MUSEUM-L Archives

Museum discussion list

MUSEUM-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Stephen Van Buren <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Museum discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 16 Sep 2003 09:50:50 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (37 lines)
I would appreciate some feedback on the following situation.  A museum
director in my collecting area (University Archives with partial regional
collecting mission) asserts that the components of a collection owned by a
deceased city historian are not related, and can be broken up.  These are
historic newspapers (full run), photos, computer databases ranging from
city lot histories to city personnel records, historic phone books, and
some ephemera.  The newspapers and phonebooks were used to generate the
databases, some of which are incomplete.  The original set of photos
belonged to the newspaper, and many subsequent additions to the
photographs have also been used in the newspaper.  The city and the local
preservation commission are very interested in permanent preservation of
the newspapers.  This director wants to split the collection up,
maintaining that the components are not related.  What he wants to do is
to keep the databases and photographs, and unload the newspapers and phone
books.  In archives land, this collection is related in several different
ways -- by collector, by users (who often access different or all parts of
it in the same visit), and by its provenance (newspaper office and
interrelated creation).  In a fit of cynicism, I wondered if this director
was keeping the material which he feels can generate cash (his shop has
a 'healthy' fee schedule for photos and copies), and unloading the stuff
that won't.  In addition, splitting this material up pretty much directly
goes against the wishes of the deceased (I was there when he said what he
wanted, 2 days before he died).  There is no signed donor agreement. My
questions are 1) is this also a related collection in museum land, (& I
and the city are just supposed to be too dumb to figure it out)?, and 2)
Should I suggest that if this person wants the rug, he'll have to take the
dog (that's sleeping on it)?

Thanks

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2