Promoting, Prioritizing, and Preserving Active Collections

If you skipped the AASLH conference this year and you don’t follow the Engaging Places blog, you may have missed the “Active Collections Manifesto.” It’s a strong stance on promoting quality over quantity in collections and argues for a discriminating approach to resource expenditures. The Manifesto’s writers have an impressive record of professional accomplishments in the museum field and their ideas are worth considering and debating.

The Manifesto calls for prioritizing collections into different levels and providing a corresponding tiered standard of care. In many ways, collections stewards already do this by default. The objects relating to research requests are usually documented more thoroughly and stored in positions of greater accessibility. In other ways the differing values placed on collection items are more deliberate. Our workshops always promote selecting 5-10 priority artifacts that are crucial for the institution’s mission or community identity as a disaster preparedness measure. Sorting collections into tiers of significance and/ or stakeholder interest and concentrating documentation efforts and scare preservation resources on the upper tiers could have multiple benefits beyond disaster preparedness. Would a field for priority codes in systems like Past Perfect be useful? Prioritizing collections is something those in the library/ archives field already do deliberately and it makes a lot of sense for museums to take a tiered approach to collections too.

Here are two additional great ideas the Manifesto promotes:

• emotion-provocation as a criterion in assigning an object to a tier
• a deaccession special task force: As we’ve seen with assessment programs, outside experts can be convincing for boards and stir up the stagnation that is all too often a dominating force.

As a former curator for a state history museum, I do have some concerns with mass-scale deaccessioning, however, and I’ll share a story from my previous position to explain. As the Manifesto mentions, audiences’ needs evolve and the stories stakeholders want to tell change over time. Some lower-tier artifacts may jump to a higher tier, depending on the story, so in my experience, mass deaccessioning projects need to be undertaken with great care.

Courtesy, Louisiana State Museum

One part of my job was managing a historic row house, and I researched those who lived in the house during one decade—the 1850s. That had never been done before because heads of household were tenants, rather than owners, and had been overlooked in earlier interpretations. (This new research approach also uncovered a lot of great information on slaves, but that’s another story.) Anyway, imagine my surprise and delight when I did collections database searches on all the tenants’ names and discovered a pair of shoes that had once belonged to the final tenant of that decade! The pair had probably never left a storage box since its donation in the 1920s, and in a tiered approach it would have been placed on a low level. Once a new interpretive direction came to the fore, the shoes launched into a higher tier.

Similarly, masses of WWI stuff that seemed fairly low priority 20 years ago are undergoing a dramatic shift in significance now in collections across the country as institutions commemorate the centennial.

To learn more about deaccession issues and recommended procedures, consider tuning into AASLH’s upcoming StEPs webinar. Or join us for a FREE webinar viewing party at the NC Museum of History.

Professional standards in preservation have risen to such great heights in the last few decades that very few history museums can keep up. A tiered approach to management could really help by considering those standards only for the higher priority level(s). Thanks to Rainey Tisdale, Trevor Jones, and Elee Wood for their bold decree and for supplying more food for thought on collection topics.

—Adrienne Berney, C2C Collection Care Trainer

Fire Grenades

Thanks to John Campbell, Collections Management Section Chief of the NC Museum of History and CREST member for this guest post.

Recently a colleague forwarded to me a string of emails about a potential danger lurking in museum collections,  fire grenades.  These items were sold from the 1870s until the 1950s and were used to put out a small fire in an enclosed area quickly.  The idea was to throw the glass bottle at the base of the fire, where it would shatter and the contents would smother the fire.  Early versions were filled with salt water, and later the chemical of choice was carbon tetrachloride.

I was familiar with these beauties; in fact I think I put the number on the bottom of the red one years ago during processing.  We knew at the time that the contents of the grenade were still intact, but we did not know what they were. As it turns out, carbon tetrachloride is not a nice chemical to have around.  According to the EPA:

The primary effects of carbon tetrachloride in humans are on the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system (CNS).  Human symptoms of acute (short-term) inhalation and oral exposures to carbon tetrachloride include headache, weakness, lethargy, nausea, and vomiting.  Acute exposures to higher levels and chronic (long-term) inhalation or oral exposure to carbon tetrachloride produces liver and kidney damage in humans.

