A cautionary tale,

Okey doke- bear with me no longer have softcopy will try and find a scanner!

Any luck with scanner?

The nature of the issue isn’t going to be changed by ‘the forum’ coming up with a duplication of existing process or paperwork, however well intentioned.

The guidelines exist – that is the accreditation system.

That provides a framework, through which corrective action can be taken. There’s nothing wrong with anyone inventing their own forms and systems – I’ve done some for a museum – but as here, it’s often re-inventing the wheel, maybe slightly better or worse.

None of that makes correction or sanction happen. A comparison would be law – the legal system provides the framework, but someone has to prosecute contraventions of it, and there needs to be sanctions to make transgressions, when caught, unpleasant.

None of which this forum can help with.

Sharing information, such at TT’s ‘good practice’ is one of the internet’s strengths, however.

Regards,

Reading though this topic, I read that:

1. For small museums accreditation can be more work then gain a benefit.
2. The accreditation may be more primitive, that is not take advantage of today’s technologies, and miss out on better record keeping
3. A good set of checks and verification is needed.
4. That loaner should give concise instructions on care and display of object, not just loan and hope for best.
5. Is there an international set of common rules/guides to running a museum?

While this is not the place to find a resolution to a problem, is it a place to hear about other problems and find a way to prevent other museums having the same issue.

Yes, some things this forum cannot help with, but there is a bunch of other items is can help with.

I would propose this forum propose a guide line to museums and loaners procedures. After all, whats the use of dire warnings if corrective actions are not taken (regardless of accredited or ad hoc).

The nature of the issue isn’t going to be changed by ‘the forum’ coming up with a duplication of existing process or paperwork, however well intentioned.

The guidelines exist – that is the accreditation system.

That provides a framework, through which corrective action can be taken. There’s nothing wrong with anyone inventing their own forms and systems – I’ve done some for a museum – but as here, it’s often re-inventing the wheel, maybe slightly better or worse.

None of that makes correction or sanction happen. A comparison would be law – the legal system provides the framework, but someone has to prosecute contraventions of it, and there needs to be sanctions to make transgressions, when caught, unpleasant.

None of which this forum can help with.

Sharing information, such at TT’s ‘good practice’ is one of the internet’s strengths, however.

Regards,

Can go the other way too, of course.

I knew a a fellow years ago, that decided he wanted to restore a WW2 fighter to display standard. Together with a few other volunteers they acquired fuselage and wings and took them to a local museum. Various other people donated items (engine, cockpit fixtures and so on) to the good cause.
Work proceeded slowly, and the volunteers gradually faded away.
He grew more and more exasperated about this, and finally, in the late 1960s, he threw in the towel and donated the whole project to the museum.

Over time the museum was able to access sufficient funding and parts to complete the project and display the fighter.

Lo and behold the fellow turned up 21 years later, when WW2 fighters had gone from being scrap value only to an extremely valuable asset, and said “Hi there, I only lent you this item, and now I’ve come to take it back!”.

Only catch was that he had written a letter back in the old days expressing his displeasure at the other people in the group and stating that he was donating the whole project to the museum. And I had kept the original of that letter.

Even so, it ended up in an extremely complicated court case.

TT, can you post a sample of your accession receipt, please?

Okey doke- bear with me no longer have softcopy will try and find a scanner!

When we received our local MDO a couple of years ago she discovered that our accession receipts were actually BETTER than her specimen (hey, I guess being a solicitor helps!)

TT, can you post a sample of your accession receipt, please?

Think taking oaths might be seen as going a tad too far?

May not be, especially for mainly volunteer museums.

Paid employees have a vested interest, money.
Volunteers because it is something to do, more or less, but they do not have to.

An Oath is like a 30 second lesson, educate the staff what the mission is, to preserve, protect, and inform others.

I would also say the owner should have a say in how something is displayed.

Think taking oaths might be seen as going a tad too far?

But some very good points – I will definitely be keeping a very detailed inventory of all items loaned in future – I also agree photographic evidence being a very good idea too!

As I am hoping to secure somewhere to display some of our group’s collection in the near future, with one of our primary goals being to make the material we recover accessible to the public.

