Anne,
    If there was a dirth of replies to your query, it may be because
it's a hard question to answer!

    Usually the rule is flat out  'don't collect what your museum
collects' --it eliminates such problems. But the situation you describe
is a little different, it seems.

    I would hope that good sense in a ethical framework would prevail
when staff is collecting in a setting that is so broad as to make it
inevitable that one would purchase something that the museum 'might'
collect.  (Probably not uncommon in 'general' museums)  If I were you,
I'd try to think of likely scenarios, and write wording that would cover
most of those cases.

    For instance, in the case you mentioned of work by local craft
people, it is likely that they make multiple similar items (such as the
cat dish you bought) so that as long as the museum could go purchase a
similar item, it would not be a confllict of collecting and there would
be no need to declare.  If the crafts person dies, however, and there
are no more on the market, then you'd probably have to 'declare' if you
purchased one after that time.

 And remember, declaring is simply that.  Probably only in rare
instances does the collections committee decide that what the staff
member has collected is so vital to the museum's collection that they
would pay you for it (the same as you paid is the rule).  If
declarations are done routinely, then it gets easier for everyone.  And,
I would think that any responsible staff member would recognize an item
of clear significance to the museum's collection and would first try to
acquire it for the museum. Failing that, if the collection committee
wanted to acquire if for price paid, then so be it. That's what we are
beholden to do  --put the interests of the institution first-- and be
glad you got to that yard sale before the item was snatched up by
someone else.  The satisfaction is in getting that item into the public
domain for 'future generations' to appreciate and learn from.

And as a side-bar,  this rule of collecting extends to Board members as
well as staff, and some have a hard time understanding that their
commitment to the institution includes this..  But for the sake of the
greater good, if all museums were careful about this, it would be a lot
easier for us all.  At one museum I wrote collection policies for, it
helped  bring the Board around to write in an item to the effect  that
anything the staff or board member inherited or acquired from immediate
family (family heirlooms, or gifts) was exempt from declaration.
Obviously this creates a mechanism for abuse, but if it gets to that,
well, maybe it's time to get someone else on the board.

Sorry this has been so long winded, but it's a topic with a lot of
nuances.  Or, you could simply cut to the chase and say 'do what's
right'.

Lucy Skjelstad