>Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 17:20:27 -0500
>To: [log in to unmask]  "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
>From: Nancy Hushion <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: International Committees Task Force
>
>
>Dear Martin
>
>You have asked for response to the early work of the International
>Committees Task Force with the following questions.  I am inserting my
>answers (on behalf on INTERCOM) after each
>
>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?
>
>I would first suggest we use the term 'subject-area' rather than
>theme-based.  I think Maritime Museums are more than
>theme-based.  Secondly, I do not agree that IC and AO's should be
>merged.  IC's are much more ICOM-specific and are made up of ICOM
>members.  AO need only have a proportion of ICOM members - and including
>them in would only cause more financial pressures.
>
>2. The general mission of ICs (we retain this name for the "new structure")
>should include the following: principal instruments of discussion and
>exchange, themes should be basic museum tasks/functions, global approach,
>durable mission, mutual collaboration, activity in favour of ICOM. Which
>other basic topics should be included?
>
>Many IC are discipline-based but there is no mention of this.  In the work
>of the last triennial's working group, we dientified two types: discipline
>(Fine Art) and museologically-based (CECA) committees.  I would hope this
>can be retained.
>
>3. Concerning the creation of new ICs 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?
>
>Yes, but the eligibility criteria should be very clear and adhered to.
>
>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?
>
>You must define 'global'.  Again, I have a problem with the term
>'theme'.  That is what an ICOM conference has.  Please see above for
>clarification.
>
>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?
>
>Why is this needed if they have done all you have listed above.  I am not
>opposed but I want to know what is being monitored?
>
>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?
>
>Absolutely not agreed with the 12 years.  Again, our working group
>addressed these issues, as did the ICOM RTF.  Committees receive funds
>EVERY year from ICOM - some do a great deal and some do very little or
>nothing.  A qualitative evaluation of each committee contribution should
>be made, and subsequent funding awarded on the basis of this.  Committees
>that do nothing deserve a warning and one year's grace - then no more
>money.  ICOM is more stringent with National Committees and membership.
>
>Being clearer and more stringent about expectations would result in a much
>more effective group of committees who would have the resources and
>commitment to do many of the things you talk about, and want to monitor.
>
>7. An IC can end its activity by its own will or it can be dissolved; in
>the latter case, the same criteria as under item 6. are applicable. Your
>opinion?
>
>Agreed, but who will monitor, measure and dissolve.  The Executive?
>
>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?
>
>ICOM should not go on creating Standing Committees.  The Task Force should
>do its work and be dissolved.  The executive can create Ad Hoc working
>Groups as the need arises - as determine in the RTF report.
>
>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-IC's is fostered. Agree?
>
>This issue should be debated in depth - regionalization is not always
>positive and may not allow for true international exchange.
>
>10. Outside the framework of IC's, 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?
>
>This is already covered in the RTF report and recommendations - and it
>must not be a single body.
>
>Congratulations on an excellent start to the debate.
>
>Nancy Hushion
>
>
>
>
>Nancy Hushion
>President, INTERCOM
>862 Richmond Street West
>Suite 302
>Toronto, Ontario
>M6J 1C9
>Canada
>
>T.      416 351 0216
>F.      416 351 0217
>Email   [log in to unmask]

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

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