David,
We may be hashing over a difference between museum types, but perhaps not.
I am attaching the wording from our standard "proffer of gift form" for
your perusal. Does that make us the first? Wheee! Any interested may
plagiarize at will, or contact me for the whole form.
------
The following is hereby granted by me/us as a gift (including all
copyrights, trademarks and/or service marks, and related interests, except
as specified) to the Wichita State University Foundation for inclusion in
the art collection managed by the Edwin A. Ulrich Museum of Art, and I
hereby represent that I have full right, ownership, and title thereto and
authority to dispose thereof:
(Object and donor information)
All objects donated to the art collection of the WSU Endowment Association
managed by the Edwin A. Ulrich Museum of Art are considered outright and
unconditional gifts to be under the sole direction and control of the
Museum. Donations are to be used at the discretion of said Museum and,
because of limited exhibit space, the Museum cannot guarantee the
exhibition of any object. Gifts and bequests to the WSU Foundation are
deductible for the purpose of computing income and inheritance taxes under
the laws of Kansas and the United States, as gifts to an institution
organized and operated exclusively for educational purposes. The Museum is
not responsible for determining the values of gifts and cannot provide
appraisals of such values for tax purposes. Donors are advised to consult
their own financial and/or tax advisors.
-----
We always inform donors that their objects will not necessarily go on
display soon, and certainly not permanently. When on display, the donors
always get recognition in label form.
I personally have never had to deal with someone wanting something back in
the way we are discussing. I think I would tend to react in much the same
way as yourself, especially if their attitude was not fantastically
respectful of me and what my museum does for the artifacts.
Mark Janzen
Registrar/Collections Manager
Edwin A. Ulrich Museum of Art
Martin H. Bush Outdoor Sculpture Collection
Wichita State University
(316)978-5850
"David E.
Haberstich"
<[log in to unmask] To
OM> [log in to unmask]
Sent by: Museum cc
discussion list
<[log in to unmask] Subject
SE.LSOFT.COM> Re: Requests to Rescind Donations
05/20/2004 06:24
PM
Please respond to
Museum discussion
list
<[log in to unmask]
SE.LSOFT.COM>
Although this discussion has veered off into the direction of loans, I want
to say a few things about the original topic--how to deal with requests for
the
return of donations.
First, I want to say that I have little patience with donors' heirs and
descendants who want to contravene gift decisions made by the donor during
his or
her lifetime. I think that takes a lot of crust. Would they also think
they
have a right to demand the return of a wedding or birthday gift their
parent
(or ancestor) gave to a private individual just because they lust after it?
If
they can prove that the donor didn't have full ownership of some family
heirloom and had no right to donate it to the museum in the first place, of
course
that's a different matter. But merely wanting to have an object, now in a
museum collection, because it allegedly has family heirloom value would cut
no ice
with me. Repressing the urge to tell them to take a hike, I'd try to
convince them that preserving the object in the museum's collection is an
appropriate
way to honor the family.
I have always felt that it's a great mistake when curators and registrars
do
not state up front (and in the deed of gift or gift agreement) that the
museum
cannot guarantee exhibition of a gift. As far as I can tell, this omission
occurs most of the time in many museums. Donors do need to be educated by
the
museum about this, during the acquisition process. It is a fact of museum
life that a rock-solid guarantee of public display of a gift, whether
permanent,
occasional, or temporary, is rarely possible, and we should have the guts
to
say so. I think it's a shame (practically a scandal) that museums can't
agree
to make such disclaimers the norm. Since it isn't yet the norm, I suppose
everyone is afraid to go out on a limb and be the first to tell the truth,
fearing that such candor will scare donors off and lead them to seek out
another
museum that isn't so frank.
I've seen situations in which even artifacts collected for a specific
exhibition didn't make the final cut and couldn't be included, leading to
great
disappointment for donors who had been led to believe that their gifts
definitely
would be displayed--all because the museum didn't explain that there are no
guarantees. Donors need to understand that the production of an exhibition
involves negotiations over issues of space, design, theme, logistics,
narrative
flow, etc., and that some objects--including some that the curator fully
intended
to show--may be eliminated for one reason or another. Of course, the other
side of the coin is that some objects which were collected primarily for
study
purposes may end up being selected for display years later, however
un-exhibitable they may have seemed at first blush.
A donor who is specifically courted and solicited for a gift in an
exhibition-driven transaction may well feel frustrated if the gift
ultimately is
rejected from the exhibition. In situations in which the donor's desire
and
expectation of display in a specific exhibition is intense, a curator might
be wise to
make the transaction a loan to be considered for display, then converting
it
to a gift when and if it actually goes on exhibit.
While we're telling donors we can't guarantee exhibition of their gifts, it
seems to me that it would be nice if we routinely informed them when their
gifts actually do go on display. One recent donor of mine, who understood
why we
couldn't promise display, asked for a stipulation in the deed that she or
her
heirs be notified if we ever DID display it publicly. I was not permitted
to
add such a stipulation, however, on the grounds that it would be too
difficult
to enforce, unfairly committing my unwitting successors to honor such an
agreement. But I think this would not be a problem if such practices were
more
frequent and normal. I was told that such a notification requirement would
produce a hardship for future staff due to possible changes of address and
difficulting in locating a donor or heirs, but my answer to that is to
further
stipulate that it is the responsibility of the donor or heirs to provide
updated
contact information to the museum to facilitate exhibition notifications.
After
all, what is so difficult about sending a donor a form letter stating that
a
donation is scheduled either for temporary or indefinite display? I think
such procedures, if standardized, would alleviate much confusion and many
hard
feelings.
Potential donors who dream of seeing their donations on display in a museum
setting, of course, have every right to shop around in order to locate the
institution which seems the most likely to display them. But I think
museums need
to be much more careful about being honest and above board in negotiations
with donors, telling them--and stipulating in gift agreements--that they
cannot
guarantee exhibition of a donation because of the vicissitudes of the
museum
business. Even if a donated object truly is a central artifact in a
planned
exhibition, and you're in a position to say so to the donor, occasionally
an
exhibition gets cancelled due to lack of funding or other factors over
which the
curator has no control.
While I'm complaining about greedy or demanding donors, I nevertheless want
to add that too many museums don't, in my opinion, treat their donors right
when their objects do go on display. I repeat my statement that I think
donors
or their heirs should be notified about plans to place their donation on
display, whenever possible. And they should receive label credit in the
exhibition,
whether in a separate object label or in a general donor list (unless of
course they prefer anonymity, which is something else that ought to be
established
in a gift agreement). I've been troubled by the notion, which seems to be
increasing in the museum world, that donor credits in exhibitions are
unnecessary. There was a time, I think, when donor credit lines in
exhibits were taken
for granted.
I sympathize with museum staff who are afflicted with sloppy record-keeping
of the past--missing gift and loan agreements, vague agreements, inadequate
identification of provenance, etc. The problems which arise from bad
practices
should amply demonstrate how important good gift and loan agreements are.
We
have a responsibility to our collections and our donors to make sure that
new
transactions are properly documented and that all the bases are covered.
David Haberstich
=========================================================
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).
=========================================================
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).
|
