I’ve been doing a a kind of random checking of online accession an deaccession policy/law and it is disturbingly inconsistent across institutions. Those institution that do have something representing near to best practice are below at random. Arguably the legislative/regulatory environment is built on trust but there are millions, more likely billions, of dollars worth of Australians’ cultural assets languishing away in collections, and if the QVMAG is an example, rather poorly protected – relying upon some kind of misguided trust.
I think that it would be a very smart move on LCC’s behalf to draw this situation to the relevant Ministers’ attention, and Arts Tasmania as the key Advisory body, to attempt to put in place come ‘model policies’. TMAG has some good policies but there are missing elements. In any even TMAG policies would form a substantial foundation for a Tasmanian Statewide Model an one that QVMAG and any future Trustees could/should refer to.
The strategy here being that LCC would be seen as taking a positive initiative towards addressing the ‘woollyness’ of Tasmanian museum/musingplace practice towards the sector making a greater contribution to CULTURAL TOURISM and COMMUNITY CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT. Clearly there needs to be some regulation, perhaps legislation, here to protect the Tasmanian communities investment in public collections.
$230plu million in QMAG collections, goodness know what in TMAG’s, etc. etc. If this was a superannuation fund would the carelessness evident here be as easily dismissed (put aside?!) as it appears to be at QVMAG and probably across the board. It might well be a case of stealing the march for funding??!!
Ray
TMAG
Deaccession Decorative Arts: http://www.tmag.tas.gov.au/collections_and_research/policies/deaccession_and_disposal_policy_2008_art_and_decorative_arts_collection
Deaccession Indigenous Culture: http://www.tmag.tas.gov.au/collections_and_research/policies/deaccession_and_disposal_policy_indigenous_cultures
Deaccession Bio-Diversity: http://www.tmag.tas.gov.au/collections_and_research/policies/biodiversity_deaccession_policy_2008
Deaccession Cultural Heritage: http://www.tmag.tas.gov.au/collections_and_research/policies/biodiversity_deaccession_policy_2008
Powerhouse Museum
Deaccession: http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/pdf/about/policies/Deaccessioning.pdf
Australian Museum
Deaccession: http://www.nma.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/1447/POL-C-035_Collections_Deaccessioning_and_disposal-5.0.pdf
National Gallery of Australia
Deaccession: http://www.collectionslaw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/national-gallery-of-australia.pdf
QVMAG
Destructive Sampling : http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/upfiles/qvmag/cont/destructive_sampling_policy_qvmag__version_2_dec_2011.pdf
Forwarded Message
From: Ray Norman <raynorman@eftel.net.au>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 16:25:11 +1000
To: Mayor <Mayor@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Cc: Richard Mulvaney <Richard.Mulvaney@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Subject: QVMAG Acquisition, Deaccession Policies & Future Directions
TO: MAYOR & ALDERMEN
Sometime during August last year, and again earlier this year, I asked both the Director and the General Manager about the QVMAG’s Acquisition and Deaccession Policy and its relevance to world’s best practice. I was informed that two past policies – Acquisition & Deaccession – had been combined to form a single policy document. I have been provided with a copy of this combined document dated June 2013 that I understand to be still in its draft form a year on.
I believe that this draft falls well short of best practice on the grounds that:
- Given that it is a policy document it needed to have been initiated by the Trustees/Aldermen with a set timeframe and in fact it has initiated by QVMAG’s management without any hint of there being an expected completion date – albeit that management may need to have an input;
- It appears to be founded on an outdated(?) policy document that should have been approved by the Trustees/Aldermen but it appears that it was not. By extension, this means that the new draft also lacks accountability at the outset;
- From the perspective of collection development, it should be definite and relevant to current understandings in museology and cultural practice but it is ambiguous and anarchic;
- From the perspective current cultural understandings it should reflect current understandings in it's drafting but it is a poor representation of current museum practice and cultural theory;
- The criteria for the inclusion of scientific material in the collections should be specificic but the draft is somewhat ambiguous and far too open to interpretation;
- In respect to deaccession, the processes documented should reflect best practice in museology and accountability but it falls short of that and specifically so in regard to accountability;
- In respect to deaccession, the methodologies in regard to determining ‘value’ should be multidimensional – cultural, social, scientific & fiscal – whereas value is projected as being entirely money based – and based on inappropriately low amounts;
- In respect to either the accessioning or deaccessioning of a collection item/object the decision-making should rest with the Trustees/Aldermen, where accountability actually rests, but it is entirely, an inappropriately, placed in the hands of management.
Given that a museum’s and/or art gallery’s most important policy is its:
- Accession Policy in that it determines how recurrent, acquisition and project funding, will be employed thus ensuring the institution's integrity and ability to meet its purpose;
- Deaccession Policy in so much as it ensures that there is true accountability to its funders and donors – government, corporate & private – in accord with ethical standards; and
- On the evidence provided by the draft document the QVMAG’s policy/s in regard Accession and Deaccession arguably falls well short of the appropriate professional standards the institution should be upholding.
Questions arising:
- When will LCC, as the QVMAG’s Trustees, move to ensure that the institution’s Acquisition and Deaccession Policies meet professional and best practice standards, ideally world’s best practice?
- What advice will LCC seek and/or rely upon to ensure that the policies do indeed have currency and at the same time meet best practice standards?
- What importance do the Trustees/Aldermen place upon these policies meeting best practice in a national or international context?
- What does the Council need to do to initiate an appropriate audit to ensure that best practices are adheared to and credible accountability is in place in regard to collections allededly valued at $230 million plus?
- In the context of seeking additional State Government funding for the QVMAG:
* What processes has Council put in place to ensure the protection of the QVMAG’s collections and programming looking ahead to potential funding constraints?
* What advice is Council going to rely upon in negotiating new relationships between the QVMAG, other regional musingplaces,the Sate Government and other funding agencies?
I look forward to Council’s early advice given recent developments in Tasmania relevant to musingplace funding and their accountability.
Regards,
Ray Norman
Ray Norman
<zingHOUSEunlimited>
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network
PH: 03-6334 2176
EMAIL 1: raynorman@eftel.net.au
EMAIL 2: ray@7250.net
40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250
WEBsite: http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com
Prof. Bill Boyd: Review Editor & Project Coordinator
Ray Norman : Director & Project Coordinator (Tasmania)
eMAIL: nudgelbar-tas@7250.net
BLOG: http://thenudgelbahinstitute.blogspot.com.au/
AUDITING PLACEDNESS
http://auditingplacedness.blogspot.com.au/
------ End of Forwarded Message
No comments:
Post a Comment