THE SANHS MUSEUM COLLECTION

Paper by the Hon Secretary and the Chairman, SANHS Museum Collection Panel

Introduction.

In June the Board noted an interim report from the Panel on the actions being taken to address concerns raised by Dr Nix in August last year about the Society’s governance of its museum collection.  These concerns were set out in a paper (‘the Frome paper’), written with assistance from Dr Nix and presented to a General Meeting of the Society in Frome on 11 February this year.

The SANHS Museum Collection Panel was set up to enable the Society’s interests in its museum collection to be fully represented. The Panel has looked back at the effectiveness of this representation in the past and at the current issues of governance.  Regrettably the inquiry has been protracted and conducted in a confrontational atmosphere of  personal animosity, allegation, and obfuscation. 

Deliberations have been further complicated by the uncertainty over the Society’s interpretation of Charity Commission (CC) guidance on conflicts of interest in the SANHS/SCC relationship; an issue discussed at the July Board and for resolution, following CC advice, in November. It is therefore more than usually important that Trustees set aside issues of personality and emotion and concentrate on fulfilling their obligations under charity law to safeguard and care for the SANHS collection.

This paper, prepared following the Panel’s third meeting (draft minutes at Paper 6.2), reports the conclusions of the Panel on the principles raised by Dr Nix and makes recommendations for Board decision. 

Findings

Within the limitation of the resources available, the Panel has considered the important points raised by Dr Nix in the Frome paper, and in his subsequent detailed commentary to the Panel of 10 July, and has found that:

1. Ownership. The SANHS collection is legally distinct from other collections in the Museum of Somerset (MoS) and elsewhere and is the property of the Society; there are no items of shared ownership.  The 2007 Inventory Disk – copies of which have now been reprovided in the SANHS office - records key accessioning data relating to objects and object groups in the collection, though fuller descriptive detail is often limited.. Updating accessions data is part of a major Project in the museum Forward Collections Management Plan to upgrade systems and documentation with which the Society could be associated.

2. Management.  The form of management of the SANHS collection has steadily evolved from the original agreement with Somerset County Council (SCC) in 1958.  Under the Collections Loan Agreement (CLA) dated 2 September 2008 the Society agreed to lend its museum collection to the SCC and the SCC agreed to accept the loan.  The SANHS collection and the SCC collection are distinct in ownership and documentation, but are cared for, interpreted and displayed as a single resource by the SCC because of their complex interrelationship. 

In the CLA both parties commit to the MLA Scheme and the MA Code of Ethics for museums and the SCC agrees to consult the Society on developing and reviewing a Forward Collections Management Plan. The SCC also agrees to submit an Annual Report on the Plan to the Society’s Annual General Meeting.

With the closure of the Somerset County Museum in 2008 and the focus of management attention on the new Museum of Somerset (MoS), it was agreed by the parties that the MoS project documentation would constitute a statement of forward intentions during the development stage of the museum.  Although, therefore, the formal Plan envisaged by the CLA was not produced, the Society was fully represented on the Museum Project and instrumental in its successful conclusion.

Following the opening of the Museum of Somerset and the formation of the Panel last year, the first formal Forward Collections Management Plan under the CLA was produced and the first meeting held to consider it. The provisions of the CLA, which have in effect lain dormant, can now be fully implemented and the effectiveness of the Agreement as a framework for managing the SANHS museum collection put to the test.  The Panel must involve itself closely in moving the CLA forward and working with museum staff to maximise the benefit from the Forward Collections Management Plan.

3. Documentation.  Many important SANHS documents relating to the Museum are missing.  Some appear to have been lost – possibly during office moves – and some may never have been created. The SANHS Acquisition and Disposal Policy dated 17 March 1990, for example, is among the missing documents and was therefore not available to aid the disposal process for the St Mary Redcliffe staircase; the SCC policy, however, was available.  A Collections Management Policy document is also missing. The Panel has requested copies of the SCC policy documents used to maintain the Arts Council England (ACE) Accreditation Standard of the collections and will review these to determine how SANHS interests should be covered; the assistance of ACE will be sought if required.

4. Museum Exhibits Replacement Fund.  This restricted fund was set up in 1993 with £5,800 received from an insurance claim for SANHS items stolen from the museum; a report on the use of the fund since then is at Annex A.  There are no Terms of Reference for the fund which appears to have been operated on ‘custom and practice’ generally following the guidance in the Museum Association (MA) Code of Ethics for Museums.  Until recently there were no consistent records of receipts and expenditure.  It has, however, been possible to trace the use of the fund from references in minutes of Council and committee meetings and it appears that a form of approval process has been applied. 

Only 3 items have benefitted from the fund since 1992: 2 rings wholly owned by SANHS, both of which were subsequently stolen and their values recovered from insurance, and a £10,000 contribution approved by the Board in 2010 towards the purchase of the SCC owned Frome Hoard. There have also been occasions where the Society’s offers of funds to lever in support for purchase or conservation by the SCC have not been taken up. 

The Frome Hoard contribution is the only example where the fund has been used for the benefit of another collection.  The Panel is content, however, to support this contribution even though the Board’s decision was, arguably, not strictly compliant with the MA Code of Ethics which states:

“6.15  Ring-fence any money raised as a result of disposal through sale, if this exceptional circumstance arises, solely and directly for the benefit of the museum’s collection. Money raised must be restricted to the long-term sustainability, use and development of the collection.  If in doubt about the proposed use of such restricted funds consult sector bodies.

6.17 Apply any money received in compensation for the loss, damage or destruction of objects in the collection solely and directly for the benefit of the museum’s collections.”

