I would say its up to the registrar to LAY down the LAW with all art
handling issues. Even curators and directors are subordinate to the
registrar reguarding art handling and storage issues. Our biggest problem
is that there is only one registrar and an assistant and they can't be
everywhere at once. This is the great thing about volunteers -- if
properly trained! They can help enforce your rules.

On Wed, 8 May 1996, David Haberstich wrote:

>  I too have been following this thread (an appropriate metaphor for a
> glove discussion) with interest and some dismay. Pardon me for being
> hardnosed and unequivocal, but I think this is a no-brainer. A museum
> professional simply cannot--must not--should not--dare not--knowingly
> permit anyone to mishandle collection material. To do so is
> unprofessional and is poor stewardship. A volunteer who refuses to
> cooperate and follow instructions and professional, approved procedures
> is indeed a "goriller" and in my opinion could be "fired" for
> insubordination. Who needs such a volunteer? Now if you can't bear to
> get rid of the uncooperative volunteer because he/she is otherwise nice,
> fun, rich, or influential, just take the material away that they
> mishandle and let them do something safe like filing office
> correspondence or answering phones.
>   Seriously, it's often possible to wean people away from the material
> that they are not handling properly, give them something else, and do it
> tactfully. I've had the problem of volunteers and interns who mean well
> but just don't have the manual dexterity to handle certain kinds of
> objects safely. If you don't have the tact and human qualities to
> interact with people, plus the will power to protect your collection
> from mishandling--whether by marauders or bunglers--you don't have any
> business supervising volunteers in a museum environment.
>    Now that I've addressed the gloveless volunteer problem, perhaps
> someone can help with the problem of STAFF who won't wear gloves at the
> appropriate times.
>   I once pulled rank on a new employee who was uncooperative and refused
> to wear gloves while working with glass photographic negatives;
> admittedly, he was conscientiously trying to hold them only by the
> edges, but in so doing he was risking dropping and breaking them. I
> wrote a strong "or else" memo, he apologized, and complied. But then
> there was the CONSERVATOR whose full handprint is still visible on one
> of my color photographs because this person pressed an ungloved hand on
> the surface to emphasize a point. It's my understanding that this person
> still doesn't wear gloves with photographs. Any reactions? --David
> Haberstich
>