3I | DEACCESSIONING AND DISPOSAL

ANTONIA MOSER

MUSEUMS ACQUIRE AND accession objects to build permanent collections. Strong collections management policies and clear collections plans help museums develop collections that advance their missions, serve educational and scholarly purposes, and benefit the public. Historically, however, collecting practices have not always been as formal or well-disciplined as they are today; museums may hold objects, accessioned decades ago, that no longer meet the strict requirements or defined guidelines that are now in place for accessioning.1 In addition, collecting priorities may change over time because museums occasionally reassess how to focus the scope of their collections to serve their missions more effectively. Museum collections, although usually intended to be permanent, are not immutable—they are “dynamic, not static.”2 Some flexibility must be granted to provide museums with a method to correct collecting mistakes of the past and to respond to the collecting needs of the present. A mechanism must be in place to allow for the thoughtful and careful removal of objects from the permanent collection.

Deaccessioning has long been considered an acceptable practice in US museums of all disciplines. It stems from the acknowledgment that museum collections must be finite.3 Just as a museum must be selective in determining what to accession, bearing in mind its collecting criteria as well as the resources it must commit to the proper care, documentation, and use of the object, so too must the museum acknowledge that not everything in its collection truly belongs there. Removing these objects allows the museum to dedicate more resources to developing and caring for a collection that will better benefit the public trust. Because museum collecting should be “a combination of intelligent selection and thoughtful pruning,”4 deaccessioning is considered by most museums to be an important component of proper collections management. Deaccessioning, or the process through which an object is recorded as officially removed from the museum’s accessioned holdings, is usually followed by disposal, the relocation of the physical object from the museum’s permanent, accessioned collection. Just as a museum must carefully document its decision to accession an object and the transfer of title to the museum, so all considerations and steps in the processes of deaccessioning and disposal must likewise be properly recorded.

Although many museum professionals recognize that deaccessioning can be important and beneficial, it can also be regarded as controversial because of what some perceive as the potential for the practice to be abused. Debates arise specifically around disposal, when a former collection object is to be sold. Critics question whether an object, once held in trust for the public in a museum collection, should be offered for public sale at all, and then face the possibility of reverting to private ownership. Even more problematic is the notion that museums might betray their public trust by monetizing collections when they are sold. Questions surround the use of proceeds realized from deaccessioned collections and how to ensure that the public trust is maintained. Despite many museums having found themselves at the center of deaccessioning controversies, stories continue to arise of museums that feel compelled to sell collections to fix budget shortfalls or to risk closing all together. Debate about this issue, and over the ethics of deaccessioning and disposal, continues (for more in-depth discussion of the ethics of deaccessioning and disposal, see CHAPTER 7A, “Ethics for Registrars and Collection Managers”). Transparent policies and procedures for thoughtful and careful deaccessioning and disposal can help museums mitigate the risk of ethical controversy.

DEACCESSIONING POLICIES

Every museum’s collections management policy, in accordance with its mission, should contain a section on deaccessioning and disposal (see CHAPTER 2, “Collection Management Policies”). This policy should guide the museum through deaccessioning decisions that ensure proper collections management and accountability to the public. Important components of the deaccessioning and disposal policy include:

To assist museums with developing their deaccessioning and disposal policies, professional museum organizations, such as the American Alliance of Museums (AAM),7 the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD),8 the American Association for State and Local History (AASLH),9 the Society of American Archivists (SAA),10 and the Association of Academic Museums and Galleries (AAMG),11 have issued a number of directives and have included in their codes of ethics guidelines for museums to follow. Although these organizations generally acknowledge that deaccessioning is an important tool in managing a healthy collection, special attention is devoted to the ethical concerns surrounding the disposal of objects through sale and the use of those proceeds. Any profits accrued through the sale of collection objects must be used to support the collection. Codes of ethics may differ according to discipline in determining what particular activities qualify as supporting the collection. For example, while the AAMD stipulates that deaccessioning proceeds may only be used for acquisitions, the AAM and AASLH allow for direct care of collections. The term direct care of collections generated confusion among museums for many years—what exactly can be considered direct care, and how does one distinguish between direct care and operating expenses? As a result, AAM formed a task team that produced a white paper on the topic, released in April 2016.12 The white paper provides guidance to help museums determine how direct care applies to their collections and makes additional recommendations to clarify deaccessioning and disposal policies (see CHAPTER 7A, “Ethics for Registrars and Collection Managers”). Museums are advised to consult the codes of ethics relevant to their disciplines to create deaccessioning policies that are in compliance with them.