The Panel also notes with concern the absence of any documentation to protect the Society’s interest in the Frome Hoard purchase.  It has therefore agreed a paper (at Annex B) and exchange of letters which clarify ownership and compensation for loss where the funding of an item has been obtained from several sources. The letters should be exchanged without delay.

In 2011 the fund was credited with £30,000 from the disposal of the St Mary Redcliffe staircase leaving the current balance at £35,397.  As there are no Terms of Reference for the fund, there is currently no Society guidance on how this significant sum should be used.  The Panel has therefore drawn up draft Rules for the fund at Annex C. In the light of the Code of Ethics quoted above, the Board will need to consider very carefully the option for use in square brackets at paragraph 3 of Annex C. If adopted, this would authorise situations such as the contribution to the Frome Hoard purchase.

 

5. The St Mary Redcliffe Staircase. The Panel has considered carefully the disposal process for the staircase over the period July 2007 to February 2011 when a sale was finally concluded.  As mentioned above, no SANHS Disposal Policy was available to guide the Society.  However the joint SANHS/SCC Staircase Working Group established in August 2008 had access to the SCC Disposal Policy and was required to “adhere to the guiding principles and approaches set out in the MA’s Guide to Disposals and Code of Ethics”.  In general the Panel considers that the processes in the Disposal Toolkit were followed and that the project was managed satisfactorily, with sufficient involvement of the membership and adequate record keeping. The Panel will, however, review guidance on the disposal process as part of their action on documentation at paragraph 3 above.

6. Training. Trustees are given a copy of the MA Code of Ethics for Museums with their Induction Pack but no specific training is given on their responsibilities for the Society’s museum or other collections.  Such training is available at no cost, should be provided by a recognised professional body and be documented.

7. Profile.  While noting that the scheme of labelling in the splendid new museum was agreed by SANHS, the Panel is surprised at the overall lack of SANHS and SCC publicity for the Society’s museum collection and the level of ignorance about its contents even amongst members.  The collection should be celebrated, ownership acknowledged as appropriate, and the website used to full advantage; this will be pursued by the Panel.

8. SANHS Oversight. Since the early 1990s no single person or group appears to have had specific responsibility for the Society’s museum interests and this, combined with the focus on creating the new MoS, may have led to the inadequacies identified above.  Major decisions can, however, usually be traced through various meeting minutes.  

SANHS oversight of its museum collection is now provided by the recently formed SANHS Museum Panel which first met in November 2011. The Panel’s thinking on its composition and role has developed over the last 10 months.  It is important that the Panel is seen to act independently in the best interests of the Society, that it is properly resourced and that it has access to the best professional advice. Under Clauses 3 and 4 of the CLA the Panel sees itself acting on behalf of ‘the Lender’ to fulfil the terms of the agreement.

The latest meeting of the Panel considered the appointment of the SCC Head of Museums as “Convenor” who could be both administrator of the Panel and the source of professional advice on the SANHS collection.  This idea was rejected as there would be a built in conflict of interest; it was subsequently agreed that he should become the Panel’s official Advisor but not a panel member.  The SANHS Panel would then constitute the check-and-balance to the SCC Head of Museums and provide oversight of his advice. Revised Terms of Reference for the Panel, reflecting this and other proposed changes to the Panel’s composition and role, will be submitted to the November Board.  If successful, the role of the Panel could be expanded to cover all the Society’s collections.

Recommendations

The Panel recommends that the Board:

 

1. endorse the Panel’s findings at paragraphs 1 to 8 above
2. invite the Panel to monitor the effectiveness of the CLA and report back to the  Board in 6 months with recommendations for any change (Para 2 above)
3. invite the Panel to review and then, as required, replace, recreate or update the documents needed to support the SANHS collection, consulting ACE as appropriate (Para 3 above)
4. confirm their approval of the Society’s £10,000 contribution towards the purchase of the Frome Hoard (Para 4 above)
5. agree the paper at Annex B and authorise the signature and exchange of letters protecting the Society’s interest in the Frome Hoard (Para 4 above)
6. consider how the Museum Exhibits Replacement Fund should be used and agree the draft Rules for the fund at Annex C, noting that consultation with external authorities may be required (Para 4 above)
7. invite the Panel to report on their further review of disposal guidance (Para 5 above)
8. invite the Panel to arrange appropriate training for the Board (Para 6 above)
9. invite the Panel to report on their efforts to raise the profile of the collection (Para 7 above)
10. consider the Panel’s advice on its future composition and role and invite them to submit revised Terms of Reference for the Panel to the November Board (Para 8 above)
11. invite the Panel to submit a timetable for completion of the above actions to the November Board
12. invite the Panel to prepare a draft report for the November General Meeting, seeking endorsement of the points of principle agreed by the Board
13. consider what further communication to members may be needed.

Conclusion

The Frome paper has led to a thorough and timely review of the Society’s governance of its museum collection and reinforced the importance of a clearly defined, effective, co-operative and transparent working relationship with the SCC.  The Panel has found a number of shortcomings in the current arrangements, all of which it believes are capable of remedy although not without effort.  This paper sets out the decisions and actions required. 

George Middleton

Hon Secretary, SANHS

Stephen Parker

Chairman, SANHS Museum Collection Panel

12 September 2012

 

AnnexA – History of the Museum Exhibits Replacement Fund

AnnexB – Clarification of Collections Ownership and draft letter
AnnexC – Draft Rules of the Museum Exhibits Replacement Fund

SANHS MUSEUM COLLECTION PANEL

 

Third Meeting to be held at 3 pm on Thursday 6 September 2012 in the Learning Room, Somerset Heritage Centre.

