John, Per, colleagues,
I have been following the e-mail exchanges with the hope my own questions would be asked and answered by someone else. I would like to know what would happen in the case of two hypothetical situations:
1. An IC produces a publication which costs far more money than it has. Perhaps a promised grant falls through and they are left $10,000 short. The printer sues. Who is actually being sued and who would be liable?
2. It is discovered (perhaps by an IC executive committee member) that $5,000 is missing from that IC's bank account. The treasurer is suspect. Who has the legal authority to press for the return of the missing money and through what legal channel?
It is not my intention to dream up highly improbable schemes for the sake of creating intriguing, but essentially meaningless, theoretical excercises. I don't think, however, that these hypothetical are so unimaginable. Any thoughts?
Milton Bloch
ICEE
>>> John McAvity <[log in to unmask]> 04/10/02 08:36AM >>>
Thank you Per Rekdal for these excellent questions and observations, and for
trying to abstain from the debate! Here are my own questions and
observations.
ICs are the backbone of ICOM, and are extremely important. This is where
the real work and value of networking takes place, but they exist on a
shoestring. It is amazing what they pull off, and is a credit to each of
them. But this work is done by a small handful (often just a single
person) of dedicated individuals.
To state the obvious, the issue is one of resources. Currently ICs depend
not on ICOM but on the good will of their members in order to function.
As one who has hosted several IC meetings and conferences (often these are
more of conferences than simply meetings!), I can testify that the burden of
financial support is faced by members. IC volunteers or their institutions
pay for mailings, they cover all the costs for organization of meetings,
stuff envelopes, pay for translation costs, travel, write and distribute
minutes, sometimes even pay for ICOM representatives to attend their
meetings!
Is this a practice that can continue? Probably it can subject to ICs
finding supportive institutions to bankroll their activities. But is this
the best way for ICOM to see its ICs develop? Are ICs able to meet the
expectations of their new members? I do not think so.
What if an IC goes into serious debt? Will ICOM assume this debt? I
believe it must as ICs operate under the name of ICOM . This is not an idle
question as ICs could easily become liable for major losses, esp in the case
of a law suit due to personal injury at one of their meetings. But if ICs
were separate legal entities, the answer would be no, ICOM would not face
this liability; the separate entity would be faced with these problems.
With cutbacks everywhere, it is increasingly difficult for museums to
justify this kind of support for IC activities. I believe ICs should stay
within the ICOM framework but that ICOM must find new and creative ways to
provide them with essential support and services.
I have some ideas for this kind of support but I will refrain from adding
them to this discussion at this time.
John McAvity
INTERCOM
www.museums.ca
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Per Bj|rn Rekdal" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 6:33 AM
> Subject: Re: CONSULTATION ON YOUR REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEES
>
>
> As a member of the International Comm. Task Force, I will try to abstain
> from going into a debate on the List, but rather try to ask further
> questions.
>
> As we know, any desired solution to a problem always have "side
> effects".
> A good example: We may think that if all members of ICOM became members
> in
> an international committee, then all the committees would get more money
> because the annual subvention is based on the number of members.
> Side effect 1: Since the sum available for distribution is constant, no
> committee would necessarily get more money, but less money for each
> member.
> Side effect 2: The committees will have to spend more money because they
> have to communicate with more members.
> Result: If all members of ICOM became members in an IC, each IC would
> get
> poorer.
> Wisdom: All organizations are dependent on a proportion of members that
> are
> satisfied with the most basic advantage of membership (like the ICOM
> card),
> so that the organization can use more money on the active members than
> the
> passive members.
>
> I think we should try to see the proposals in the same light: what are
> the
> benefits and what are the negative "side effects"? For example:
>
> If all ICs became AOs the benefit would be:
> - becoming a legal entity
> - taking your own membership fees and keeping them
> - recruiting members from outside ICOM
> - freedom from ICOM's different rules and regulations
>
> Side effects:
> - time consuming and costly to keep your own record of members
> - loosing many members because they do not want to pay both ICOM fee and
> IC-fee (this can of course be seen as an advantage, because it will be
> the
> passive ones that disappear)
> - making it less relevant to be an ICOM member.
> - making it less relevant to have National committees
> - changing the role of the Secretariat of ICOM rather dramatically
> - weakening the economy of ICOM
>
> Now, I put these advantages and disadvantages in a bit provocative
> manner,
> and it definitely seems that I am against turning the ICs into AOs. But
> the
> truth is that I am not sure, and I would really like to hear good and
> well
> balanced arguments in both directions. So what would you say, Jørgen,
> Giovanni, Patrick, Leonard, Lynn and others, would be a good list of
> advantages and disadvantages?
>
> What do you chairpersons of the different ICs say? Would you like to
> have a
> merge of ICs and AOs?
>
> Another thing: There has been a lot of noise lately around the (not so)
> legal status of the ICs. The annual subventions to the ICs - even to the
> largest ones - are so small that they cannot possibly create any
> enormous
> danger of putting the leaders of ICOM into an embarrassing position if
> one
> or three of these committees do something wrong with this money. And the
> conferences of the ICs are as far as I know almost always arranged
> together
> with an institution of solid legal status in the country where the
> conference is held, so that conference fees, etc, can be handled through
> this institution.
> My question is: is the question of the non-legality of the ICs so
> acutely
> critical that this question should be the primary one to guide our
> thinking
> on the future of ICOM?
>
> Per B. Rekdal
> Chairperson ICME
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Per B. Rekdal
> Seksjonsleder/Head of Department
> Utstillings- og publikumsseksjonen /
> Exhibitions, Education and Public Services
> Universitetets kulturhistoriske museer /
> The University Museums of Cultural Heritage
> P.O.Box 6762 St. Olavs pl.
> N-0130 Oslo, Norway
> Tel. (-47) 22 85 99 64
> Fax (-47) 22 85 99 60
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> www.ukm.uio.no
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> Change ICOM-L subscription options, unsubscribe, and search the
> archives at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/icom-l.html
>
>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Change ICOM-L subscription options, unsubscribe, and search the
archives at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/icom-l.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Change ICOM-L subscription options, unsubscribe, and search the
archives at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/icom-l.html
|
