Brent and Janice have both articulately stated what may be the two
legitimate sides to this story: either the director is legitimately
trying to focus the museum's mission, or he is not using appropriate
process(es) to approve large scale deaccessioning. Either way, it has
created a perceived problem, which, in the best case scenario, has
arisen from lack of appropriate process structure.

I have to back up Brent's conclusion that it is a systemic problem. It
is, in my opinion, one that is particular to University Museums. In the
University Museum I worked for, my predecessor had unethically and/or
illegally deaccessioned hundreds of items, having received approval from
a University  Committee to whom she had portrayed the items to be
deaccessioned as duplicates and "junk". In fact, part of it (a small
part) was about one half of a very large collection of Native American
Basketry that was sold for amounts recorded on a sheet I found as from
$10 to $30 per basket. This was about 25 years ago, but that was still
absurdly low. Also vanished were firearms, archaeological materials,
pianos, and hundreds of other items.  It took at least a decade to begin
to recover credibility and trust in the eyes of the public.

Some years later, at the same University, the museum, (another "noble
little museum housing cultural treasures") with a 60,000 item collection
dating back almost 100 years, was summarily closed (reasons both stated
and political are too involved to go into here), and the University is
still living with the adverse consequences. They'll likely spend as much
or more mopping up the mess than they would have to keep the museum
open.

It seems to me that few University administrators understand the concept
of public trust where their museums are concerned. Boards of Regents are
so far removed that they, also, don't realize any trust responsibilities
in regards to the museums. Also, the Regents will usually fully back the
administration in such a matter, seeing it as internal to the
university. There is also the fact that in the eyes of many within the
University system, the collection is simply 'state property' to be dealt
with like worn out typewriters and file cabinets. I suspect that they
also very much underestimate the negative consequences of such actions,
perhaps partly because they aren't used to having to worry about public
opinion regarding their disposal of "surplus" property.

I don't know the answer to the problem, but I believe it exists and the
Austin case is not an isolated incident. I have heard of several other
similar cases.  Perhaps as enough of these incidents reach problem
proportions, the issue will be begin to be addressed at gatherings of
administrators in higher education and some education about museums and
public trust can be undertaken. It is in that hope that I even air my
former institution's "dirty laundry". If no one talks about it, each
incident will appear as an isolated anomaly and nothing will change.

Lucy Sperlin


Brent Lyles wrote:
>
> Colleagues,
>
> My name's Brent Lyles, and I'm the one quoted in the article that was
> posted here. I appreciate longhorn8 posting the article to this list,
> and after the last couple of days I've had, I wish that I could go
> back to being anonymous. But now that I'm being discussed in public
> forums (fora?), I'd at least like to say a couple of things in my own
> defense:
>
> 1. First of all, on a personal note, I wasn't very comfortable with
> how I was portrayed in the article. During my interview with the
> reporter, we had a long conversation about museum missions, public
> trust, and so on. Instead of any of that thoughtful stuff making it
> into print, though, I come across as a whiney former employee who's
> hell-bent on finger pointing and name calling. (I believe longhorn8's
> words were "not above a little professional retribution".) I would
> like to think that I'm not quite that petty. When last I saw him, Ed
> and I still got along pretty well (that was before this story came
> out), even though we disagree on this.
>
> 2. Now then, on to the issue at hand: It was--and remains--my
> contention that changing a 65-year-old museum's mission and
> deaccessioning a significant chunk of its holdings are matters of the
> public trust. ICOM's Code of Ethics says--and correct me if I'm wrong
> here--that such decisions should have the input of (a) someone with
> curatorial expertise in that content area, and (b) the public, or at
> least of a board that supposedly represents the public's interests. I
> really do believe that Ed is doing what he thinks is right, but I also
> believe he's very unfortunately misinformed about what effective
> museum management looks like. That's my side of the story, for what
> it's worth. I'm not sure if he subscribes to this list, so I'll cc
> him, just in the interest of not talking about him behind his back.
> (Maybe that's silly, but I'm trying my best to be professional about
> this.)
>
> 3. Someone mentioned in another message that a Board of Directors
> should be providing some oversight. There's that "should" word again.
> TMM is part of UT Austin, so the only board is the university's Board
> of Regents. As far as I know, they don't even know this is happening.
> A Dean hired Ed to run the museum, and I'm sure they would just as
> soon not be involved in his tactics, much less provide any meaningful
> assistance to him: "Run your little museum and don't bother us. You
> wanna get rid of some stuff? Sure, whatever, show me where to sign."
> If this somehow turned into a public-relations problem for UT (and I
> seriously doubt it will), I suspect UT would happily let him take the
> fall for it. So is the lack of oversight Ed's fault? Or is it a
> systemic problem? The latter, I think, since here's a noble little
> museum that houses 65 years worth of cultural treasures, yet it's been
> relegated to a deep burial within the bureaucracy of an astoundingly
> huge public organization.
>
> ... Despite the fact that the article missed some of these key points,
> I do think it's worth reading and thinking about. I invite you to do
> so, and I invite you to share your thoughts with this list or with me
> privately, whichever you deem appropriate. I distributed the article
> to the email list of Austin's museum association, the Austin Museum
> Partnership. Museums matter, as they say, and consequently, how we run
> them matters too.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Brent Lyles
> Austin, TX
>
> ========================================================= 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).

=========================================================
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).