AGENDA

1.  APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE                                                             (GM)

2.   ELECTION OF OFFICERS                                                                 (GM)

3.  CHAIRMAN’S REMARKS                                                                  (SP)

·         Welcome to co-opted attendees                                     

4.   DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST                                                     (GM)

5.   MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING                                               (SP)

·         Actions arising not on the Agenda

6.   RESPONSE TO MUSEUM PANEL – Paper by Dr Nix dated 10 July 2012

            (Paper 6.1)                                                                                           (GM)

7.   PANEL CONVENOR – Paper by the Hon Secretary (Paper 7.1)      (GM)

8.  CLARIFICATION OF COLLECTIONS OWNERSHIP                  (GM/TM)

     - Paper by Acting Secretary and Tom Mayberry (Paper 8.1)

·         Status of the Inventory and documentation

·         Heritage Service Review update

·         Designation update

9.   COLLECTIONS REVIEW                                                                  (SM)

·         Acquisitions and Disposal Policy 

10.   MUSEUM EXHIBITS REPLACEMENT FUND

·         Draft Terms of Reference (Paper 10.1)                                     (GM)

·         Report on usage since inception (Paper 10.2)                            (DD/SM)

·         St Mary Redcliffe staircase                                                        (GM)

·         Amendments to Panel TOR                                                       (GM)

11.  TRUSTEE TRAINING                                                                                    (SP)

12.   DRAFT FORWARD COLLECTIONS MANAGEMENT PLAN 2013/2014        

            - Paper by Steve Minnitt (Paper 12.1)                                              (SM)

13.  RESEARCH REQUEST                                                                      (SM)

·         Application from Wells Museum (Paper 13.1)

14.  COMMUNICATIONS  (Membership and Website)                          (GM)

15.  REPORT TO THE SEPTEMBER BOARD                                      (SP/GM)

16.  ANY OTHER BUSINESS AND NEXT MEETING                         (SP)

SANHS MUSEUM COLLECTION PANEL

Draft Minutes of Second Meeting, held on 26^th March 2012 in Building 2, SHC

Present: Steve Parker (SP) (Chairman), David Baker (DB) (Vice Chairman), David Dawson (DD), David Hill (DH), Jessica Vale (JV) (Minute Secretary);

SCC Representative: Steve Minnitt (SM).

In attendance: Chris Sidaway (CS), George Middleton (GM) (Acting Panel Secretary).

Co-opted attendees: Max Hebditch (MH), Tom Mayberry (TM), Anthony Bruce (AB).

1.      Apologies for Absence.  Dennis Parsons (SCC Representative)

2.      Chairman’s Remarks. The Chairman welcomed the co-opted attendees and the new Panel member, Jessica Vale who had kindly volunteered to act as Minute Secretary. He noted the professional expertise and experience of those present and expressed the Panel’s wish to cover the matters on the Agenda fully so as to clarify the issues raised and allow the Panel and the Board to move forward with the SCC.

3.      Declarations of Interest.  DD: former County Museums Officer SCC and SCC pensioner. TM: SCC Group Manager, Heritage.  SM:  County Museums Officer SCC.  Both TM and SM stated that, although SANHS members, they would be acting during the meeting solely as SCC officers.  MH:  Acting Secretary of the Friends of Somerset Museum.

4.      Election of Panel Secretary.  The suggestion was that SM should become Panel Convenor, dealing with Secretarial matters such as Agenda setting, and that JV should become Minute Secretary. These proposals were welcomed although the point was made that the Trustees would want to be sure that the deliberations of the Panel were seen to be independent.  After discussion about whether SM could properly take this role while policy issues between the Society and the Council were being discussed, it was AGREED that GM, as Hon Sec of the Society, would draw up a job description for consideration at the next meeting when a decision could be taken.  Action: GM.

 

In the meantime, it was AGREED that Jessica Vale should be Minute Secretary; proposed GM, seconded DB.  The Chairman directed that JV should consult GM, as Acting Secretary, in drafting the minutes of this meeting.                      Action:  GM/JV.

5.      Minutes and Matters Arising. The Minutes of the 23 November 2011 meeting were AGREED and signed by the Chairman. There was one matter arising: CS asked if another behind-the-scenes tour of the SHC reserve collections could be arranged for the Panel and GM made a similar request for a tour of the SANHS collections displayed at the Museum of Somerset.  TM agreed to both requests.          Action:  SM.

6.      Report on Board and Frome Discussions. GM introduced the Museum Report dated 30 January 2012 (already circulated) prepared for the Frome General Meeting, for which the Draft Minutes had also been circulated. The matters set out in the Report formed a crucial part of the agenda before the Panel. The Panel needed to review the issues raised by Dr Michael Nix in the italicised section of the Report and draw conclusions on the Proposed programme for good governance on Pages 6 and 7.  DD added that some of these issues would require ratification by the SANHS Board. GM agreed that the Panel needs to put recommendations to the Board and emphasised the importance of clarifying the principles involved and drawing a line under longstanding items of debate. 

 

In response to a question about how any differences in interpretation or disputes might be resolved, it was noted that arbitration had been offered earlier to Dr Nix but had been declined.  Following discussion, it was AGREED that there were no issues in the Report requiring Charity Commission involvement. In the case of the Museum Exhibits Fund and the disposal of museum collections, any unresolved issues could be directed to the Museums Association as authors of the Museums Association Code of Ethics.  The Panel was of the opinion that in their past dealings both SANHS and the SCC had consistently adhered to this Code.