But even accredited museums have their share of problems. I was told recently about one accredited national museum who accepted loan of an item. They found it was too large to fit through a door so took a saw to it and then glued the aforementioned item back together once it was through the door. The cut & shut had destroyed the item’s structural strength and seriously devalued the item.

Nor government/military run museums.

A particular one in Norway had people who cut parts, or toss away other parts because some one did not think it was of value.

I would propose this forum propose a guide line to museums and loaners procedures. After all, whats the use of dire warnings if corrective actions are not taken (regardless of accredited or ad hoc).

For instance:
1. Photo of object (one at time) with owner.
2. Detailed description of object, function, color, any number on it.
3. name and address of loaner
4. organization name, chief curator, address of loanee.
5. Term of loan
6. Planned location of displaying piece.

…anything else?

And I would think that any employee should have an oath to preserve, maintain, and protect the pieces.
Also track movements of pieces, updated the record, and who moved it.

Good Lord, I think a FP thread when we’re all in accord – cripes! 🙂

lol – good discussion folks!

ATB
TT

At Sywell we have had an accession policy since we started, receipts and thank you letters having been sent out from the outset.

Sounds like the right approach to me. Being offered suitable paperwork for a loan or donation (including detailed condition reports for loans) is a big commitment for a museum but it provides benefits to both sides in the deal. The museum can prove it was given something and not merely loaned it, they can prove an item is returned in the condition in which it was received.

And if things should go wrong, which this thread shows can happen at all levels, offering to see somebody in court is a better prospect when clutching all the paperwork.

Sywell is an interesting case of adopting many of the standards of an accredited museum. But you surely accept that operating outside the scheme makes it harder for people to judge that you are a safe pair of hands. Would I lend to Sywell? – probably, after a good check of the paperwork and environmental conditions although I’m not sure you’d want flying boat stuff though.;) What you highlight is that it takes more effort to check out a non-accredited museum and separate out the private displays from the real museums.

As JDK rightly says:

You could vary Pondskater’s advice; if you are thinking of loaning or gifting items, then see that you are happy that they have process and paperwork in place that fits what we have discussed here. if they are accredited and they don’t, report them. If they aren’t accredited and they do, good for them, and if you feel comfortable with the feel of that museum, then you have grounds for a decision.

There are (outside the national museums) two standards to look out for – Designated Collections and Museums and Accredited Museums – both of which bring extra work but also benefits to the museums as well as guidance to those of us looking in for outside.

I would suggest stating that you are “working towards accreditation” as a way of introducing donors to the standards you have adopted, but with the MLAs days numbered, who knows if there will be anything to replace it and recognise professional standards.

Beetle monitoring? – a friend of mine has the job of checking insect traps once a month in a large country house where she works. Not her favourite bit of the job.

AllanK

Albeit moving slightly away from the ‘theme’ of the original post another thing that shouldn’t be overlooked is the funding opportunities that become available to Accredited / Registered Museums. This is something that is vital for independent (volunteer) managed museums of all sizes.

From personal experience, with good accession procedures already in place, as indicated by TT’s post Accreditation shouldn’t be too onerous a process. I have always been a strong advocate of Registration / Accreditation and I remain of that viewpoint. 🙂

I agree with TT acreditation doesnt mean a thing the first line of my previous posts relates to one of the biggest if not the biggest Museam in the Country although , I am sure they have every piece of red tape ever invented didnt stop them giving me something that didnt belong to them.

Whilst JDK makes fair points (as ever old chum!) , we did consider accreditation several times but decided against it for several reasons – I think if I’m honest the amount of extra paperwork which it generates can take a hobby to a chore, especially if you are small and short on ‘paper friendly’ volunteers! In addition to that there are national standards to be met (which whilst perfectly valid can actually be expensive – beetle monitoring anyone?) plus enforced compliance with commercial standard HSE gubbins…etc etc…. there is an awful lot of BS attached to some of their requirements, IMHO….:)

When we received our local MDO a couple of years ago she discovered that our accession receipts were actually BETTER than her specimen (hey, I guess being a solicitor helps!)

Above all we all know stories of unscrupulous individuals using a museum front to increase their personal collections (I have experienced this first hand!) and or line their pockets. All I was saying is that accreditation whilst perhaps making this more difficult, doesnt rule this out and that non-accredited museums by definition are not necessarily ‘worse’.

