To: Martin R.Schärer
Member of the ICOM Executive Council
& Co-ordinator of International Committee Task Force

Dear Martin,

I am sorry that I am five days late in replying due to travel 
and other pressures during the past month: I hope that these 
comments on behalf of the ICOM International Committee on the 
Training of Personnel - ICOM-ICTOP - are not too late.

I have highlighted IN CAPITALS below the relevant extracts from 
your questions, and then followed these with comments on each.


Best wishes,


Patrick J. Boylan

([log in to unmask])
Chairperson, ICOM-ICTOP
2 April 2002

==============================
 
WE BROKE DOWN THE COMPLEX ISSUE INTO FOUR MAIN DOMAINS:  

A.  GENERAL ROLE AND TASKS OF INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEES  
B.  PROCEDURES OF CREATION AND CRITERIA OF EVALUATION OF ICS
C.  ORGANISATION, MEMBERSHIP ADMINISTRATION AND	COMMUNICATION 
    WITH MEMBERS  	
D.  LEGAL AND FINANCIAL PROBLEMS. 

PLEASE NOTE THAT WE HAVE ONLY TREATED ITEMS A AND B UNTIL NOW. 
HENCE WE ASK YOU NOT TO DISCUSS ITEMS C AND D! WE WILL COME 
BACK LATER WITH PROPOSALS ON THOSE MATTERS.  

+++++++++  COMMENT  +++++++++

Unfortunately, excluding consideration of "legal and financial 
problems" at this stage this seems to be approaching the issues 
completely the wrong way round.  Many of those who have been 
concerned about the International Committees over a number of 
years would argue that almost all of the problems are either 
financial or legal (and probably both).

ON FINANCE: how can we decided at this stage whether to 
introduce rules that would insist that International 
Committees  - in the words of the discussion paper - must have 
"a healthy financial policy" ... be "running a web site", 
and - most expensive of all - be "publishing a newsletter for 
the members", if they are not provided with the financial 
resources  needed to achieve these (obviously desirable) 
objectives?  we all know that financial problems creates a 
massive "democratic deficit" within ICOM, since at the present 
time only those members able to subsidise their activities 
from either institutional or government funds, or from their 
personal income or wealth, are able to hold the highest 
offices in the International Committees.    

ON LEGAL ISSUES:  Here the issues are even greater and much 
more far-reaching.  At the present time the International 
Committees have no form of independent  incorporation or 
other legal basis, except as an integral part of ICOM as 
a whole.  

This was probably fine in the days when the ICOM Statutes 
and Rules placed a maximum limit of just 30 members on each 
International Committee, with no more than two from any one 
country (and - incidentally - the cost of running the ICs 
and servicing such a small membership was no problem either).   

In contrast, nowadays taking into account annual conference 
fees, excursions and expenditure, the total annual turnover 
of all the current International Committees combined is 
always many tens of thousands of dollars a year, and in some 
years - when there are perhaps several big IC conferences 
- could well run into hundreds of thousands of dollars.   
All of this money is handled under what are essentially 
informal arrangements with in practice no formal supervision 
or control as the ICs have no separate legal existence.   

However, under current  French law, in the absence of some 
form of separate legal incorporation for each IC, it is ICOM 
centrally - and in particular the President, Vice-Presidents, 
Executive Council Members and Secretary-General - who are 
both collectively and personally entirely responsible for 
all of these funds, and who are accountable for them under civil, 
taxation and even criminal law in the even of something going
 seriously wrong within an International Committee (for 
example if there was a large deficit at the end of an 
International Committee annual meeting or on an IC publication 
or other project, or indeed in the case of fraud).   

This simply cannot be right, and the problem MUST be addressed 
as soon as possible.  In practical terms I can personally 
see no way in which the ICOM Executive Council and Secretariat 
could take over the running of the finances of nearly 30 
International Committee administrations scattered all over the 
world, in the way that in fact the law expects. Consequently, 
some other solution needs to be found before anything 
significant can be decided about the future organisation.  

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, 
whether by becoming incorporated in France as  "Associations 
under the  Law of 1 July 1901" (like ICOM itself), or perhaps 
under another other legal formula in  some other country.  
However, if this happens they would of course become ICOM 
Affiliated Organisations instead of International Committees 
- and that in turn would have major implications for the 
rest of your questions.     

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

1. ICs AND (THEME-ORIENTED) AOs HAVE SIMILAR FUNCTIONS. 
THEY SHOULD BE LINKED MORE CLOSELY AND EVENTUALLY MERGED 
IN ONE NEW STRUCTURE. DO YOU AGREE?

+++++++++  COMMENT  +++++++++

Most definitely NOT!  

