This report addresses most of the issues that are part of the normal museum re-accreditation process. It should be stated at the outset that the Visiting Committee was enormously impressed with the American Numismatic Society - its history, its achievements, its collections, and its staff. Nevertheless, we are concerned about the ANS as a museum, in the sense that the accreditation process means to define that term. This raises policy questions which will need to be addressed by the AAM Accreditation Commission, and which we do not feel can be resolved within the purview of this report. It will be evident that these policy questions appear throughout the report.

The American Numismatic Society, founded in 1858, is among our country's most venerable and distinguished scholarly organizations. While currently occupying a site that seems disadvantageous in relationship to some of its public functions, the ANS is among the extraordinary institutions in that special enclave forming Audubon Terrace - something of an "Parnassus" in American culture. The resonances of that permeated not only the physical plant of the ANS, but also its staff and, indeed, what might be called its "sense of itself." While that might suggest a kind of arrogance, we were impressed, rather, by the seriousness of purpose, dedication to mission, and scholarly intensity of the ANS. In addition, respect for its past does not mean ignoring its future, and we were pleased to note that there has been a good deal of serious self-study going on, some of with assistance of the National Executive Service Corps.

Many of the issues raised by this complex process of introspection have been addressed, and we were impressed by the strong commitment to tackling many of the most difficult problems still facing the organization. That includes board and staff restructuring, as well as moving to new facilities - radical issues for an organization to steeped in its traditions. Yet, while we had a sense of the energies behind much of the current thinking at ANS, we were also puzzled by what appears to be an unreal fiscal sensibility, as well as by what be called "mission confusion." In some ways that can best be stated in our not being certain how to reply to what are the "two core questions" that guide every accreditation review":

1. How well does the museum achieve its stated mission and goals?
2. How well does the museum's performance meet standards and practices as the are generally understood in the museum field?

In a way that we found somewhat confusing, there is both a rather focused and a vague sense of mission. The ANS has long been the country's pre-eminent locus for research and scholarshop in the field of numismatics. The collections and staff and governance all reflect that seriousness of intention, and we felt that this permeated most what we saw during our visit. We admire and applaud what seems to be an unwarvering earnest academic commitment. Nevertheless, the ANS has for many years served a more public function, both as information resource center and as exhibition facility; this latter role presumably accounts for the interest in receiving AAM re-accreditation status. But it is difficult to regard the ANS as a museum in the sense of that term as AAM appears to define it, since its museum focus is so clearly of secondary importance. We noted this in relation to our conversations with staff, in the [admittedly outdated] exhibitions and their sensibility, and in the somewhat confused discussions regarding a new venue for the ANS - a venue which would presumably generate more substantial visiting public. Yet it is not at all clear that serving such a public is really important to the institution's mission - other than the commonly-felt need for expanding the base of financial support (which may be a tangible benefit of increased audience).

There seems to be an excellent creative working relationship between the ANS governance system and its operations. In large part this comes from a Council whose make-up is so heavily weighted toward research and scholarship, at times even supplementing the highly-qualified staff expertise. In addition, Council President Arthur A. Houghton, Jr., comes to his role with unusual qualifications, since he is not only a distinguished collector and scholar in the field of numismatics, but has museum background as well. We were impressed by his understanding of the organization's strengths and weaknesses, by his clear sense of his role (vis a vis that of staff), and by his respect for and understanding of much that had been reported in the recent external and self-studies.

We cannot comment on the rest of the Council, having met only its President, but we had a distinct sense that the Council may function better in its "numismatics advisory" role than in its "fiscal/fiduciary" role. There is certainly a strong sense that the future must be addressed aggressively, but this appears to be interspersed with different visions of that future, as well as of the constituency that is to be served. The Council is self-perpetuating and as a result many of its members have been affiliated with ANS for quite some time. While the lengthy service reflects loyalty to the institution, there is a need to develop a fiscally responsible Board which would evolve with the addition to new members who understand and accept that reponsibility.

