Issues:
1) Current standards do not address that not all collections need to meet the same curation standards, such as
    leather vs. ground stone implements. Resources are limited - look at cost-effective ways of utilizing storage.
    Per square foot is not a one-time, initial cost.
2) Current DM definition of proper preservation and protection is not explicit enough regarding consumptive use
    at museum property such as large, mechanical equipment that can be used interpretively outdoors. (Bureau of
    Reclamation input).
3) Want to be careful not to bias standards for curation toward certain types of collections, e.g.: only historic
    archaeological materials vs. prehistoric artifactual materials.
4) There will be some heavy duty new partners in preservation, e.g.: proposition 5. California will allow for casino
    gambling on Indian lands.
5) Standards are based on western standards.
6) Trained professionals to curate and implement curation standards. As we pursue new partners, also emphasize
    the methods and theory of curation. Attitudinal shift to emphasize training first; responsibility for cultural
    resource management, second.

Recommendations:
1) Tiered standards for collection storage facilities.
2) More descriptive technical guidance regarding application of standards.
3) Be aware of new players - who can and will continue to influence state laws.
4) Other cultural/nations' partners must have their perspective on curation standards; make this part of our
    domestic agenda.
5) Expand curation standards to address health and safety issues from field investigations to long-term curation.
6) Expand to address associated records, e.g.: records management. What is significant about all the material
    recovered in the field.
7) DOI Part 411 Departmental Manual - requirement for annual inventory
       Would like to see an accommodation of the annual schedule for agencies who have 40 or more repositories
       such as Bureau of Reclamation.
8) Implement non-collection surveys.
 
 

Table 12) Legislation  (Allison Brigham, Norman Cary, Mark Goodwin, Les Jenson, Tonia
                                       Superchi, Fiona Price, Suzanna Walaszek, Elizabeth Sackler)
Issues:
1) Charge for services/cost recovery.
2) Protection and management of paleontological resources.
3) Lack of regulations/mandates protection historical museum resources (other than archaeological) aside from
    institutional policy.
4) Standards for preparing collections for permanent curation.
5) Insufficient resources (staff repositories, funding).
 
Recommendations:

1) - Authority: The Secretary concerned may, as appropriate, arrange for public requesters of historical services
    provided by the service historical program to defray the costs of such services. Under rules prescribed by the
    Secretary, the service historical program may charge and retain fees received for such services or may utilize
    commercial sources or non-profit foundations to provide such services or any combination of these methods
    which will defray the costs of these historical services and will facilitate the provision of such services to
    public requesters.
    - Retention of Fees: Monies received by the service historical program under subsection (a) shall be retained
    by the Secretary and shall be available to offset the cost of providing historical services.
    - Exclusion: This section shall not apply to records made available to the public under section 552 of title 5,
    United States Code.
    - Definitions - in this section:
    - The term "historical services" means any services provided by a service historical program. Such services
       include the providing of historical information, reproduction of documents, and loan or donation of historical
       materials under the provision of 10 USC 2572 and 10 USC 7545.
    - The term "public requesters" means all persons who request historical information from the service historical
    programs other than persons who request information in their official capacity as a member of the armed forces
    or an officer or employee of the United States, as defined in sections 2104 and 2105 of title 5, United States
    Code.
2) Prohibit commercial collection of paleontological resources on public lands. 1906 Antiquities Act is vague.
3) Develop legislation for management and protection of historical museum resources.
4) Standards for preparing archaeological resources for permanent curation shall be attached to all Scopes of
    Work (SOWs) for work on federal land. Also establish guidelines (not policy) for deaccessioning and what is
    taken from the field in the first place.
5) Place greater emphasis on drivers for compliance. In cases where there are no drivers (paleontology, historical
    museum resources), get them.
 
 

Table 13) Deaccessioning

Issues:
1) What is the true driving force behind the deaccession issue - is it the money, the space, or both?
2) Use of National Register-type criterion for determining significance of collections.
3) Should heritage significance be used as a criteria for redundant classes of objects?
4) Culling collections prior to accessioning into a repository - the development of sampling strategies for
    generating collections.
5) Deaccessioning does not automatically mean discard - gifts, loans, transfers can be employed.
6) There was a strong desire among those at the table, that if deaccessioning is to take place, there must be a
    systematic justification strategy.
7) NAGPRA - is defacto deaccessioning.
8) Some descendant groups do not want to retain any collection that does not directly relate to their own group.

Comments:
Our roundtable did not develop specific recommendations - we simply articulated many of the issues that must be addressed before embarking on developing a deaccession policy, for archaeological collections.

Our roundtable also discussed that there are many institutions that currently have deaccessioning policies that can provide a ground work for developing any new policy.
 
 

Table 14) Databases

Issues:
1) Standardization (national/global) (discipline specific)
2) Compatibility
3) Nomenclature (definitions/standards)
4) Data verification/checking; QA/QC; Protocols

Recommendations:
1) Must be discipline specific
2) Non-commercial software

Comments:
We were stuck on issue #1, standardization. More specifically the standardization of language, terms, and the long-term preservation of the integrity of databases.
 
 

Table 15) Permits

Issues:
1) What should be permitted or not?
2) Can permit applications be standardized and simplified while taking into account differences in methodology?
3) Cooperation between agencies is needed to standardize enforcement?
4) Simplifying international transfer of specimens.
5) Need consistency in how laws are interpreted between regions and agencies.
6) Amnesty clause across agencies for people bringing material into the public domain in good faith.

Recommendations:
1) Permitting process and reporting requirements should be modified to distinguish legitimate requesters from
    others.
2) Standardize scientific applications and facilitate integrity coordination in both administration and enforcement.
3) Recognize limitations (entomologists can not specify species collected in advance)
4) Use ASC-USFWS MCV as model for language allowing collections to accept donations of specimens/objects
    from public sector.
5) Develop position paper distinguishing the activities of museums from commercial agencies.
6) Educate the enforcers as far as law enforcement is concerned.