For more than twenty years, the Code of Ethics of American Alliance of Museums (AAM) has contained the following provision:

Proceeds from the sale of nonliving collections are to be used consistent with the established standards of the museum’s discipline, but in no event shall they be used for anything other than acquisition or direct care of collections.

Over the course of those years, there evolved no definition of, or clarity over, the term “direct care of collections.” When individual museums set out to spend money acquired through deaccessioning, it was up to that individual museum’s leadership to determine whether a particular expenditure qualified as direct care of collections or not, with no real guidance. Clearly restoration and conservation expenses were appropriate, but how about air-handling equipment in the galleries?  How about security guards? A new roof? 

The lack of definition represented a loophole through which museums could squeeze expenditures that might not otherwise have been appropriate.  And because there is essentially no practical oversight by AAM or its Accreditation Commission over the source of funding for specific budget line items, there was no accountability or consequence.

The Accreditation Committee of AAM found that standards for direct care were applied inconsistently as a result of a lack of definition or clarity.  AAM appointed the Direct Care Task Force to clarify appropriate practices. In April of 2016, AAM released “Direct Care of Collections:  Ethics, Guidelines and Recommendations.”

There was some trepidation among those familiar with the issue that the Task Force would present a laundry list of what items of expense are or are not properly considered direct care. But, instead, they wisely chose to develop both a matrix and a list of guiding questions for museums to make those determinations on their own.

In so doing, they recognized – both expressly and implicitly - the role of museum professionals and governing bodies to decide for their individual museums what is and is not within direct care.  They created a process, rather than an outcome, leaving it to individual museum professional and lay leadership to make that determination, consistent with their fiduciary duties to their museum and its mission.  The Task Force provided an elegant and thoughtful process that will serve as an invaluable guide for individual decision-making in the future.

The Task Force determined that it was not within its charge to examine whether the use of proceeds to ensure the survival of the museum is or is not appropriate.  One could argue that keeping the museum alive is the ultimate strategy to care for the collection. Instead, the Task Force included a statement that “… funds realized from the sale of deaccessioned objects are never used as a substitute for fiscal responsibility.”

In fact, the Task Force helpfully reminds us that “… the process of deciding whether to deaccession an object should be separate from … the process of deciding how to use the proceeds from its sale.”

The language throughout the whitepaper is measured and precise. Words are chosen carefully. The way the Task Force addressed the particular issue of museum survival is intriguing in that the whitepaper prohibits the use of proceeds in lieu of fiscal responsibility, but does not address what happens when the urgent financial situation has nothing to do with the lack of fiscal responsibility.  The museum may have behaved prudently in its financial decisions and is still fighting for survival.  What then? The silence of the Task Force on this issue should not imply that direct care includes museum survival.  Indeed, many members would most likely conclude that it does not. Regardless, though, if the survival of the museum is at stake, the nuances of the definition of direct care – and whether or not there was fiscal responsibility – will not be all that relevant.

The first decision-making tool offered in the whitepaper is the matrix. 

On the horizontal axis, indicate where the expenditure falls between the following criteria:

• making a physical impact upon an object(s) that increases or restores its cultural or scientific value, thus prolonging its life and usefulness (e.g., conservation treatment; restoration of an object; preservation/restoration of an interpreted historic structure that is treated as part of the collection)
• making an institution-wide impact that benefits areas or operations of the entire museum, not just those associated with collections (e.g., salaries; preservation/restoration of historic structures or landscapes that are not interpreted to the public and are not treated as part of the collection)

On the vertical axis, indicate where the expenditure falls between the following criteria:

• a strategic investment consistent with responsible fiscal planning and adequate planning for collections, an expense not normally considered part of the museum’s operating budget

• a quick fix or Band-Aid used to fill budgetary gaps; not directly related to collections care; routine operating cost; regular maintenance 

The quadrant in which the two points intersect indicates whether the expenditure is appropriate.

• Quadrant One: the expense is considered direct care of collections.

• Quadrants Two and Three: the expenditure is in a gray area. The decision should be carefully considered against the ethical principles underlying direct care of collections as well as the existing ethics and standards of the museum’s discipline. Use of funds that falls in these quadrants is more acceptable if it makes a strategic investment in collections care.

• Quadrant Four: the expense is not an acceptable use of funds.

The second decision-making tool offered by the whitepaper is a set of guiding questions, with “yes” answers indicating a “direct care” action. The Task Force refrained from setting a “score” to be achieved. It doesn’t say that one needs to answer all “yesses” or a majority of “yesses,” again leaving the exercise of that decision-making where it properly belongs, with the lay and professional leadership of the museum. 

• Will this investment enhance the life, usefulness or quality of an object(s)?  
• Is this a strategic decision based, for example, on an institutional plan, a collections care plan or a conservation assessment?
  • Will the expenditure have a physical impact on an item(s) in the collections?
  • Will this investment improve the physical condition of an item(s) in the collections rather than benefit the operation of the entire museum?
  • Is this decision being made without pressure resulting from financial distress at the museum or parent organization?
  • Is this a cost that is not normally considered part of the museum’s operating budget?
  • Can this decision be clearly explained to the museum’s stakeholders and the public?

It is interesting that if one were to apply the questions to the cost of a new roof for the museum in an otherwise stable financial situation, for example, the last three questions could easily be answered in the affirmative, making it quite simple to achieve a majority of “yesses” for such an expenditure. 

In addition to the decision-making tools, the Task Force emphasized the need to comply with discipline-specific standards. For art museums, there really isn’t a discipline-specific body except Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) which one could argue is not at all representative of art museums in general. Indeed, AAMD’s comparable ethical rule does not allow for expenditures for direct care at all. 

Museums would be well-advised to make express reference to the whitepaper and the matrix and guiding questions when documenting decisions to spend the proceeds of deaccessioning. It will be much less likely that the ultimate decision of the museum board and professional leadership will be challenged if the process developed by AAM was adhered to in good faith and in the exercise of the fiduciary obligation owed to the museum and its mission. Adherence to the process will also be critical  for AAM accreditation purposes.

The entire text of "Direct Care of Collections:  Ethics, Guidelines and Recommendations" can be found at http://www.aam-us.org/resources/ethics-standards-and-best-practices/direct-care