State-chartered museums in New York must be aware of legal requirements established by the state’s Board of Regents in 2011. The rules delineate why museums are allowed to deaccession collections and require that proceeds from deaccessioning be used only for acquisitions or direct care; using proceeds for operating expenses is not allowed. Museums in New York State are required to submit an annual report to the State Education Committee that lists all objects deaccessioned in the previous year.

COLLECTIONS PLANS

In addition to deaccessioning and disposal policies, a museum’s collections plan can provide guidance and direction for its deaccessioning activities. To justify deaccessioning decisions, the museum must have a clear understanding of the scope of its collections, what types of objects are useful for advancing its mission, and where collecting goals and activities should be focused. A collections plan is usually developed by curatorial staff based on the museum’s scope of collections.13 The plan contains a formal assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of existing collections and provides a framework for future collection growth. The assessment itself can be time-consuming—all collections staff, including curators, collections managers, registrars, and conservators, should participate in providing information about the physical condition, legal status, and intellectual or scholarly significance of collection objects. This analysis will help the museum target new acquisitions and plan for how best to use its resources for ongoing collections care. Likewise, the assessment may reveal objects that are not within the parameters of the plan and are therefore candidates for deaccessioning and disposal.14

Deaccessioning Criteria

A museum may consider deaccessioning a collection object under the following circumstances:

  • The object is not within the scope of collections or does not serve the mission of the museum.
  • The object is not likely to be useful for the museum’s programs, research, exhibition, or educational purposes.
  • The object is of poor quality, does not meet museum standards, or is a less important or incomplete example.
  • The object is discovered to be fake or a forgery.
  • The object is a duplicate of others in the collection or creates redundancy within the collection.
  • The object’s physical condition has deteriorated beyond conservation treatment possibilities.
  • The object is composed of or contains hazardous material such that retaining the object would introduce intolerable risks to staff, visitors, or other collection objects.
  • In the case of living collections, death of the specimen.
  • Retaining the object is beyond the museum’s resources or capabilities.
  • The object is subject to restrictions that the museum is no longer able to meet.
  • The object is found to be part of a set that belongs to another institution, or the object would be of greater use in the collection of another institution.
  • The object is revealed to have been stolen or acquired illegally or unethically at some time in the past.
  • The object is subject to a legislative mandate (e.g., NAGPRA).

Deaccessioning should never take place to satisfy the whims or tastes of individual curators, directors, or board members. It must always be an informed and thoughtful process in which multiple museum parties participate and concur. Moreover, deaccessioning is not recommended in the case of objects that were lost or stolen from the museum. These objects may someday be found or recovered, and the museum will want to reassert its ownership of them. Finally, a museum should never deaccession collections to raise operating funds, unless it is willing to face professional sanctions and public outcry.15

METHODS OF DISPOSAL

Although disposal is a separate (although related) process, and the proceeds gained from a disposal should never be a motivating factor in deaccessioning an object, including the planned method of disposal in the deaccessioning proposal can be prudent. Disposal can be time-consuming, may require research into appropriate repositories, and may involve difficult logistics. Without a practical disposal plan in place that has been considered and approved by the collections staff and museum management, a deaccessioned object runs the risk of languishing in storage. The most suitable method of disposal must be determined on a case-by-case basis and may vary depending on the object and the needs of the museum. No deaccessioned object should be acquired by museum staff, board members, volunteers, or their relations.16 The following methods of disposal are generally considered acceptable.

Donation

Donation to another museum, library, archive, or nonprofit institution keeps the object in the public trust and is, therefore, the method of disposal preferred by many. Not every deaccessioned object is suitable for a collection, and it can be difficult to find an institution willing to accept a donation offer; however, for those objects that are of sufficient quality the museum may want to undertake efforts to relocate the object to another public collection.

Consider the recent well-publicized example of the transfer of the Brooklyn Museum of Art’s costume collection to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 2009.17 On a smaller scale but equally as successful was the transfer in 2014 of a mid-nineteenth-century painting of West Point from Boscobel House and Gardens to the US Military Academy.18

Museums can seek out appropriate recipients through professional contacts, notices in scholarly publications, or through online resources and web-sites.19 The National Air and Space Museum uses its website to promote its collections transfer program.20 A list of deaccessioned objects designated as appropriate for transfer is posted annually; other nonprofit institutions can apply to receive these objects for their collections.

Exchange or Sale

Exchange or sale to another museum or non profit also keeps the object within the public trust and gives the museum the benefit of offering something back to its own public—either a new acquisition more appropriate to its mission or funds with which these new acquisitions can be purchased. Independent appraisals should be obtained to make sure the transaction is equitable.

