It's a good case study and teaching example.

I would not restrict gift agreements to require consideration for 
acquisition into the collection *first*.  Certainly keep the option open 
for keeping the object in the collection, but I agree with the 
philosophy of not forcing a different procedure just because this 
particular episode went really awry.

Here is my question:  Why didn't the silent auction have a reserve?  I'm 
generally against auctioning potentially lucrative items via an on-site 
auction anyway unless you know that you are getting the creme de la 
creme in attendance rather than those who just happened to free on a 
Tuesday night!  But a reserve at the minimum level of what you believed 
the object was "worth" would have prevented the sad outcome since you 
could have pursued other avenues for the object (e.g., online auction or 
accessioning it.)


Susan Ruderman
Consultant
[log in to unmask]



On 6/30/2011 11:22 AM, Cass Karl wrote:
> More information, for those who wanted it...
> For the record, the event has already occurred (the object was sold)- 
> so the point is now moot, but we are revisiting the scenario because 
> we are doing another similar auction and the situation (or something 
> similar) may occurr.  It was handled poorly in the first place (legal 
> and ethical issues aside) and created a PR nightmare, and I want to 
> develop a policy/procedure for this type of situation before it 
> happens again.
> The situation was that a first edition book (c. 1930) by a local 
> author was donated to the museum unconditionally (meaning, according 
> to the donation form, that we could either keep it or sell it to 
> benefit the museum).  The decision was made by the then director that 
> the book should be put into the silent auction at the annual 
> fundraiser.  This was controversial because we do not have an original 
> or autographed copy of that book in the collection, and the 
> collections staff argued that it should be considered for the 
> collection first.  The Board supported the director under the 
> assumption that the book would bring a lot of revenue, which we 
> desperately needed at the time.  *However* the book ended up selling 
> for about $20 (less than the edition that we sell in our store), which 
> horked off everyone involved, including the donor (who was present at 
> the auction).  There was talk of the donor trying to withdraw the 
> donation, or trying to pull the item from the auction, which just made 
> matters worse.  In the end, the book was handed over to the winner of 
> the auction and we don't know what happened to it.
> It is my belief that the item *should* have been considered first for 
> the collection, even though there was no legal or ethical 
> responsibility to do so.  I think that would have been the right thing 
> to do.  I am wondering whether (before we have another auction) we 
> should write into our collections policy (and include on our donation 
> forms) that all donated objects should/will be considered for the 
> collection first, unless the donor specifically states another use.  
> Some of the board/ staff members agree with this, others do not want 
> the use of unconditional gifts restricted in any way (they see the 
> problem more as a matter of what the book sold for than the procedure 
> that led to the sale).
> Does that change anyone's opinion?
>


-- 
Susan C. Ruderman, Ed.M.
[log in to unmask]
Boston, MA area

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