Dear all of you,

What a pleasure to see this response to Martin's outline of the discussions
so far in the ICTF! May I add a few comments to issues raised by Nancy and
others. I use Nancy's message as my starting point:

>>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.

My comment: Please remember that many of us do not have English as our
primary language. We - definitely including myself - who do not have a
detailed knowledge of the nuances of the meaning of terms are dependent on
help when the final document will be written. Therefore: thank you for your
suggestion. But "subject-area" - is that a handy term?


>>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.

My comment: This is a point raised by many. Some identify 2 categories of
ICs, others 4 and others fail to find any consistent logic in the
categorization of ICs (as I think was the conclusion of the RTF?). But what
is the practical use of categorizing the ICs?


>>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'.

My comment: "Global" means that the subject matter of the IC should be of
relevance to museums and/or museum professionals all over the world. If for
instance the present AO "Association of European Open Air Museums" should
become an IC, it would of course have to become a committee for open air
museums all over the world.


>>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?

My comment: What is simply suggested is that all new committees should have
an initial observation period, and that they AFTER the 3 years, should do
what is listed under point 4. From the many comments on this it is obvious
that we have to look anew into the details, but the principle should be
clear enough.

>>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.

My comment: A yearly evaluation can only be made on the basis of a few very
simple criteria, and of course ICOM can be more stringent both yearly and
triannually (the speller protests, have I invented a new English term?) in
this simple, basic evaluation.

What the ICTF is considering, is a far more thorough evaluation in
co-operation with each IC. We do not think that any IC should take itself
for granted, to have an eternal life just because it functions more or less
good or more or less so-so, and has done so for as many years as anyone can
remember. Such an evaluation may focus upon how the IC can become more
effective, even on how other ICs can learn from the successes of the IC
that is evaluated. Most ICs does function, but could it be better focused?
Should it split into 2 or 3 because the museum world have changed over 50
years? How many of its members is it able to activate? Does it fulfill its
global obligation, how can this eventually be improved? Etc. The evaluators
should not just be executors or critics, but mid-wives, tutors: always on
the constructive side.

Such a thorough evaluation takes time, and hence the ICTF has so far landed
on every 12 years for each IC.

>>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.

My comment: Everyone appears to be against new standing committees, and
they see such committees as ineffective, bureaucratic, diluting the
responsibilities of the Execute and the Advisory, etc.

But let us try to see the issue from another angle:

Almost all parliamentary systems throughout the world are dividing the work
on identified subject matters between different standing committees. It is
simply a way of organizing the work on issues that are permanent. With 17
000 ICOM members (or whatever it is now) it is about time the Executive and
the Advisory start working more systematically on the issues that need
permanent monitoring and development. Through a system of standing (AND ad
hoc) committees we can structure the work of the members of the Executive
and the Advisory more effectively than now. And we can - if we wish - in
addition involve more ICOM members that are not in the Executive or the
Advisory.

This may ensure a better advised Advisory and Executive when issues are
brought forward for plenary discussions and decisions.

Many of the suggestions of the RTF will result in far more work having to
be done. If the Secretariat shall do more, less money will be distributed
to ICs and other purposes. If we - the members - shall do more we must
organize this work so that not everything is loaded onto just a few persons.

>>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.

My comment: This idea is - as Nancy points out - probably not new. The
thought is to have working groups with participation completely open to all
ICOM members on issues that are not bound to any few specific ICs. An
example: Repatriation and illicit traffic. Or The new Cultural Diversity
and the Museums. Etc. These working groups are though of as "light" in the
sense that they need a small set of persons that can act as convenors, do
not need much funds, can have a varying and fluent membership, can exist
mainly through electronic exchanges and perhaps end with a conference after
a few years. And that ought to be the end of that working group: it should
exist for a defined set of years.

The intention is to be able to quickly catch on a broad basis issues that
have great actuality.


Again: please come with more comments! We are learning a lot from this.

Kind regards

Per

Per B. Rekdal
Chairperson ICME
Member of ICTF

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

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