|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
by Stevan P. Layne, CPP, CIPM The most recent issue of AAM's AVISO opened with an article about an incident
of theft from the Wisconsin Historical Society, committed by a former curator
of anthropology. The article's author voiced concern that the penalty for art
theft might not be severe enough to deter such crimes, and voiced that concern
to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. The article states, "Though art theft is not
uncommon, it is rarely perpetrated by an insider. I'm still a bit shocked to realize
that not everyone shares the common knowledge that the highest ratio of thefts
in cultural institutions involves employees, volunteers, or student workers. I'm
even more amazed to find the opposite being stated and published by an organization
that should know better.
In a letter to the Special Assistant to the President and CEO of AAM, I advised that the Association needs to be more attuned to the facts, and that even the more highly publicized incidents of theft in recent years have pointed to inside involvement. I followed that letter with a request to over two dozen institutions to verify my position that thefts they experienced involved insiders more often than not. In the twenty plus responses received to date….every one had a story to tell about some form of theft committed by insiders with few acknowledging losses from outside sources. Every level of staff (including directors) has been found to be involved in theft, which in some cases, went undetected for years. Several reports voiced concern that although sound evidence was provided, some administrations failed to prosecute, or even report the matter. And we wonder how someone who stole from one institution might get hired at another? Volunteers, for the most part, a group of dedicated individuals who help to lighten the institution's financial burden, have also been found to lighten their asset burden…with some self-help removal of everything from cash to artifacts. I once asked an audience of about 200 museum administrators how many performed objective background checks on volunteers. Three hands were raised. In both "Suggested Guidelines for Museum Security," published by the ASIS Standing Committee for Museum, Library & Cultural Property Security, and "The Cultural Property Protection Manual," published by Layne Consultants International, we emphasize the need to conduct reasonable background checks on all employees, volunteers, temporary workers - and everyone with any access to collections or assets. With the present state of world affairs and the recognized ability of foreign nationals to infiltrate any organization, there is no excuse for failing to exercise these procedures. Those of us who have worked within our cultural institutions have faced policies that in essence keep embarrassing incidents "under the table," rather than upset governing boards or the public who relies on the institution to protect its valuable treasures. However, theft of artwork, cash, artifacts, or any other property of the institution is a crime. The person who commits the crime of theft, regardless of their education, dedication to "the arts," level of employment, or professional accomplishments…is still a criminal, and needs to be handled as such. This is an expectation of the justice system that is supposed to treat everyone equally. There are some minds that will never be changed…administrations that will not bend. For those charged with the protection of institutional property, there is only one path to follow. That is in the objective observation, documentation, and processing of evidence, compilation of material fact, and written presentation of findings. This article voices the opinions of the author, and by acclamation of the Advisory Board, the position of the International Foundation for Cultural Property Protection.
|
|