DOCSLIB.ORG

Direct Care of Collections Ethics, Guidelines and Recommendations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Direct Care of Collections Ethics, Guidelines and Recommendations Direct Care of Collections Ethics, Guidelines and Recommendations March 2019 Update Direct Care of Collections: Ethics, Guidance and Recommendations March 2019 For 25 years the Code of Ethics for Museums and accounting standards have been out of alignment regarding the use of proceeds from the sale of deaccessioned collections. The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) updated its standard to bring the two into alignment: allowing for direct care as well as acquisition. The ethical principles regarding responsible governance and collections stewardship have not changed. In light of the updated FASB standard noted below, however, a museum should revise its collections management policy, as needed, to disclose its use of proceeds and its definition of direct care (if allowed). These disclosures are additions to the recommendations for Creating an Institutional Policy on page 8. The decision-making tools (pages 9-11) remain relevant guidelines for a museum to define “direct care of collections” depending on its mission, discipline and specific circumstances. Accounting Standards Update The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) updated Topic 958, Definition of Collections (previously addressed in FASB 116) in March 2019. The update was made to align it with AAM’s Code of Ethics for Museums regarding the use of proceeds from the sale of deaccessioned objects. The updated standard permits museums not to recognize as revenue, nor capitalize, “contributions of works of art, historical treasures, and similar assets” if the donated items meet all of the following criteria: “a. They are held for public exhibition, education, or research in furtherance of public service rather than financial gain. b. They are protected, kept unencumbered, cared for, and preserved. c. They are subject to an organizational policy that requires the use of proceeds from items that are sold to be for the acquisition of new collection items, the direct care of existing collections, or both.” [emphasis added] The updated standard adds a requirement for a museum to disclose its policy for the use of proceeds from deaccessioned collection items. If the policy allows proceeds to be used for direct care, it should disclose its definition of direct care. The disclosure requirement informs financial statement users of how the museum defines collections for purposes of non-capitalization. The requirement for disclosure of its definition of direct care allows financial statement users to understand what expenditures qualify as direct care for that particular museum. If museums define direct care differently, users will be able to understand the differences in how museums apply proceeds from deaccessioned collection items to collections-related expenditures. Note: This one-page update is the only change to the original white paper which was issued in April 2016. Acknowledgments he Alliance collaborated with key discipline-specific organizations to identify individuals to Trepresent a variety of perspectives on the Direct Care Task Force. The Alliance expresses deep gratitude to the following task force members for their thoughtful and inclusive process. Sally Yerkovich (chair), director, Institute of Stacey Swigart, curator of collections, Please Museum Ethics; faculty, M.A. museum pro- Touch Museum fessions program, Seton Hall University, and Tim Thibault, curator, woody plant materi- museum anthropology program, Columbia als, Huntington Library, Art Collections and University Botanical Gardens Kathy Kelsey Foley, director, Leigh Yawkey Ken Turino, manager of community engagement Woodson Art Museum and exhibitions, Historic New England Sarah George, executive director, Natural History Janet Vaughan, vice president, membership and Museum of Utah programs, American Alliance of Museums Patty Gerstenblith, distinguished research Julie Hart, senior director, standards and professor and director, Center for Art, Museum excellence programs, American Alliance of and Cultural Heritage Law, DePaul University Museums College of Law Ron Kagan, director, Detroit Zoo The Alliance is grateful to the Association of Lisa Yun Lee, director, School of Art and Art Art Museum Directors (AAMD), the American History, University of Illinois; American Alliance Association for State and Local History (AASLH), of Museums board member the Association of Children’s Museums (ACM), Burt Logan, executive director and CEO, Ohio the American Public Gardens Association History Connection; chair, Accreditation (APGA), the Association of Science Museum Commission Directors (ASMD), the Association of Science- Thompson M. Mayes, vice president and senior Technology Centers (ASTC), the Association of counsel, National Trust for Historic Preservation Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) and the Society for Laurie Norton Moffatt, director and CEO, the Preservation of Natural History Collections Norman Rockwell Museum (SPNHC) for their collaboration on this effort. David Rock, director of exhibits and collections management, Arizona Science Center 00200 Direct Care of Collections: Ethics, Guidelines and Recommendations1 Disposal of collections through sale, trade or research activities is solely for the advancement of the museum’s mission. Proceeds from the sale of nonliving collections are to be used consistent with the established standards of the museum’s discipline, but in no event shall they be used for anything other than acquisition or direct care of collections.2 —Code of Ethics for Museums, American Alliance of Museums Introduction Background This white paper