415 Hanshaw Rd.

Ithaca, NY 14850
17 Sept. 2009

David W. Palmquist
Head, Museum Chartering
NY State Museum
NY State Education Department
3097 Cultural Education Center
Albany NY 12230

Dear Mr. Palmquist:

I am writing in opposition to the proposed permanent amendment of Regents Rule 3.27. While I
understand and applaud what I believe is the intent behind the proposed amendment, I cannot
accept that policies governing deaccessioning are best articulated through regulations. I would
hope instead that the board of directors of each institution would implement and approve
deaccessioning policies and practices that are consistent with professional best practices and the
needs of the institution.

I am, for your information, an archivist. I am a former past president of the Society of American
Archivists (SAA), the oldest and largest professional association of archivists in North America,
and a Fellow of the Society. I am also on the advisory committee to the local historical society
in Tompkins County. I am writing, however, in my private capacity.

I have two primary concerns with the amendment. First, I find it unwise to fix in regulation
professional practices that are still evolving. Second, I have concerns over the existing
regulation that limits how the proceeds from the sale of deaccessioned material can be used, and
see no reason for further restrictions.

The American archival profession has nothing official to say about deaccessioning, either as
policy or as a procedure. Yet reappraisal and subsequent deaccessioning of archival collections
has been a topic of serious discussion within the profession for at least 25 years. Just this past
year SAA's Acquisition and Appraisal Section proposed a Working Group to investigate issues
in reappraisal and deaccessioning and possibly to suggest professional standards. What this
indicates to me is that professional standards in this area are in flux and that regulations are
premature.

For example, the proposed amendment lists ten criteria that could lead to the deaccessioning of
material from a historical society. Mark A. Greene, in his seminal recent article on archival
deaccessioning, “I’ve Deaccessioned and Lived to Tell About It: Confessions of an Unrepentant
Reappraiser” Archival Issues 30:1 (2006), notes that the American Heritage Center at the
University of Wyoming has what would be an 11th justification for deaccessioning: the material
“is part of a larger collection, other portions of which are owned by another repository that
makes its holdings accessible to the public.” Recently the Cornell University Library
deaccessioned a collection prior to transferring the collection to the Johns Hopkins University.
The collection was entirely consistent with the Library’s collecting policies and mission, but
because the collection dealt primarily with Baltimore, scholarship will be better served by having
the collection in that city. Neither of these deaccession actions would be permitted under the
proposed amendment.

The problem is not with the list of ten items in the proposed amendment; they are all reasonable.
The problem is that the criteria for deaccessioning are in a state of professional flux. Any
attempt to fix in regulation the criteria for deaccessioning objects from historical collections is
doomed to failure. It would be much better instead to expect the board of trustees of each
organization to fulfill its duties in a way that conforms to evolving professional best practices.

I am also troubled that the proposed amendment continues the current restriction on how the
proceeds from the sale of deaccessioned material may be used. In fact, it further restricts the
uses to which the funds can be used. I am in complete agreement that the market value of an
item should normally not be one of the criteria considered when deciding whether an item is
appropriate for deaccessioning. But once a decision is made to deaccession an item, placing
restrictions on the use of the funds is not wise.

First of all, the restrictions are illogical. The proposed amendment states that proceeds are “to be
used only for the acquisition, preservation, protection or care of collections. In no event shall
proceeds derived from the deaccessioning of any property from the collection be used for
operating expenses…” But what about paying for the salaries of the preservation staff? The
staff is needed to preserve, protect, and care for the collections – but the salaries of staff
members are also an operating expense. Or what about putting a new roof on a building?
Replacing a leaky roof might be the absolute best thing a historical society could do to preserve
and protect a collection – but again the amendment would seem to foreclose this possibility.

Second, the regulations reflect an attitude towards the ethics of deaccessioning that has been
seriously criticized in the last few years. A growing chorus of art lawyers and some museum
administrators have suggested that blind adherence to the general precept that collections should
not be monetarized to support operations can actually be harmful to the mission of the
organization. This is not the time to further embed in regulations practices that may be falling
out of professional favor. I would argue instead that the board of trustees of the institution, the
group tasked by the Board of Regents with ensuring its ethical operation, after weighing what is
current best professional practice, should determine how the proceeds can best be used to address
the institution’s mission.

Such an approach has been successful with institutions similar to historical societies. This past
spring the Southworth Library in Dryden, NY received $3.5 million from the auction of a
Lincoln document. According to news accounts, its board of trustees concluded that the
proceeds could best be used to construct a new wing. When the Huntington Free Library
deaccessioned its Native American collection and sold it to Cornell University, the press release
announcing the sale stated that the Huntington would use the $2.5 million it received to pay off
its legal expenses from its actions to defend its ownership of the collection and to "return to its
main mission of serving the Bronx community through its other collections." The sale was
managed by the Huntington’s board of trustees, coordinated by the Attorney-General, and
approved by the courts as being in the best interest of both the Huntington and the people of New
York. Yet if either the Southworth or Huntington Library had been an historical society, the
proposed amendment would have forbidden them from using the proceeds from the sale of their
deaccessioned items in the manner that best addressed the needs of the citizens they serve.

I would therefore urge the Board of Regents to reject the proposed permanent amendment of
Regents Rule 3.27. Instead I would urge the Board to rewrite the rules to require that the boards
of trustees ensure that deaccessioning is conducted in a manner consistent with good professional
practice and the mission of the institution.

Sincerely yours,

Peter B. Hirtle