I was reading, The Center for the Future of Museums Blog, and came across a post that asks, "Is it ethical for a museum to use the money it gets from selling collections to fund general operations?". Well what's your view? Read on.

Read the entire post here: http://futureofmuseums.blogspot.com/201 ... lling.html

(Hint: Use the search box at the very top left of the blog to find other interesting discussions.)

Depends an awful damn lot on who you're selling it to... and what THEY intend to do with it.


But yes, if you are "scrapping the place out" just to keep the lights on, "yer doin it wrong".

That would also be true if the "scrapping the place out" amounts to merely deferred maintenance.

Also true if it is just accumulating new debt.

Also true if it means settling out old debt for a fraction.

All of the above is included in the term "equity stripping".

Working for a museum, this is a concern I deal with frequently and thought I might share some of my notes:

A Legal Primer on Managing Museum Collections

• The prime concern of a museum is the enhancement and protection of its collection.
• The common practice to use proceeds only for the acquisition of new collection material has been the subject of intense debate and the profession is split on the use of proceeds.
• When museums seek to deaccession for reasons other than collections improvement, the underlying problem is invariably a history of board failure to exercise prudence in fiscal management.

National Standards & Best Practices (AAM)

• All museums are expected to abide by the AAM Code of Ethics that specifies that proceeds from sales resulting from deaccessions can be used only for acquisitions or direct care of collections.
• While the interpretation of “direct care” varies between museums and disciplines, there is a strong consensus that that it does not include use of funds to pay for operational expenses.
• AASLH specifies that history museums can use such funds only for acquisition and preservation.

ICOM Code of Ethics

• Museum collections are held in public trust and may not be treated as a realisable asset. Money or compensation received from the deaccessioning and disposal of objects and specimens from a museum collection should be used solely for the benefit of the collection and usually for acquisitions to that same collection.

Deaccessioning should be a very careful, very thought out process with discussion on the use of funds realized. Mission statements, collection policies, and some of titles above should be use to guide the deaccession as well as accession process.

Joshua

its time to put out those public service ads radio and TV do to say..hey! Come see our stuff we have some fun things to do! (and those ads are free)

If your a non-profit you should be able to do that.

by the time your done selling you have no displays left and a blank museum.

I've never worked for a museum at which any generated revenues from deaccession weren't immediately eaten up with the cost of caring for the collection, and still found to be insufficient.

We've all heard the horror stories here about scrappings used to fund the continued operating expenses - in some cases, salaries of those who should be charged with caring for the collections but are authorized to dispose of them without oversight.....anybody see a possible conflict of interest here?

Managing collections isn't rocket science - managing the size of the collection to make sure it is manageable is harder, but with an unemotional and rational approach it is certainly possible.

Collections evolve - it isn't evil unless there's no mission driven reason for the evolution. Our "GRAB EVERYTHING" strategy turns out to have not been a strategy for long term preservation and interpretation at all.

dave

This is a real issue in Detroit where some would like to sell art from the Detroit Institute of Art to pay some of the city's bills....

Then you get to the cost of appraising a collection to determine it's book value.

Bob H

I noticed some people say in another thread that NRM, Green Bay, should sell their British steamer "Dwight Eisenhower" for big dollars and use the money to house and preserve the rest of the collection. That's the sort of issue the blog post is talking about. Is it ethical? Y/N

From ARM Recommended Practices:

Before answering Y/N you need to have a collections policy.



Then you need the de-accession policy:

The FCC no longer requires broadcasters to carry public service announcements on radio or television. Many stations no longer broadcast public sevice announcements. Perhaps the best free publicity you can get is talk a local television station to carry a story about some special event at your museum.

"Selling collections to fund general operations" reminds me of the old farmers' expression "Eating your seed corn". The term "death spiral" also comes to mind. On the other hand, my "home" museum has sold off a number of trolley cars to places where they were A) more appropriate, and B) where they could be the focus of attention rather than one of many relics competing for resources. Most of the funds derived from these sales have gone into buildings to keep the remaining relics out of the weather.

As a side remark, when I became involved with railway preservation about 50 years ago, terms like "deaccession" and "mission statement" would not become parts of our vocabularies for many years.

This illustrates another set of questions that must be addressed. Just because it might be ethical to sell an artifact does not necessarily mean that that is a smart idea. This depends on the nature of the specific item involved. In the specific case of the Dwight Eisenhower, it could well be argued that selling the locomotive could be more harmful then beneficial. The Eisenhower is different in that it was a gift from a foreign nation given in thanks for our support to them in World War II. Seeing such a significant item sold could at the least be very off putting to potential donors and political supporters. Similarly, even transferring the ownership of such an item might be damaging to the organization unless the process is given careful consideration and carefully executed.

This. Exactly.

Even if it were somehow decided that the NRM's A4 were no longer part of the Museum's mission statement, the loco went to a billionaire who promptly turned it over to the LNER A4 Preservation Society in the UK and paid for its repatriation, and the NRM put the millions raised towards a new climate-controlled display hall that put every last exhibit in a perfect setting, there's still that little matter of the original gesture.

I know personally of relationships that have soured VERY hard between museums and groups that acquired and donated artifacts to museums only to see them "traded" or "deaccessioned" off a few years later after a management or policy change.

Does it really?

Once you sell it, it's out of your control. Maybe you sell it to the scrapyard, or maybe you sell it to the Smithsonian, but in either case, you no longer control its destiny.

Even if it isn't scrapped, will it be properly cared for? Will it be properly displayed? The only way to truly ensure it's done the way you feel is proper is to do it yourself.

Not. Necessarily.

I recently had the privilege to blunder into the original sales agreement between one history-preservation group and another regarding a certain piece of rolling stock, a piece most American rail preservationists would rate as "iconic."

The group that ended up with the piece was just starting up at the time, and made a purchase offer, with good cause, to the group that originally saved the piece from almost certain destruction. The agreement states that the original owner has right/option of first refusal to repurchase the item in question, for the original purchase price.

That was nearly a half-century ago. The original price was in the low three figures.

Both groups still exist today. The latter group has since put a good six figures of dollars into the piece during a complete restoration. The latter group shows no signs of going away any time soon, but just in case, I happened to have an opportunity to mention the deal in passing to an officer of the latter group, with a smile...... He replied "We'll worry about that if and when it ever happens."

As Sandy said, not necessarily. Same goes for donated materials. It all depends on the substance of the contractual agreement between the parties.