Dear Gary,
To reward larger institutions with more membership cards is a very good
idea, especially now that an experiment in Germany has proven to be a
success, especially where we see more institutions AND more individuals. I
would like to praise the German national committee for having raised the
issue and put a lot of energy in making the experiment a success.
Whether this first experiment is representative for other countries remains
to be seen. ICOM Germany has a super-active national committee and it is
also a country with a relatively weak museums association. It would be
necessary to extend the experiment to a few other, very different countries,
to obtain a reliable result.
However I find it not useful to extend the experiment, because the idea of
more membership cards is in itself already a good thing.
On the basis of the debate is the question what kind of organisation ICOM
wants to be.
I find it still a major shortcoming that ICOM has so few institutional
members as compared with individuals.
The International Council Of Museums is a Council of Museums, which is what
its founders had in mind when establishing the organisation. ICOM has grown
to become an important organisation, but during its spectacular increase in
membership it has sometimes forgotten about its original fundamentals.
I realise it is an old debate that is revived every once in a while, but
maybe it is time again. I believe that the organisation will become much
stronger if more institutions become member. Not only pay institutions more,
but they can wield much more power.
Individuals, however valuable they are for their specific qualities, are
scattered and are rarely able to push an issue to the highest political
level in a country. A sizable group of institutions can do such a thing.
ICOM is now a large organisation of individuals, with international
committees who organise lectures, meetings, run courses and many other
things that are practical and useful for individual professionals. The
national committees however do not always wield much or enough influence in
their respective countries. I am convinced that they would be more powerful
if they would have strong institutional backing.
There is another reason why institutions should become more involved in
ICOM. They will be able to raise more political issues that are
museum-institution related within ICOM itself, which would give ICOM more
global influence.
Institutions are often reluctant to have their staff participate in ICOM
activities and I feel that this would change considerably if the
institutions themselves have a stake in the organisation.
Institutional membership fees should not be lowered as was suggested earlier
on in the debate. They should remain an important source of income for ICOM.
And I am fully convinced that institutions are willing to pay up, provided
they get something in return.
More membership-cards for larger institutions is a good start. ICOM cards
are especially popular, because they give free access to museums. So it is
easy for ICOM to donate these cards, because the museums pay themselves for
the benefits by giving free entrance to card holders. It doesnąt cost ICOM
very much and delivers a lot of good will.
So that is the easy thing. But to enlist more institutions as members will
in the end prove to be a bigger challenge, because I am convinced that
institutions want something in return for their high membership-fees, apart
from more cards, and that is power. How ICOM will deal with such a demand
remains to be seen in the future.
Manus Brinkman
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Change ICOM-L subscription options, unsubscribe, and search the
archives at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/icom-l.html
|
