Draft Minutes of Second Meeting, held on 26th
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
No comments:
Post a Comment