examines the phrase “direct The AAM Board of Directors adopted the Code care of collections” as used in the American of Ethics for Museums in 1993, after sever- Alliance of Museums’ (AAM/the Alliance) al years of discussion and debate about how Code of Ethics for Museums regarding the museums should use funds realized from the use of funds realized from the sale of items sale of deaccessioned collections.4 An earlier deaccessioned from a museum’s permanent version adopted in 1991 restricted “the use of collections.3 proceeds from the sale of collection materi- als…to the acquisition of collections.” Nearly The white paper: three-quarters of museums objected that this restriction was excessively limiting and an im- summarizes the history behind the code • pediment to fulfilling their respective missions. of ethics’ use of the phrase “direct care of History and natural history museums in partic- collections” ular argued that a museum’s responsibility to • reviews the ethical principles regarding care for and preserve its collections is of equal responsible governance and collections importance to its obligation to build its collec- stewardship tions. Historic sites agreed, calling attention to • provides guidelines and recommendations the need to preserve buildings and landscapes concerning direct care and guidance for as part of their collection stewardship respon- museum staff and governing authorities in sibilities. Science and technology centers were their decision-making shifting their focus to public education through interactive exhibitions not dependent on collec- recommends strengthening collections • tions; some divested themselves of collections management policies regarding use of and did not plan to acquire more. funds from deaccessioning 00300 Deaccessioning, the process of removing an item from a museum’s permanent collections, is an accepted collections management practice when it is carried out in accordance with relevant legal constraints, field-wide standards and ethical principles reflected in each museum’s policies and procedures. The issue became such a flash point that the Alliance Board of Directors appointed the after six months, the 1991 Code of Ethics for Direct Care Task Force, charging it to work across Museums was suspended to allow for further disciplines to clarify appropriate practices for the discussion. Ultimately, in 1993, the AAM Ethics field and reinforce the public’s confidence that Commission recommended and the board of di- museums are upholding their promise to pres- rectors approved a revision stating that proceeds ent and future generations by caring for their from the sale of nonliving collections should not incomparable resources. be used for “anything other than the acquisition or direct care of collections.” The phrase “direct To satisfy that charge, in 2015, the task force care of collections” reflected a compromise commissioned a field-wide survey 5 to determine that would accommodate different disciplines what museum professionals from different dis- and professional practices among museums. ciplines consider part of “direct care,” regardless The phrase was not defined at the time because of their museum’s current policies and practices. its definition was expected to evolve through The more than 1,200 responses to the survey, practice and to be codified in individual museum which showed surprising consistency regardless collections management policies. The Ethics of the respondent’s discipline or position with- Commission meeting minutes and correspon- in a museum, informed subsequent task force dence made it clear, however, that the phrase discussions about current practice and assisted was not intended to include operating costs (in- the group in evaluating the principles underlying cluding salaries) or to imply that funds garnered current standards and ethics. from the sale of deaccessioned objects could be used as a remedy in a financial crisis. In collaboration with key discipline-specific
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Deaccessioning Done Right by Jennifer Holt, Curator, Will Rogers Memorial Museums, Claremore
    technical bulletin Deaccessioning done right by Jennifer Holt, Curator, Will Rogers Memorial Museums, Claremore Oklahoma Museums eaccessioning is the process used to ered; private sales can be problematic due to Association Dremove permanently an object from a transparency and accountability issues. The Technical Bulletin #47 museum’s collection or to document the rea- use of all proceeds should comply with the Published January sons for an involuntary removal of an object professional ethics and the law. from such a collection. The deaccession- 2009 ing process is used only when accessioned Procedures should be developed along with objects are at issue. Deaccessioning should policies. Deaccession check lists should not be viewed as a routine way to manage follow policy parameters. The registrar/col- indiscriminate collecting. The first rule is lection manager/curator should oversee the Back issues of techni- careful, focused collecting. process and maintain permanent records of cal bulletins published all deaccessions. by the Oklahoma There are a number of reasons why a mu- seum may be prompted to consider deacces- Problems may arise with the deaccession of Museums Associa- sioning. The condition of the object may be an object. The title to the object may be in- tion are available free so bad that it threatens other objects in the complete. Restrictions may have been placed to members. For a collection. A collection may contain unneces- on deaccessioning the object when donated. complete list of tech- sary duplicates. These dupes take resources Other issues that may appear include pri- nical bulletin topics, that could be used for new objects.
