Dear Patrick, John, Milton and others,

I think the debate on the legal status of the international committees is
very illuminating and constructive, and I agree wholeheartedly that
professional legal advice is necessary in this matter.

Perhaps one of the actions that could be taken more swiftly than eventually
changing the legal status of the ICs would be to implement a system where
every president (and perhaps the whole board) of an IC signs a contract
where the limitations of the responsibility of ICOM is clearly stated. This
might even be a help in the management of the ICs. This is of course not
the full answer to the problem, and it is really just a thought from my side.

But what about some brainstorming about the consequences of merging the
categories ICs and AOs? I assume "merge" in this case means that the ICs
become (more or less) like AOs. We have heard about some advanatges. Are
there any disadvantages?

Kind regards

Per

PS:

My guess is that neither the task force on the ICs nor the NCs will have
final recommendations to present to the Advisory in early June this year,
but we will have gone through an initial discussion, identifying the major
issues and the most probable alternative solutions.

And before long, the two task forces must combine their insights and
viewpoints. Let me mention two (among many) issues that concern both:

First: The legal status of the NCs is not really very clear. Yes, they are
an entity within ICOM, but legally they probably sort under the laws of
their own country. Some of the NCs handle much more money than the ICs and
the way they are organized vary very much, probably more than is the case
of the ICs. The legal status of the NCs and ICs will never be quite the
same, but the question of the legal status of the bodies of ICOM must be
seen as a whole.

Second: IF the ICs should turn into organizations of their own right,
charging their own fees and recruiting their own members, why should the
NCs support them? After all, the money for the ICs come from the NCs.


At 11:40 12.04.2002 +0100, you wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Milton Bloch wrote:
>
>++++++ [CLIP] ++++++
>
> > 1.  An IC produces a publication which costs far more money than it
> has.  Perhaps a promised grant falls through and they are left $10,000
> short.  The printer sues.  Who is actually being sued and who would be liable?
> >
> > 2. It is discovered (perhaps by an IC executive committee member) that
> $5,000 is missing from that IC's bank account.  The treasurer is
> suspect.  Who has the legal authority to press for the return of the
> missing money and through what legal channel?
>
>=========================
>
>+++++++ [COMMENTS] +++++++
>
>I think that these are precisely the sort of problems that have been
>causing very serious concern for some considerable time, and I believe
>that the International Committees Task Force should obtain legal advice on
>the question of such liabilities.
>
>On point (1): my understanding throughout the time I was on the Executive
>Council was that as the International committees have no independent
>legal existence outside ICOM's legal status as a registered
>"Association" under French law, those owed money in these circumstances
>would almost certainly seek to take legal action against ICOM centrally,
>and perhaps also against the International Committee officer or Coard
>member who had ordered the work.
>
>On point (2): again the view was that ICOM's Officers and Executive
>Council and its internal and external auditors would be responsible -
>though in practical terms there is no control over the activities of the
>International Committees (beyond the power to suspend or close down
>committee if it fails to submit triennial accounts to the Executive
>Council).
>
>Fortunately, the majority of International Committees seem to come to some
>arrangement with an official body, such as a public museum or similar
>body, for the handling of moneys for events such as annual meetings (where
>many tens of thousands of dollars could perhaps be involved in the case of
>major conferences of the largest committees). Most committees these days
>also have their own bank accounts which are at least regulated to some
>extent  according to the national banking laws of the country
>concerned,  However, this is not a requirement, on at least one
>occasion I remember the Executive having to intervene urgently when it
>was reported that an extremely large project grant offered to an
>International Committee was going to paid into the personal bank account
>of one of its Board members as the committee did not have a bank
>account in the country from which the project was to be managed.
>
>I hasten to add that the account was that of a most reputable person and
>the proposal was simply for the sake of convenience.  But we felt that
>this was totally unacceptable as a matter of principle - to say nothing
>of the problems that could arise in unforseen circumstances, such as the
>serious illness or sudden death of the person holding the funds in a
>private bank account.
>
>
>
>Patrick Boylan
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>Change ICOM-L subscription options, unsubscribe, and search the
>archives at:  http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/icom-l.html

Per B. Rekdal
Seksjonsleder/Head of Department
Utstillings- og publikumsseksjonen /
Exhibitions, Education and Public Services
Universitetets kulturhistoriske museer /
The University Museums of Cultural Heritage
P.O.Box 6762 St. Olavs pl.
N-0130 Oslo, Norway
Tel. (-47) 22 85 99 64
Fax (-47) 22 85 99 60
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
www.ukm.uio.no

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Change ICOM-L subscription options, unsubscribe, and search the
archives at:  http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/icom-l.html