As with everything in life you take as you find, you use your gut and listen to reputation – it speaks volumes.

I am confident that our system works, after ten years open from scratch, we have a museum so packed with stuff we have had to expand!

http://www.sywellaerodrome.co.uk/museumnews.php

without the good offices of the Public the museum would have remained as it opened, a few tin hats on paste tables!

I would rather be at the forefront of positive, forward thinking, friendly museums who do it for the love of the subject rather than being pen pushing, possibly self-aggrandizing and swamped with paperwork.

TT

….personaly as soon as I hear the word Museam I tread with extreme caution.

I couldn’t agree more!! 😉

Sorry to say so far my experiances have not been good.

1: swapped a Liberator seat with a very well known and large museam recieved in return some Spitfire items which as it turned out did not belong to them.
2: Purchased a WWI prop on the instructions of a museam in the US after months of chasing them for payment I was told to swivel.
3: Lent a seat to a local Devon museam when i went to collect it they initially refused to give it to me siting various bogus regulations, all ended well as i simply picked it up and walked out.
4: New museam in Wales suported by local County Council offered to purchase a Hurricane project I held it back even though I had a customer in the states ready to go as I wanted it to stay in UK. After Months of emails and silence from their side, they told me they didnt have the funds.

I am sure there are many well run museams, its a shame some let the others down, personaly as soon as I hear the word Museam I tread with extreme caution.

Perhaps ‘accredited’ would be a more relevant word.

Not all museums are equal – there are numerous un-accredited, private or personal collections and museums which are excellent and well run. There are also many accredited national collections which are not well run, or with occasional or systematic abuses. (I have a theory that museums are automatically dysfunctional, but I promised the doctor not to start on that.)

However Twotter’s and Ponskater’s point stands – without accreditation there is no structure or appeal through museum process for problems.

There is also no requirement, or often structure, for a non-accredited museum to run things ‘properly’ or to manage the staff and volunteers (and the managers) properly. Many of them do very well nevertheless, but they are more often an environment where Bernie the square-shaped volunteer comes in and does what the voices tell him, and everyone’s adjusted to that being “normal”. 😉

You could vary Pondskater’s advice; if you are thinking of loaning or gifting items, then see that you are happy that they have process and paperwork in place that fits what we have discussed here. if they are accredited and they don’t, report them. If they aren’t accredited and they do, good for them, and if you feel comfortable with the feel of that museum, then you have grounds for a decision.

One question would be, though, ‘why aren’t you accredited?’ and the answer should be straightforward and revealing. ‘It’s not worth it / too much trouble’ is suspicious. There are some arguably good reasons for non-accreditation*, but…

This regular thread of ‘I got stiffed by a museum’ quickly followed by ‘me too’ and ‘there’s this big one wot does bad stuff too’ mone mone grone** is understandable but doesn’t help.

Highlight and support good museums; document and quantify poor museum practice; and please don’t drivel on like they’re all the same.

*I have a feeling TT will present at least one imminently… 😉

**TM Nigel Molesworth, St Custards Skool Sossge Museem.

Private displays are not real museums.

AllanK

Be a bit careful, there are plenty of ‘private’ non accredited museums who work tirelessly in aviation heritage who would be a mite disgruntled to hear you say we’re not proper!:rolleyes:

At Sywell we have had an accession policy since we started, receipts and thank you letters having been sent out from the outset.

Even National and accredited museums make mistakes, lose items or have things taken – I can think of one major collection where things have been disappearing out of the back door for years!

TT

A sad and all too familiar tale.

The list is pretty endless.

That said, I loaned a Merlin and other items to Fort Perch Rock many years ago and was given to understand they had long gone and been scrapped. Now, thanks to this forum’s Ian, I was delighted to learn they are still there.

Now all I need to do is get them back.

Sadly no system is perfect and I am also aware of issues at ‘registered organisations’ – but at least you have somewhere (MLA) to go to with any complaint to seek arbitration or whatever. Something that you don’t easily have if a site is not registered or accredited!

However as pointed out by Pondskater the MLA looks set to close in 2012! 🙁