February 17, 2000

Re: MSN direction

To: securma@xs4all.nl
In a message dated 2/16/00 7:26:55 PM, securma@xs4all.nl writes:

There are times that I consider to begin a separate list devoted to art theft, recovery of WW.2 looted art and all other art related incidents. The Museum Security Mailinglist should return to it's core business. Once again: this is up to the MSN subscribers. The lists' output fully depends on subscribers' input.

Dear Ton and Readers:
What an interesting perspective I'm reading on the MSN about its diverse coverage! I, personally, have little or no interest in many of the areas being covered by the mailing list but fully understand why others find them useful or valuable. The advantage of an internet mailing list is that it is worldwide and brings together so many people. The disadvantage of this is that the more diverse it's readership is, the more diverse its topics will be. For example, the recent war in the Balkins was of personal interest to me but had no professional interest for me. But to Europeans, it was very important. And to the parties involved in the war, or to Conservators and many non-security people in the museum field, it was of utmost importance, if not directly, but certainly from an academic perspective as we learn the effects of war and politics on art and artifacts. I have limited time to read and had to filter out what I felt I needed to know and what I didn't.
I personally get more from the "security" issues rather than issues that are political or social, etc. I personally think that the issue of Nazi art is one that we all should be aware of as it does effect our collection's security in some ways, but it is really not as professionally pressing to me as issues like alarm systems or security management. This doesn't mean this list shouldn't address this issue, but perhaps it should not be given such intense or detailed coverage as it has been receiving.
I also do not investigate art thefts, referring my clients' theft problems off to Bob Spiel, my friend and professional colleague, who is a true expert in art recovery. But I think it is of the utmost importance for this list to report on art thefts as they occur because it is only when museums are aware that these crimes do occur that they are supportive of our mission as security professionals. I like to know what thefts are occurring and how they occur so I can formulate countermeasures. I've always said that a good theft in the museum next door is the best thing that can happen to my museum's security program! We can all benefit from reports of any crime or disaster involving museums and their collections. I see this as a major objective of this list.
I just returned from the Smithsonian Conference in Washington where I spoke on the subject of leadership and management. 50+ people attended this Wednesday afternoon "break out" session while the remainder of the 200 attendees either were absent touring museums (or networking in the bar, perhaps!) or attending the FBI sponsored seminar next door to mine on the subject of computer crime. I remarked to those in my session that few museums have adequate security programs that meet the minimum standards I have set for my clients and few, if any museums that I know of, give responsibility for computer crimes against the museum, such as protection against hackers, to the security director. I know of no major incident of this type against a museum and I know of no museum security manager ever fired from his or her job for a computer crime that occurred against the institution. Yet more attendees went to the computer crime seminar than went to the one on management. In the past year, I heard of at least a dozen security managers who were in trouble with their superiors for what was perceived as management problems or issues or deficiencies in the leadership of the security director. My point is that sometimes people are interested in issues that are not really all that important to them in the long run. Some topics are just more interesting. I noted that many of the Smithsonian's topics involved issues like assaults on museums or violence in museums like "violence in the workplace", etc. To me, this is something we need to be aware of but we don't need to beat these topics to death. I'm aware of the several very bad incidents of this type in museums but statisticaly they occur less in museums than in office buildings or other places of work and should not preoccupy us. Someday I'd like to see a workshop on writing a good guard manual where the participant walked out of the room with a template for a typical policy, a list of topics that should be included in the manual, and guidance on what the policies ought to actually be in a typical museum. Now that's important stuff. But if I offered a topic like that, no one would come. I'm sure I could fill a room if I talked about computer crime or gang violence.
If Ton limited the mailing list to physical and electronic security and fire protection, no one would read it. Or if they did read it, they would sit back and "lurk" (quietly listen) but not offer any participation themselves. So his list has to be diverse, but perhaps topics that are political or social in nature should be more limited.
I'd also like to suggest that parties who have commercial announcements to make like vendors, seminar providers, even non-profit groups with announcements about annual meetings or seminars or products should be required to post their announcement on their own web site and simply make a one paragraph statement on this list that interested parties can read about their topic by visiting the web site. This reduces the amount of material we all have to sort through and it eliminates material from the archive that is not timeless. Reading the daily list is important but the archive will be far more important as time goes by and it must be limited or it will be hard to use.
I'd like to make one other comment in response to Robin's comment . . ."I was quiet at first and then began to share some thoughts. But, I had to be careful not to "stub my toe" on the professional who wanted everyone else to know they were "professionals". But I am not too thin skinned (maybe) and got over it, and learned to read and listen more than participate."
I am as guilty as anyone of occasionally jumping with both feet on a fellow professional who takes a stand that is contrary to mine, forgetting that I have a quarter century of experience on that particular issue while others may not have had the opportunity to read all that I have read or seen all that I have seen and thus may not have reached the conclusions I have reached. Until Ton Cremers came along, there was very little real exchange of ideas in this field. The Smithsonian Conference offered an opportunity to exchange information, but their Proceedings containing the papers presented was not available to people who could not attend. It couldn't be purchased at any price and was essentially "not in print" so new people in the profession did not see this body of information. Journals like "Security Management" did not often address technical issues like sprinklers, and other training and informational programs also missed the mark with regard to offering a true exchange of information. Those of us who have attended the Smithsonian Conference many times (this was my 21st year) forget that others did not have benefit of that much exposure and that the body of information we were exposed to in our career was not readily available for everyone to read.
If anyone on this list has given anyone else the impression that we are professionals and you are not, then this is an unfortunate misconception. I sell my services for a thousand dollars a day yet I find it important to read this list every day and respond often when I think I have something to say. More times than not, I reply off list, directly to the person asking the question, so I can engage them in a discussion of their personal situation in a more private environment. While this is not good for the other readers, it is sometimes the best way to get the job done for the person in need. I know that I am not alone in answering questions for readers both on and off list. No one has ever gotten a bill from me nor have I ever answered a question then solicited the reader for consulting work. I happen to know that other professionals including consultants who read this mailing list do the same. If we did not consider you an equal and a colleague we would not "waste" our time exchanging information for free and would solicit you for consulting work. You should never feel intimidated by anyone on this list. Your participation is important. If you think it gets easier, you're wrong. At the recent ASIS committee meeting in Washington I spoke against a populur issue that was supported by all of my colleagues from the largest museums in the US. I'm taking flack from that stand right now but it sure will not silence me.
In my presentation at the Smithsonian conference this afternoon I told those present that leadership involves making decisions and taking a stand. You won't always be certain that you know the right answer. Things are not always clearly right or wrong. But you have to be confident enough to take a stand, even if it disagrees with colleagues who are senior to you in experience. It is usually wise to listen to them first to benefit from their greater experience, but if you think you have something to say, don't be intimidated by the fact that your opinion differs from theirs. Every reader of this list should be a "participant" not just a quiet listener. When you do speak up, you will run the risk of someone junior to you in experience and lacking confidence in themselves thinking that you are trying to show off or "show that you are a professional" when in fact you are merely confidentally engaging in dialog. I will try to cut you some slack for lurking and not offering your expertise to others, if you try to understand that some issues like sprinklers are emotional issues that have a long history of sometimes frustrating discussion with often clueless people who swear that they know someone who knows someone who hit a sprinkler head with a board one day causing catastrophic damage to an entire museum . . .etc. (Excuse me while I go take my blood pressure pill!)

