To: Martin R.Schärer
Member of the ICOM Executive Council
& Co-ordinator of International Committee Task Force
Dear Martin,
I am sorry that I am five days late in replying due to travel
and other pressures during the past month: I hope that these
comments on behalf of the ICOM International Committee on the
Training of Personnel - ICOM-ICTOP - are not too late.
I have highlighted IN CAPITALS below the relevant extracts from
your questions, and then followed these with comments on each.
Best wishes,
Patrick J. Boylan
([log in to unmask])
Chairperson, ICOM-ICTOP
2 April 2002
==============================
WE BROKE DOWN THE COMPLEX ISSUE INTO FOUR MAIN DOMAINS:
A. GENERAL ROLE AND TASKS OF INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEES
B. PROCEDURES OF CREATION AND CRITERIA OF EVALUATION OF ICS
C. ORGANISATION, MEMBERSHIP ADMINISTRATION AND COMMUNICATION
WITH MEMBERS
D. LEGAL AND FINANCIAL PROBLEMS.
PLEASE NOTE THAT WE HAVE ONLY TREATED ITEMS A AND B UNTIL NOW.
HENCE WE ASK YOU NOT TO DISCUSS ITEMS C AND D! WE WILL COME
BACK LATER WITH PROPOSALS ON THOSE MATTERS.
+++++++++ COMMENT +++++++++
Unfortunately, excluding consideration of "legal and financial
problems" at this stage this seems to be approaching the issues
completely the wrong way round. Many of those who have been
concerned about the International Committees over a number of
years would argue that almost all of the problems are either
financial or legal (and probably both).
ON FINANCE: how can we decided at this stage whether to
introduce rules that would insist that International
Committees - in the words of the discussion paper - must have
"a healthy financial policy" ... be "running a web site",
and - most expensive of all - be "publishing a newsletter for
the members", if they are not provided with the financial
resources needed to achieve these (obviously desirable)
objectives? we all know that financial problems creates a
massive "democratic deficit" within ICOM, since at the present
time only those members able to subsidise their activities
from either institutional or government funds, or from their
personal income or wealth, are able to hold the highest
offices in the International Committees.
ON LEGAL ISSUES: Here the issues are even greater and much
more far-reaching. At the present time the International
Committees have no form of independent incorporation or
other legal basis, except as an integral part of ICOM as
a whole.
This was probably fine in the days when the ICOM Statutes
and Rules placed a maximum limit of just 30 members on each
International Committee, with no more than two from any one
country (and - incidentally - the cost of running the ICs
and servicing such a small membership was no problem either).
In contrast, nowadays taking into account annual conference
fees, excursions and expenditure, the total annual turnover
of all the current International Committees combined is
always many tens of thousands of dollars a year, and in some
years - when there are perhaps several big IC conferences
- could well run into hundreds of thousands of dollars.
All of this money is handled under what are essentially
informal arrangements with in practice no formal supervision
or control as the ICs have no separate legal existence.
However, under current French law, in the absence of some
form of separate legal incorporation for each IC, it is ICOM
centrally - and in particular the President, Vice-Presidents,
Executive Council Members and Secretary-General - who are
both collectively and personally entirely responsible for
all of these funds, and who are accountable for them under civil,
taxation and even criminal law in the even of something going
seriously wrong within an International Committee (for
example if there was a large deficit at the end of an
International Committee annual meeting or on an IC publication
or other project, or indeed in the case of fraud).
This simply cannot be right, and the problem MUST be addressed
as soon as possible. In practical terms I can personally
see no way in which the ICOM Executive Council and Secretariat
could take over the running of the finances of nearly 30
International Committee administrations scattered all over the
world, in the way that in fact the law expects. Consequently,
some other solution needs to be found before anything
significant can be decided about the future organisation.
I can personally see no real alternative to at least the larger
International Committees - and perhaps all of them - becoming
registered legal entities in their own right and therefore
responsible for their own legal and financial affairs,
whether by becoming incorporated in France as "Associations
under the Law of 1 July 1901" (like ICOM itself), or perhaps
under another other legal formula in some other country.
However, if this happens they would of course become ICOM
Affiliated Organisations instead of International Committees
- and that in turn would have major implications for the
rest of your questions.
==============================
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?
+++++++++ COMMENT +++++++++
Most definitely NOT!
The structure and role of the Affiliated Organisations
can be very different from that of International Committees.
Several are essentially made up of institutional members
rather than individual members - and indeed to my certain
knowledge chose this structure because they did not
consider that opening themselves to admit all ICOM
individual members as of right would be the right solution
for them. Also -and very importantly in relation to the
comments on financial and legal questions above - the
Affiliated Organisations are all able to charge a their
own membership fees and therefore manage their own finances,
while the majority of them, perhaps all, are independently
incorporated as legal bodies in their own right.
