This case could be one we all could learn to avoid by , at least, having a will that expresses our wishes in some detail. However, that is not much help to you right now. One point ot consider: the museum director might be letting go of the newspapers and phone books because they are typically printed on papers which contain a lot of acid. Hence, preservation of those items can be pricey. Maybe that is just me being cynical, but I had to interject that comment. Laura West Cultural Resource Specialist Historian & Archeologist M&S Enigineering, Ltd M&S Management P.O. Box 970 Spring Branch, Texas 78070 -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Van Buren [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 8:51 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Related items in a collection -- long I would appreciate some feedback on the following situation. A museum director in my collecting area (University Archives with partial regional collecting mission) asserts that the components of a collection owned by a deceased city historian are not related, and can be broken up. These are historic newspapers (full run), photos, computer databases ranging from city lot histories to city personnel records, historic phone books, and some ephemera. The newspapers and phonebooks were used to generate the databases, some of which are incomplete. The original set of photos belonged to the newspaper, and many subsequent additions to the photographs have also been used in the newspaper. The city and the local preservation commission are very interested in permanent preservation of the newspapers. This director wants to split the collection up, maintaining that the components are not related. What he wants to do is to keep the databases and photographs, and unload the newspapers and phone books. In archives land, this collection is related in several different ways -- by collector, by users (who often access different or all parts of it in the same visit), and by its provenance (newspaper office and interrelated creation). In a fit of cynicism, I wondered if this director was keeping the material which he feels can generate cash (his shop has a 'healthy' fee schedule for photos and copies), and unloading the stuff that won't. In addition, splitting this material up pretty much directly goes against the wishes of the deceased (I was there when he said what he wanted, 2 days before he died). There is no signed donor agreement. My questions are 1) is this also a related collection in museum land, (& I and the city are just supposed to be too dumb to figure it out)?, and 2) Should I suggest that if this person wants the rug, he'll have to take the dog (that's sleeping on it)? Thanks ========================================================= 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).