Bill Manning (W.A. Manning, B.A.,U.E.), the author of this article, is the Records Management Supervisor at the National Museum of Science & Technology Corporation, a Government of Canada Crown Corporation in Ottawa. In addition to being a Records Management specialist in a National Museum, he also has training and experience in Collections Management and Museum Archiving. This puts him in the unusual position of having a broad overview of how information is managed in a Federal Museum environment. Bill acknowledges that the following article is unlikely to settle the question of how we define "museum records" under the National Archives Act. It is hoped, however, that it will stimulate some discussion that will ultimately contribute to a resolution that all parties can be comfortable with.

A DEFINITION FOR "MUSEUM MATERIAL" UNDER THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES ACT

According to the National Archives Act, the National Archivist is responsible to provide permission for the disposal of all records subject to the National Archives Act subject to Section 5 and 6 in accordance with agreements and authorities issued, covering all information assets in Federal Agencies, regardless of format, with the exception of "Library or museum materials kept by a government institution for reference or exhibition purposes." This begs the question of how we define library and museum materials. The former is comparatively obvious (mostly published works and reference materials). A satisfactory definition of the latter continues to elude us. Until we have a clear idea what constitutes "museum" material, it is impossible to establish parameters to help define operational public documents, since they are, effectively, what is left over once you exclude the "museum" and other materials. Until that can be done, it is not possible to develop an operational (or Agency Specific) Retention & Disposition Schedule in accordance with the Management of Government Information Holdings Policy issued by the Treasury Board, for a Federal museum; and that compromises the ability of Records Management staff to provide proper life-cycle management of the records in their custody. Thus, a records disposition submission should be prepared for review by the National Archives in accordance with a Multi-Year Disposition Plan which dictates the timing and frequency of such events, and ultimately would result in a Records Disposition Authority covering all the records in the museum’s custody.

Operational records, as we know, are those records that pertain to the programs of an agency undertaken in the fulfilment of its mandate. The challenge then becomes where to draw the line between operational records and museum materials. "Museum materials" can be sub-divided into two categories: "museum objects" and "museum records." Museum objects are "discrete, visible, tangible artifacts and specimens." This much is clear. The objects, as everyone knows, are the things that are on display for the public to see, and available to researchers for study. They are the things that make a museum distinct from all other educational institutions. Museum objects (the "Collection") are acquired by the Curators, and controlled by Collections Management. Also included in this category are the types of historical and technical documents found in Museum Archives (at the National Museum of Science & Technology these can include engineering drawings, historical manuscripts, photograph collections, etc.). They are essentially museum objects with textual and/or pictoral content, not records, although they certainly bear a superficial resemblance to them. Again, this can be expected to generate little argument.

The controversy begins with any discussion of museum records. Most attempts at "drawing the line" that I have seen seem to leave much latitude for interpretation. Since it is the Collection that makes a museum unique, and since museum objects cannot serve a meaningful purpose without supporting documentation, I would suggest that museum records are simply those documents that relate directly to the acquisition, legal title, management, preservation, significance, provenance, conservation, restoration, history and deaccessioning of museum objects.

An example may be useful. Let us say that someone donates a Model "T" Ford to the Museum of Science & Technology, along with an owner's manual, a catalogue of Ford products from 1936, and a published book about early Ford automobiles. The donation produces a Gift Agreement, an appraisal, and a "thank you" note to the Donor, and a Condition Report on the automobile is completed by Conservation Division. There are also several letters back and forth between the Curator of Land Transportation Technology and the Donor to arrange and negotiate the transfer.

The car is an artifact, and therefore falls under the category of museum object. The owner's manual is directly associated with the artifact, so it is museum material, and would be placed on the Accession (Supplementary Information) file for the artifact in Collections Management. The catalogue is Trade Literature, valued for research and identification purposes, and would be kept in the Museum Archives. This, too, is museum material. The published book is clearly Library material. Like museum material, it is excluded under Section 7 of the National Archives Act, would be sent to the museum Library, and falls outside the scope of this portion of the discussion. The Gift Agreement (or receipt to establish legal custody), appraisal, thank you letter and Condition Report (along with such things as Loan Agreements) document the provenance, ownership and condition of the artifact, and are kept on the Supplementary Information file in the Registrar’s Office. These are museum records.

Since the Records Office provides records management services to Collections & Research Division, the letters between the Curator and Donor will be filed in the Records Office. Since they relate to the provenance of specific artifacts, they should also be considered museum records. These could be retained indefinitely in the records office, or ultimately transferred (after a suitable active period has elapsed) to the Museum Archives or to Collections Management. This is a matter of internal policy. The same principle should apply to any records pertaining to the loan, conservation treatment or restoration work on specific, identifiable objects in the collection. Museum records, then, can be seen as virtually synonymous with Collections records. Where such records are present in the Records Management subject file classification system, those documents whose main subject is the collection or an object in the collection, from the classifier’s standpoint, are museum records.

On Aug. 21, 1986, Leo Dorais, then Secretary-General of National Museums of Canada, in responding to Jean-Pierre Wallot, Dominion Archivist of Canada, quoted Article 3 of the International Council Of Museums (ICOM) statutes in defining the mandate of a museum as follows:

"A museum acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits, for purposes of study education and enjoyment, material evidence of man and his environment."