At the NC Museum of History, we decided that we would deaccession these items from our collection because we did not have the proper facilities to store them.  Several people have suggested trying to remove the contents in order to keep the glass bottles in the collection, but that is not a good idea. Even if you are successful in not breaking the fragile glass, how would you safely handle and dispose of the dangerous carbon tetrachloride?  Our best advice is to seek out someone qualified to handle hazardous materials, like your county waste disposal director and see what options you have.

You can find additional information in these articles and more images of different types.

• http://www.peachridgeglass.com/2012/04/fire-grenades-great-form-and-color-for-collectors/
• http://www.antiquebottles.com/firegrenade/

The good news is that new 3-D printing technologies may allow museums to tell this interesting story without the threat of dangerous chemicals.

People Pose Preservation Dangers

Image credit for “Vase Casse” http://danslapensine.blogspot.com/

Theft is the most obvious danger to artifact preservation that people pose. As we’ve discussed previously in this blog, museum staff, volunteers, and researchers comprise an amazingly high percentage of museum thefts (approximately 90%). But mishandling can also damage artifacts, and probably a similarly high percentage of the most egregious examples can also be considered insider jobs. Now, most of us who work with collections take our ethical responsibilities seriously and are scrupulous about honesty and proper stewardship. The vast majority of professionals provide care that is in line with current conservation guidelines, in so far as training and budgets allow. Exceptional cases of mishandling, however, can be instructive, and breaking news provides two interesting examples:

• Recently, a Miami artist intentionally lifted a Chinese artist’s vase from an exhibit at an art museum in that city and dropped it on the floor, shattering the piece. He committed the destructive act in protest of the museum’s practice of only displaying international art.
• Earlier this month, a French museum employee sat on a red leather folding chair that had belonged to Napoleon and broke it.

In addition to such stories that generate media attention, many of us who have been in the museum field for awhile have heard legends and rumors about staff members taking advantage of their access to collections in ways that could damage the artifacts. For instance:

• True story: graduate students in a program at a much-venerated East coast museum spied a museum historian and registrar embracing after hours on an 18^th-century 4-poster bed sometime in the late 1960s. Since both staff members proceeded to have long careers there, and grad students kept coming, the story continued to be passed along for at least 30 years.
• Rumor: a rather large male costume and textile curator tried on women’s undergarments from the collection while working late.

These colorful examples of mishandling remind us that human nature is imperfect; that familiarity breeds complacency; and that accountability helps us all do the best job we can. Another reminder is that no matter what protections we put in place to keep artifacts safe, someone (out of thousands or more?) may put his own personal agenda above the responsibility to protect the artifact for perpetuity.

What can we do to protect  collections from insiders who may believe themselves to be exempt from usual handling limitations? One answer is to require collections work to be on a buddy system, although that guideline clearly would not have prevented the 4-poster bed scenario. In addition to being an added security measure, the buddy system has practical benefits by ensuring more man and woman power when oversize objects and large boxes may need relocation. Another answer may be to limit after-hours work in collections storage. What works at your institution? Have you tried security cameras as a solution? Or has the honor system been enough protection so far?

“Expendifacts” for Living History

At last week’s Collections Care workshop in Charlotte, organized by the Mecklenburg Historical Association, one of our participants asked a great question. She explained that her organization maintains a log cabin with no environmental controls.   When possible, she has replaced old objects with reproductions, but there are still many antiques at the site. Interpreters and visitors handle and use some of these in demonstrations of blacksmithing, cooking, and more. What should she do?

living history program at Iredell Museums

Coincidentally, this same question came up last week on the Connecting to Collections online discussion forum. According to Museum Consultant Ron Kley,   “This has long been a topic of discussion…There is general agreement in the field that the use of original period artifacts in such circumstances is ultimately consumptive, and that the use of replicas is…preferred.” Kley also notes “persuasive counter-arguments…that certain artifacts — machines in general being a good example — are [better off] through prudent use with appropriate maintenance rather than sitting in storage under ‘benign neglect’ conditions.” Kley recommends ALHFAM, the Association for Living History, Farm and Agricultural Museums, as a good resource to learn more about this issue and to gather supply sources for suitable reproductions.