Transfer to an Education Collectionor Research Program

An object that is not appropriate for a museum collection may still be useful for scientific research, school studies, or hands-on educational programs. Even if the educational or research collection is within the same museum, the object must still be deaccessioned before it can be transferred to another collection in which it will receive a different standard of care and in which it is understood that the handling and sampling of the object may contribute to its deterioration.

Witnessed Destruction

In cases where the object’s physical condition is beyond possibility of conservation treatment, or if the object is considered hazardous, then it may be destroyed. Hazardous materials should be disposed of in a safe manner, following applicable laws and in compliance with local health and safety regulations. In addition, fake or fraudulent objects may be destroyed to remove them permanently from circulation. For all objects that are destroyed, the destruction process should be thorough and full documentation including photographs should be kept, so that the museum has a complete record of the object’s fate.

Repatriation or Restitution to Rightful Owner

A law such as Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) requires repatriation of certain objects that meet specific criteria. Objects for which the museum lacks title or which were acquired illegally (even though in good faith) or un-ethically should be restituted to the proper owner.

Public Auction

Some people argue that a public auction should be considered only if donation, exchange, or sale to another museum is not possible.21 However, board members may feel an obligation to increase the ac quisition funds for a museum, and thus, auction remains a frequent method of disposal. This disposition method is subject to public scrutiny, and therefore, it must be handled carefully.22

Interview several potential auction houses and check their references; consider their costs, their reputation for reliability, and marketing strategy. Inspect the auction’s facilities, security, and handling procedures. Send requests for proposals to at least three auction houses to allow for fair competition among vendors and to provide the museum with the best option for its consignment. Be sure to discuss any questions regarding the object’s provenance or attribution fully with the auction house.

The consignment agreement may need to be reviewed by the museum’s legal counsel. The agreement should clarify how publicity will be arranged, who will provide photographs of the object, whether the museum will be identified in the sales catalog (and if so, how it will be identified), what commissions and fees will be charged (many auction houses offer reduced commission to museums), what reserve will be placed, how unsold materials will be handled, and what is required regarding the object’s physical care and insurance coverage.

Transparency “is important to maintaining the museum’s integrity”23 so be sure to state in the sale catalog that the museum is selling the work and how it will use the proceeds.

Private sales are not encouraged as a method of disposal because they can be seen as a conflict of interest and may lack the transparency of a public auction. The same concerns make the sale of the object in the museum’s gift shop an unprofessional practice. Returning an object to a private donor is not considered a good option because it may set a bad precedent and lead the public to think that donations can be recalled. It would remove an object from the public trust and return it to private hands without any compensation for the public. Returning an object to a private donor can create complications for the donor, if the donor took a tax deduction when the gift was made (currently, museums are required to file IRS form 8282 for charitable donations that are disposed of within three years of their acquisition). A museum may, on rare occasion, consider returning an object to a donor only if it was never accessioned or was accepted with restrictions that the museum cannot keep.

DEACCESSIONING PROCESS

Each deaccessioning decision must be carefully considered, and museums should be prepared to prove how thoroughly they have undertaken this process with good documentation. Procedures should be standardized and the museum should “have the ability to demonstrate that, in fact, the procedures are followed.”24 A museum must develop a deaccessioning form or use the deaccessioning record in the collection management database to document each step. Deaccessioning documentation should include information about the object and its source, recommendations from staff members or third parties, authorizations by the museum’s director and board, and all details regarding the method of disposal. The registrar plays an important role in managing this documentation, coordinating steps in this process, and providing information from museum records.25

Initiation and Review of Records

  • The curator or the staff member most familiar with the collection and its needs usually initiates the deaccessioning process. The process should begin with a written justification explaining why the object is an appropriate candidate for deaccessioning, how it meets the deaccessioning criteria within the museum’s collections management policy, and how removing the object from the collection is in line with the museum’s collections plan.
  • The registrar should gather any available information about the object to present with the deaccessioning proposal, including provenance, exhibition and publication history, descriptions, and photographs of the object and its physical condition. Having this information on hand will be helpful in understanding how the object fits (or does not fit) in the collection as a whole, which in turn will assist in deliberations and decisions regarding its disposition.
  • The registrar should undertake a thorough review of the object’s files to make sure the museum holds clear and complete title to the object. Restrictions must be noted because they are legally binding and may cause complications that a lawyer must address. Joint ownership or shared objects will, of course, require conversations with the other owner(s) as well as with legal counsel. A review of the object files may reveal additional concerns that will need to be considered at this point, such as is the record of ownership lacking, or was the object never accessioned or fully processed? These objects may still be considered candidates for deaccessioning, but additional risks must be analyzed and extra steps may be required.

