In article <[log in to unmask]>, Ross Weeks
<[log in to unmask]> says:
>

>
>I wonder how many museums have been "turned over to the private sector"
>entirely, lock stock and barrel.

It is very difficult for an agency of government (any level, U.S.) to
do such a thing because these governments are generally not allowed to
simply "give" government property away.

In the South Dakota example I have cited, a state museum was no longer
deemed necessary by the legislature.  They zeroed out the museum's budget.
A last minute deal with the Governor by the museum's friends group allowed
the museum to be phased out of government funding over a two year period
after which, everyone thought, the museum building and collection would
be turned over to this friends group to run (the lock, stock, and barrel).

As we worked into this two year period, legal research revealed that even
the governor could not simply "give away" the museum.  The solution,
which really satisfies no one, was to make the friends group the managers
of the museum, fiscally responsible, but with no ownership of the
building, land, or collection.  They have to raise the funds to run it
and keep it open, the state still maintains ownership (and legal respon-
sibility) for the collection, BUT we have no say in what they do with the
collection, so long as it is not illegal.

Privatization, in the U.S., means that the institution no longer receives
public money to run--but it can be a huge can of worms.

Claudia Nicholson
Curator of Collections
Museum of the South Dakota State HIstorical Society
Pierre

[log in to unmask]