Dear Per, Dear Patrick

Good discussion!   I know some of your ideas on the matter, Patrick, yet
Per has a good point - specially in what refers to the large committees.

I am travellinto today to Venezuela, to attend ICOFOM's annual conference.
  Will try to discuss some of these ideas with the board.

Best wishes,

Tereza Scheiner
President - ICOFOM

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




At 12:44 PM 11/26/99 +0200, you wrote:
>This is a response to Patrick Boylans message. I >cite> and comment
>alternatively:
>
>Patrick wrote:
>
>>You cover two completely different things in your excellent contribution.
>
>Agreed. In fact three completely different things.
>
>>On ICOM-L and ICOM's apparently complicated structures:
>>
>>it has never been the case that members can only communicate through the
>>complex maze that you describe.
>
>I know this, but there seem to be some kind of self sencorship, nurtured by
>the (necessary) formalities of ICOM. Even now I feel I have done something
>not quite decent, something out of line. And the lack of response to the
>List may have something to do with such attitudes, especially among the
>members of the Advisory & Executive.
>
>>More important, as the Executive Council
>>member with special responsibility for ICOM's Internet policy and
>>developments from 1994 to 1998 I can assure you that one of the key
>>aims in setting up ICOM-L was to both speed up and democratise
>>communication amongst ALL members, not just those holding official
>>positions in the national and international committees or the Executive
>>Council.
>>
>>The lack of use of ICOM-L for the agreed purposes and according to the
>>policies for this - by either the central bodies of ICOM or the general
>>membership has been a matter of continuing concern, frustration and deep
>>disappointment to all of us who worked so hard to ensure that ICOM stayed
>>at the forefront of the Information and Communication Technology
>>revolution - in the way it was when we launched the extensive and very
>>advanced internet facilities in 1995.
>
>The frustration and disappointment is highly understandable. And I have
>noted that you have been almost the only person on earth using the ICOM-L.
>I intend to send out some pointed questions and opinions regarding matters
>that the Task Force is dealing with, and see if the machinery will start
>moving. After a while perhaps others will join too.
>
>>The fact that it took three months
>>to get onto ICOM-L the English version of Bernice Murphy's urgent appeal
>>for members to submit evidence and views to her ICOM Reform Task Force
>>(and five months for the French version) says it all.
>
>The above I don't understand. Why did it take three months?
>
>>On the University Museums issue:
>>
>>nobody can defend the current structure of international committees
>>- particularly the "curatorial subject" committees (as opposed to the
>>interdisciplinary committees.  However, during my more than 25 years
>>in ICOM I know that every suggestion that there should be some
>>rationalisation - e.g. by merging the five or six applied arts
>>international committees, or even Fine Art and Modern Art, has been so
>>ferociously attacked from existing interests that the idea has been
>>dropped immediately.
>
>Habit is hard to breake, but at least it is positive that people are
>defending their committees. A relatively central person in ICOM once said
>to me informally that we should perhaps have many more committees, perhaps
>short-lived committees, etc. I think he wanted me to think alternatively,
>loosening up my concepts about international committees.
>
>>However, your analysis of the situation in relation to a university
>>museums committee misses one absolutely key point: anyone joining such a
>>committee as a full member would first have to give up their existing
>>international committee membership (and any office within this).  Several
>>of the present international committees are currently very dependent on
>>university museum staff members, and have genuine concerns about their
>>survival if a large and strong university museums committee emerges.
>>
>Patrick, you are perhaps the person at the meetings in Paris I have most
>confidence in, both because of your knowledge and your very good common
>sense. But I can't believe that you are serious about the argument above.
>The accumulated number of members of the boards of the different committees
>plus the national presidents and the Executive should total less than 500
>persons. And we are about 14.000 ICOM members and increasing. A new
>committee may make inactive members active and/or attract new members. Your
>argument is only valid if the international committees are run by the same
>old gang, just switching positions, with practically no newcomers. This I
>know for a fact is not entirely the case.
>
>And if a large and strong university committee emerges, it shows that it
>serves a need. I am much more sceptical to weak new committees.
>
>>In contrast with this, an affiliated organisation has its own membership
>>which does not prohibit membership or even holding office in an
>>international committee at the same time.  It is also able to have its own
>>legal personality and funds (neither of which is possible for
>>international committees - which are absolutely integral parts of ICOM as
>>a Paris-registered ="Association" under the French law of 1 July 1901).
>>However, affiliated associations still have a majority of ICOM personal
>>and institutional members, who can e.g. run for office in ICOM etc.
>>
>>Indeed, the trend is likely to be in the opposite direction to what you
>>propose.  Already, two or three of the largest international committees
>>have been discussing for some time the possibility that they may in
>>effect be forced to re-constitute themselves as affiliated organisations in
>>order to be able to cope with both their long-standing funding problems
>>and the legal/constitutional problems that are emerging.
>
>I am not proposing anything, I am trying to raise a debate. I am expressing
>a fear that the international committees will be replaced by affiliated
>organisations, because I think such a trend may lead to the organisational
>fragmentation of the museum world.
>
>I guess most of us are paying for our memberships in museum organisations
>from our private means. And many of us are members of a national museum
>organisation, say this costs FF 300 a year. In some countries there are in
>addition specialised museum organisations, say you are member of one of
>those, another FF 300. Then comes the membership in ICOM, say about FF 400.
>Then - if the international committees are turned into affiliated
>organisations - each one will demand a membership fee. You may want to be
>member of two international organisations, say FF 400 a year.
>
>We already have the problem with members in several countries finding it
>hard to pay for the yearly ICOM fee alone.
>
>If the most important of the international committees become separate
>organisations, many  museum professionals will probably choose to be a
>member in one of them, rather than in ICOM. In short: we risk reducing the
>importance of the general, global museum organisation, we risk reducing the
>attendance to the one global meeting for museum professionals of all kinds,
>we risk scattering the museum professionals into a number of separate
>organisations. And such a fragmentation will hit hardest the poorest of us,
>who cannot afford multiple memberships.
>
>I think we need a strong ICOM to be a global meeting place for all kinds of
>museums and museum professionals.
>
>Perhaps we should use our abilities to find an organisational structure
>that to a larger extent than now combines the properties of the ICOM of
>today with it's international committees and the properties of an umbrella
>organisation composed of a number of separate organisations?
>
>Kind regards
>
>Per B. Rekdal
>President ICME
>
>
>Per B. Rekdal
>Museumsleder/Museum Director
>Universitetets etnografiske museum
>Frederiksgate 2, N-0164 Oslo, Norway
>
>Tel. -47 - 22 85 99 64
>Fax -47 - 22 85 99 60
>E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>Change ICOM-L subscription options and search the archives at:
>   http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/icom-l.html


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