The structure and role of the Affiliated Organisations 
can be very different from that of International Committees.  
Several are essentially made up of institutional members 
rather than individual members - and indeed to my certain 
knowledge chose this structure because they did not 
consider that opening themselves to admit all ICOM 
individual members as of right would be the right solution 
for them.  Also -and very importantly in relation to the 
comments on financial and legal questions above - the 
Affiliated Organisations are all able to charge a 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.

On a different point, which certainly applies to the ICOM 
Training Committee - ICTOP, and perhaps others, currently 
ICOM's membership is not at all representative of some 
more specialised areas of the museum profession.  Despite 
the existence these days of many hundreds of specialised 
museum training programmes in universities and other 
institutions across the world, with by now some thousands 
of specialised teaching staff, only a tiny percentage of 
these professionals are members of ICOM.  Partly this is 
historic: until quite recently many national committees 
refused to admit such professionals to ICOM membership 
despite their eligibility under the ICOM Statutes and 
frequent protests from ICTOP. Even today there are still 
occasional reports of membership applications being 
rejected, or more usually museum studies teaching staff 
being told they are ineligible when they first enquire,
before they even apply formally.   Also, even the small 
minority who do belong to ICOM often feel that in order 
to advance their university careers they should register 
with an "academic" ICOM committee rather than ICTOP.  

Following discussions on these issues at the ICTOP 1999 
annual meeting there have been informal soundings among 
some major (and other) museum training centres  around the 
world.  From these it seems that there might be much 
greater support amongst the profession for a new ICOM
-affiliated, though independently incorporated world,  
body for museum professional training and development, 
with its own constitution and subscription etc 
If in fact ICOM itself moves in that direction as part 
of a solution to the legal and financial issues discussed 
above, then ICTOP would of course be part of a general 
move to legal incorporation.  However, if ICOM does not 
propose such a change generally by the time of the Seoul 
2004 General Assembly, I think it is very possible that 
my successor - whoever he or she is - will have to consider 
seriously turning ICTOP into an Affiliated Organisation 
independently, in order to maintain credibility and 
leadership within the museum training profession. 

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

3.  CONCERNING THE CREATION OF NEW ICS SHOULD WE FOSTER A 
"MARKET APPROACH", OR A PRAGMATIC ONE, ACCORDING TO THE 
NEEDS OF THE MUSEUMS COMMUNITY. WE DON'T FORESEE A 
PRE-ESTABLISHED SYSTEM OF ICs. DO YOU AGREE?  

+++++++++  COMMENT  +++++++++

I think that from time to time the Advisory Committee and 
Executive Council should review the whole of the museum 
field and take the initiative in proposing and promoting 
new International Committees for important, perhaps newly 
emerging, subject areas that are not felt to be adequately 
covered currently.  There are several successful precedents 
for this in the history of ICOM:  several current 
International Committees, including CECA and ICTOP, are 
examples of such Executive Council initiatives.   

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

4.  THE CRITERIA FOR THE CREATION OF NEW ICS SHOULD INCLUDE 
MAINLY: CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF ETHICS AND THE ICOM 
STATUTES, GLOBAL IN EVERY RESPECT (THEME, MEMBERSHIP), 
CLEAR DEFINITION OF THE THEME THAT HAS TO BE A LONG-LASTING 
ONE TREATING WITH MUSEUM MATTERS, MINIMUM NUMBER OF MEMBERS 
(MAYBE AT LEAST 100), MEMBERS FROM DIFFERENT COUNTRIES 
(FOR INSTANCE AT LEAST 10) AND FROM DIFFERENT CONTINENTS 
(AT LEAST 3). DO YOU HAVE OTHER CRITERIA OR OTHER CONDITIONS 
FOR THE CREATION OF NEW ICS? 

+++++++++  COMMENT  +++++++++

I think that 100 members is much too high a minimum, especially 
for those promoting new committee proposals - which means that 
they have to persuade the proposed founder members to leave 
their existing ICOM International Committees.   Also I am not 
at all persuaded that very large ICs are necessarily the most 
effective and successful.  Though I know we can't turn the clock 
back almost 28 years I sometime feel nostalgic about how much 
was achieved by those committees restricted to the old 30 member
maximum!  I do however strongly support the idea that committees 
must be universal in their range of interest and membership, 
rather than reflecting a particular national or regional
specialisation.  (That was basically why in the past areas such  
as Open Air Museums and Ecomuseums/New Museology were 
established as Affiliated Organisations rather than 
International Committees.)  

============================
 
5.   WE SUGGEST THAT AN OBSERVATION PERIOD OF 3 YEARS SHOULD 
BE INTRODUCED DEFINITIVELY BEFORE A NEW IC IS ACCEPTED INTO 
THE ICOM FAMILY. DO YOU THINK THAT SUCH A PERIOD IS APPROPRIATE?  

+++++++++  COMMENT  +++++++++

Agreed - as at present of course.

