On 15 May 1996, David Hartley wrote:

> We have been offered a sizable monetary gift with two small collections
> attached.  The donor would like restrictive language in the deed of gift
> requiring that portions of the two collections be exhibited "in
> perpetuity."  We are trying to move the donor towards less restrictive
> language; however, as the executor of an estate he has had two unhappy
> experiences.  In both instances the recipients, a college and a hospital,
> totally ignored the donor s wishes after accepting the bequest.  Marie
> Malaro suggests precatory rather than mandatory language or a mandatory
> restriction that can only be altered by a vote of the museum s board of
> trustees.  Does anyone have any other ideas or suggestions for less
> restrictive language which would offer the donor some degree of protection
> and still give the museum some long-term flexibility in the use and
> disposition of the two collections?

     Can't help you with the language problem, but I have a suggestion
that might stiffen y'all's backbone if you're tempted to yield. Get in
touch with the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts for a tale of woe about the
dogs Paul Mellon sicced on them while financing a new wing. And the
horses. And all sorts of other "sporting art" beloved of, and only of, the
master of Rokeby Farm. The stuff is dreadful, and drags down Virginia's
premier art museum.

     Hank Burchard * <[log in to unmask]> * Washington DC | USA