Report Inappropriate Comments

There are a lot of specifics missing from this article creating a gray area. Did the gift from the estate come with stipulations about it's care, keeping, or disposal? How long have they had this? I can applaud the museum for recognizing that it might not be the right place for the piece in terms of its care, but in the acceptance of this gift, the museum did undertake the stewardship of this piece and did create a collection for itself. Thus "not having a permanent collection" is not a reason to sell; have they been given other things that they do not view as a collection? It is a common occurrence for non-collecting institutions to find themselves with objects and the resulting need to preserve them for the public good. Just saying you don't have a collection doesn't safeguard against the responsibilities that follow after acquiring objects, no matter the original intention of the museum in it's collecting goals, or how the museum ended up with a collection.

I'm wondering in what ways WMOA will benefit from the sale. I would hope it's not a move to buffer operational funding, keeping the lights on is not a reason to sell collections. Actually, it's unethical in the museum world. From the Code of Ethics of the American Alliance of Museums: "disposal of collections through sale, trade or research activities is solely for the advancement of the museum's mission. 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." www.aam-us.org/resources/ethics-standards-and-best-practices/code-of-ethics

If the article could go into these specifics then many with reservations over the sale of "Lockwood School" could be assured that this is situation is the best outcome for the right reasons.