Dear Manus:

On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, Manus Brinkman wrote:

+++++ CLIP] +++++

> ICTOP's recommendations focus only on information on the procedures within
> ICOM, but an open organisation of course means much more than that. But I
> take it for granted that ICTOP would in no way disagree with that.

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

REPLY:

ICTOP's consultations amongst its general membership and a few
outside observers of ICOM, leading to the "SWOT" analysis ["Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats"] which was circulated last Autumn,
in fact covered a total of around 40 different points.

The present proposal is responding to just one of the points of concern
identified in the SWOT analysis, i.e. that except for the most senior
officers of ICOM's national and international committees, ICOM members now
receive little or no information on what ICOM collectively (and the
Executive Council, Advisory Committee and Secretariat in particular) are
doing on behalf of ICOM's 15,000 members, where ICOM's funds come from or
how these are spent.


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

>
> The Secretariat is already working to speed up the distribution of
> information. An electronic mailing list for the Advisory Committee is now
> functioning well.


REPLY:

Of course. But this in not the issue here.  ICOM used to inform ALL
members about such matters.  In particular, detailed reports of all key
Meetings, and copies of e.g. Secretariat progress reports, and the audited
Annual Accounts, used to be published and circulated to all of the
membership, on a regular basis through ICOM News.  ICOM News was - in
accordance with it's French and Spanish  titles even today - "News OF
ICOM" (my emphasis).

However, nowadays this important information is distributed not to 100% of
the paying membership as it used to be, but only to the less than 1% who
(like me) serve on the Advisory Committee or Executive Council.

Improving communication with the Advisory Committee is admirable but, as
the ICTOP Resolution says, it is no longer practicable for national and
international committee chairpersons to then forward anything up to
1,500 sets of such papers to their membership at large.

The very strong message from the ICTOP "SWOT" analysis (and from others
who have followed up this point with me more recently) is that quite a lot
of the other 99% of the membership feel that they are ENTITLED to have
easy access to such information.

Indeed, some would go further an argue that as a matter of law the Audited
Accounts and a short Annual Report (as a minimum) should be distributed to
all members (hence the proposal for summaries of these to go in ICOM News
each year, with the full versions on the ICOM web site).


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

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

> That brings me also to the point you raised about the budget.  You mention
> the " approved " annual budget. Approval of the budget has been a topic of
> discussion by the Task Force and it will propose, among others things  to
> speed up the procedures with regard to approval (and so of course,
> publication of it).


REPLY:

Sorry, I don't understand this point.  In accordance with the governing
French law generally, and the relevant fiscal and administrative procedure
rules, as an "Association" ICOM is required by law to have an Annual
Budget (which incidentally must be approved by the General Assembly, not
just the Executive Council - a problem for ICOM if the General Assembly
continues to meet only once every three years).

Throughout my 19 years on the Advisory Committee and 9 years on the
Executive Council there has always been an Annual Budget.  However, this
too is currently distributed only to the same 1% of the membership, but
not published more widely.


Best wishes



Patrick Boylan

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

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