On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Gary Edson wrote:

++++++ CLIP +++++

> Assuming we continue this discussion, I continue to be concerned with the
> level of participation by the ICOM membership. We are working for ways to
> have more discussion in at least three languages. Concern has also been
> expressed about the limited number of ICOM members having access to ICOM-L.
> If anyone has a suggestion on how to bring this issue to the attention of
> more of the membership let me know.
>
> Gary Edson
> <[log in to unmask]>
>
========================================

Dear Gary:

As you imply, the participation to this discussion over the past months
has been - quite frankly - utterly insignificant and cannot claim to be
representative of the whole of the ICOM membership.  As at this morning,
LISTSERV reports just 962 members in ICOM-L - less than 6% of ICOM's
membership, and as I recall it someone recently calculated that barely 50
ICOM-L members have so far participated in the discussion of a new
definition of the term "museum".

If that's accurate, then another way of looking at these figures is that
so far at least only 5% of ICOM-L members and less than one-quarter of a
percent of the total ICOM membership have so far publicly proposed or
supported ANY change in the current ICOM definition!

Over the past 20 years I have been closely concerned with at least three
major reviews and consultations that have covered the current ICOM
definition, which has served for nearly 30 years now: the drawing up and
original adoption in 1986 of the ICOM Code of Ethics (which I chaired, and
which is based very firmly on the ICOM definition), followed by two
revisions of the Statutes of ICOM.

Though these exercises together produced some hundreds of ideas and
suggestions I don't recall even one that called for any significant change
to the well-established ICOM definition. (I don't count the minor changes
in the English translation (only) to make the language "gender-neutral".)

Before we go any further will the (full) Executive Council please prepare
and send out to each of the more than 17,000 members of ICOM individually
a clear and DETAILED statement of the reasons why the Executive Council
has decided that the present ICOM definition needs to be replaced?

In my view such a statement (in all three ICOM languages), detailing the
Executive Council's reasons for the need to change the ICOM definition
must go out as a letter signed by the President on behalf of the whole
of the Executive Council. (I guess that the most economical way to get
this to every ICOM member would be to print it in the next available
issue of "ICOM News" - presumably the 2004/2 due for publication in June
2004, though if the matter is regarded as extremely urgent, I suppose that
there would have to be a special mailing to all members.)

Gary: I know that you have done already great deal of work on this, with
a very disappointing response so far. On the other hand, it is difficult
to see how anyone can even begin to draft amendments to the ICOM
definition of "museum" without at least some common ground about exactly
what is wrong or out of date - and therefore needs correcting - in the
present ICOM definition.

I know that this message is very long, but I would like to add one final
point on the issues of principle relating to the present exercise.

It seems to me that in relation to ICOM's own needs a MUCH more urgent
matter is the continuing problem over the definition of not "museum", but
of "the museum profession" for the purposes of ICOM membership.

Despite several explicit clarification and additions to the ICOM Statutes
and Rules over the past 10 years or so, we still receive very many reports
that National Committees (in particular) continue to make up their own
definitions and improperly refuse ICOM membership to whole categories of
museum professionals e.g. by restricting membership to the staff of
government museums, and excluding professionals in museums of foundations,
trusts or universities, or in museum studies and conservation studies
departments. Others seem to restrict ICOM membership to to directors and
curators (in the narrow sense of the word), and exclude professionals in
e.g. conservation, education, management, exhibition or security, while I
understand that at least one large national committee requires applicants
to be proposed for election by at least two existing ICOM members.



Patrick Boylan
Chairperson, International Committee for the Training of Personnel (ICTOP)

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

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