it fails to give all the information I
might like before coming to any conclusions.

1) Who really has legal title to the architectural fragments?  If it
was aquired by W.R. Hearst in 1931 from whom did he aquire title?  Why
did the City need to assert its claim to title in 1963?  Why did the
de Young think it has title to these objects?

The ownership of these objects seems to be the question, not the
deaccessioning of them.  I agree with Susanne whole heartedly on
the ethical and editoral aspects of this particular piece of yellow
journalism.  However, the purpleness of the prose should not confuse
the issue that there is potential grounds for litigation if the City
is the legal owner.  Even if the de Young has the pieces living in its
backyard (so-to-speak) in GG Park, unless if Hearst gave them to the
City, and the City did not transfer this title to the museum (and a
long-term/permanent loan is not transfer of legal title) then the
museum's actions, however well intentioned, are illegal.

As I said, more questions than answers.

For myself, I think returning the monastary to a monastary (even if
it's not in Spain) is a fitting solution.

I look forward to your rebuttals

Richard Gerrard
Registrar
Toronto Historical Board

[log in to unmask]