7.      Museum Exhibits Fund.  GM reminded the meeting of the Points raised by Dr Michael Nix recorded in the Museum Report already referred to above. The Chairman invited DD to introduce the Paper by David Dawson and Steve Minnitt (already circulated). 

 

DD explained that the Exhibits Fund appears as a restricted (i.e. ring-fenced) item in SANHS’ balance sheet. He described how the Fund had come into existence through insurance compensation for stolen exhibits belonging to SANHS. It has been the practice to only draw upon money from the Fund for the benefit of the museum collections, whether outright purchase, contribution towards a purchase, or a contribution towards conservation expenses. This had been done in accordance with the Museums Association Code of Ethics. Since the move from Paul Street however, the papers which would contain in detail the original terms of reference of the Fund could not be found; this statement was confirmed by CS.  DD said he had checked the matter with the Charity Commission who advised that although the terms of reference of the Fund do need clarification by the SANHS Board of Trustees, there would be no need to set up a new fund with the same purpose. The significance of SANHS’ contributions to major purchases for the museum collection is as a sign to national funding bodies (e.g. Heritage Lottery Fund) of the level of local support, thus helping to lever in crucial major funding.

 

TM referred to items purchased for the Museum collections in recent years and said that both ownership (title) and managerial responsibility rested with the SCC.  However, if there were any cause for the monetary value of a purchased museum object to be realised (e.g. compensation for loss or, in very rare circumstances, the sale of an item), the position would be that those bodies which had contributed to an item’s purchase would be compensated against the current valuation of that item in proportion to their original contribution. He also commented that the Somerset County Museum Service (SCMS) holds a similar Fund for its own purposes. He suggested that the issue of the ownership of museum items, particularly those purchased by funds from several sources, needed to be clarified and the result included in the 49-year Collections Loan Agreement (CLA) with SANHS.

 

MH commented that although the principles in the CLA were correct, the agreement lacked clarity and the Exhibits Fund itself appeared to have been operated largely on ‘custom and practice’.  There was a difference between sharing the ownership of an item and sharing its financing and he noted that the Friends of Somerset Museum raised funds indiscriminately for all collections in the museum.  He considered that clear and detailed terms of reference for the Exhibits Fund should now be set out and put before the SANHS Board for approval.  He also proposed that a list be prepared of all the museum items which SANHS was known to have purchased or made a contribution towards using the Fund since its inception. This could then be used to demonstrate to Trustees that the funds had been properly disbursed. 

 

It was AGREED that:

·         The ownership of items in the museum collections should be clarified and the wording of the CLA amended to reflect this action.  Action:  TM/Acting Secretary.

·         Detailed Terms of Reference for the Museum Exhibits Fund should be prepared for the approval of the Board.  Action: Acting Secretary.

·         A list should be made of the museum items which had had the benefit of the Museum Exhibits Fund since its inception, and submitted to the Board.  Action: DD/SM.

 

The Chairman then invited AB to brief the meeting on the Disposal of the Redcliffe Staircase.  AB informed the Panel that the staircase had been donated to SANHS by Philip Sturdy in 1952, accessioned as a museum item, and installed in the Great Hall of the old museum.  When discussions about the new museum development were underway, after consideration by the contractors and SCMS, it was proposed that there could be no place for the staircase in the new design, either as an exhibit or as a working staircase. This proposal was put to the SANHS Board and publicised to the membership via the Newsletter. AB produced for the Panel a detailed list of all published SANHS references to the issue (at Enclosure 1 to these minutes) which he had circulated earlier to SANHS officers. 

 

CS informed the Panel that he recalled at least one meeting, in May 2008, about the staircase open to all SANHS members to express their views. The development contractors at one stage drew up alternative plans to try to incorporate the staircase into the new museum, but all proved unworkable. SANHS was advised by Linda Hall (a noted, published authority on historic buildings and the fittings and fixtures of the period), Jenny Cheshire (English Heritage) and Diana Hartnell (Conservation Officer, Taunton Deane Borough Council).  Eventually, after reporting the matter to members at the AGM, the SANHS Board had to take a decision. CS added that he had sent Dr Nix a summary of the Board’s communications with the membership at the time.

 

Following discussion the Panel AGREED with the Museum officers that the disposal process followed was carried out in accordance with the correct practice in the Museums Association’s Disposal Toolkit.  The Chairman again queried the extent of the opportunities for the membership to be involved.  AB, CS and DD responded by demonstrating to the satisfaction of the Panel that opportunities had been given over a period of more than 6 months.

 

CS reminded the Panel that the staircase had originally been given as a memorial to the donor’s father, Thomas Sturdy, with a plaque on it to that effect still in situ at the new location.  It was suggested that photographs of the staircase in its former and current locations be displayed in the SANHS Members’ Room at the Castle with an appropriate caption.  TM offered to arrange this; the Panel gratefully accepted.  Action: TM

 

Finally, AB drew attention to the allegations that during the disposal there had been ‘inadequacies in the process’ and ‘defective record keeping’.  He considered, and the Panel subsequently AGREED, that these allegations could not be substantiated by the facts presented.  AB asked that these allegations should therefore be publicly refuted as they had been circulated to the membership in the Museum Report.  The Panel AGREED to recommend this to the Board.  Action: Acting Secretary.