Objects without a record of ownership introduce risk into the deaccessioning process, and some museums have a policy against deaccessioning such material at all. However, in some cases, a museum may wish to weigh this risk against the benefit gained from removing an object that clearly does not belong in the museum’s collection. The Deaccession Risk Chart (FIGURE 3I.1) was created by Rebecca Buck to help museums counterbalance the levels of risk involved across four categories: value, disposition method, clarity of title, and object type. After checking all museum records, including loan files, for evidence of title, the registrar should assign a tracking number and create a file for the object (if this has not already been done), and, if required, enact the process for found-in-collection objects as instructed by state law (see CHAPTER 3J, “Found in Collection”). If there is no evidence that the object is a loan, if it has been in the museum’s possession for an extended period of time, and if it is not relevant to the museum’s mission, then deaccessioning may be considered, despite the incomplete ownership documentation, particularly if other categories on the Deaccession Risk Chart are low (e.g., low value or the object type is “abundant” or “mass produced”). Disposition methods, however, may be limited—if the museum wished to sell the object, it would not be able to provide a warranty of title, which would impact the sales price.26

If the museum has proof of ownership of the object, but the object has never been accessioned, then it does not need to be taken through the full deaccessioning procedure. However, as the object is still property of the museum, a thoughtful approach to its disposal is recommended. Moreover, there is a distinction between objects not accessioned and objects not fully registered. Documentation may prove that an object was acquired with the intention to accession it into the permanent collection, but for some reason the process was not completed. Accessioning includes acquisition and registration, so it is always possible that the second of these activities was simply lost to a backlog of workflow. In these cases, an accession number should be assigned so that deaccessioning documentation can be tracked and properly filed.

FIGURE 3I.1 DEACCESSION RISK CHART. PERMISSION FROM REBECCA BUCK.

FIGURE 3I.1 DEACCESSION RISK CHART. PERMISSION FROM REBECCA BUCK.

External Opinions

  • According to the requirements of the museum’s deaccessioning policy, museum staff may now seek external opinions. Consultation with specialists outside of museum staff—curators, conservators, or other scholars within the discipline—and solicitation of their support of the decision to deaccession the object may strengthen the deaccessioning proposal. All details of this correspondence should be recorded.
  • A disinterested third-party appraisal of value may be required. Some museums have a policy that requires external appraisals only if the object is thought to be worth over a certain amount. External appraisals of high-value objects or objects that are to be sold to or exchanged with another museum are always recommended.
  • Finally, if there are any questions about the object’s title or restrictions, the museum may want to seek advice from legal counsel.

Notifications

  • The museum will need to consider its public and its responsibility to deaccession with transparency. Public notification of a deaccession is generally recommended;27 consequently, the museum should now decide how and when this notification will occur. A press statement could be issued at the time of deaccessioning, worded to reassure the public that the museum’s deaccessioning activities are intended to strengthen its collection and that they will be carried out with the highest accountability. Alternately, disclosure could take place at the time of disposal. Copies of any press releases should be kept as part of the deaccessioning documentation.
  • Special notification may be made to the object’s donor or the donor’s heirs, depending on the circumstances. The museum is under no obligation to notify donors. If title to the object has been fully and freely transferred from the donor to the museum, then the donor has no legal authority to approve or object to the deaccessioning proposal.28 Some museums want to provide this notification out of courtesy. Indeed, if a donor who is still actively involved with the museum learns through a third party or sale catalog that a gift has been deaccessioned, the museum may have an awkward situ ation on its hands. However, if the donor or donor’s heirs have no ongoing relationship with the museum, then this notification is not necessary.
  • If a work by a living artist is deaccessioned, the artist should be notified.

Authorization to Proceed

  • Having gathered all the appropriate information about the object and its source, the museum staff can now determine whether to recommend deaccessioning and a disposition method to the director and board.
  • Record the dates that approval is granted and have the deaccessioning proposal form signed by the proper authority.
  • Mark the object’s file and flag its database record as “deaccessioned.”
  • Follow through with efforts to remain transparent by announcing the deaccessioning decision. Museums that are AAMD members should post deaccessioned objects on their websites.