In addition to reproductions, some old objects may be okay to continue using in these programs. Fully equipping historic environments with reproductions is not likely to be affordable for most organizations. Although those of us working for non-profits and public institutions are bound to preserve collections according to the best practices available within budgetary limits, some objects within the museum can be considered expendable. Kley uses the apt term “expendifacts”  to distinguish such objects from those that require care for perpetuity. Staff should designate an education collection that includes both reproductions and expendifacts (some museums even track these categories separately). Accessioned objects should not be used up for programs unless first transferred to an educational collection, and the transfer process typically involves Board approval.

How do we decide whether an artifact should be considered expendable? Here are some questions to consider:

• Does it have a good story, especially one that relates to the institution’s mission? If yes, then the object should be accessioned or remain in the permanent collection and its handling limited.
• Could it be replaced easily through purchase? If yes, then the object may be appropriate for the educational collection.
• Is the object a machine or musical instrument that warrants (and possibly benefits from) periodic, limited use? If yes, and public program use is occasional, then it may remain in the permanent collection, as its use can be considered preservation-appropriate.

How does your site handle using artifacts for public programs? How long does it take before the objects break down? We’d love to share your examples here!

Disaster Reality vs. ICS Structure

Rescuing damaged artifacts at a recent workshop

When I was a young college senior majoring in music education, we had to take numerous philosophy and methods of education classes the semester before we began student teaching.  Every scenario presented in those courses was touted as the greatest achievement in public education since the eraser.  The difficulty was that once I began student teaching, armed with all of the beautiful templates of how to make every child a gifted learner and devoted scholar, I promptly fell flat on my face. Why did this happen? Because every situation presented to me in those ivy covered classrooms prior to my clash with the reality of public school systems, was delivered under the ideal circumstances, with the ideal students, who had been raised by the ideal parents and funded from the magical unlimited budgets of the state and local coffers. Since then, I have always been skeptical of anything presented as the” perfect solution” that was not grounded in real life experiences.

I encountered this delicate dance again in November when C2C presented a fire recovery workshop in Buncombe County, North Carolina. There is always a compromise in teaching this sort of disaster strategy between what is laid out in the formal, rigid structure of ICS (Incident Command System) and the bureaucracy of municipalities, and what needs to happen immediately.  Archivists, conservators, museum directors, librarians and any other staff can spend significant amounts of time on the disaster plan, telephone tree, duty assignments, and practice drills, only to see it all crumble when told that the city inspector gives you ten minutes to empty the facility before he chains off the door for safety reasons.

So why do we teach the complex system of ICS?  And why do we preach the importance of inventory updates, off-site storage of the disaster plan, electronic back up and how to care for the cracked dinnerware and fragile, sooty textiles?   Why does the workshop include ICS and not just emphasize urgent, immediate rescue?

We include it because we have a responsibility to the people in charge of these museums, historic homes and historic sites to prepare them in the best way possible – not if, but WHEN – a disaster happens on their watch at their site.

Granted, in an unexpected disaster, there is the sense of urgency and immediacy to rescue collections and protect all items from further damage or loss.  If everyone just runs helter-skelter, there may end up being more damage, confusion, theft and breakage than if there is a pre-thought-out and prepared plan.  Certainly, things will not go systematically in the perfect order with the perfect professional conservators on hand to give their wisdom and expertise, but being blind-sided by a fire, flood, tornado or mold infestation, is far worse when there is no organized course of action (or structure) to implement.

