On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 15:46:07 -0800, Shirley Wajda
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>From the original posting, it isn't clear to me that the docent
>a volunteer.
...snip...
Yes, in fact the docent is a volunteer, this is clearly stated by the original
poster.
>The consequences of acting against
>institutional policy must be weighed against the docent's status in
>relation to the institution.
Sorry, I don't agree. Policy is Policy and once it is approved by the Board,
must guide the actions of ALL staff and volunteers. That's kind of the point.
>My assumption is that said
>person was a volunteer and wouldn't necessary know standard operating
>procedures when it comes to deaccessioning.
Again you might find it helpful to follow the complete thread of this discusison
as the original poster has clarified that the volunteer was informed of the
museum's SOP. Repeatedly.
>But what in the world
>was he doing picking over the trash--even inside the building? That
>seems problematic on several levels! And then taking it upon
>himself to "rescue" the materials after being instructed.
>That would deserve a reprimand or something more severe if he were an
>employee.
Now you're getting it.
>It's also unclear to me why another museum would take this "donation"
>from the docent and not question the process, request information,
>paperwork, etc.
Because not every museum is run by professionals who know what questions
to ask. Because the material might have been misrepresented. Because this
isn't a perfect world.
>I wonder if there's any possibility of confusion
>in the paperwork--that is to say, the docent was asked the source of
>the "donation" as a matter of provenance and property issues and
>somehow that translated to the legitimate transfer of the items from
>one museum to another.
All things are possible.
>Last, as a university-affiliated scholar in American material culture
>and American Studies interested in issues of historical memory (in
>which historical accuracy is often not achieved), and in
>collecting practices, I worry about the decision to dispose (a kinder
>word than "trash") of these materials. How similar were these
>materials to those donated to the other institutions? Was one of
>those institutions the recipient of these materials? What does
>that mean?
>
A) The museum has made a strong case for the extreme lack of historical
accuracy of this material
B) Deaccession by disposal is a legitimate process sanctioned by anyone with
credibility...Malaro, AAM, AASLH....RC-AAM...
C) Sigh. The stuff was trash. Throwing trash away is OK.
>I certainly understand the storage and financial issues historical
>houses, historical societies, libraries, and museums face. But
>somehow these materials were considered valuable in the past,
By a former employee with no ability to filter...It happens to the best of
museums. That's one reason we have deaccession policies and collections
policies and prodedures. To act as guidelines so accessioning decisions are
elevated above the realm of the capricious.
Read the original poster's most recent message. The museum acted properly
and in both their best interest and the interest of the collection.
Diane
=========================================================
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).
|