8.      Review of SCC Heritage service delivery.  TM briefed the Panel on the Review which should take about 18 months and align the SCMS with SCC’s intention to become more of a commissioning organisation. A Phase 1 report is due in May and is likely to recommend three options for future management of the Heritage Service: status quo; externalisation; and outsourcing to a not-for-profit organisation such as a Company limited by guarantee having charitable status.  For either of the latter options to take effect, there would be many legal issues to sort out. The Review Panel is in discussion with SANHS and with other museums (such as the Military Museum) and stakeholders in the Heritage Service.

9.      Designation.  GM drew attention to the papers by Tom Mayberry and Steve Minnitt, and by Dr Michael Nix which had already been circulated.  

 

TM addressed his paper and pointed out the advantages to SCMS of becoming recognised as a museum holding collections of designated excellence by the Arts Council. Certain archival collections might be included in their own right or as supporting documents for the museum collections. SCMS hoped to send an initial letter of application to start the process in July. He would request a letter of support from the Board of SANHS at a later date. He hoped that MH might help SCMS define those items which could form the evidence for an application. The Panel AGREED to support in principle SCMS’ actions in pursuit of Designation and to advise the SANHS Board to do likewise.  Action: Acting Secretary.

The Panel then considered Dr Nix’s paper, noted that it repeated some of the issues raised in his earlier paper, and queried the accuracy of some of the statements made under sections 3 and 4.  In relation to Section 3, SM said that the Inventory which is the basis of the 2008 Collections Loan Agreement between SANHS and SCC is in the form of a standard Microsoft spreadsheet; this can be readily viewed. The Chairman commented that SANHS should hold a disk of the collections Inventory so that a copy can be made available for SANHS members to view at the SHC.  GM asked for additional copies to be provided so that members could use and be informed of this facility.  This was AGREED.  Action:  SM.

 

TM advised on Section 4 that he believed ownership of the museum collections was adequately acknowledged at the entrance to the Museum of Somerset and in the new Guidebook to the Museum.  DH agreed that this was reasonable and he advised the Panel that this was accepted museum practice where there were multiple collections.

10.  Forward Collections Management Plan.  SM presented a draft Museum Forward Collections Management Plan 2012-2013 for the Panel’s information (at Enclosure 2 to these minutes). He explained this was the first such draft plan for consultation with the Society under the CLA and highlighted some of the key issues:  HLF application to refurbish the Somerset Rural Life Museum; review of policy on the care of human remains; reviews of collections; re-storage of collections; review of software for museum collections database; work on Accreditation standards; Designation application; and pest control monitoring systems in SHC. 

 

SM also drew attention to support for researchers, most notably on the significant PhD research being carried out by Matt Williams on fossil insects in the SANHS Charles Moore collection. The Chairman expressed the Panel’s appreciation for this draft plan of action. He was sure that SANHS members would offer support if requested, and wondered whether there ought to be a formal procedure for making such requests.  GM noted that there was an outstanding action from the last meeting of the Panel (Item 5) for a paper on “SANHS and the Museum Service forward plan”; this could be taken at the next meeting, if still appropriate.  Action:  Acting Secretary.

11.  Conclusions on the Museum Report.  The Chairman invited the Panel to review, in the light of their discussion, the ‘Proposed programme for good governance’ set out on pages 6 and 7 of the italicised section of the Museum Report.  It was concluded that:

a. SANHS Collections Committee: this role is now being fulfilled by the recently created Museum Panel who will maintain oversight of the matters raised.

b. Museum Exhibits Fund: detailed terms of reference for the fund should be prepared for Board approval, clarifying the use to which the Fund is to be put.

c. Review of recent allocations: a list should be prepared of the uses to which the Fund has been put since inception for the Board to consider.

d. Collections fund: no action is required to create a new fund, beyond the renewed Museum Exhibits Fund.

e. Trustees should receive training: opportunities offered by, for example, the South Western Federation of Museums and Art Galleries, should be considered at a future meeting, but the Panel, which advises the Board, already comprises museum qualified members.

f. Timetable: the Panel now has an active programme of review.

g. General Meeting: a comprehensive report was made to the Frome General Meeting with the proceedings reported to the membership; any recommendations to the AGM should follow Board deliberation.

In a similar vein the Chairman also sought the Panel’s review of the issues related to the St Mary Redcliffe staircase.  It was concluded that:

a. the staircase was disposed of using the correct processes in the Museum Association Disposal Toolkit.

b. sufficient involvement of the membership in the disposal process was achieved.

c. the allegations made against the Working Group’s management of the disposal were ill-founded and should be publicly refuted.

It was AGREED that the Panel’s conclusions and recommendations should be forwarded in a paper for the Board’s approval.  Action: Acting Secretary.

12.  Communications.  Because of the long running interest in the matters under discussion the Panel recommended that, once the Board had considered the paper, a detailed, public response should be made to the points of principle raised in the Museum Report.  In the meantime, it was felt that no purpose would be served for any party by further exchanges with Dr Nix. These recommendations should be included in the paper for the Board.  Action:  Acting Secretary.

 

GM mentioned the importance of raising the profile of the Society’s museum collection but asked that this Item, including use of the website, be deferred to the next meeting, due to lack of time. This was AGREED.  Action:  Acting Secretary.

13.  Any other business and Next Meeting.  SM provided written details of two research requests (at Enclosure 3 to these minutes) for the Panel’s consideration: a PhD project on Roman metallurgy including incomplete or damaged items from Ham Hill and South Cadbury; and scanning electron microscopy of post-Roman pottery shards excavated from Taunton Castle. The Panel AGREED to this research and invited the Acting Secretary to report their decision to the Board for information. Action:  Acting Secretary.