If there is a large presidential (FEMA) declared disaster, the ICS structure is implemented from the local community CERT volunteers and volunteer fire and EMT rescuers up the ladder to the governor.  It is paramount that you, as a professional, at least have an understanding of where you and your facility fall in that hierarchy, how and whom to inform of your needs and how that structure will affect your collections and facilities in the recovery effort. (Both the immediate and the long-term aspect of recovery.)

We know that there is a real life energy and sense of urgency surrounding a disaster and, also, that there is a textbook response to a disaster and we know that the best possible, most productive response lies somewhere in the middle.   We will keep listening to feedback, reworking the agenda, and re-structuring the workshops, practice burns, and artifact recovery until we have balanced the two opposing forces. Our reality is that we hope this is all wasted time on our part and your part.  We desperately hope that there is never any kind of trauma or disaster at your museum, historic site or home.  However, in the chance that if – and when – it does occur, all of the advance preparation will prove valuable in preserving these pieces of history for all future generations.

We will keep providing opportunities for you to have as much training as possible.  We are not the ivy-covered walls of college, nor do we want to set anyone up for failure. However, a pre-determined response that addresses the issues of administrative, logistical, operational and planning needs (that is implemented and carried out at a disaster site) will bring order to chaos. Being prepared is the best reality training possible.  Knowing your options and having a plan will help prevents panic and additional, smaller disasters from occurring at the site. All of this will help you manage a difficult situation in trying circumstances.

Remember that NC Department of Cultural Resources is always here with (free) conservators, archivists and specialists on hand to assist immediately after and in the long-term recovery.  CREST team members will respond from across the state and a local response will begin with the *ACREN groups.

Lyn Triplett

NC Department of Cultural Resources

Disaster Preparedness Coordinator

Deaccession Destinations

Most museum collection policies delineate steps for the placement of deaccessioned artifacts.

1. Attempt to transfer to a teaching or prop collection within the institution.
2. Attempt to find another collecting institution for transfer.
3. Sell at public auction and use resulting funds for collection purposes (acquisition or supplies) only.
4. Destroy if in total disrepair or posing a health risk.

Another common guideline insists that deaccessioned objects should not be returned to the donor or a descendant for two reasons:  first, the donor may have taken a tax deduction for the piece and its return would render the deduction fraudulent; second, there may be multiple descendants with competing ownership claims which the museum cannot and should not arbitrate.

In addition to the above 4 typical deaccession destinations enumerated above, C2C has become another option in between #s 3 and 4 (perhaps a 3 ½?). In cases where objects have no re-sale value but still have some level of structural integrity and visual interest, three North Carolina museums have opted to donate their deaccessioned pieces to C2C for our team to destroy in the mock museums we set up before our fire recovery workshops. These views include several deaccessioned pieces staged for the controlled burn at the Buncombe County Public Safety Training Center. Our fire recovery workshop participants got to practice triage and recovery with these materials yesterday. Sometimes items in these scenarios survive the fire and do 2 or more tours of C2C-controlled-burn duty, but more often they are destroyed during the burn or disposed immediately after the workshop.

Please consider sending your deaccessioned, no monetary value, but still interesting, objects to us at C2C for workshop use. And, stay tuned to learn the fate of these former museum artifacts after yesterday’s fire recovery workshop…

Clarification: CREST – not just a toothpaste & *ACREN – not just a city in Ohio

While in Western North Carolina a few years ago, I heard an old Mountain idiom that went: “Yep – those directions was just about as clear as mud.”  I think that is what is happening with the new disaster recovery organization structure here at C2C.  So I am going to try to clear up the mud hole in regards to the structure and purpose of CREST and the related sub groups for emergency salvage of artifacts in the event of a natural or man-made disaster.

