Bonni Dara-Michaels observed that "traditionally" museum work was done by
those with independent means, or women whose husbands were their main
source of support.  The museum, it might be observed, consisted then of the
collections and exhibits.

Now, to a much greater degree, museums are the "people" AND the collections
and exhibits.

Responsible museums, so far as I can observe, want to treat their
professional and non-professional staffs as resources whose wellbeing is as
important as the state of the collections.  Their boards include
individuals whose work with corporations and professions involves
recognizing "human resources" as just that.

Responsible museums (and I have worked as consultant with a number of
boards desiring to improve compensation <within reason>) lack sufficient
information from any reliable source to establish "responsible"
compensation levels.  In the southeast, the last available data is from a
1992 SEMC study, and it suffered in some cases from lack of enough
responses to its questionnaire.

If a professional in a museum cannot at least aspire to compensation
equivalent to the local teachers, then in my view someone isn't getting the
job done.  And yes, it's never going to be a comfortable "living" for most,
but it is far from adequate in many institutions.  What's missing is the
standardized data a board or director should be referring to.