    [Show full text]
  • Art Deaccessioning Policy
    Deaccessioning Policy Document No. CUR 4.0 – Deaccessioning Policy Page 1 Approved: December 2020 Approved by: National Gallery of Australia Council next review due: December 2022 Summary Name of Policy Description of Policy Deaccessioning Policy Policy applies to ☒ NGA wide ☐ Specific (eg. Department) Policy Status ☐ New policy ☒ Revision of Existing Policy (previously Art Acquisition Policy) Approval Authority Director Responsible Officer Assistant Director, Artistic Programs Contact area Artistic Programs Date of Policy Review* October 2022 Related Policies, Procedures, National Gallery Act 1975 Guidelines and Local Protocols Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 Council Instructions including Financial Delegations Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Rights and Engagement Policy Due Diligence and Provenance Policy Acquisitions Policy Research Library Collection Development Policy Research Archive Acquisition Policy The Copyright Act 1968 The Privacy Act 1988 Privacy Policy Australian Best Practice Guide to Collecting Cultural Material 2015 Collections Law: Legal issues for Australian Archives, Galleries, Libraries and Museums *Unless otherwise indicated, this policy will still apply beyond the review date. Approvals Position Name Endorsed Date Assistant Director Natasha Bullock Yes Director Nick Mitzevich Yes Council Ryan Stokes Yes Document No. CUR 4.0 – Deaccessioning Policy Page 2 Approved: December 2020 Approved by: National Gallery of Australia Council next review due: December 2022 Table of contents
    [Show full text]
  • Collection Development Policy
    COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT POLICY Heather Saunders , Director of Library Leslie Cade, Director of Archives Collection Development Policy — Ingalls Library and Museum Archives July 25, 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS Ingalls Library I. Purpose of the Policy 3 II. Description of the Collections 3 III. Selection Responsibility 4 IV. General Collection Guidelines 4 V. Collecting Categories and Formats 6 VI. Collecting Levels 10 VII. Subject Qualification by Collecting Level 11 VIII. Gifts 13 IX. Exchange Materials 13 X. Preservation 13 XI. Replacement and Desiderata 13 XII. Deaccessioning 14 XIII. Relation to Other Library Resources 14 Museum Archives I. Purpose of the Policy 16 II. Description of the Collections 16 III. Retention Responsibility 17 IV. Deacce ssioning 17 V. Relation to Other Archive Resources 17 VI. Recommendations 17 Appendix A I. Mission of the Ingalls Library and Museum Archives 18 II. Description of the Ingalls Library 18 Appendix B I. Mission of the Museum Archives 23 II. History of the Museum Archives 23 Appendix C Guidelines for the Library Purchase and Processing of Books with Original Prints and Photographs 26 2 Collection Development Policy — Ingalls Library and Museum Archives July 25, 2018 Ingalls Library I. Purpose of the Policy Ingalls Library of t he Cleveland Museum of Art is a nationally recognized art research library with rich collections encompassing a wide range of published materials covering art from all geographic areas and all periods of art history and archival collections documenting the history of the institution. Materials are collected in many languages and in all formats. Throughout their history the library and archives have been committed to excellence in support of the museum’s current and future collections, research, exhibitions, publications, lectures, programs and activities by identifying, acquiring, organizing and providing access to relevant research mat erials and information .
