On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, David Grattan wrote:

+++++ [CLIP] ++++

> I am left feeling a little confused, however - more likely the result of my
> own stupidity rather than Patrick's adroitly conceived notes:
>
> Patrick was very emphatic that ICs and AOs should not have the same status.
> One reason advanced was that:
>
> "the Affiliated Organizations are all able to charge their
> own membership fees and therefore manage their own finances,
> while the  majority of them, perhaps all, are independently
> incorporated as legal bodies in their own right"
>
> But at the same time states elswhere that:
>
> "I can personally see no real alternative to at least the larger
> International Committees - and perhaps all of them - becoming
> registered legal entities in their own right and therefore
> responsible for their own legal and financial affairs,"
>
>
> Is Patrick suggesting that some ICs should be like AOs or???

====================================

David:

I was responding to the argument in the International Committees Task
Force's consultation paper point (1) - which seemed to argue that the
Affiliated Organisation category should - in effect - be merged with that
of International Committee.

In my first point I was arguing that there are clear distinctions between
the two at the present time which should be preserved  - if of course the
International Committees continue in anything like their present form.

However, as you know I have been arguing for years that the International
Committees should become incorporated in some way so that they have their
own proper legal status.  I agree that probably the most logical way
forward would be for all the ICs to become Affiliated Organisations - but
there are other implications in this, not least the fact that currently
automatic and free membership of an international committee of choice is
one of the most important benefits of ICOM membership.)

My later point therefore addressed the ICTOP situation specifically
i.e. that becoming an independent, but ICOM-affiliated, organisation may
be the only way forward, not on financial grounds in our case (though I
know that this is a major issue for the Conservation Committee), but
because our credibility is in question since such a tiny percentage of
museum training course staff are willing to join ICOM - despite decades
of efforts to bring them in.


Patrick

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

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