This was offered as a basis for further discussion on which records held by museums should fit under the designation "museum material" in the National Archives Act. Since virtually all museum activities are alluded to in this sweeping definition, it can be inferred that he considered most records produced or acquired by a museum to be potential "museum records." If accepted, this definition would appear to be so broad as to coincide with what Records Management recognizes as "operational" or program records.

My own view is that what makes a museum unique among public and educational institutions is its collection. This is what defines a museum and makes it distinctive to the point where if there were no collection, a museum would no longer be a museum. Again, it might be helpful to look at a cross section of the records generated by a Federal museum. By process of elimination, most administrative records (called "housekeeping" in records management nomenclature) are covered by Non Agency Specific Retention and Disposition Authorities under the Multi- Institutional Disposition Authorities (MIDA), are not unique to museums, and have no long-term value. The same can be said of most marketing, retail and promotional records. For outputs such as books, publications and brochures, the final product is subject to legal deposit at the National Library of Canada; supporting records are of little value beyond that point, especially in the case of published items. Posters are covered in the MIDA Authority 96/024 that relates to the museum’s government activities, and two copies should be transferred to the National Archives. Events are a very short-term phenomenon. It is standard records management practice to retain records on recurring events for a few years at most so managers can avoid "reinventing the wheel" on a yearly basis. Educational and Interpretation programs change and evolve over time. Once a program is no longer being offered, there is little justification for keeping the supporting records more than a few years, since the program no longer exists. Curators provide advisory services to researchers. Suppose someone writes to the Curator to ask for technical advice to use in the restoration of their own Model "T." It can be argued that these are not museum records since the restoration project and the object are the researcher’s, not the museum’s. From the museum’s point of view, these are program records - the Curatorial or Advisory Services Program. Furthermore, the museum’s record of the inquiry and response are not unique since the researcher has the original. Once the requester’s concerns have been satisfied, the retention value for the museum of the records generated is not long term.

Exhibitions represent a sort of "grey area" in this discussion. Without doubt, exhibits are an activity normally associated with museums, and on that basis, it has been argued that exhibit-related records are museological. It can also be argued, however, that an exhibit brings objects together in such a way as to tell a story. The objects are intended to be displayed in a specific context for a predetermined period of time, so the idea that these records are "program" related documents is arguable as well. I would suggest that there is a compromise position, and again, it hinges on the question of whether the object is the main subject of the individual document, or whether the exhibit is. A document that discusses the selection of objects from the collection for display in an exhibit, or the acquisition by incoming loan of a particular artifact for the exhibit, or even its importance to the storyline of the exhibit, might well be deemed "museum records" since the content contributes directly to recording the provenance of the objects, and the object has equal claim, with the exhibit, to being the main subject. By contrast, it would be difficult to assign the same weight and uniqueness to documents on the development of the physical layout of the exhibit space in which the objects well be exhibited. Such records generated during the exhibition development process would be program (operational) records, and fall under the authority of the National Archivist.

The argument is sometimes made that "museum materials" as defined under the National Archives Act includes reference materials and documents relating to all aspects of museum exhibitions. A careful reading of Section 7, however, should make it clear that this is not what was intended. If we substitute "collection objects or records" for "museum materials," and read it in that context,

"7. Sections 5 and 6 do not apply to records that are library (materials) or Collection objects or records kept by a government institution for reference or exhibition purposes."

.....it becomes clear that the intent was to exclude from the National Archives Act records relating to artifacts or specimens that were retained for the purpose of being exhibited, not to exclude material about exhibitions per se. The same is true of "reference materials." Museum objects, along with supporting documentation, are also kept for reference (study and research) purposes, and this is the reason why they are singled out, not to assert that reference materials should be synonymous with museum records if retained by a Federal museum.

The National Museum of Science & Technology Corporation is responsible for the National Aviation Museum (NAM) at Rockcliffe. NAM houses the National Aeronautical Collection, which is an amalgamation of three previously-existing collections, one of which dates from the 1920's. There is considerable documentation on the process by which this collection was brought together and became at various times the responsibility of several different agencies, before arriving in its current form and location. The documents that record the history of the National Aeronautical Collection, as a collection, would be considered museum records. It should be noted that there will be documents closely associated with them whose main topic will be the development and evolution and organization of the National Aviation Museum as a federal agency, facilities management records regarding moves and the construction of suitable storage and exhibit facilities, and liaison with various groups involved in the process, among other things. Great care must be taken when examining individual documents, to ensure that the main topic is indeed the collection, before designating them museum records.

I would also be inclined to include the minutes of the Collections Committee, or similar body. While these records appear to be housekeeping, they often contain unique information on the rationale for collecting certain artifacts, and responsibility for the decisions directly affecting the collection, that would not otherwise be preserved.

The term "museum materials" in the Archives Act was never intended simply to imply all, or even most of the records generated by Federal museums. It was meant to include only those materials that are uniquely and exclusively museological. In practical terms, that will include the Collection (museum objects) and those information resources that document the history and significance of the objects in the collection (museum records). These are the "raison d’etre" of a museum and their importance is enduring. It is an international museological standard (per ICOM) that even the records for deaccessioned objects are retained indefinitely by the museum. Museums are also obligated to provide access to the collection and collection records to researchers (with reasonable limitations) both as members of ICOM and in our case as publicly-funded institutions. The fact that these records are designated "museum records" and are therefore not subject to the National Archives Act does not in any way compromise their preservation or availability. All other records in the custody of the museum that are not deemed administrative or library materials, should be included in an Institution Specific Authority in which the National Archivist consents to their disposition within the framework of the National Archives Act.