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines on Deaccessioning of the International Council of Museums
    Guidelines on Deaccessioning of the International Council of Museums Introduction The following guidelines elaborate upon the principles of the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums concerning the deaccessioning and disposition1 of objects2 from museum collections. The guidelines consider deaccessioning within the context of acquisition and accessioning and are intended to assist in the practical application of the Code of Ethics’ principles. Acquisition The decision to acquire an object (whether it is offered for donation, acquired at sale or auction or found during an archaeological excavation) and accession it into a museum’s collection should be made thoughtfully, considering the nature of the object and its provenance, the museum’s mission3 and the resources that will be required to care for, display and provide access to the object. A museum’s collections policy should thoroughly define the acquisition process and address the legal and ethical principles and professional responsibilities involved4. Acquisitions should be made in accordance with the highest standards of due diligence5 and in accordance with the applicable law6. Accessioning Once a museum acquires an object, the object is accessioned. Accessioning is the formal process involved in accepting and recording an item as an object in a museum’s collection and its inventory. A record of the acquisition, accession processes, and all relevant documents accompanying the object should be kept and preserved. 1 In the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums, the term “disposal” is used instead of “disposition”. 2 For the purposes of these standards, the word object is used broadly to refer to all cultural objects, as defined in the relevant international legislation: cultural objects are those which, on religious or secular grounds, are of importance for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Reappraisal and Deaccessioning
    Guidelines for Reappraisal and Deaccessioning Deaccessioning and Reappraisal Development and Review Team: Peter Blodgett, Huntington Library Jeremy Brett, University of Iowa Cathi Carmack, Tennessee State Library and Archives Anne Foster, National Parks Service Laura Uglean Jackson, University of W yoming (Chair) Chela Scott Weber, Brooklyn Historical Society Linda Whitaker, A rizona Historical Foundation, Arizona State University Marcella Wiget, Kansas State Historical Society Draft 7/12/11 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Notes on Use of the Guidelines…………………………………………………………………………………………….2 Definitions …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….3 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..5 Key Concepts………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...6 Step-by-Step Process for Reappraisal and Deaccessioning…………………………………………………….8 I. Rationale……… ………………………………………………………………………………………………8 II. Preparation…………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 III. The Reappraisal Process………………………………………………………………………………..9 IV. The Deaccessioning Process………………………………………………………………………….13 V. Evaluation……………………………………………………………………………………………………..17 Appendix A: Example Checklist and Forms……………………………………………………………………………..18 Appendix B: Donor Letter Information and Templates…………………………………………………………..23 Appendix C: Deed of Gift with Language Addressing the Possibility of Deaccession………………25 Appendix D: Reappraisal and Deaccessioning Bibliography…………………….……………………………..26 Appendix E: Sample Policies…………………………………………………………………………………………………..30 1 NOTES ON USE OF THE GUIDELINES
    [Show full text]
  • COLLECTIONS MANAGEMENT POLICY Phoebe A
    COLLECTIONS MANAGEMENT POLICY Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology 2018 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background …………………………………………………………………………………………..5 1.2 Mission, Purpose, and Vision…………………………………………………………………….....6 1.3 Other Documents…………………………………………………………………………………….6 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Title and Ownership…………………………………………………………………………………7 2.2 Repository Agreements…………………………………………………………………..………….7 2.3 Scope of the Collections…………………………………………………………………………….8 2.3.1 Permanent Collection…………………………………………………………………………8 2.3.2 Repository Collection…………………………………………………………………………8 2.3.3 Supporting Collections: Archive and Document Collection; and Library Collection…..8 2.3.4 Educational Outreach Collection…………………………………………………………….9 2.3.5 Found in Collections Objects………………………………………………………...………9 2.3.6 Objects in Custody…………………………………………………………………………….9 3. ROLES & GOVERNANCE 3.1 Campus Authority…………………………………………………………………………………...9 3.1.1 University of California Board of Regents…………………………………………………9 3.1.2 Vice Chancellor for Research………………………………………………………………10 3.1.3 Campus Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) Committee………………………………………………………………………………10 3.2 Director, Staff and Volunteers…………………………………………………………………….10 3.3 Council of Faculty Curators……………………………………………………………………….10 3.4 Loans and Acquisitions Committee………………………………………………………………11 4. ETHICS 4.1 General………………………………………………………………………………………………11 4.2 Laws and Permit Compliance……………………………………………………………….11 4.3 Field Study and Collecting………………………………………………………………………...11 4.4 Cultural
    [Show full text]
  • Acquisition and Disposal of Collections
