Icom Ethics Committee

2005/ETH.01October 2005

108th Session of the Executive Council

5- 7 December 2005

Vienna (Austria)

ICOM ETHICS COMMITTEEMEETING

(Friday 3 June 2005, Paris)

Room XVI, MiollisBuilding.

9h00 - 12h30 / 14h00 - 17h30.

MINUTES

0.Welcome & apologies

Bernice Murphy, as new Chair of the Ethics Committee, replacing Geoffrey Lewis (who stepped down after his final report to ICOM at the General Assembly in Seoul, Oct.2004), welcomed members to the meeting: Elisabet Olofsson and Michel Van-Praët (both members of the Executive Council); and Abdoulaye Camara (recently appointed).

Apologies were received from W. Richard West, Jr. (the third member of the Executive Council appointed to the Committee) and from Piet J.M.Pouw (recently appointed).

Apologies from ICOM President Alissandra Cummins (via Secretary-General John Zvereff) were received, together with her good wishes for successful work by the Committee. In addition to the Secretary-General’s attendance ex-officio, the chair welcomed as observers from the Secretariat: Lysa Hochroth (Editor, ICOM News) and Julian Adnet (at present an Intern with ICOM, undertaking a special study of ICOM’s work concerning illicit traffic in cultural property); Joëlle Thibet’s regular support, and Margarida Ascenso’s work in helping assemble papers for the meeting were also gratefully acknowledged.

1.Adoption of the agenda

The agenda was adopted.

2.Approval of Minutes of the previous Ethics Committee meeting

(Thurs.3 September 2004 (Seoul, Korea), prior to 20th General Conference

and 21st ICOM General Assembly,Seoul)

The Minutes of the previous Ethics Committee meeting held in Seoul were approved, after somecorrections noted by Michel Van-Praët were agreed as necessary for accurate record. (Small corrections were made only to the confidential Addendum to the Minutes of the previous meeting.)

3.Matters arising from Minutes of the previous meeting

Confidentiality with regard to sensitive matters was considered to be an issue for theEthics Committee (see further comment below under ‘6.2.1’).

4.Chair & Membership of Committee

4.1 The new Chair (Bernice Murphy) noted that this was a point of substantial change-over for the Ethics Committee. All committee members were now new appointees, with the exception of Michel Van-Praët – who had served on the Ethics Committee through two crucial terms of the Code’s revision, 1998-2004, thereby providing an important thread of memory and continuity for the work of the Committee in this next phase of its life. (The Chair was also new, although she had served one term as a member of the Ethics Committee previously, 1998-2001, when the first phase of the work on the revision of the Code of Ethics was accomplished.)

Geoffrey Lewis’s substantial period of chairmanship of the Ethics Committee (1997-2004) ceased in Seoul, when the draft of the revised and reformatted ICOM Code of Ethics was finally ratified at the ICOM General Assembly (8 October 2004) and the Chairman tendered his resignation.

4.2 Committee membership

At the December 2004 meeting in Paris of the new Executive Council, three new nominees from the Council itself had been decided (Elisabet Olofsson, Michel Van-Praët, and W Richard West). Most recently, Abdoulaye Camara and Piet Pouw had been appointed in May (making 6 members to date in all). There had not been time to involve these two new members in consultation prior to the recent Ethics Committee meeting in Paris; however some preliminary email discussion had been possible earlier between the new Chair and the three members drawn from the Executive Council, which had been useful in preparing for the June meeting

Further new members were still to be appointed by the Executive Council after it had the opportunity (during the forthcoming week of meetings, June 2005) to receive suggestions from the Advisory Committee.[1] It was noted, however, that the final decision as to appointments rests with the Executive Council itself.

4.3 Criteria/guidelines for membership of the Committee

It would be helpful if Council adopted some guidelines[2] for determining membership (and to guide the Advisory Committee’s recommendations). Members considered the following as desirable for the Ethics Committee:

• long-standing involvement in the museum profession (including at a level of senior responsibility);
• sound knowledge of ICOM’s organizational processes;
• broad knowledge of museums policy and practices in a national context;
• strong interest in cultural heritage issues at an international level;
• high personal standing among peers in matters of professional conduct.

4.4 Short ‘profile notes’ to accompany nominees for Committee membership

A few point-notes on background of proposed appointees forwarded to the Council (rather than a list of names alone) would be helpful in guaranteeing a committee of high standing and effectiveness. (n.b. brief notes only – not CVs)

Members have stressed that the Ethics Committee (as the oldest standing committee of Council, created in 1984) has become one of the most important committees in ICOM, in articulating ethical values and upholding high standards for the museum profession. Accordingly, the calibre of appointees is important to ICOM’s respect and position as an international body.

4.5 Profile on the Ethics Committee for projection of its work

The Chair noted her wish to achieve a short profile (a few lines only) on each member of the Ethics Committee, to help project the work of the committee both within ICOM and elsewhere, as appropriate.

5. Mandate of the Ethics Committee

(previous Mandate document tabled)

The existing Mandate (‘Terms of Reference’) document for the Ethics Committee (dated June 1993) was considered during the meeting (and inconsistencies between the English and French versions were noted). Since the existing document is 12 years old, a review of this Mandate by the Executive Council is considered timely (particularly since new ICOM standing committees have come into existence since the Barcelona General Assembly in 2001). It would be helpful to achieve some consistency in the mandates of the various standing committees, when finally resolved by the Council.[3]

6.Review of previous work of the Ethics Committee

Members spent considerable time discussing how the Committee has worked to date. In summary: until now, the Ethics Committee has considered issues and problems referred to it by the Secretariat and the Executive Council as well as from individual members, and (on occasions) non-members of ICOM. In addition, the last six years of the Ethics Committee’s work have been particularly focused on revising the ICOM Code of Ethics – a comprehensive achievement completed in 2004 under the guidance of Geoffrey Lewis as Chair.

