I'm in complete agreement with Anne.

Do not fall into the long-term loan trap!  Your organization ends up
becoming a WAREHOUSE for other people/organizations that may not
eventually donate the objects, or may not let you display or interpret
them the way you want to, or may take them back and damage them before
returning them to you, and so on.  It's hard for us the the historical
society/museum/preservation fields to let collections like the banners out
from under our watchful gaze, but we have to draw the line somewhere.

And the paperwork and legal entanglements can be a nightmare.  There was a
good session at the recent NEMA (New England Museums Association)
Conference called "Museum Limbo: Objects in Purgatory" in which a laywer
for the Smithsonian spoke about the legal problems of dealing with
perpetual loans.  Basically, avoid them like the plague!

Melanie Solomon
[log in to unmask]


>>Does anybody out there have experience of joint ownership of objects
>>between the museum and the original owners? We may be acquiring some
>>trade union banners but the unions are reluctant to transfer ownership
>>of objects that have such strong meaning for their organisation but they
>>know they can't adequately care for them. Long term loan would be the
>>option they would be considering. We are reluctant to enter into long
>>term loans for all the usual reasons. So we are looking for other
>>options, or perhaps a loan agreement with conditions that would still
>>give us a lot of control over the object. Does anyone have any
>>experience with such an agreement or any other suggestions? Thanks
>
>
>Well, not a museum specialist but have/am in the same position as the
union
>in the
>case....
>
>I think that would be fair for everybody would, as to joint ownership, be
>that the union
>donate to your site, however, retain the 'right of first refusal' if the
>items in question
>were ever deaccessioned  - a decision which would be arrived at by the
museum
>and the
>donators would have to agree to that..
>
>IMHO, I think that there are cases where individuals/organizations are in
>possession of
>artifacts that they would donate to a specific museum with the
understanding
>that said
>artifact(s) will physicially stay in that museum.  However, for whatever
>reason, the
>artifact does hold a personal value and the donator would not want these
>items sold or
>transferred...
>
>I think that would work, I think it is emminently fair...... the museum
has
>the artirfact
>for as long as it is of historic value as a museum item and the donator
can
>rest secure
>that it will not be "sold" or "transferred"  -re: 'right of first
refusal' on
>deaccessioning...
>
>This would probably entail putting another paragraph in the donation
form...
>and given
>reports that I have heard from different curators in Ontario, it is
beginning
>to be an
>established practice because of the many problems that can arise.
>
>To my mind, everybody wins if this would be done...  It would have to
>documented for
>everybody's sake and for legal reasons....i.e., "if it's not on paper, it
>doesn't
>exist"...  Referring to my other posts here... this was certainly my
family's
>"Understanding" and now we have only our "word"... The donator is not
>protected.  However,
>from the museum's point of view, they would also be protected with
respect to
>a donator
>arriving one day and saying "I want it back...  I never agreed that you
could
>keep it
>until deaccessioning"....  Regardless of my postings of my personal
>experience, I do
>understand that museums would be concerned about this and should also be
>protected.
>
>And it is true that there are people who donate to museums and what
>ultimately happens to
>the artifact is not an issue for them... but, for some, it is very
>important...
>
>Documented "Right of first refusal on deaccessioning"... that's the
>ticket....IMHO:-)
>
>Anne
>
>