    139 ACQUISITION AND DISPOSAL OF COLLECTIONS The goal of collections development is to shape collections whose composition supports a collecting unit’s mission and programs. The main tools of collections development are acquisitions and disposals. This chapter discusses these tools. acquisition and disposal 140 ollections are acquired through various methods, such as donation, field collection, transfer from another organization, and purchase. “Disposal” means termination of ownership and physical removal of accession C 1 collection items. In the United States, “deaccessioning” and “disposal” are often used interchangeably, but technically the former term refers only to the first step in disposal — the removal of an item from the catalogue of accession collections.2 The first section of this chapter addresses acquisitions, with particular emphasis on how collecting units have built their collections, the policy framework related to acquisitions, and how collecting units are responding to a changed collecting environment. It also examines how collecting units make acquisition decisions, and considers alternatives to traditional collection methods. The second section addresses deaccessioning and disposal. It discusses the reasons units dispose of items, and the obstacles to disposal. The role of organizational and professional culture in collections development is discussed. Also discussed briefly is the issue of duplication and overlap of collections at the Smithsonian. The chapter closes with conclusions. FINDINGS acquisitions Collecting appears to be an innate human propensity. Archaeological excavations indicate, for example, that 80,000 years ago Neanderthals assembled collections of small stones (Neal 1980, 24). Norman Rosenthal, exhibitions secretary at the Royal 1 Collecting units also dispose of non-accessioned items, but that is not the focus here.
    [Show full text]
  • When Repatriation Doesn't Happen: Relationships Created Through Cultural Property Negotiations
    University of Denver Digital Commons @ DU Electronic Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 2020 When Repatriation Doesn’t Happen: Relationships Created Through Cultural Property Negotiations Ellyn DeMuynck Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd Part of the Museum Studies Commons, and the Social and Cultural Anthropology Commons When Repatriation Doesn’t Happen: Relationships Created Through Cultural Property Negotiations __________________ A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences University of Denver __________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts ___________________ by Ellyn DeMuynck March 2020 Advisor: Christina Kreps Author: Ellyn DeMuynck Title: When Repatriation Doesn’t Happen: Relationships Created Through Cultural Property Negotiations Advisor: Christina Kreps Degree Date: March 2020 Abstract This thesis analyzes the discourse of repatriation in connection to the Encounters exhibition held by the National Museum of Australia in 2015. Indigenous Australian and Torres Strait Islander artifacts were loaned to the Australian museum by the British Museum. At the close of the exhibition, one item, the Gweagal shield, was claimed for repatriation. The repatriation request had not been approved at the time of this research. The Gweagal shield is a historically significant artifact for Indigenous and non- Indigenous Australians. Analysis takes into account the political economy of the two museums and situates the exhibition within the relevant museum policies. This thesis argues that, while the shield has not yet returned to Australia, the discussions about what a return would mean are part of the larger process of repatriation. It is during these discussions that the rights to material culture are negotiated.
    [Show full text]
  • Deaccessioning, Values, and Communications in Current Museum Practice
    DEACCESSIONING, VALUES, AND COMMUNICATIONS IN CURRENT MUSEUM PRACTICE Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Master of Science in Arts Administration Drexel University By Genevieve Puleo, B.A. * * * * * Drexel University December 2011 Approved by Advisor Name, Degree Advisor Graduate Program in Arts Administration Copyright by Genevieve Puleo 2011 ABSTRACT This Master’s Thesis focuses on the topics of deaccessioning, communications, and the role of values in leadership in order to establish the interrelated nature of these three areas in current museum practice. It illustrates how the combined result of these factors might contribute to the overall future well being of the American art museum, and investigates bridges between the practices of collections management and the management of the communication of organizational values and identity in American art museums. The analysis presented herein marshals information from periodicals, industry blogs, museum policy literature, and individual museums’ websites in addition to case studies and scholarly sources to lend greater context to this topic area. Following a review of the provisions and shortcomings of professional policies governing deaccessioning, a review of current literature on leadership theory illustrates the role of values in the governance of organizations. This discussion is supported by the identification of a general lack of explicitly articulated values, as evident in publicly accessible museum mission statements. The long-term results of this ambiguity are identified. Two brief deaccessioning case studies examining the National Academy Museum and the Indianapolis Museum of Art demonstrate the achievable benefits of an organizational culture wherein values are made a part of daily decision-making.
