Hi.  My name is Gayle Montgomery.  I've been posting
as Indigo Nights on this list for five years.  My
anonymity hasn't harmed the list.  Frankly, I could
have gone back to Gayle years ago except that members
of this list didn't know Gayle, they knew Indigo and,
with a few thousand members, it just seemed more
logical to maintain the same identity.  I've "outted"
myself on more than one occasion.

So I rather take exception to the puffing umbrage that
seems to evolve in this thread.

Why do I take umbrage?  Because Indigo was created
years ago to protect me from workplace, illegal,
unethical, human resource type violations that were
ongoing in another career as I considered moving into
the world of museums.  After all, my interest was in
development, and I had already raised $3/4 million for
charity, largely from the for-profit sector.  Figured
I could move to NPO because it was sort of like
converting from Methodist to Lutheran at one point.
The skills were simply transferrable.

Those who think John Chadwick is going to bounce
someone for being anonymous apparently don't know
John.  Suggesting he's going to change the tenor of
this list because someone else's perception of just
how it should be run doesn't match isn't going to
happen.  John will help us keep spammers off list for
the most part--and the next time someone spams, it's
simply best to ignore them because you're just
providing them an additional, valid email address to
send their garbage.

But those of you who are puffing about what an
employee should do or not do in another job are
obviously standing on secure ground.  You have your
job or the tools to be able to walk away with no
problem.

Not everybody has that luxury.  You are presupposing
the person who took umbrage with what was ongoing has
the ability to simply walk into another job which is
highly preposterous.  The economy, quite frankly, has
tanked.  Museum jobs are especially difficult to come
by.  Get the material from the California Arts Council
I posted to the 570+ members of MuseJobs last night
about how many states are facing severe budget crisis,
and jobs are simply not out there to be had.  In other
words, at the risk of being as rude as you were to
Anon, get a sincere grip on reality!

I skimmed the original article,and I'm not going to
dig it out.  But the ethical violations hit the paper
before they hit this list, if there are, in fact,
ethical violations.  Anon didn't make them up. (S)he
simply posted the information here with the express
concern that this should be looked into, and are there
ways/responsibilities for that to happen?  It was an
informational request with some lobbying attached.

Now this person has been attacked and demeaned.

What the hell makes anybody here any better than Anon?
 Are we NOT subject to public scrutiny?  Are there no
responsibilities for an ED to protect and preserve
collections under their care?

My original thoughts had something to do with going
back to the Mission Statement of the entity itself,
and the actions of the ED should be accountable to the
Board of the museum in question.  The Board has a
LEGAL responsibility to see that the mission of the
entity is followed, and there may be legal
ramifications if endowments are violated and/or
legacies sold off for personal gain.

But all this accusation among team members here,
frankly, is "Amish Transportation Waste"!  What makes
an Enron or some other public entity subject to
ethical scrutiny, and a museum exempt?

Unless Indigo just crawled out from under a rock,
we're all fallible human beings.  We make judgmental
calls about actions involving our institutions.  But I
don't think perfection was a requirement to joining
this list, and this public spearing that seems to be
ongoing is not going to engender healthy public
discussion and/or support.

I'm not sure whether the boards need to be pulled from
eyes or backsides, but frankly this kind of public
reaming is not appropriate and adds to the perception
of many that there is far too much elitism in this
profession than should reasonably be expected.

If the director in question is mishandling those
artifacts with which he is charged, does this group
truly assert that's ok because the allegations were
brought forth by someone who may well need a job to
support their family and thereby sought the
protections of anonymity?

Further, this is NOT the first time the person posted
as anon anon.  Check out the archives.  I vaguely
remember seeing it posted as such before.  Why didn't
you take umbrage then?

I seem to remember the Person of the Year went to
three women who dared to blow the whistle on
transgressions in industry.  There seem to be some
real whistle pluggers here on the list.  Nonprofit
organizations are subject to a higher level of
scrutiny than public orgs.  Why would you want to
remove that protection and possibly lose treasures of
import?

In other words, why not deal with the question of
whether a true ethics violation may have occurred with
respect to the artifacts as opposed to whether you
think somebody is cowardly because they chose to
shield themselves from harm in the interest of
protecting the treasures?

Cherubim and seraphim may unite in heaven, but this
list is comprised entirely of mere mortals of equal
standing, and it doesn't much matter if their names
are Mud and Slime if their contributions have
validity.

Have a nice day.  If you think about it, you MIGHT
want to consider a humble apology to Anon and get back
to the issue (s)he raised.

Gayle/Indigo


--- Nicholas Burlakoff <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> It must feel delicious to feel secure behind a cloak
> of anonymity while
> ridiculing those who question the ethical standards
> of a person who spews
> accusations at folk without the courage to face the
> one, one slanders. The
> fact is, that the aggrieved party can get access to
> the e-mail registration
> of the anonymous slanderer and consequences can
> still befall. And final
> irony, my own sympathy goes out to a director who
> has to deal with disloyal
> ex-employees and anonymous slanderers.
>
> The list needs to set a policy that prevents
> anonymous postings. We need to
> ensure that a list master either stops them, or
> exposes the identity of
> these truly unethical folk.
>
> Nicholas Burlakoff



=====
Indigo Nights
[log in to unmask]

Looking for a Job?  Try Got Links?, Your One-Stop Portal
http://victorian.fortunecity.com/stanmer/414

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

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