Re Martin's responses to Giovanni's queries about the International
Committees Task Force:

While it is important to get the regulatory apparatus correct, it is
equally important to build in maximum flexibility for different kinds of
ICOM committees. These are almost mutually exclusive conditions, but I
think Martin's responses show that the Task Force has given thought to a
vast range of issues. It takes the more flexible (rather than the more
regulated) direction in specifying the rules.

There is an inherent risk of Balkanisation (fragmentation) in permitting
flexibility to constituent committees, but at the same time, diversity can
be ICOM's strength. I do not have much doubt that the over-arching purposes
of ICOM (splendidly demonstrated in the recent/current responses to the
Iraqi antquities tragedy) is sufficient to unify our multitude of
committees.

Thankyou, Martin and Task Force members.
Linda Young


>Comments from Giovanni Pinna concerning the suggestions of the
>International Committee Task Force
>
>Best thanks for these comments. Since our document had to be very brief,
>there may be some vagueness or misunderstandings and clarifications are
>necessary. That's why I give hereafter some comments to Giovanni's mail. I
>thank Per Rekdal for his help in preparing these explanations.
>
>ICOM-L: In this phase of the discussion, the only reasonable way to
>communicate with ICOM members in short time is ICOM-L. We are aware that we
>can only reach a minority of the membership. Our document will be
>circulated to all chairpersons of International Committees and Affiliated
>Organizations for preparing a discussion on 3 June 2003 in the context of
>the separate International Committee meeting during the next Advisory
>meeting in Paris. Afterwrd, a report will be given to the Executive Council
>for decision.
>
>Creation of new International Committees: We had extensive discussions
>about the number of ICOM members needed to make a proposition for a new
>international committee. To avoid too local inititives, we opted for 50
>members from at least 10 countries in more than one continent. Of course,
>we can eternally discuss the appropriate number, but we think that the
>committees should really be international. The figure actually mentioned in
>the statutes (art. 17,5) is 10. If we keep this figure, we should of course
>reduce the number of countries.
>
>Fiscal accountability and legal autonomy: We don't share the opinion that
>more auronomy will weaken ICOM. Since International Committees are so
>different in size we should accept different organization models and let
>the committees choose the appropriate one, of course within specific rules
>and within a given framework agreement. Our document cannot give details,
>everything is open to the creativity of each committee. We can only give
>some basic principles. Since we are well aware of the actual problems we
>intend to allow more autonomy to the International Committees for adequate
>solutions.
>
>Framework agreement: It is one of the core documents to define reciprocal
>responsabilities and collaboration. Let's not forget that there is actually
>a dangerous vacuum of stated principles and rules. This was no problem when
>ICOM was founded and the international committees had some thirty members.
>Today, at least some of these committees are real organizations by
>themselves. Actually, funds are allocated by ICOM without any kind of
>receipt or commitment. The framework agreement will among other things
>reduce the risk of ICOM to get involved into irresponsible behaviour.
>
>New Standing Committee on International Committees: According to our Task
>Force it is absolutely necessary to have a body in charge of the
>International Committees (creation, operation, evaluation). The ICOM
>organization will not get more complicated since we have a specific body
>that will be able to prepare the decisions of the Executive Council.
>Neither will it increase management costs since we work in a militia system
>and many decisions can be taken electonically. Dont't forget also that this
>new Standing Committee is not meant as a controlling body. It has to advise
>the Executive Council in all matters concerning the International Committes
>and to identify emerging issues and new initiatives to advance the work of
>ICOM through International Committees. And very important: it should also
>advice any International Committee in difficulty.
>
>To sum up: We consider that our proposals are balanced and represent a
>coherent entirety. Since we foster as much autonomy as possible for
>individual approaches and solutions and since we accept a plurality of
>working  models we have to define clear basic principles for the creation,
>operation and avaluation of International Committees. This includes also a
>clear definition of the relationship between ICOM and International
>Committees. Moreover, a body in charge of the application of the system is
>necessary.
>
>We are looking forward to the dicussions next June in Paris
>
>Martin R.Schärer
>Member of the Executive Council
>Coordinator of ICTF
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>Change ICOM-L subscription options, unsubscribe, and search the
>archives at:  http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/icom-l.html


Dr Linda Young
Senior Lecturer, Cultural Heritage Management
University of Canberra
Tel: 02-6201 2079
[log in to unmask]

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

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