Accreditation - viable in uncertain times?

Although this is only my second blog, and it may seem that the below, coupled with my first post, are looking for doom and gloom in the sector, this isn't the purpose.  I hope that my posts act as discussion points for the issues I feel are bubbling away in the background, and yet to be fully discussed in open, public debate... which leads me onto my next topic, accreditation (formerly registration, for what its worth!)

One of the core functions of the MLA, and a function supported throughout the sector, has been the administration of the national Accreditation scheme, a 'kite mark' system for museums big and small, professionally managed and/or volunteer led.  The make-up of the museum is neither here nor there, so long as the museum agrees to abide by some pretty simple, and some would argue fundamental, management rules for their museum.

The MLA show a pretty impressive list of accredited museums, including our impressive nationals, from which any visitor can draw upon to know that the museum they are in is being a 'good old boy' and following the museum basics from front of house to collections management, and everything in between.  The MLA are also kind enough to send a certificate that says just that, which can then be displayed next to the opening times and charges, making would-be visitors even more certain that the museum they are about to enter is 'safe' and officially QUANGOed.

But, what if you upset the system, do something wrong and have the wrath of the infamous MA and MLA police knocking on your curators door... and what if, after the MA police have left, the MLA strip the certificate from your door, leaving the open wound of de-accreditation for all to see (and fear!)...

This is exactly what happened to one museum back in late 2006, Bury Museum and Gallery in the North West, still officially listed as 'excluded' (liken the naughty school boy) from the accreditation register - the only such entry on the whole list (a very naughty school boy indeed!).  Bury incurred the wrath of both the MA and MLAs ethic committees after it publicised the fact that it was about to sell a Lowry painting to plug some gaps in general council budgets.  Obviously this isn't the usual or professionally acceptable route any museum should be taking, and in no way follows the ethical guidelines of the MA or MLA.  After facing disciplinary action from the MA, Bury resigned its membership, and a few months later was 'excluded' from the accreditation register.

At the time, HLF were quoted as saying that any formal actions taken by MLA and/or the MA would reflect poorly on Bury accessing HLF funds (argh! I shed a tear for them with that statement alone!), and so Bury became the first high profile case of the sector protecting the boundaries and showing the teeth behind the paperwork.

Hmm, but is that the whole story? What's happened since, and could a reflection on Bury's past few years give a sign of the lengths some museums will be willing and potentially 'ok' to take to save the institution over the collection?  Lets see:

Bury was deaccredited in December 2006, according to the Bury Museum Website the 'building' is still calling itself a museum and gallery - so no changes there then... so would your 'average Jo' realise that they were about to enter the (free) forbidden fruit?  Possibly not (alot of museums don't even display their certificates anyway!), ok, but surely the museum is suffering with figures? Not that I can see, since 2006 the museum has not reported any dramatic changes (either way) in audience figures.

Ok, so the public can be fooled, but the sector and sector funders are surely a different kettle of fish.  Well absolutely, as I stated above, HLF said they expected all fundees to follow the guidance of relevant professional bodies calling it sad that Bury took the steps it did.  So no money from them then... wrong! The HLF website shows that in 2007 and 2009 Bury Museum and Gallery accessed just under £100,000 of lottery money from the Your Heritage grant streams, hardly money to be dismissive off!

Ok, ok, so they managed to sweet talk HLF, but other organisations must be wary of them? Nope, according again to their website, they run successful INSET projects, run a range of temporary exhibitions, have had conservation work carried out on paintings and other collections, and took part in the NICE (National Inventory of Continental European) paintings project! Hmm, hardly sounds like an institution smarting from, and soothing, the pains from a ruler across the hands does it?

So what does this mean?  Well, since this high profile case, several museums have walked the fine line between exclusion and acceptable disposals, and even the MA has revised and reasoned some extra special cases why financial motives may be needed for disposal through sale, but even so, looking at the above example, would they be any less of a museum if they were removed?

The reason I have spent all of the above discussing this, is because I have heard through the 'grape vine' of several smaller museums (and a couple of larger ones) discussing the merits of accreditation in the new world order - is it worth the extra 'baggage' and work, and for a reward that really only the sector appreciates?

The issue here is if museums start leaving the security and watchful eye of the MLA and accreditation as times get hard (and councils and boards want to make difficult decisions without being hauled over the coals) then at what point does accreditation become un-viable and an avoidable hassle for museum managers everywhere...?