I'm liable to repeat some things I said about deaccessioning policies the last time the issue came up, so I apologize if some of this sounds familiar. These are just my personal opinions. While the sale of deaccessioned objects occasionally has gotten bad press and has been sensationalized by news media, I think it is acceptable as long as it does not become a frequent, routine practice. Overindulgence in this method would be tantamount to a museum appearing to be functioning as a dealer. For an art museum to accept as a gift a major work of art, wait for it to appreciate in value, and then sell it off would be a highly questionable act, for example. When objects are sold the revenue should be used for new acquisitions, never operating expenses. And I would certainly oppose the diversion of deaccessioning income to something like web site development or outreach programs, which I would consider akin to putting the cart before the horse. That having been said, I admit that I once accepted as gifts items which duplicated other items already in the collection, with an eye toward using them later for trading purposes with collectors (our museum had never sold anything at that time, but trades were permissible). If such trades had occurred, I would have recorded the new acquisitions as gifts in the names of the donors of the original items, which would be an appropriate, ethical way of acknowledging the continuing beneft of these gifts. When I acquired gifts earmarked for later trading, I made it clear in letters of agreement with the donors that this was the intended ultimate disposition of the gifts. While I still think that this arrangement was reasonable in theory, I eventually found that the scheme was of dubious value--the items which I selected were not easily converted to more desirable acquisitions in actual practice, and concluded that it was more trouble than it was worth: we were left with too many white elephants. When it becomes desirable to deaccession objects which originally were accepted in good faith as "keepers" I emphatically agree that they should not be offered back to the original donors, partly because this compromises the donor's relationship with IRS, if a tax deduction was taken--and one should probably assume that this was the case. Of course, each proposed deaccession should be carefully considered on its own merits, and I would not dismiss out of hand a donor request to have an item returned if the donor could make a strong case (temporary insanity at the time of donation, errors regarding ownership status, unacknowledged family or sentimental value, etc., etc.), but a thorough examination of the issue would be required. A simple change of mind isn't good enough. We have also had a situation in recent memory in which a corporate donor claimed that the official who arranged a donation was not authorized to do so and the corporation wanted the gift returned. While we were operating in good faith and could not be faulted, we had to consider the possibility that an error had been made which needed to be rectified. I do not know what decision was made. However, I do not agree that the donor of an object proposed for deaccession should "never" be contacted at all. It seems to me that it's good public relations to inform donors about deaccession proposals--not to encourage them to reclaim their donations--but merely to inform. I'm haunted by the prospect of having to tell a proud donor that his gift is no longer in the collection when he asks you to let his grandchildren see it. A letter indicating that a deaccession is being proposed, regardless of the type of disposition, should be for information purposes only and should stipulate that normally deaccessioned objects cannot be returned to donors. No herculean efforts need be made to contact elusive donors: if your letter is returned marked "addressee unknown," you can at least demonstrate that you made the effort to inform. I realize that many or most museums would not elect to offer such deaccession proposal notification and go this extra mile, but I think it is an option which would demonstrate a museum's sense of continuing responsiblity to donors, and it seems to me a simple enough gesture, which could be couched in a carefully worded, tactful explanation which reiterates appreciation for the original donation. I know, I know, such notification could backfire, but I think there is much to be said for being up front and open at the outset of a deaccession procedure, as opposed to having to explain (or saddle your sucessors with an unpleasant confrontation) after the fact. (I also happen to think that donors should be informed when their gifts are placed on display, although I realize that in the case of large exhibitions comprising objects from many donors, this could represent quite a chore.) I feel that a museum which takes such a thoughtful and responsible approach to deaccessions, regardless of disposition--donation to another institution, sale, trade, or destruction--could garner public relations benefits so that deaccession is not a dirty word. 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).