 

The Next Meeting of the Panel to be held in the Members Room, Museum of Somerset on Tuesday 30 October 2012 at 10 a.m., starting with a tour of the SANHS collections.

 

Enclosures:  1.  Staircase References

                      2.  Draft Forward Collections Plan

                      3.  Research Requests

MUSEUM REPORT - Paper for the General Meeting at Frome.

Introduction.  This lengthy paper aims to brief the membership on the major success of the new Museum of Somerset and to report the measures taken by the Board to establish oversight of our museum collection in consultation with Somerset County Council (SCC). The paper also describes current museum business before the Board, including important issues raised by a member of the Society, Dr Nix which are now under review.

The New Museum of Somerset and Somerset Heritage Centre.  2011 marks the beginning of an exciting new era for the Museum and its collections – congratulations to the SCC, Tom Mayberry, Head of Heritage, his colleagues, our representative on the Project Board, Hilary Binding, and SANHS volunteers, for bringing to fruition, within time and budget, two major schemes which have long been the joint ambition of the Society and the Council.

Impressed by this close association, the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) contributed £4.8m towards the £6.5m cost of the first project, the refurbishment of Taunton Castle to provide the new Museum of Somerset. Its stunning displays of geology, archaeology, natural and social history, demonstrate the richness of the collections built up by the Society over the past 162 years. The Society provided the freehold of the Castle and a modest financial contribution and has use of the educational facilities and its own room.  Since opening at the end of September last year, there have been over 32,000 visitors – a magnificent realisation of the Society’s charitable objects.

The archaeological finds and archive recovered by Chris Webster and his team will be added to the Society’s collection.  We are very grateful to Chris for his recording of the works and to Mary Sirault for her documentary research.  Taken together these have changed our view of the history and development of Taunton Castle.

The second project, the move of our reserve collection to the new £8m Somerset Heritage Centre (SHC), now for the first time provides SANHS items not on exhibition elsewhere with contemporary standards of security and conservation. This is a major achievement by Steve Minnitt, Head of Museums, and his staff.  A major update of the database is under way to record the relocation of all these items.  Much sorting and recording is still in progress but access for members and the general public is being encouraged. In parallel with this activity, work has started to seek HLF funds for refurbishing the Somerset Rural Life Museum.

Museum Collection Panel.  The Board has established a Museum Collection Panel whose Terms of Reference include the duty to “. . . advise it (the Board) on all matters concerning the well-being, development, public access to, use and management of its Museum Collection . . .”  The first meeting was held on 23 November 2011.  There are 4 members: Steve Parker Chairman, David Baker Vice-Chairman and 2 museum-qualified members, David Dawson and David Hill; a Secretary has yet to be appointed.  The SCC representatives to work with the Panel are Steve Minnitt and Dennis Parsons.  Steve Parker represents the Panel on the Trustee Board.

Inspection of the Society’s Collection.  Under the terms of the Collections Loan Agreement with Somerset County Council of 2 September 2008 the Society is allowed “…. access to the Collection at all reasonable times by prior arrangement to inspect the Collection.”  This inspection does not appear to have been undertaken for some years but the Panel was able to inspect the Reserve Collections in Building 2 at the Somerset Heritage Centre immediately before their first meeting.  The Panel also interrogated the associated databases.  Both inspection and interrogation were satisfactory although it was noted that there is a continuing heavy task to update the databases following the move. An inspection of the Collection on display to the public in the new Museum of Somerset will be undertaken at a later date.  

The Panel was most impressed by the positive attitude of the SCC staff and by the conditions in which the Reserve Collections are now kept; the vastly improved opportunities to access and exploit this valuable material were clearly apparent. The Panel will be encouraging wider knowledge of the new arrangements for its museum collection, including the provision of dedicated space on the Society’s website.  This report is part of that activity. 

Research using the Society’s collection.  The Panel has delegated authority from the Board to approve routine requests for the use of items from the collection. Loans are subject to the proviso that the items must be insured, collected and held securely, and duly acknowledged as belonging to SANHS. Recent examples of approvals given in response to requests from the SCC are: a research student from Durham to borrow the Clevedon beads for analysis via a non-destructive scan, as well as 4 or 5 of the 10 teeth from the Clevedon cist burial for carbon dating and isotope analysis; Professor Mick Aston to borrow 6 unspecified items of human remains for carbon dating as part of his ‘Arthur to Alfred’ project; and Richard Brunning to undertake further work on Mesolithic flintwork material from Greylake sand quarry, Middlezoy in conjunction with the Universities of Oxford, Southampton, Winchester and the British Museum.

Collections Management Plan.  The Panel has taken a first look at the draft of a Forward Collections Management Plan which is being put together in consultation with the SCC and is required for accreditation of the Museum.  The next meeting of the Panel in March will consider the detailed input from the Society.  The aim is to have the plan agreed in time for it to be reported to the Society’s AGM in May 2012.

SANHS Museum Collections Management.  The Board has recently passed to the Panel concerns raised by Dr Nix on legal, ethical, and management issues relating to the Society’s museum collection together with his suggestions on how these issues might be addressed.  The Panel has advised the Board that, while they cannot deal with every detail of these inquiries nor search for specific documents, they can review the principles involved and make recommendations.

