At 10:26 AM 8/2/96 -0400, Adrienne Dearmas wrote (with regards to notifying
donors that the museum may subsequently dispose of their donations):

> Is it not better to act positively in
>the present than to leave important decisions to the unknown in the future?
>Perhaps I am too much of a control freak, but I would rather decide not to
>accession an object and hurt the potential donor's feelings that way then to
>alienate a larger group of donors when they hear that their "stuff" could be
>sold, traded or otherwise disposed of at any time based on someone's
>discretion.

Yes and no.  Yes, a museum should have a clear collections policy, or else
you will find yourself the community's repository of all manner of bizarre
stuff, irrelevant to your research and collecting missions.

But at the same time, you do not want to tie the hands of future staff by
not allowing them a way out of a collection that has outlived its
usefulness.  Most collecting institutions are established "in perpetuity."
That does not mean "in stasis."  Missions change, and the Roman coins (hi
Janice!) that seemed like a good idea when they were offered may, five or
ten decades down the road, no longer fit if your collecting mission has
shifted to focus on, say, contemporary Polynesia.

So yes, be very careful what you take in now, but also leave yourself (or
your followers) an escape hatch if necessary.

Eugene W. Dillenburg
Coordinator, Special Projects
Exhibits Department
The Field Museum of Natural History
Chicago, Illinois  60605-2496
V: (312) 922-9410 x636
F: (312) 922-6973
E: [log in to unmask]

"Never pay more than minimum wage for a shirt."

                                -- Bruce Elliott