    [Show full text]
  • Nmnh-Collections-Management-Policy
    National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution Collections Management Policy (Last revised April,2012; next revision due 2022) Have read and approve: Davidl Skorton Secretary, Smithsonian Institution Date Judith Leonard \ John Davis General Counsel Provosrand Under Secretary for Museums and Research A William G. Tompkins Director, National Collections Program Kirk Johnson, Sant Director National Museum of Natural History Recommended for approval: Maureen Kearney Carol R. Butler Associate Director for Science Assistant Director for Collections National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution Collections Management Policy Rev. December 13th, 2017 Table of Contents Section I. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 A. Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 1 B. Background ................................................................................................................................. 1 C. Applicability ................................................................................................................................ 2 D. Authority and Responsibility ................................................................................................ 3 E. Ethics.............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • All in a Day's Work: How Museums May Approach Deaccessioning As a Necessary Collections Management Tool
    DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law Volume 22 Issue 1 Fall 2011 Article 5 All in a Day's Work: How Museums May Approach Deaccessioning as a Necessary Collections Management Tool Heather Hope Stephens Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/jatip Recommended Citation Heather H. Stephens, All in a Day's Work: How Museums May Approach Deaccessioning as a Necessary Collections Management Tool, 22 DePaul J. Art, Tech. & Intell. Prop. L. 119 (2011) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/jatip/vol22/iss1/5 This Seminar Articles is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Stephens: All in a Day's Work: How Museums May Approach Deaccessioning as a ALL IN A DAY'S WORK: HOW MUSEUMS MAY APPROACH DEACCESSIONING AS A NECESSARY COLLECTIONS MANAGEMENT TOOL 1. INTRODUCTION Deaccessioning is the removal of an object from a museum's permanent collection. Deaccession is addressed in numerous professional organizational and institutional ethical codes, but there are few statutes or cases governing museum collection management policies. Recognizing there is a need for a universal standard, this Article seeks to synthesize previous museum practices so that it may be a reference going forward. In light of prior practices, this Article contends that museums must (1) deaccession for reasons accepted by the museum field, (2) require proper authority to approve a deaccession, and (3) act in compliance with fiduciary duties so challenged deaccessions will be protected by the business judgment rule.
    [Show full text]
  • Deaccession Session Best Practices Handout
    ARCS 2013 Conference Session: DEACCESSIONING: IS THERE ONE RIGHT WAY? BEST PRACTICES HANDOUT Definitions: Collections Plan: a plan defining the contents of the collections that guides staff in a coordinated and uniform direction to refine and expand the collections in a predetermined way. Deaccessioning: a museum procedure that involves the permanent removal of a collection item from a museum collection. It is the opposite of accessioning. Disposal: the process of getting rid of a collection item that has been deaccessioned. Title: the possession of rights of ownership of personal property. The following policies need to be in place in order to begin the process of deaccessioning: Collections Management Policy which include both accession and deaccession policies. A strong deaccession program starts with an accession policy (Malaro 1997, 47). Next, proper accessioning prevents the acquisition of inappropriate objects, such as unresolved loans that might have to be returned later (Gerstenblith 2003, 409, 453-54). Finally, understanding the goals of the collecting plan will better inform what does not fit in the collection and consequently what is appropriate for deaccessioning (Buck and Gilmore 2011, 101). Written accession policies and procedures should include: the scope of the collection developed from the museum's mission. a collecting plan that elucidates the strengths and weaknesses of the collection. the collecting goals of the museum (Buck and Gilmore 2011, 101). documentation requirements to prove clean title. Written deaccession policy and procedures should include: the minimum retention time before deaccession (Simmons 2006, 53). a standard list of acceptable reasons for removing the tangible cultural heritage from the collection (Malaro 1997, 47) (for example: condition, duplication, quality, authenticity, relevancy, etc.).
    [Show full text]