The italicised paragraphs below summarise Dr Nix’s concerns and the issues involved under four headings: Ownership; Museum Exhibits Fund; St Mary Redcliffe staircase; and Governance. These paragraphs are followed by the Panel’s own conclusions and recommendations on the way ahead, as reported to the Board in January.

a. Ownership

SANHS owns a substantial and important body of cultural and heritage material which it has acquired legally over more than a century for its long-term museum collection. This collection, with its associated documentation, has been loaned to Somerset County Council (Collections Loan Agreement (CLA) dated 2 September 2008) and represents about forty five per cent of the Council's museum holdings. Although stored and displayed with SCC's own holdings, and sometimes complementary to them, the SANHS collection is legally separate from and independent of the Council's own acquisitions. 

The Society's museum collection is a charitable asset held long-term in trust for and on behalf of the Society. As such, the Society, as the owner of this collection, has continuing guardianship responsibilities for, and obligations to, its collection.  It is not clear, however, whether there is comprehensive, properly documented, accessible knowledge of the Society’s ownership of its museum collection.  Nor is it certain that the correct arrangements are in place with the Council regarding ownership (including in some cases joint ownership) of the Society’s collection, supported by detailed listings of objects and associated documentation.

The current arrangements stem from a long history of arms length engagement by the Society (not unlike the approach taken to the Library collection) with a resultant confusion over responsibilities. The aim should now be to remedy this situation and place the Society’s collection in public profile as a wholly owned and significant component of the Museum of Somerset which meets national accreditation standards.  Full recognition should be given to SANHS as the originating body for the collection (including where appropriate museum labeling), and the Society’s ownership should be supported by references in the Council’s Collection Management Policy, associated documents and SCC websites.

b. Museum Exhibits Fund

It was the recent allocation approved by the Trustees of £10,000 from the SANHS Museum Exhibits (Restricted) Fund towards the SCC’s purchase of the ‘Frome Hoard’ which led to questioning the whole basis of the Society’s approach to managing its museum collection. This section of the paper considers the specifics of the Museum Exhibits Fund, its precise terms of reference and the legitimacy of this £10,000 transfer. 

There is a strong argument that the restricted nature of the Exhibits Fund, set up to hold insurance compensation for SANHS items stolen from the collection, means that fund moneys may only be used to provide for the SANHS collection and may not be transferred to any other party for any other purpose.  However, as there appear to be no proper terms of reference for the fund and no other appropriate SANHS documentation, it is inevitable that there are ambiguities surrounding the fund’s legitimate purpose. 

In the absence of precise guidance, it has been suggested that the moneys might be used for unspecified 'museum collections', or that the SANHS and SCC museum collection are, for these purposes, one and the same thing.  A further argument has been put forward that under the CLA there exists a 'partnership' between the Society and the Council which justifies the use of this SANHS fund to support purchases for the SCC collection.

The actual position is that, although the Society and the Council may from time to time have presented their relationship as a ‘partnership’ for the purposes of accreditation and bidding for funds, the CLA is, in law, purely a loan agreement.  The distinction and separation between the SANHS and SCC museum collections derive from the basic nature of their separate ownership, as explained in the paragraphs on ‘Ownership’ above.  The argument therefore stands that, in the absence of any other ruling by the Trustees, the Museum Exhibits Fund can only be used for the Society’s own collection.

c. St Mary Redcliffe staircase

There are concerns about the processes and policies involved in the recent disposal of the St Mary Redcliffe staircase which was donated to the Society, loaned to the SCC and installed in the old museum. The Council decided that the staircase was unsuited for the new museum and, as they did not want it in SHC storage, returned it to SANHS.   

Without a SANHS disposal policy, decisions on the future of the staircase could not be based on clear, published criteria forming part of the Society's long-term approved policies. Nor does it seem that there was sufficient consultation with the membership.  This could be a consequence of inadequate processes which: failed to recognise membership roles and responsibilities; denied membership rights to vote in the interests of the charity; relied on inadequate governance structures to manage the relationship between trustees and members; and created barriers to membership involvement in the use, development and disposal of the collection. 

Despite a serious attempt to dispose of the staircase ethically, it is clear that there were inadequacies in the process, including defective record-keeping.  A new Collections Committee, with members not handicapped by problematic museum issues of the recent past, should focus on the development and adoption of appropriate policies.  These would include a Collections Management Policy describing the collection and addressing acquisitions, disposals, and arrangements on final wind-up.

d. A way forward to good governance

There needs first to be an acknowledgment (without any attribution of blame) at the Trustee Board of the longstanding lack of direct involvement which has led to the present informal methods of managing the Society’s museum collection.   The Society then needs to restore proper governance procedures and adequate documentation, compatible with the Arts Council England(ACE)’s accreditation standards and the Society’s obligations to the Charity Commission;  ACE might usefully be involved in this process as an adviser.

To achieve this, the following programme is proposed:

a.           An independent SANHS Collections Committee should be established, accountable to the Board of Trustees, to develop and oversee the Society’s museum collection.  The work of this committee should be carried out by an appropriately informed group and draw on independent professional advice as well as the skills and experience of the Society’s members. It will need to ensure that all record keeping is clear, available and secure. Fundamental to this will be the recovery and drafting of appropriate documentation for managing the collection to meet accreditation standards.  The committee should also address the requirement for any changes to the CLA (which has become moribund through non-implementation) and develop the Society's requirements for the Forward Collection Management Plan (CLA 3(b)) for negotiation with the Council. In due course it may well make sense for all the collections owned by the Society - museum, library and archive - to become the responsibility of this new Committee.

b.           Proper terms of reference for the current Museum Exhibits Fund are required which acknowledge the distinction between the SANHS and SCC museum collections. One approach might be to recognise that this fund, set up to dispose of insurance monies due to SANHS for items lost from its own collection, was established expressly for that purpose and should therefore terminate once disposal of those funds is complete. 

