|
|
|
Ethics Q&A: Collections management
|
June 2001
A relative of a now deceased donor wants to view a minor item given to the museum in its early days in the 1950s. We have accession records but despite an exhaustive search of our stores we have been unable to find it.
We fear that other items may also be missing and plan to do as complete an audit as our modest resources allow. How should we present this particular loss to the relative and any other potentially embarrassing ones that the audit may reveal?
The current code of ethics make it quite clear museums should be transparently accountable to the public they serve. That principle should not be fudged or tampered with, even if it reveals shortcomings in standards of stewardship and systems of management that may be professionally embarrassing in the short term.
The enquirer is quite likely to be genuinely upset, disappointed or angry and understandably so. Acknowledge these emotions and deal with the enquirer sympathetically and tactfully.
A genuine display of your embarrassment at the museum's failure, a proper explanation of what went wrong, and above all, a full apology, will all go some way to diffusing a difficult situation.
Remember in cases of professional negligence, it is often the failure of officials to say they are sorry that adds offence to the original cause of the grievance.
Rather than apportioning blame it is more important at this time to ensure the matter is fully discussed by your governing body or controlling authority. They should formulate policy to investigate what went wrong and prevent a recurrence.
By fostering a culture of openness and honest review, museum practices will improve and a repetition of this mismanagement will be avoided.
^ TOP
|
|
|
