Session 11: PERSPECTIVES ON PARTNERSHIPS III
Moderator, Sally Y. Shelton, Director, Collections Care and Conservation, San Diego Natural History Museum

Consultations with Southern Plains Indian Tribal Organizations - One Museum's Perspective
Mei Wan Campbell, Curator of Ethnology/Clothing and Textiles, Museum of Texas Tech

• Art collections, funerary objects, and documents consulted on; 1 1/2 day consultation with each group; 1 day sacred objects, 1/2 day for funerary objects.
  
• Used classroom; video and audio documentation of the consultation when approved by group. No formal documentation occurred after consultation had ended.
  
• Prior to consultation - tribe asked if they wished to do cleansing ceremony (avoid activating fire suppression system; explain history of museum and its mission statement; guided tours of museum and museum library.
  
• Benefits to museum:
  1. identification of objects as to function, artist, history;
  2. open dialogue between groups not only on repatriation but also on exhibition;
  3. begin relationships for future cooperation in exhibitions.
     
• What was learned from consultations:
  1. be flexible in scheduling;
  2. ask permission to use audio/visual in documentation; some tribes will ask to review and edit;
  3. during meals and social times, groups tend to open up more;
  4. learn how to use audio/visual equipment beforehand; do a practice run; problem in knowing which consultant is speaking; mention catalogue number on tape; cover objects not being discussed; ask consultants to speak one at a time;
  5. be open and honest about museum's collection and documents; many tribal consultants will ask if there are any more; show them entire collection and accession records;
  6. give them a copy of mission statement, accession and deaccession policies and explain all these procedures;
  7. make sure that information is correct in labeling/description; look to other museum's collections for correct tribe creation/identification;
  8. explain to consultants that museum is not only to comply with law but also to disseminate information on tribal culture;
  9. difficult to respond to questions about why more complete documentation is not available;
  10. reasons for consulting go beyond legal compliance.

The Minnesota Historical Society and its Role as a Contractor and Repository for Federally-Associated Archaeological Collections
Charles O. Diesen, Curator, Minnesota Historical Society

long-standing relations with NPS and FWS

• Grand Portage Depot (National Historic Site)
• 1960 Grand Portage made a National Monument; reconstruction begun
• 1960-75 12,000 objects to MHS
• 1982 contract with NPS to catalogue and inventory collections limited to figured collection in notes taken by head archeologist; documentation was manual process
• 1989 first of series of small contracts and more cataloguing; new numbering system created to catalogue

The Central Arizona Project Repository (CAPR): A Case Study in Interagency Curation
Nancy Mahaney, Central Arizona Project Repository, Arizona State Museum

• relationship: BOR with NPS and Arizona State Museum
• early 1980s-existing state repositories could not handle collections
• CAPR built as a temporary holding facility, now 10 years old.
• BOR to define scope of collections and funding;
• NPS to give advice and technical assistance;
• University to provide personnel;
• located in Tucson Federal Building basement - limited work space
• staff reviewed annually, 3 FTEs and 3-4 Temp/PT
• diverse collections - paper archives, maps, photos, NAGPRA, research collection, "special collection"
• BOR wants CAPR to catalogue all collections within 4 years and discontinue all other activities to get this done;
• NPS could not okay cataloguing only the most heavily used collection;
• CAPR wants to catalogue collection but does not see the need to use ANCS when it is being phased out. (SNAP does not meet needs either; Foxpro as an interim step?)

Partnerships with Federal Agencies: A Case Study
Susan Baxevanis, Collections Assistant, Museum of Texas Tech University

• NPS grant to do Phase I for Lake Meredith collection from 1960s (by F. E. Green in 1964);
• cataloguing systems not compatible between museum and NPS;
• documentation from Green, 1964, was incomplete
• 12,000 objects estimated, was actually 200,000;
• NAGPRA categories given priority
• ANCS-is IBM; MTT-is MacIntosh
• NPS policy prohibits writing on human bones, etc.
• Benefits: over 195,000 inventories, 10,000 catalogued collections rehoused; plan prepared; open-minded approach on both sides
• cataloguing allowed for realistic planning and more accurate projection for Phase II.

Institutional Partnerships for the Curation of Federally-Associated Collections: The Alabama Example
Eugene M. Futato, Curator of Archaeological Collections, Office of Archaeological Services, The University of Alabama Museums

• Reason to house collections in non-federal repository:
  1. permanent repository at lower cost
  2. enhance utilization and access
  3. special facilities available at university
• Partnership is two-way street
• Negative side:
  1. Federal: direct control lost
  2. University: funding, universities don't want to pay for storage buildings
• Fees based on volume flat rate - example: $50 for process and $150 for maintenance - a one-time cost and no overhead
• Historical Society vs University of Alabama facility
• in the historical society, no fee, but care agreement defines requirements
• at the university, $9 facility for systematic collections of all campus museum