With one of the world's most significant numismatic holdings, the ANS certainly has collections that are appropriate to its mission -- and that must be understood as one of the driving forces behind any mission discussions. We were impressed with the organized housing of the collections in several different vaults (according to classifications), under the direct supervision of highly-qualified numismatists, who appear to be in constant interaction with their collections. It was difficult for us to have an comfortable sense of whether there is adequate security, because of the adjacency of study and storage areas. This is convenient for staff and researchers, but looks potentially problematic for full security (see below). Documentation is an essential part of the ANS staff responsibility, and computer data bases are in use, although (as is common in the field), updating would be very useful. Sensitivity to conservation issues appears to be satisfactory.

Security for exhibitions is good. Displays are in closed cases and the main gallery is under CCTV surveillance. Entry to the building is restricted and supervised. The recently-improved coin collection storage areas are also under CCTV surveillance, and restricted access. These functions as works areas for staff and researchers. During our visit we observed participants in the graduate seminar working with the collection under the supervision of a curator, who was sitting in his office with a CCTV. The nature of the collections - small and often extremely rare- makes this material especially vulnerable to theft, and we wonder whether what seems to be set up as an appropriate security system really functions as such. (Indeed, there was a 1950 case of a collector switching ANS coins for duplicates of lesser quality. Many of the coins have been reclaimed.) To provide tighter control and deterrence, a formal sign-out procedure for individual items should be instituted for researchers and anyone with direct access to the collections.

Paper collections (i.e. currency and ancillary materials) are stored in conservation-grade environments, although under rather crowded conditions. The percentage of the collection which is catalogued has remained stable at 70% -- not an adequate percentage. ANS might consider devoting staff resources to increasing the pace of catalogying. Funding agencies, such as NYSCA and NEH, provide support for collections management projects, often because cataloguing encourages better access for scholars and other researchers, thus benefiting the public through exhibitions and publications.

This is a difficult area for us to address, because the exhibitions are relatively old and worn, waiting for the opportunity to be relocated. The current main exhibition, The World of Coins, was installed in 1983 and has not been updated since then. Several exhibition cases in the seminar room house smaller displays, but these are not available for public viewing when seminars are in progress.

ANS leadership seems to suggest that the low attendance numbers, impacted by a disadvantageous location, make it relatively unimportant to work out new exhibition plans in the current location. Indeed, even in the planning for a new downtown location, the idea seems to involve recycling an existing exhibition as a new permanent exhibition, rather than providing for a substantive changing exhibition program. ANS is eager to lend its collections for museum exhibitions elsewhere, and the staff sees these loans as an avenue to enhanced institutional prestige and access to a new audience of numismatists. But major plans should be in the works that conceive of ANS exhibitions "in situ" as equally (or more) important for the organization's visibility and credibility as a museum.

Relocation plans do not now include adding an educator to the staff. A professional educator, supported with IMLS funding, was on staff for two or three years, but when the grant was not renewed, the position was discontinued. Greater commitment to public education is an essential aspect of the ANS assertively declaring itself as a museum. At the present time, curators are expected to initiate some education outreach to specialized audiences, through lectures and conferences. However, there is a clear feeling among the curators that the time and effort expended in this direction diminishes their commitment to their primary research responsibility. A museum-quality commitment to public education needs to be reconsidered as part of the organization's re-defining itself.

Because the ANS is located so unfavorably in relation to its potential for attracting a large public, one cannot get a good sense of its effectiveness as an interpreting and presenting institution. That clearly reflects the "mission problem" to which we have already referred. So the programs, insofar as they exist, are really geared primarily toward specialists and collectors, as is the general public face of the ANS. That ought not present a conflict with the goal of introducing a more general public to the world of numismatics - but there appears to be minimal sensibility about this. We hesitate faulting the ANS for this, since in man ways they are accomplishing what appears to be their central mission: serving their community of interest. What is unclear to us is how serious is the intent to expand that community, while also addressing audiences outside that community.

This, in turn, affects our ability to evaluate the effectiveness of the ANS' public activities. The staff includes an extraordinary group of scholars, who are world-renowned in their fields, who publish in the major field journals, who lecture throughout the world, and who give the ANS much of its lustre. Indeed, for a relatively small organization to maintain such a significant cadre of scholars (woefully underpaid, in relation to academic salaries), is a tribute to its singular importance! A summer program was taking place during our visit, and this emphasized the central role of the ANS in expanding the world of scholarship in its field. We were impressed that the program's participants included advanced graduate students outside the numismatics field. If one can accept this as a "public program" in some sense, then certainly ANS is fulfilling an important role for "its" public.

