AGM 2008: Disposals Event
Emily Davis

Managing the disposals process

A fascinating group of expert speakers joined us at the London Transport Museum on Friday 31 October to discuss the issue of disposals from a range of perspectives.

Caitlin Griffiths, Museums Association: An introduction to the recent Museums Association revised guidelines on disposals and managing the perception of the Museum in the public domain.

Caitlin discussed the value that disposal can have as part of a suite of collections management tools. The Museums Association (MA) has been looking at the issue of disposals for the past three years, and has come to the view that while disposal isn’t risk-free, nor is unthinking retention.

The new Disposal toolkit advises museums to act transparently and in fact, Caitlin’s three top tips were transparency, showing demonstrable benefit to the collection, and last but certainly not least showing demonstrable benefit to the public. If a museum kept those principles in mind, the risk inherent in disposal would be greatly reduced.

Public perception research commissioned by the MA (available on the MA website) showed that although the public was initially sceptical of, if not downright hostile to, disposal once the process was carefully explained and it was made clear that disposals usually resulted in transfer to another collection, this attitude softened. The Disposal toolkit offered a useful flowchart outlining the steps of the disposal process, and Caitlin recommended obtaining a copy.

The lessons she had learnt from the disposal consultation was that it was vital to spend time on the initial stages – considering the desired outcomes and planning the process. Time spent thinking about these issues would give museums confidence in their decision-making and enable them to communicate with the public.

Paul Fraser-Webb, MLA North-west: A critical review of museum disposals to date. What can go wrong, how disposals could and should be managed, and a model for effective review of collections.

Paul had been working as Accreditation Manager in the North West at the time that Bury Metropolitan Borough Council decided to sell their Lowry painting ‘A Riverbank’. He gave a fascinating inside view of the sale that became a museum scandal, and debunked some of the myths that have already sprung up.

The key issue in the Bury disposal was not that they decided to sell the painting (that would now be allowed), but that it was done in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons. The sale was clearly motivated by financial reasons (to plug a gap in Council budgets), the proceeds were not applied to the benefit of the collections, and no attempt was made to keep it in the public domain.

The lessons Paul drew from the sale could be applied to all museums:

• curatorial arguments won’t win against financial ones, so collections managers need to use financial reasons to retain objects (attracting grants, paying exhibitions, loans out),
• collections managers need to use their policies (such as Acquisition and Disposal) to protect the collection, by clearly describing the collection’s strengths and future plans,
• make use of valuable, vulnerable items – display them, lend them out, publicise them, and
• get the public on your side, make them and your funders see the value of the museum and collection.

Paul said that the Accreditation scheme only had teeth as long as other bodies, including the Heritage Lottery Fund, Museums Association and the Museums Libraries and Archives Council (MLA), supported its requirements and took measures against museums that flouted them. He called for evaluation into the impact of the Bury sale upon the museum and the public, so that this experience could inform future practice.

Heather Caven, John Graves and Helen Merrett, National Maritime Museum: A case study of National Maritime Museum’s work on the review and assessment of collections, the decision making process, and examples of effective disposal, public consultation and involvement.

The National Maritime Museum (NMM) is now half way through the 10 year Collections Reform Programme launched in 2003. This comprised not only a full audit, but also a thorough collections review and disposal element, all underpinned by an understanding of the public benefit.

The programme was supported by a dedicated member of staff, and took a joint curatorial and collections management approach. Before starting, the approval of the Trustees and the Secretary of State was granted and NMM confirmed that it had the legal right to dispose.

Each item in the collection was categorised A, B, C, D or E, which referred to where it should be stored (A being on site). Category E objects were candidates for disposal or at least for further research. An object might be considered for disposal if it:

• fell outside the collecting policy,
• was more relevant to another museum or heritage site, within the United Kingdom Maritime Collections Strategy (UKMCS) or not,
• did not have maritime significance or associations,
• was of poor quality or poor condition, or
• was a duplicate.

The team described the process in some detail (see the NMM website for further information) and stressed the importance of a communications plan. In NMM’s case, the Director played a key role, and communications were both proactive and reactive. Among other things a public seminar was held and there has been no discernible impact on donations.

Some of the objects already disposed of had been hazardous (asbestos or radioactive), and these had to be disposed of in accordance with the regulations. Other items had been transferred to suitable institutions. The collections were divided up so that objects could be compared like with like, and John, speaking as a curator, highlighted the usefulness of this approach.

Nickos Gogolos, Museum of London: A case study for international disposals and the European context.

Nickos talked about a collection of around 5000 stained glass drawings and cartoons acquired by the Museum of London (MOL) many years ago, and the long road to disposal. He emphasised the importance of understanding the circumstances surrounding acquisition before undertaking disposal.

The items were cut-line drawings done by workmen before making the windows, not the original artists’ designs. Never accessioned by the MOL, they were saved when the factory closed, always with the intention of transferring them to another museum. Many museums were approached, but none had the resources to take on such a large collection.

In 2006 the MOL sought advice from the MLA about the disposal and from the funding body that had provided a grant for the acquisition of the related Whitefriars collection. Then in 2007 the Corning Museum of Glass (New York State) was approached directly. Advice was sought from the MLA about export licences and the status of the material offered was carefully checked again. Detailed formal negotiations proceeded, including discussing who would pay for the shipment (Nickos advised discussing this up front), and the drawings were now ready to despatch and should sail in early November. This had been a successful transfer, but Nickos demonstrated clearly the huge amount of staff time entailed in making it work for both parties.

Panel Discussion

During the panel discussion, at which speakers were joined by Samuel Rowlands (Accreditation Manager, MLA) and Paul Davis (Registrar, Natural History Museum), the panel considered such issues as how to define public benefit, what to do with common domestic objects of low value, and what to do with items deposited on long term loan. Although these are issues to which the sector as a whole still needs to devote some time, the following points are really useful:

• Paul Davis defined public benefit as an action that resulted in tangible benefit. Disposal is in the public benefit as it creates space for new acquisitions, but that doesn’t mean that it is what the public would say they want.
• Heather Caven said that in her experience the public trust the knowledge of museum staff and are happy to let them take decisions.
• The panel agreed that all too often museums were used as the nation’s attics, full of objects too valuable to throw away but not valuable enough for people to keep at home.
• Long term inward loans were a similar difficulty, and could result in museums paying to insure and store material of limited use. While the panel couldn’t come up with an answer to this, they agreed that it was important for governing bodies to grasp this issue and increasing pressure on storage space meant that it couldn’t be put off for much longer.