In a message dated 96-08-01 17:57:42 EDT, [log in to unmask] (GLYN
BALKWILL) writes:

> Seriously, though, our change of ownership agreement does have a
>  clause that says we can transfer to a more appropriate museum,
>  transfer to a study or demonstration collection or dispose of as we
>  see fit (again I paraphrase from memory) should the object no longer
>  be appropriate to the collection.

Hi Glyn. I do see a problem with this, altho I will try not to flame you
about it. The contract sounds terribly subjective. Who is the authority that
"sees fit"? What if your institution appoints someone to the position of
decision maker who may or may not make decisions without the best interest of
the object or the collection in mind). 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. I think it is more than a case of people not reading the fine
print, it is the public perception of museums: museums have endless storage
space and just by being in the possession of a museum, an object is cared for
(i.e. requiring no further care). Your institution is definately thinking on
the future track, but perhaps more education of your constituents is needed?

- Adrienne