A sad circumstance that never should have happened, but did.  We can all learn something from it.

However, Grant, there is one thing you said that I disagree with:  you suggested that when deaccessioning artifacts, an institution should first contact the family to see if they "want the item back".  That is not proper.  Once a donor has signed title of an artifact over the the museum, the museum owns it outright, and the donor no longer has any interest in it.  The museum's responsibility to dispose of deaccessioned artifacts properly requires them to do one of the following:  transfer the artifact to another institution, so that the object remains available to the public; if the artifact is partial,or in exceptionally poor condition and un-repairable, then witnessed destruction is called for; or, if it has market value and the other two options are not indicated or possible, it can be sold to benefit the museum--not to pay for lights or salary, but only to provide funds to benefit the collection--seeing to it's care and long-term preservation--OR, to purchase something on the market that would be suitable for the museum's collection.

I have read a number of Collections Management policies that state that this is how deaccessions should be handled.  Having said that, you can never go wrong if you notify the donor of your intention to dispose of an item that they donated.  It helps with hurt feelings.  But you have to be prepared to have a conversation with the donor about why they can't get it back (this, of course, assumes that you have signed gift agreements that spell out the title-transfer, and that you can locate the family).  

I will be scrutinizing our Collections Management Policy (which is still, unfortunately in draft---long story) to ensure that we get this all right.

Claudia

Claudia J. Nicholson
Executive Director
North Star Museum of Boy Scouting and Girl Scouting
2640 Seventh Avenue East
North St. Paul, MN 55109-3103
651-748-2880
[log in to unmask]
www.nssm.org


On Jun 30, 2011, at 11:00 AM, Grant Gerlich wrote:

Casandra,
 
This is different than the scenario you presented. Yes that is a PR nightmare and unethical. Items donated to a museum should be accessioned into collection to be held in the public trust for future generations, educational purposes etc. etc.  To accept items for donation that you do not intend to keep and plan to sell, although a deed of gift gives the museum the option, is dis-ingenious at best.  I can see why the donor would be upset.  Transparency is the issue here. Donors need to know what your policy is.  Selling an item is the last resort and if you do, proceeds need to go back directly into the collection to purchase a better item for the collection or materials that will protect the collection; acid free boxes, shelving etc.
In the process of Deaccessioning (disposing of an item that you no longer need or can care for), the donor or their family should be contacted first to see if they want the item back.  If not, it should be either traded or gifted to a like institution. In reality, most items that a small museum would de-accession do not have alot of monetary value. The few dollars that you would receive from the sale the item is not worth the negative PR. Selling an item from a collection should be approached very carefully.
 
Take care,
 
Grant Gerlich, CA
Mercy Heritage Center
 
 
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Cass Karl <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
More information, for those who wanted it...
 
For the record, the event has already occurred (the object was sold)- so the point is now moot, but we are revisiting the scenario because we are doing another similar auction and the situation (or something similar) may occurr.  It was handled poorly in the first place (legal and ethical issues aside) and created a PR nightmare, and I want to develop a policy/procedure for this type of situation before it happens again.
 
The situation was that a first edition book (c. 1930) by a local author was donated to the museum unconditionally (meaning, according to the donation form, that we could either keep it or sell it to benefit the museum).  The decision was made by the then director that the book should be put into the silent auction at the annual fundraiser.  This was controversial because we do not have an original or autographed copy of that book in the collection, and the collections staff argued that it should be considered for the collection first.  The Board supported the director under the assumption that the book would bring a lot of revenue, which we desperately needed at the time.  *However* the book ended up selling for about $20 (less than the edition that we sell in our store), which horked off everyone involved, including the donor (who was present at the auction).  There was talk of the donor trying to withdraw the donation, or trying to pull the item from the auction, which just made matters worse.  In the end, the book was handed over to the winner of the auction and we don't know what happened to it.
 
It is my belief that the item *should* have been considered first for the collection, even though there was no legal or ethical responsibility to do so.  I think that would have been the right thing to do.  I am wondering whether (before we have another auction) we should write into our collections policy (and include on our donation forms) that all donated objects should/will be considered for the collection first, unless the donor specifically states another use.  Some of the board/ staff members agree with this, others do not want the use of unconditional gifts restricted in any way (they see the problem more as a matter of what the book sold for than the procedure that led to the sale).
Does that change anyone's opinion?
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Joel Williams <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
If the person donating the object is doing it explicity for the raising of funds, I don't see what right the museum has in keeping it. Offer to buy it, sure, but I'd argue it'd be unethical to do something other than what the donor intended.


On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Carol Ely <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I don’t have a source to cite, but here at Locust Grove we run an annual used book sale which has accepted donations of some quite valuable books. A professional book appraiser donates his services to us. When we see a book that is appropriate for in-house use, we move it either to the library, in the case of a book that is useful for reference, or offer it to the Acquisitions/Collections Committee for consideration, if it is suitable for display (a book that is old enough and of a subject matter that it could conceivably once been in the possession of household members).

 

I don’t know about illegal or unethical, but it’s not a good idea to turn down a free mission-related addition to your collection for simple revenue. Although I suppose that’s the position that many museums are in now, fortunately we are not in that position.

 

Carol Ely

Historic Locust Grove

Louisville

 

From: Museum discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Cass Karl
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 9:34 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Settle an argument (ethics/ legal question)

 

Hello listers!

 

I am hoping that someone on the list can settle an argument between myself and a colleague...

 

If an institution sells (say in a fundraising auction) an antique item (say an autographed 1st ed. book)  that was donated for the sale, but would really be more appropriately kept for the collection, is that a) illegal, b) unethical, c) neither of these, but still just not a good idea?  Please cite a source to support your position if you can.

 

Thanks!

 

-Casandra Karl

Executive Director

Mission Historical Museum

Mission, TX








To unsubscribe from the MUSEUM-L list, click the following link:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=MUSEUM-L&A=1