Disposal

  • The registrar may now enact the disposal plan. Remove any accession numbers or other museum markings from objects that are to be sold at auction. This is considered a good practice to prevent confusion over ownership status or possible inflation of market value because of the object’s past association with the museum. These objects should be tagged with removable numbers, however, to maintain inventory control throughout the disposal process. Accession numbers are usually left on objects that are donated or sold to other institutions so that the objects can be linked to the original museum’s files and publications.
  • Keep notes and copies of all internal discussions and correspondence as vendors or recipients are vetted and chosen.
  • Make packing and shipping arrangements and record the date of the object’s final transfer from the museum.
  • In the case of donated objects, document the transfer of title and specify the credit line that the new institution should use.
  • If an object is sold, record the date and location of the auction, keep a copy of the sale catalog, and make note of the hammer price and net proceeds to the museum. Request a copy of the check or wire transfer receipt for the deaccessioning file, ensure the funds are deposited into a separate account restricted to the acquisition (or direct care) of collection objects, and determine what the replacement credit line will read for collection objects purchased with these funds. Many small objects sold for modest amounts can be combined into one general acquisitions fund with records kept of multiple donors’ names.
  • Finally, ensure that all documentation related to the deaccessioning is gathered and filed as part of the permanent history of the museum’s collection, report the final outcome to the board, and include a summary in the museum’s annual report on deaccession activity.

The deaccessioning process, if undertaken properly, will be time-consuming. However, a careful and thorough process is necessary to help a museum make responsible decisions about deaccessioning, to maintain accountability and transparency, and ultimately to develop a collection that effectively and efficiently serves its mission. •

NOTES

1. S. Miller, Deaccessioning Today: Theory and Practice (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2018).

2. J. E. Simmons, Things Great and Small: Collections Management Policies, 2nd ed. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2018), 62.

3. M. C. Malaro and I. P. DeAngelis, A Legal Primer on Managing Museum Collections, 3rd ed. (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institute Press, 2012).

4. Malaro and DeAngelis, Legal Primer, 248.

5. Malaro and DeAngelis, Legal Primer, 256.

6. Simmons, Things Great and Small, 74.

7. American Alliance of Museums, “AAM Code of Ethics for Museums,” Ethics, Standards, and Professional Practices, amended 2000. Available at: https://www.aam-us.org/programs/ethics-standards-and-professional-practices/code-of-ethics-for-museums/.

8. Association of Art Museum Directors, “AAMD Policy on Deaccessioning,” Standards and Practices, amended 10/2015. Available at: https://aamd.org/sites/default/files/document/AAMD%20Policy%20on%20Deaccessioning%20website_0.pdf.

9. American Association for State and Local History, “Statement of Professional Standards and Ethics,” revised 2017. Available at: http://download.aaslh.org/Council/2017+Statement+of+Professional+Standards+and+Ethics.pdf.

10. Society of American Archivists, “Guidelines for Reappraisal and Deaccessioning,” revised 2017. Available at: https://www2.archivists.org/sites/all/files/GuidelinesForReappraisalDeaccessioning_2017.pdf.

11. Association of Academic Museums and Galleries, “Professional Practices for Academic Museums and Galleries,” June 2017. Available at: https://www.aamg-us.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/AAMG-Professinal-Practices-2018-web-FINAL-rev043018.pdf.

12. American Alliance of Museums Direct Care Task Force, “Direct Care of Collections: Ethics, Guidelines and Recommendations,” April 2016. Available at: https://www.aam-us.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/direct-care-of-collections-ethics-guidelines-and-recommendations-pdf.jpg.

13. J. B. Gardner and E. Merritt, The AAM Guide to Collections Planning (Washington, DC: American Association of Museums, 2004).

14. M. Morris, “Deaccessioning,” in Museum Registration Methods, 5th ed., edited by R. A. Buck and J. A. Gilmore (Washington, DC: American Alliance of Museums Press, 2010), 101.

15. American Alliance of Museums Direct Care Task Force, “Direct Care of Collections: Ethics, Guidelines and Recommendations.”

16. Morris, “Deaccessioning.”

17. S. Yerkovich, A Practical Guide to Museum Ethics (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016), 75.

18. Miller, Deaccessioning Today, 37.

19. Miller, Deaccessioning Today, 62.

20. Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, “Collection Items for Transfer,” About the Collection. Available at: https://airandspace.si.edu/collections/about-collection/collection-items-transfer (accessed November 24, 2018).

21. Yerkovich, Practical Guide, 79.

22. Morris, “Deaccessioning.”

23. Yerkovich, Practical Guide, 75.

24. Malaro and DeAngelis, Legal Primer, 256.

25. Morris, “Deaccessioning.”

26. Malaro and DeAngelis, Legal Primer, 192.

27. Miller, Deaccessioning Today, 51.

28. Simmons, Things Great and Small, 67.

This chapter is based on the deaccessioning chapter by Martha Morris in the fifth edition of Museum Registration Methods . Thanks to Rebecca Buck for the “Deaccessioning Risk Chart,” to Sally Yerkovich for reviewing content, and to Johann Moser and Joanne Moser for editing and proofreading.