Then, in at least some sense, you have become a delayed scrap yard. Not what I expect from a museum. Any museum.

In a sense, so is every museum. How's that library at Alexandria?

The opposite approach is never to accept anything not in perfect, pristine condition with an endowment. If you mandate that every last thing set in a museum is enshrined forever, then little will be saved.

Given the real world, every last thing you save will last forever, and get restored eventually. Some pieces are likely to get neglected--see two GG1's in Cooperstown, NY, or Reading 2100, or a myriad of other examples--but the opposite is saving nothing.

It behooves any museum to act responsibly towards what it collects, and also to the public it serves and which donates to it. A museum that neglects its artifacts, its mission statement, or the public soon withers and dies, or is taken over by another museum (or creditors, auction bidders, etc.).

Well? What DO you expect from a museum? And how would you propose that museums get there?

I gather you're not in favor of "scrapping all the ugly stuff", nor do you want to just leave it to rust. I'm waiting with bated breath to hear your brilliant idea, unless it's "get it under cover", in which case I'm onboard.

So you gonna help with this?

I've said all I have to say. I've pointed you to the sources you need to learn what the best thinking of the museum profession is, built out of 100 years of experience. Beyond that I can't help you--your opinion is your own, and your mileage may vary.

You've chosen the question of what is the moral obligation of a museum in reference to an artifact that has been donated/gifted to them. Most of the posts here have clearly defined the process of ascession and deascession based on their purposes, mission, and overall capability. All of which define the museum's moral and legal obligations.

Because you are a member of an organization, doesn't make the organization's policies any different to keep your donation versus someone who visited the museum once and wished to donate their grandfather's railroad paper memoriabilia or train magazines. Policies are adopted and revamped throughout the years of any corporation. Look at the auto industry; should we still be driving Model A's all in black? Can you just imagine the NASCAR races! :)

But, I wish to bring it back to you, the donor. What was your moral obligation when you obtained the item? Did you purchase it to keep it from disappearing? Did you acquire the material from your grandfather who worked on the railroad? Why are you donating it? If you purchased it to keep it from disappearing, what have you done -- just passing it on to a museum to keep it in your honor? If so, did you pass on some much needed dollars to help offset it's presence at that museum?

Do you really think Grandfather wanted you to keep those railroad rule books for your kids and keep passing them on? Or did he not know about museums taking this stuff? Are you honoring Grandpa in your heart when you donate it to someone else, or just collecting the money when you sell the stuff on EBAY?

As a donor you can specify how your artifact may be used, displayed, etc., but it will always be up to the museum and it's policies whether they will accept such restrictions, and then if they do, they are bound by them. Unfortunately such restrictions usually ends in court battles where judges must rule as to the distribution of assets or how to return/sell an item.

So who's moral obligation is it to retain or sell or scrap? As a donor it's yours initially to decide. Once it is in the museum's hands, it's theirs to decide.

1railfan,
Please let me ask you a question (but with some setup). You are on the Board of Directors and the Collections Committee of a Museum. You have just enough cash flow to survive with no real budgetary room for large restorations or land infrastructure improvements. Your collection includes 7 widgets and one smidget which is the only smidget left in North America. They are all outside and you are keeping them up as best you can but you have the above mentioned cash difficulty.

A family donates Grandma's widget which is in rough shape but is accepted and accessioned into the collection. It is in rough enough shape that it is considered as a parts donor only and too bad for restoration itself.

A challenge grant comes to light that would allow enough resources to restore and house the smidget and one widget. You have a standing cash offer for 2 of the widgets if they are ever deaccessioned. You also find that along with your fund raising drive you can meet the challenge if you sell the 2 widgets and obtain the scrap value of the worst widget in the collection.

That one worst widget is Grandma's.

What would your decision be?

mld

Some railway museums require the donor of an artifact to arrange for money for track and preservation of the artifact. This assumes that it complies with the museum mission statement and does not duplicate an existing exhibit.

Artifacts donated as parts sources may be scrapped as needed.

I didn't mean to imply that I had the answer to this question. IMHO, when an item has gone beyond saving, it should be scrapped. UNLESS, it is the last or only .... In total, railroad museums have acquired more equipment than we can all reasonably expect to be restored, or even stored out of the weather. If there was a cheap and easy way to relocate this equipment from one to another museum, that would be ideal. A new home for SOME of the equipment is needed. However, it is very expensive to move equipment these days - more than the equipment is worth, most times.

Sorry - no "brilliant ideas" here - just an important discussion item.

As long as Grandma's widget was accepted with the full knowledge that the museum was going to scrap it to save others, scrap it!

"Museums have too much stuff" -- interesting theory. It happens to be a theory everyone else has too. But is this true, or is it merely the "oversized league fallacy"? Every fan has one team he cares about a lot, and a lot of teams he doesn't care about at all. If they aren't specific, fans would all agree there are way too many teams in the league. If they are specific, they find that is not the case at all.

That's what happened when I put the theory to the test. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=32527

So, my conclusion is that we did not over-collect. We under-preserve.
THAT is a completely different problem which requires a completely different solution.

Our museum has a policy that we will not accept artifact donations with stipulations. This is a result of some past donations that resulted in pieces in the collection that need major repair with no funds available. So the piece sits and rots. The only ways out are either to negotiate with the donor or wait for the donor to pass on. Neither option is good.

We would, given the proper circumstances, accept an artifact with stipulations. One would be with an endowment that would properly care for the item.

Recently we have turned down two items that come to mind.

One was a railfan's slide collection. The stipulation was that the collection had to remain intact. There was a portion of the slides that were out of our area (and mission), which needed to be sold or traded, as space and funds are limited.

The second was a very nice diorama that would have been a good addition to our collection. The owner wanted to be able to take it back if we weren't caring for it, placed it in storage, or wanted to dispose of it. We advised him that was the terms of a loan, not a donation, which we would be willing to negotiate.

Every not-for-profit museum has obligations, both legal and moral. The important part is finding a balance point.

Fair enough. I hope you're seeing some of the twists & turns of moral/legal obligation and the dreaded "gray areas". That is why the "Best Practices" are defined, agreed upon and adhered to (hopefully).

The museum I volunteer most at also has a standing policy of not accepting donations with strings. We also try to make it plain that once the donation is given it is the property of the museum to restore, display, store or dispose of. If the prospective donor is uncomfortable with that, they may chose to keep the item with no hard feelings from us. We learned this the hard way but it seems best for all parties involved.

I wish there were simple hard & fast rules but then what would discussion boards like this have to get all flustered over?

mld

Indeed. Good discussion. I like the idea that we haven't over collected, but, under preserved. It all comes down to money and priorities.

It's vitally important, I believe, for museums (any museum, not just railroad museums) to have comprehensive, institutionalized mission statements, collections and interpretation policies in effect.
I'm not against flexibility, not at all. I am against everything changing once a new boss comes in and decides the museum should feature, say, Western logging railroading in the middle of the Eastern coal territory (an extreme, made up example). Often museum management acts as if the institution didn't exist before they walked through the door.

You mean like a BigBoy in Texas or Wisconsin?