CREST – Cultural Resources Emergency Support Team

Breaking down the letters of CREST, acknowledges that the group originates here at the NCDCR.  The purpose of forming a statewide team is to be able to respond to any library, museum or historic site in North Carolina that has a disaster or crisis.  CREST participants would provide the manpower and the supplies to begin immediate salvage and recovery of artifacts and collections at the site.  It is an “all hands on deck” for the people who are signed up as part of the CREST team to respond as quickly as possible.  Here in Raleigh, we will maintain a cache of recovery supplies that might be needed. Supplies are stored here in large tubs ready and waiting for a call to respond. Examples of the supplies are soot sponges, wax and parchment paper, tarps, Tyvek tags and pens, drying racks for small and medium sized textiles, rope, close pins, clean water, fans, extension cords and numerous other items we can stockpile.  Should a call come to Raleigh of a crisis, we will deploy CREST persons with the tubs of supplies to that facility.  All CREST team members receive an individual “Go-Pack” of personal safety equipment and immediate triage supplies to get started.  Items in the go-pack include a safety helmet and vest, masks, gloves, flashlight, simple tools, and other items.  (See photo)

On the local level, there are regional groups that support the CREST team. The letters of the regional groups stand for Area Cultural Resource Emergency Network.  So far, there are three groups. They are in the Triangle, Mountain and Piedmont sections of North Carolina. Add the first letter of the region to *ACREN and you have TACREN, MACREN, and PACREN.  These regional groups are the first responders to their regional area that is experiencing the disaster. The CREST team will arrive as quickly as possible with trained personal and specialized supplies as backup.

Both CREST and *ACREN members have been trained in personal safety, recovery of artifacts and organizational procedures in a disaster.  Workshops and classes emphasize an immediate triage and joint effort to stabilize the condition of the collection.  The goal of quick response to a disaster is to prevent further long-term damages until the items are evaluated for future conservation and restoration by professionals.

Anyone who is trained in artifact recovery can be on either the regional *ACREN group or the statewide CREST team.  Actually, a participant can be on both because the training is the same.  The differences lie in the ability to respond.  A CREST member must be willing to respond anywhere in North Carolina.  (And of course in their region as well.) However, a member of one of the *ACREN groups only responds to help their colleagues in their geographic area.

We are striving, through workshops and training to empower library, museum and historic site staff in all regions of the state.  There are dreams of a CACREN, (Costal) WACREN (Wilmington) and OBX-AREN. (Outer Banks)

If your area is interested, we will be more than happy to provide training, workshops and burn recovery to collections.  We would love to have a long list of *ACREN groups ready and prepared to assist each other.  Hopefully, this clears up the muddy mess to at least a watery mess.  Stay safe and continue updating the inventory list.

Lyn Triplett

Disaster Preparedness Coordinator

NCDCR – C2C

Raleigh, N.C.

Picric Acid

The dangers of picric acid may be old news now, as a flurry of various museum staff members discovered picric acid in their collections two years ago, but the warning is worth repeating. Especially since our outreach efforts are focusing more and more on disaster preparedness, we have to be mindful of the potential disasters that collections themselves may harbor.

Picric acid is a pale yellow, odorless crystal that is normally packaged as a solution with 10%+ water. The chemical was once commonly included in first aid kits and other medical supplies, especially around the turn of the 20^th century through about 1950. [The example here on the left is part of the online “Museum of Menstruation’s” collection.] The substance becomes hazardous over time as the water evaporates and dry, yellowish crystalline particles remain. The dry acid crystals are an especially volatile chemical, which combusts easily from changes in temperature or friction. The crystals react to metals and alkaline materials, such as plaster or concrete, to form explosive picrate salts, becoming even more dangerous.

Several of the 2011 incidents were in Colorado (notably the PioneerMuseum) and another in Oklahoma.  When museum staff members identified collection items laced with picric acid (guaze pads in some cases) and called authorities, bomb squads came to the institutions. Officials evacuated visitors and staff and then detonated the materials.

Have North Carolina collections stewards verified that 50-100+-year-old medical supplies are free from this danger? Do you know of any institutions in our state where staff has discovered and disposed of this hazardous chemical?

