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