Martin Segger wrote


<The ICOM committee system, as presently constituted, does not reflect the
reality of a networked world, nor that of an increasingly multi-tasked and
fluid museum profession.  And as has been pointed out by Patrick Boylan and
Per Rekdal , it's not very democratic either.>

I couldn't agree more with some of the criticism that has been labelled at
ICOM in recent messages ( or implied). My personal observations are shared
by several members I have had the pleasure of meeting and working with over
many years. In summary:

a) ICOM as communicating organisation is 'miles behind the times'. There are
some NET efforts such as this list that are commendable, but in the main,
new technologies are rarely embraced with any sense of direction or purpose,
and often belatedly

b) the processes of managment and delivery are unecessarily beaurcratic,
SLOW in response and seemingly incapable of quick response

c) insufficient resources are provided to develop and sustain national
committees (with the possible exception of some developing countries).

d) the same criticism could be directed to the inequitable funding received
from Paris for Chairmen and officer bearers in International or national
Committees. I know from first hand experience ( C & D above ) that if you
were from a smaller museum organisation, no supplementary funding was ever
available from Paris to carry out the the necessary tasks of travelling to
International meetings -as Chairman of that Committee. This resulted in one
having to spend considerable sums of personal finance to carry out ICOM
duties on behalf of the profession worldwide.  It has to be said that the
same rules did not seem to apply to Council members?

e) It is little wonder that ICOM struggles to attract and retain colleagues
from the US in its international committees. No doubt when they compare the
drive and vibrancy of AAM with the staidness of ICOM ( even allowing for the
differing roles of each organisation), they quickly decide that ICOM has
little extra to offer

f) Corporate partnerships that might drag ICOM into the 1990's seem few and
far between?  Several international comittees do sterling work in this
regard to support their meetings, but the same cannot be said with any
confidence of the central organisation.

We all have the right to make a New Year wish come January 1st. Mine will
probably be that ICOM realises it IS January 1st, 2000, get their act
together, and streamline the organisation into something worthy of the new
millennium

Roger Smith
Former Chairman of ICOM MPR  & ICOM New Zealand
Publisher of GLOBAL MUSEUM Ezine   http://www.globalmuseum.org


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