Collections Access: Open the Door Wider

Thanks to museum audience engagement expert, Nina Simon, for first posting this opinion piece by C2C team member, Adrienne Berney, in last week’s Museum 2.0 blog.

NC Museum of History 1988.39.4

Followers of Museum 2.0 are well versed in new ideas for audience engagement and committed to opening up their institutions to increase public access. But this is not always the first priority for professionals in the museum field. Some collections stewards, steeped as they are in professional artifact-protection standards, are reluctant to shift toward the more open version of institutional access that engagement advocates promote. Do these two directives and perspectives have to be at odds? Can collections access be a way to entice new audiences?

Recently, several subscribers to the RCAAM (Registrar’s Committee of AAM) listserv posted concerns about professional photographers and museum visitors taking photographs of objects on exhibition. One announced her intention to seek legal recourse against a photographer, and another warned that in the past her institution’s legal council had dissuaded that museum from seeking action. “Unfortunately,” that subscriber advised, there are no legal avenues to stop visitors from photographing objects or images in the public domain in public spaces where photography is allowed.

To me, this seems both discouraging and ungenerous to visitors. I stirred up a debate by raising the question “why not allow access?” I believe the museum field as a whole should do more to encourage reproductions of collection objects and images, regardless of whether reproducers hope for profits. I then encountered strong push-back on the listserv, with one subscriber calling my fitness for my job title, “collections care trainer,” into question. Respondents flexed their protective muscles to limit access to the artifacts they have pledged their professional lives to preserving. I’m listing most of the concerns voiced in that debate so that readers can assess the severity of each obstacle and can help generate ideas for surmounting them, toward a goal of more open collections access.

• Increased risks for deterioration: most of us are familiar with the agents of deterioration and understand the varying risks to collections materials that access poses, especially as a result of increased handling and light exposure. Digitization can help offer safe access to collections.

• Staff time: allowing access can be labor intensive for those in charge of collections. Institutions may not want to invest work hours into providing access for visitors who may then turn around and sell reproductions for their own profit. But if collection reproductions are a potential cash cow, then why aren’t more institutions pursuing product creation? Some history museums, including the Brooklyn Museum and the Sandy Springs Museum , have implemented innovative programs inviting artists into storage and galleries to create new works with collection items. But what about the potential creator who happens into an exhibit, gets an idea, and takes a picture? What if objects are already on exhibit and their reproduction involves no additional staff time? Should the museum impose a fee on reproducers or limit their pursuits in other ways? Keep in mind that enforcing limited-access policies requires significant staff time too, along with possible legal fees.

• Copyright infringements: A large portion of historical collections are in the public domain. The Library of Congress advises collection users to go through a risk assessment process for each image they seek to reproduce. The LOC provides open access as a public service and the user assumes whatever risks may be involved in reproduction. Why can’t all collecting institutions take this position?

• Misrepresentation of the artifact: I’m not sure what this means, perhaps reproducing only a portion of an artifact or splicing its image with another. If the reproducer includes a reference to the original source, does that offset the concern or increase it? In the case of documents, historians regularly argue about the meanings of various passages. If a scholar misrepresents a document, it’s his/her reputation on the line, rather than the repository’s. Why should museums arbitrate or otherwise limit creative vision?

• Relatedly, poor quality images of artifacts in collections may harm the reputation of the museum and do a disservice to the original donor. In a footnote in her Legal Primer on Managing Museum Collections, Malaro mentions that a museum might not want to be listed as the source of an image in certain reproduction applications for fear of appearing to endorse the product or its creator. A risk assessment may help clarify the danger: Is it riskier (in terms of failing to fulfill a museum’s mission) to allow access, with the potential for audiences to generate poor quality products, or riskier to keep tight control over collection materials? Can you think of any cases where a reproduction harmed an institution housing the original?