A research library, probably one of the world's most important, is inadequately housed and staffed. One highly specialized and very able fulltime specialist (with an assistant) is responsible for the impossible task of serving users in a facility that cannot even be viewed from one vantage point - suggesting security risks of some significance, given the unique qualities of this library collection. Considering its critical role in and for the numismatics field, the library must be re-evaluated as priorities are set. Issues of staffing automation, equipment, and policies for increased utilization (especially in view of a more favorably located facility) - all of these need to be addressed. The library program at IMLS provides funding for enhancing library services, and the ANS library may be a prime candidate for this grant program.

ANS Director, Leslie Elam, has been with the organization for many years, and in many ways characterizes the stability of the ANS. The recent clarification of his role as Executive Director appears to have improved the organization's operations (in contrast to a previous system of divided managerial responsibilities). Our sense was that, while perhaps somewhat difficult for some senior staff members, there was a consensus that this arrangement was better for everyone concerned, and is working. A new Assistant Director, with extraordinarily impressive credentials, has recently been engaged, although she had not yet officially started her work and unavailable for interviewing at the time of our visit.,/p>

We were favorably struck by the existence of various conventional management tools that are important in this kind of institution, e.g. a good Personnel Manual and Statement of Ethics, as well as newly-written job descriptions. This indicated to the serious attempts to grapple with newly-emerging sets of management issues that may have seemed less critical to a serious scholarly institution in earlier days.

But, as the Audit and other financial papers make all too evident, this is an organization with significant operating deficits, which are funded by essentially raiding the endowment (which has presumably benefited from the recent bull market). We use this term "raiding" because there is no indication that these funds are being borrowed, with an intention to repay. This is a matter of great concern, which suggests future serious fiscal instability, and even a present state of crisis (since cyclical downturns are inevitable). But we were not convinced that this is being viewed in crisis terms, perhaps in part because of the mission confusion that permeates the ANS.

That, in turn, is reflected in the fact of a development officer working only part-time, and in a relatively narrow view of development prospects and opportunities. In an organization faced with so many strategic opportunities, and such a potentially exciting new future, an ongoing institutionalized development program is a critical component. The capacity for raising funds from individuals, corporations, and foundations is clearly there, as is the potential for making of the ANS a significant public institutions, while continuing to enhance its scholarly reputation.

We are grateful to have had the opportunity to visit and review the American Numismatic Society. Its singular role in its field has given it international status, which is evident in its ability to attract superb professional staff and notable Councilors and specialists within its purview. This is among a handful of one of the world's great numismatic centers - of collecting and scholarship, so it is difficult to imagine that re-accreditation would not be recommended. But we do not feel comfortable recommending re-accreditation at this time, and suggest that it be tabled, pending further clarification from the ANS, and perhaps a subsequent brief visit by this (or another) committee. Our reasons are as follows:

1. The ANS does not really function as a public museum in the sense that the AAM definitions suggest. Moreover, there is little evidence at this time that the ANS really wants to take on that role. This is a highly significant scholarly and research institution, and that has a strong sense that a public role is seen as having the potential to diminish or dilute (rather than enhance) that position.
2. Our visit took place during the final days of a decision regarding relocation; but even if a new venue is secured, it must then be planned and funded - not only for capital needs, but for future operating needs. There is little evidence that ANS staff or Council really understands the full implications of such a relocation, which could significantly alter its operations.
3. The skeletal development program does not appear to take account of either the operating deficit or the need to expand on the community of support. This, in turn, has implications for any new location, as well as for the relationship between the future programming/exhibitions and how the ANS markets itself.
4. If a serious exhibition program (and it accoutrements) is to be put in place, the ANS needs more than a more accessible venue. It needs to rethink its role as an scholarly and research center. We are not recommending that the ANS change from its traditional mission. We do not believe that is our role. We simply believe that, as currently organized and operating, the ANS is not, and does not especially see itself as, a museum.