c.            A review of recent allocations into and out of the Exhibits fund should be undertaken. This would determine whether the  £10,000 for the ‘Frome Hoard’ should be considered lost to SANHS but, as an act of good will, treated as committed, or whether it should be claimed back as an illegal transfer, or whether it should be subject to some compromise. The £30,000 allocated to the fund from the sale of the St Mary Redcliffe staircase should also be examined with a view to protecting and enhancing the proceeds through matched-funding to maximise the overall benefit to the collection.

d.           A new Collections Fund - based on paragraphs 6.15 and 6.17 of the Museum Association’s Code of Ethics – should be established with clear terms of reference and appropriate documentation.  This would receive monies from any disposals and be used for the benefit of the Society’s collection or as otherwise directed by its terms of reference.

e.            As recommended by the Museum Association, Trustees should receive training on their ethical and management responsibilities for the Society’s collection, and members should be made aware of this requirement.

f.              A clear Timetable should be established to deal with all these matters and it is suggested this should include a 6 month Preliminary Survey, and a Full Assessment in the year following acceptance of these proposals. Members should be informed of this timetable.

g.           All these proposals should be reported to the General Meeting in Frome on 11 February 2012 and be developed so that recommendations can be made to the 2012 AGM in May. 

The Panel’s Conclusions and Recommendations.  With the successful completion of the Museum of Somerset, the move of the Society’s reserve collection to secure storage in Building 2 at the Somerset Heritage Centre, and the recent formation of the SANHS Museum Collection Panel, a review of the points raised by Dr Nix and his proposals for change is opportune.  Considerable Board time over the past few years has been devoted to the refurbishment of the Castle and the new Museum of Somerset project but, beyond routine matters, little attention could be paid to the management of the museum collection itself while major changes were taking place.

The Panel is aware of earlier advice given to the Board in relation to some of the enquiries made by Dr Nix.  In summary, this advice, contained in a paper by David Dawson and Steve Minnitt dated 11 October 2011, made the following points:

-         It is a matter of great regret that an important part of the Society’s records, including all the files relating to the Museum and the Committees directly involved with its management and supporting information, have unaccountably disappeared.

-         Clear decisions relating to the museum do, however, appear in minutes of the SANHS Council, the Finance and General Purposes Committee and more recently, the Board.

-         The Society’s governance of the collection has always been consistent and transparent, the core principles being agreed and minuted most recently at the SANHS Council meeting of 19 April 2006; these formed the basis for the later Agreement with the SCC.

-         The priorities for the collection set by the SANHS Council to develop, preserve, research, interpret and improve public access were targeted at the successful delivery of the new museum and heritage centre projects; inevitably access to the collections was not possible during this period.

-         The process for the disposal of the St Mary Redcliffe staircase followed the Museums Association collections disposal model.

-         The way ahead should centre on identifying and agreeing improved documentation systems, new forms of (web-based) communication, and new research programmes.

The Panel will be reviewing this advice.  It has carried out a preliminary review of Dr Nix’s proposals, recognized the importance of the issues, and has made the following recommendations to the January meeting of the Board:

a.  Ownership.  It is timely that a clear statement or re-statement of the relationship between the Society and the SCC on the management and ownership of the museum collections is presented to the Board for endorsement.  The Panel should review the current documents and arrangements for dealing with the backlog and make recommendations on how the position is to be improved; the resulting actions should be included in the Forward Collections Management Plan.

b.  Exhibits Fund.  The record of the explicit terms of reference for this fund cannot be located although the Panel believes the terms are implicit in earlier SANHS Council decisions.  The Panel is already engaged in reviewing the evidence and formulating the policy for this fund.  The points raised by Dr Nix should be addressed in this review.

c.  St Mary Redcliffe staircase.  These points, including documentation and process, should be looked at in the context of the review of the Exhibits Fund.  The Panel is aware of a large body of documentation relating to the disposal and will review this in the context of the Museum Association model before taking a view on these arguments and making recommendations.

d.  Way forward to good governance.  There are a number of positive suggestions in this section, dealing as it does with the concerns expressed earlier in the paper.  Some suggestions, such as the establishment of a Collections Committee and the inclusion of Museum matters on the Frome Agenda, are already in hand. The Panel should review Dr Nix’s ideas and make recommendations.

e.   Resources.  The Panel is also concerned that, with only 4 members, it will be hard pressed to progress this timely and necessary review of principles and actions and seeks the assistance of the Board to co-opt appropriate and experienced support.  Of particular concern to the Panel is their ability to give the necessary priority to ensuring completion of the Forward Collections Management Plan which will include some of the issues raised above.

On 26 January the Board noted the Panel’s report and endorsed the actions in hand. A report of progress will be made to the Board in March.

Summary.  The Society now has an impressive selection of its magnificent collection on display in the widely acclaimed new Museum of Somerset.  Our reserve collection is maintained in high quality, secure accommodation in Building 2 at the new Somerset Heritage Centre.  SCC staff are eager to grant access to members and exploit the collection for research. 

A SANHS Museum Collection Panel has been set up to work with the SCC, maintain oversight of our collection, prepare a Forward Collections Management Plan and advise the Board on the overall management of the Society’s collection.  One of the Panel’s first tasks is to review the principles on which the collection is managed and funded.  A report on progress and recommendations for any change will be made to the AGM in May.

G Middleton

Hon Secretary and Acting Secretary Museum Collection Panel

30 January 2012