Basically, the idea of strings attached to a donation is dangerous on a long
term basis. Of course, at first, visitors, board members and curatorial staff
might be thrilled to display an artifact/work of art that deemed valuable enough
to impose acquisition conditions.  However, in a few years,it will most likely
become an obstacle to new exhibition concepts or a reorientation on the
institutional mission.  Furthermore,what was considered so veluable should also
be protected and permanent exhibition will inevitably damage it.  So, although I
agree with Ross Weeks that institutional policies are binding, I would advise
you to present the situation in a way the board will understand: that of a sound
investment, which includes long-term benefits as well as short-term.

Hervé Gagnon
Director-curator
Colby-Curtis Museum
Stanstead (Québec)
Canada

Ross Weeks a écrit:

> Starlyn, the best and most effective argument you can use is to make sure
> your governing board has this stipulation in its collections policy -- and
> your job is simply to adhere to the policy of the institution.
>
> If your board doesn't, or won't, then there isn't much point in arguing, is
> there?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Starlyn D'Angelo <[log in to unmask]>
> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.museum-l
> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thursday, August 13, 1998 12:46 PM
> Subject: Donor agreements
>
> >What are your strongest arguments for upholding the "no strings attached"
> >policy for donations to museum collections?
> >I am a young professional and occassionally I find that I must back up my
> >opinions with hard facts or the words of others before people listen
> >to me.  I insist that no professional museum promises donors permanent
> >display of an object (this is noted several times in the
> >Museum-L archives but no rationale is provided).  I need the words of other
> >professionals to back me up.  Thanks for your help.
> >
> >Starlyn D'Angelo, Curator
> >Old Stone Fort Museum Complex