Sharon wrote:

"We have collectors/dealers on our Board of Trustees and Board of
Overseers.  I do have both on my Collections Committee.  I agree that
their presence can raise potential conflicts, but the bonus comes in
their knowledge of the market, availability of objects, relationships
with other collectors who can be cultivated as donors, and finally in
their own generosity to our insistution in terms of their committments
of time, knowledge, and finances. It should be clear to Boards and
Committees that the dealers and collectors shouldn't operate in conflict
with the museum.  But I think they have such a wealth of knowledge and
interest that they shouldn't be excluded from our advisory committees."

Thanks for sharing.  These seem like good reasons for allowing dealers
on your decision making bodies.  This has the makings of an intriguing
discussion.

We may be talking about two very different kinds of institutions.   (So
often a museum decision isn't black or white but some shade of gray
based on particular circumstances--an argument, by the way, for museum
training at the graduate level.)

Having taken the helm of a museum after a dealer had more or less been
given carte blanche in deaccessioning decisions, I'm understandably a
little paranoid about this.  Also, I have mostly worked with and advised
small (occasionally not so small) history museums often run largely by
volunteers or with Boards that aren't particularly sophisticated about
the legal and ethical aspects of museum collecting.  Often if there is
staff they may not have professional training. Or the curator may be
trained but not have the power to prevail in certain decisions.  So in
general and particularly for this kind of institution, I'd still
recommend not having dealers on a collection committee or on the Board.
(There's a somewhat parallel rule, I beleive, that museum consultants
can't be on the Board of Directors of AAM.)   I see no reason not to
consult with them, though, so long as they aren't making the decision or
benefiting in any way from the result of their recommendation.

I guess Emily needs to be provided with specific information on just
what policies or practices need to be in place if dealers are involved
in collection decisions.

Here's one:  It's a conflict of interest for a Board member (or
committee member or staff) to collect in competition with their
institution.  So if a staff or board member (or collection committee
members)  comes across (anywhere, on work or personal time) and buys an
artifact that meets the museum's collecting criteria, they are obligated
to offer it to the museum for the same amount they paid for it.  Will a
dealer/board/committee member be willing to do this?  (The idea here is
that in these positions your primary obligation is to the enhancement of
your institution.)

I'd like to see others add to this list, and some more comment on the
topic.
Anyone??

Lucy Skjelstad