On a different point, which certainly applies to the ICOM
Training Committee - ICTOP, and perhaps others, currently
ICOM's membership is not at all representative of some
more specialised areas of the museum profession. Despite
the existence these days of many hundreds of specialised
museum training programmes in universities and other
institutions across the world, with by now some thousands
of specialised teaching staff, only a tiny percentage of
these professionals are members of ICOM. Partly this is
historic: until quite recently many national committees
refused to admit such professionals to ICOM membership
despite their eligibility under the ICOM Statutes and
frequent protests from ICTOP. Even today there are still
occasional reports of membership applications being
rejected, or more usually museum studies teaching staff
being told they are ineligible when they first enquire,
before they even apply formally. Also, even the small
minority who do belong to ICOM often feel that in order
to advance their university careers they should register
with an "academic" ICOM committee rather than ICTOP.
Following discussions on these issues at the ICTOP 1999
annual meeting there have been informal soundings among
some major (and other) museum training centres around the
world. From these it seems that there might be much
greater support amongst the profession for a new ICOM
-affiliated, though independently incorporated world,
body for museum professional training and development,
with its own constitution and subscription etc
If in fact ICOM itself moves in that direction as part
of a solution to the legal and financial issues discussed
above, then ICTOP would of course be part of a general
move to legal incorporation. However, if ICOM does not
propose such a change generally by the time of the Seoul
2004 General Assembly, I think it is very possible that
my successor - whoever he or she is - will have to consider
seriously turning ICTOP into an Affiliated Organisation
independently, in order to maintain credibility and
leadership within the museum training profession.
======================================
3. CONCERNING THE CREATION OF NEW ICS SHOULD 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?
+++++++++ COMMENT +++++++++
I think that from time to time the Advisory Committee and
Executive Council should review the whole of the museum
field and take the initiative in proposing and promoting
new International Committees for important, perhaps newly
emerging, subject areas that are not felt to be adequately
covered currently. There are several successful precedents
for this in the history of ICOM: several current
International Committees, including CECA and ICTOP, are
examples of such Executive Council initiatives.
==========================
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?
+++++++++ COMMENT +++++++++
I think that 100 members is much too high a minimum, especially
for those promoting new committee proposals - which means that
they have to persuade the proposed founder members to leave
their existing ICOM International Committees. Also I am not
at all persuaded that very large ICs are necessarily the most
effective and successful. Though I know we can't turn the clock
back almost 28 years I sometime feel nostalgic about how much
was achieved by those committees restricted to the old 30 member
maximum! I do however strongly support the idea that committees
must be universal in their range of interest and membership,
rather than reflecting a particular national or regional
specialisation. (That was basically why in the past areas such
as Open Air Museums and Ecomuseums/New Museology were
established as Affiliated Organisations rather than
International Committees.)
============================
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?
+++++++++ COMMENT +++++++++
Agreed - as at present of course.
================================
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?
+++++++++ COMMENT +++++++++
It is important to remember that over the years just about
every longer-established International Committee has gone
through bad periods - perhaps years of complete inactivity.
I agree that there should be regular reviews, and perhaps
every 12 years is about the right frequency for these.
However, the Executive Council should not wait perhaps 10
or 11 years till the next formal review before taking
action over an International Committee in serious trouble
- or perhaps slow but steady decline in activities and
membership.
The provisions for the EC to declare an collapsed or
generally inactive National Committee as "under
reorganisation" - and then seek new members directly and
promote or supervise new Officer and Board elections - can
be applied to International Committees also (and have been
on at least a couple of occasions in the past).
There should be great care over any specific obligations
(such as requiring e.g. web site or printed newsletter)
- see my comments on financial problems above. However,
proper triennial elections and annual meetings should be
clear obligations.
=================================
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?
+++++++++ COMMENT +++++++++
The short answer is "No"! I am against this: the
proposal seems to duplicate at least in part the
clear duties and obligations of the Advisory
Committee and Executive Council. Within ICOM we need
to simplify and strengthen lines of responsibility,
not dissipate these further. I would prefer the
periodic reviews of International Committees, and
the consideration of new committee or merger etc.
proposals to be dealt with by a simple "peer review"
panel process for each case - with the panel (small
- perhaps 5 members at the most) consisting of
both specialists and non-specialists in the
particular subject area.
================================
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-ICs IS FOSTERED. AGREE?
+++++++++ COMMENT +++++++++
Not as a universal rule. This may be suitable for
very large International Committees, but the
principle is very debatable, as it conflicts directly
with the global nature and values of ICOM.
==================================
10. OUTSIDE THE FRAMEWORK OF ICs, 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?
+++++++++ COMMENT +++++++++
I don't understand this question. It refers to
"Working Groups" (plural) but then seems to discuss
a single "new body". Both the Executive Council
and Advisory Committee have always had the power
to create time-limited or task-limited Working
Groups to deal with particular issues, and this
power has been used many times in recent years
(e.g. To draft the original Code of Ethics,
reform of the ICOM Statutes, the review of
membership benefits, the cultural diversity
policy, the moves towards the privatisation of
museum services and the consequent rise of
employment as consultants, and of course the
Reform Task Force called for by the Melbourne
General Assembly.
What is new about this latest proposal?
=================================
v
vvvv
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Change ICOM-L subscription options, unsubscribe, and search the
archives at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/icom-l.html
|