• Contractual issues or donor restrictions: These are red flags for placing an artifact on exhibit or an online database. Experts advise museums against accepting restricted donations, and they are rare in history museums. The most likely donor restrictions prescribe access and call for “permanent exhibition.” In addition, some museums have worked with native tribes or other descendant groups to establish access guidelines for sensitive anthropological materials. Do you know of other donor contracts or restrictions (besides copyright) that would allow the display of an artifact and disallow its reproduction?

Artist Courtney Bellairs created this image in 2013 by photographing an object in the Sandy Springs Museum collection. It was for sale as a limited edition giclee print in the museum’s gift shop during a related exhibition and remains for sale via the artist.

Given that public and non-profit private institutions hold collections in the public trust, and that a large portion of collections (at least in history museums) are public domain materials, and that most donors give with the expectation of preservation and access for perpetuity, museum professionals should have a wide range to engage the public with collections. Allowing for exceptional cases where limited access would be necessary, can’t most of the above concerns be managed within an over-arching open-access approach to collections?

Without broad access, why should any community or institution go to the trouble and expense of preserving artifacts? Visitation has decreased significantly at historic sites and institutions since the 1980s and yet artifact-featured forms of entertainment like collector reality television shows and auctions have proliferated. Potential audiences feel connections with artifacts, so why don’t they participate in or support collecting institutions more often?  The Rijksmuseum of the Netherlands sets an exciting example by providing high quality collection images online and encouraging product creation. By allowing open access for creative reproduction, I suspect institutions could become more welcoming for those groups, and collections can function more fully as relevant and engaging resources.

How has your institution balanced collection concerns with its efforts to engage audiences? Do you view collections as a problematic juggernaut to avoid, or an indispensable resource base, or both? How can we safely steer the reflexive “no” toward a “probably” and open the door to more collections access?

Thanks to Allison Weiss, Executive Director of the Sandy Springs Museum, John Campbell, Collections Section Chief of the NC Museum of History, and RCAAM listserv respondents for their contributions to this post.

A New Alliance

Most readers realize that AAM has changed its name from the American Association of Museums to the American Alliance of Museums. Along with the name change and new graphic design, AAM has promised changes for members, and several of these open access to the organization’s services. Here are some of the most important changes for small museums:

• Institutional membership: There are now 3 levels of membership, with “Tier 1” incorporating a “pay what you can” philosophy. Upper levels of membership are either $125 or $150 for the smallest museums, so the Tier 1 option can make a significant difference.

• Pledge of Excellence:  Member institutions can take this pledge and receive a certificate, as a public statement of the organization’s commitment to following professional standards. The pledge is a much more accessible option than accreditation, although pledging institutions include accredited museums. In North Carolina there are 22 accredited museums. An additional 11 institutions have taken the pledge. (To view list, click here and see pp. 40-42.)

The Mount Airy Museum of Regional History is one of the institutions that has taken AAM’s Pledge of Excellence but is a ways off from the accreditation process. Executive Director, Matt Edwards (left), was inspired to take the pledge while attending the Southeastern Museums Conference Jekyll Island Management Institute. “I fully believe in our responsibility to be the best museum we can be…I have a long-range plan for my institution that includes starting to pursue the accreditation process in the next 3-5 years, and [the pledge] publicly acknowledges that first step.”

• Cooperation with StEPs program: The American Association of State and Local History’s Standards and Excellence Program for history organizations is a self-study designed to help small and mid-sized institutions achieve best practices incrementally.  Many of these smaller museums have not been eligible in the past for AAM accreditation, and while that achievement may still be a long way off, at least now a path is open. The work that institutions do toward StEPs will allow them to engage in a more streamlined approach for AAM’s MAP program as well as accreditation.

How does your institution navigate all the professional services available to it and decide which to work with (i.e. AAM, AASLH, SEMC, NCMC, C2C, NCPC, The Federation, etc.)? Do membership dues and program fees inhibit your organization’s participation? Will any of the above AAM changes make the services it offers more accessible for you?