Featured Stuff Like This Makes Me Angry

Outrage over college's plans to sell political memorabilia
http://www.middletownpress.com/article/MI/20160502/NEWS/160509951

Although deaccessioning of donated items seems to be becoming more commonplace (and accepted) in museums and institutions of higher learning over the past few decades, I still find the practice to be unethical since in many instances the donors were led to believe that their bequests would remain part of the permanent collections and would not under any circumstances be sold. Apparently the University of Hartford has not only lied to donors whom provided their lifelong collections but also the federal government who provided money for the expansion of the University's libraries specifically to house the collection. The University of Hartford and any other institution that solicits the donation of irreplaceable collections only to auction them off when the fancy strikes should be ashamed of themselves. I hope they get sued into oblivion and have to relinquish the collection to a better suited custodian. Instances such as this illustrate why a collector should be reluctant to bequest their collection to a museum, since it is the fruits of their own labors and should not be sold to benefit some overcompensated official in an ivory tower somewhere looking to sell assets for a one time fix to fill a hole in an university budget.

Your thoughts?

 

That link sucks hard !

 

what the heck is the link to..never got past MacDonalds

 

Link should work now. Apologies

 

I fully agree!!!!!!!
I, as many here may wish for theirs, want some of my things to go to certain places and not one like the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark.
~
I've heard of such actions before with other places and that distresses me.
Is this option in whatever paperwork is done?
Does loaning instead of giving change this? I should think so for if the donation is ever, lost, stolen or sold there should be some recourse.

 

I'm sure that there are lots of details missing so drawing any conclusion based on that article is not easy. I did a quick read but unless I'm mistaken it says that there were no provisions in writing on the future of donations and that they closed the museum years ago. It also says they've tried to find an appropriate institution to sell the collection and there isn't any interest.

Long term curation of items it expensive and if there is neither the money nor the space it's a problem in terms of preservation alone. If somewhere no longer has the focus, money or space then I understand the need for a solution.

 

I see that too but what about the federal slant. That was our money....
Again...too bad....... 'We' spent it and 'we' don't care.

 

It doesn't really say what provisions were made (I don't think). I think you'd have to read what everything says and know what the laws are regarding what it says before being able to draw any real conclusions.

 

Talks Could Lead To Display Of Political Memorabilia Collection
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-dewitt-collection-meeting-0528-20160527-story.html

Another more recent article. Apparently there were no written restrictions on the sale of the collection but there were verbal assurances made that the collections would not be sold. In another article it mentioned that the Smithsonian among other parties stated that they were interested in the collection but balked at the University's asking price. Also, apparently this is not the first time the University has tried to sell the collection. Apparently it has tried on three separate occasions to sell including once only a few decades after receiving the bulk of it. Seems in bad faith to solicit donations only to attempt to sell them after a relatively short time. I can see how this could be abused. Many museum directors could view their collections as short term cash cows.

The Rubenstein guy quoted in his article should get his items back if the University goes back on their promise. I know this may not be contractual (the law) but it is what is ethically correct.

 

I have volunteered at that Department of Historic Resources in the state where I live. They specifically house the archaeological collections in the area I worked. The cost of maintaining proper conditions to preserve the condition of items is high and the long term curation may not be something the ex-museum can provide.

It may not be what the original donors would have liked but I doubt they'd like to see their items destroyed by lack of proper temperature, moisture, acids or by insects. It's hard to know what might be best but as with many "gifts" the receiver may not be able to keep the "gift" forever no matter what they wish at the time.

 

In the "legal" world unless it is an "exceptional" case . . . verbal schmerbal, you might as well talk to a gerbil.

 

Im really on the fence about this one . On one hand , the collections were donated with a specific intention , on the other hand do they need 5 of this or 10 of that ? I know when I was in Albany ny there was an article about the WAREHOUSES full of donations they had , literally whole buildings included , that they had no room for or the monies to maintain . Does it really make sense to let that stuff languish and decay ? Keep the best , sell the rest !

 

museums de-accession all the time.
and it's never their best stuff !
most of the time 85% or more of a museums collection is in storage......save for the MOA in Vancouver.

 

Hi,
It happens when you have "legal beagles" on the board. For 30 years it has been illegal to paint your house any color but what it was originally. A family moved in last year and painted their house a bright yellow. The brightest yellow was a pale cream color which was original. Everyone threw a "hissy fit". A board member okayed the color with the couple before they started since they said they were going to paint their house the original yellow. When the house was done all hell broke loose. Since the board member did not want to admit making a mistake he got a lawyer on the board to just say
it was a "waiver" and never to be done again. So if we have someone who wants to paint the house purple they can get a waiver. Never is never, never. My great grand uncle donated to the town 20 acres to be used as a cemetery including the cause that if the town sells the cemetary or closes it down, the ground reverts back to the family. 100 years later the town closed the cemetery and decided to move the graves to just 3 acres. They then sold the remaining 17 acres to a developer. Some estranged family members have now decided to sue the town for the 17 acres. The fight has been going on for 8 years now. If everyone in the family gets a fair share it will come to about a lot of 25 ft by 25 ft per family memeber.
greg
greg

 

On the other hand, good for them! A contract is a contract. The town can sell the land, but the money from the sale reverts to the family if they do. Then it's the buyer's decision. I'm not sure I'd want a place built on a former cemetery.

As for the University of Hartford, I have a graduate degree from there. It's a private university with sky high tuition. If they asked this alum (my mother worked there) selling it would be OK as long as its all sold as a lot, and it goes somewhere it will be preserved. If they can't keep it at the school and preserve it at the same time, selling it might be the best option.

 

I can see both sides of the issue....
My wife worked for a while in a Scandinavian heritage museum in Seattle; and they hardly knew what to do with some of the stuff that had been donated.....yes, it was Scandinavian, and an heirloom to the family that donated it.....but it was also just trash, so bad that if you gave it to the Goodwill, they'd be unable to sell it. Moldy books in Swedish; broken and unrepairable musical instruments....rodent-chewed clothing....
Or perfectly saleable books -but they had dozens of identical copies.
On the other hand, in a similar kind of issue, a nearby city had a park; it had been donated to the city, with a stipulation that it had to remain a public park. The city council sold it to a developer; and after the resulting controversy, had to back out of the sales contract, a very expensive undertaking.
What is an agency to do when it is given a gift with the provision that it must be retained?
The answer is probably both situational, and legal in nature, and dependent on the wording of contracts and other documents.
I suspect many museums stipulate that they retain the right to dispose of the donations as they see fit.

 

If a museum believes the donation would be of no use to them, it's their responsibility to inform the would-be donor, and regretfully not accept. It sounds like the University of Hartford misled quite a number of people.

 

They had a political museum on the campus, but it didn't go "live" until about 1990. I don't think they knew what they were getting themselves into over the long term.