One final comment. I sent to Ton Cremers a copy of my Smithsonian presentation which I hope he will widely distribute. In it I said that an American TV show called Biography listed the 100 most influential people of the millennium and the most influential was Gutenberg whose moveable type printing press made the exchange of information possible. Without this invention, knowledge was just ink on paper, unable to be widely distributed or shared. It was not until Gutenberg, that Locke and Shakespere and Copernicus and Luther and others could start revolutions and reformations and renaissances. He made it all possible. By this standard, Ton Cremers' development of the Museum Security Network qualifies him as the most important person of the millennium with regard to museum security because he has made an exchange of information possible that was never possible before. Finally there is a place for younger professionals to read up on the history of issues like the controversy about sprinklers and learn the entire issue, not just the textbook position or the insurance industry's position or the curatorial position. I hope Ton will not be too modest and bury my presentation ( http://museum-security.org/keller-natconf2000.pdf ) without first publishing it here so this praise can be shared with his readers.
The MSN is evolving. Who knows what it is to be? Err on the side of publishing too much rather than too little. Keep up the good work. And Readers, remember that if you don't use it you may lose it. Stop "lurking" and start participating. The topics that elicit reader responses will be the topics that continue to be posted on this list.
Steve Keller
Museum Security Consultant

February 17, 2000

CONTENTS:

Re: MSN direction