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

6.  EVERY 12 YEARS ICs SHOULD BE EVALUATED. CRITERIA INCLUDE 
THE SAME AS UNDER 4. IN ADDITION TO THE FOLLOWING ONES: 
APPLICATION OF THE CODE OF ETHICS AND THE ICOM STATUTES, 
CONTRIBUTION BY ANY MEANS TO GENERAL ICOM ISSUES, HAVING A 
HEALTHY FINANCIAL POLICY, HAVING A FUNCTIONING 
ADMINISTRATION WITH REGULAR ELECTIONS, RUNNING A WEB SITE, 
PUBLISHING A NEWSLETTER FOR THE MEMBERS, ORGANISING ONE 
MEETING EVERY YEAR. DO YOU WANT TO INCLUDE OTHER ITEMS, 
E.G. JOINT MEETINGS WITH ANOTHER IC/AO OR THE NECESSITY OF 
PUBLISHING THE PAPERS PRESENTED AT MEETINGS? 

+++++++++  COMMENT  +++++++++

It is important to remember that over the years just about 
every longer-established International Committee has gone 
through bad periods - perhaps years of complete inactivity.  
I agree that there should be regular reviews, and perhaps 
every 12 years is about the right frequency for these.  
However, the Executive Council should not wait perhaps 10 
or 11 years till the next formal review before taking 
action over an International Committee in serious trouble 
- or perhaps slow but steady decline in activities and 
membership.  

The provisions for the EC to declare an collapsed or 
generally inactive National Committee as "under 
reorganisation" - and then seek new members directly and 
promote or supervise new Officer and Board elections - can 
be applied to International Committees also (and have been 
on at least a couple of occasions in the past).    

There should be great care over any specific obligations 
(such as requiring e.g. web site or printed newsletter) 
- see my comments on financial problems above.  However, 
proper triennial elections and annual meetings should be 
clear obligations.

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

8.   CREATION OF A NEW ICOM STANDING COMMISSION ON ICS. 
THIS BODY HAS TO WORK ON THE CREATION, THE EVALUATION 
AND THE DISSOLUTION OF ICS AND HAS TO GIVE ADVICE AND 
HELP TO ICS IN DIFFICULTY. IT REPORTS TO THE EXECUTIVE 
COUNCIL (WHICH HAS THE ULTIMATE DECISION) THROUGH 
THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. DO YOU THINK THAT THIS COULD 
BE A WORKABLE SYSTEM?  

+++++++++  COMMENT  +++++++++

The short answer is "No"! I am against this: the 
proposal seems to duplicate at least in part the
clear duties and obligations of the Advisory 
Committee and Executive Council.  Within ICOM we need 
to simplify and strengthen lines of responsibility, 
not dissipate these further.  I would prefer the 
periodic reviews of International Committees, and 
the consideration of new committee or merger etc. 
proposals to be dealt with by a simple "peer review" 
panel process for each case - with the panel (small 
- perhaps 5 members at the most)  consisting of 
both specialists and non-specialists in the 
particular subject area. 

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

9.  REGIONALISATION OF ICS IS IMPORTANT, ESPECIALLY 
TO ALLOW MORE COLLEAGUES TO PARTICIPATE TO MEETINGS 
AND TO BENEFIT FROM OTHERS' EXPERIENCE. HENCE, 
THE CREATION OF REGIONAL SUB-ICs IS FOSTERED. AGREE?  

+++++++++  COMMENT  +++++++++

Not as a universal rule. This may be suitable for 
very large International Committees, but the
principle is very debatable, as it conflicts directly 
with the global nature and values of ICOM. 

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

10.   OUTSIDE THE FRAMEWORK OF ICs, WE RECOMMEND THE 
CREATION OF ICOM WORKING GROUPS AS NEW ENTITIES TO 
DEAL WITH SHORT-TERM, NEW AND VERY PRECISELY DEFINED 
TOPICS. THEY COULD BE A QUICK RESPONSE TO NEW NEEDS 
IN A LIMITED TIME FRAME. DO YOU AGREE WITH SUCH A 
NEW BODY? 

+++++++++  COMMENT  +++++++++

I don't understand this question.  It refers to 
"Working Groups" (plural) but then seems to discuss 
a single "new body".  Both the Executive Council 
and Advisory Committee have always had the power 
to create time-limited or task-limited Working 
Groups to deal with particular issues, and this 
power has been used many times in recent years 
(e.g. To draft the original Code of Ethics, 
reform of the ICOM Statutes, the review of 
membership benefits, the cultural diversity 
policy, the moves towards the privatisation of 
museum services and the consequent rise of 
employment as consultants, and of course the 
Reform Task Force called for by the Melbourne 
General Assembly.  

What is new about this latest proposal? 

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

v
vvvv

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

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