I am in search of how learning how other institutions view and handle the following collections management issue.
My institution has numerous old “permanent” loans going back to our founding in the 1920s. At that time, staff sometimes handled these large “permanent” loans just like they would a donation i.e. they were assigned accession #’s.
In recent years we have been following our state’s abandoned property laws to either return the loan or gain title. A question about the proper numbering arises after we gain title to the loan and our collections committee has reviewed it and has decided keep some or all of the objects for the permanent collection.
Question 1:
For those loans handled since they arrived at the museum as accessions (with an accession # from the year the loan started) are we required to assign them a new accession # reflecting the year in which title was actually acquired?
The debate:
We have staff who feel that the # assigned back in the day to what was a loan is illegitimate. Therefore they believe we must assign a new # to the objects and handled it like a totally new accession.
Other staff see assigning a new # as unnecessary extra work (often requiring physically renumbering objects, or at least changing tags, bags, box lists, creating new catalog screens etc. etc.). They feel it would be just as effective and simpler to update the electronic and paper records under appropriate fields to reflect the change in ownership status.
What does your institution do in this situation?
Next there is a secondary question that feeds off the one above.
If you are of the mindset that the original accession # assigned to the loan is illegitimate and a new one is indeed needed the how formal do you get in documenting that the original # is no longer in use?
Do you fill out formal deaccession paperwork to document why that original number is no longer in use and cross reference the old to the new #? Obviously the original # would always remain associated with the object in electronic catalog records. We would want to make sure especially in the paper records that we are making it clear to anyone who comes after us why that accession # is “dead” etc.
This actually leads to another related question which we’ve been debating how to handle. Like most museums that have been around awhile, for various reasons over the years some donated objects were assigned duplicate accession #’s. When these issues are discovered and staff choose one # (there is usually one that is obviously better) under which to continue track it going forward. But this brings up another version of the above question. What do we need to do to document that the duplicate # is no longer active? Of course the duplicate # will always be listed as an alternative # under the object’s active catalog record (so it’s searchable) and in the paper file. However, do you go any further to formally document the decision made to use the other # and to eliminate potential confusion in the future? Such as
1) Do you keep the electronic catalog records for both #’s and just cross reference them, making it clear which one is the active #? Of course paper files or at least a place holder for the duplicate # would be kept for the purpose of cross reference.
2) Or do you go further: A) do you list the duplicate # under the object’s active record then delete the duplicate electronic catalog record so it’s no longer visible in the database? B) As part this process do you complete any formal paperwork for the paper file to document that the duplicate # is no longer in use and why that decision was made?
Some of our staff feel it is appropriate in these cases to fill out a formal deaccession form for the duplicate # that will no longer be used to keep in the paper file to document what happened. Others feel that deaccession paperwork is only for when objects are physically removed from the collection and it is inappropriate to use just to document a “dead” #.
If we don’t use deaccession paperwork should we develop another standard form to be place in the paper file for the duplicate # to document what happened?
Ultimately we just want to have folks way in on how they do or would handle these cases so we think through what our policy should be. In the end we just want to make sure that these issues are handled consistently so avoid as much confusion as possible for current and future staff.
Thanks for your time and for weighing in on this. We’ll look forward to your responses.
Sincerely,
Kate Owens
Curator of Collections
Missouri State Museum