6.1 Revised ICOM Code of Ethics (2004 version) – reported to and ratified by

ICOM General Assembly, Seoul, 8 Oct. 2004.

Document available for download on ICOM Web site at:

- (English)

- (French)

- (Spanish)

- (Swedish)

6.1.1Planned publication of the 2004 Ethics Code

It was noted that ICOM is preparing to publish the Code of Ethics in the new (2004) version ratified in Seoul. ICOM members should be reassured that earlier versions of the Code (if still in use, or adopted in translation) remain consistent with the long-standing general values of the ICOM Code, which hasnot been changed in its fundamental principles. The Code has been revised and updated in a number of important respects, taking into account evolving issues affecting museums and some new concerns that have arisen in the last two decades. It is now substantially reorganised for greater clarity and easier use, including provision of a Glossary to clarify key terms. This should be understood not as a completely new code, rendering earlier versions or translations obsolete, but as the 2004 (revised) edition of the ICOM Code of Ethics.

6.1.2Translation issues

(consultation; reference language; Websiteposting).

a. Consultation

The importance of National Committee consultation across nation-state borders, considering the wide geographic spread of ‘language communities’, was stressed by the Ethics Committee. It was also noted that within common language communities are diverse communities socially and culturally. (The Committee was pleased to note that ICOM-Portugal had recently resolved to extend its consultation on translation fromICOM-Brasil to include ICOM colleagues in Angola and Mozambique, and that it would mention this consultation on its own NC Website when posting.)

b. Reference language(s) used

The importance of observing some professional protocols concerning translation was emphasised. It is desirable that any translation undertaken by ICOM members or National Committees should make clear reference to the ‘base language’ or reference language used – rather than sampling a variety of versions and producing a ‘mélange’ of different possibilities. Particular terms for professional practices are often allied to specific contexts of professional training or social understanding. Reference to such contexts (implied by use of one languageand social community rather than another) is important in understanding terms used in any new translation of the Code of Ethics.

(Although English was used as the ‘reference language’ in compiling the present version of the Code, Francofone members of the Ethics Committee had closely moderated the French version also, and the result washarmonised with discursive processes undertaken in generating the present Code in English. Only a few terms had resisted search for a satisfactory ‘equivalence’ in passing from English into the French version of the Code.)

c. Possible bi-lingual publication/ Website posting of new translations

A suggestion was made by the Ethics Committee: that in publishing any new translation of the Code of Ethics – especially in the case of electronic publication, where space and costs are not so much an issue – it would be helpful to professionals if a bi-lingual presentation of the Code could be offered: producing a new translation alongside the version in the ‘reference language’ on which it was based. Website posting made such a solution easy to achieve.

Such a bi-lingual presentation could be of interest museologically –in highlighting issues of cultural translation that need to be considered in connection with current objectives of incorporating cultural diversity actively and sensitively within an evolving museology.[4]

(This is recommended as a suggestion for National Committees to consider – but not a requirement of publication.)

6.2 Other issues arising from work of Ethics Committee (1998-2004)

6.2.1 Confidentiality of Ethics Committee deliberation on sensitive issues. This matter arose first in relation to approval of the Minutes of the previous meeting. Members stressed the importance of protecting ‘good process’ of the Committee, ensuring that consideration of any charges made against individuals or institutions remain confidential to the work of the Committee while situations are considered carefully, and evaluation of evidence is made against governing principles surrounding any case.

6.2.2 Duty of care. A “duty of care” for professional reputations and fair conduct is expected of ICOM: in not unnecessarily disclosing identities or institutions named in matters referred to the Ethics Committee (which sometimes could arise through approach from outside parties) unless or until it is decided that there are strong reasons for recommending a formal action for ICOM to take as an organization.

6.2.3 Punitive action should be a decision of last resort. The decision to ‘name and shame’ in cases of serious misconduct is considered a decision of last resort for ICOM. Such a decision can be taken only by the Executive Council (ultimately), after considering advice from the Ethics Committee. Meanwhile it is hoped that a number of issues could be addressed or resolved through constructive consultation – not requiring any formal action by the Executive Council.

6.2.4 Precaution against legal action. There are also good reasons for caution in avoiding possible legal action against ICOM itself. This could be a danger where persons outside ICOM might use information in a hostile or unauthorised manner, if access to sensitive information were not restricted by formal oversight of only the most senior officers in ICOM – normally the President and Secretary-General.

6.2.5 Separation of ‘Confidential’ identifying details within Minutes record. It was resolved that the Ethics Committee would continue the wise practice of separating identifying personal details and institutional names from the Minutes of its meetings (unless these were already widely known in the public domain through media reportage concerning a case). The Committee’s Minutes would concentrate generally on an outline of issues considered and a record of decisions reached on ‘case-matters’ brought to the Committee for attention. A confidential attachment of notes (or Addendum to the Ethics Committee Minutes, for Council’s briefing alone) would continue to be the best way to separate sensitive details from the principal record.

6.2.6 Separation in Secretariat files on Ethics Committee. This should also be observed in ICOM’s administrative record held within the Secretariat.[5] Any confidential material of the kind indicated above should remain on RESTRICTED file in the Secretariat, to be consulted only upon permission being granted by either the Secretary-General or the ICOM President personally.

6.2.7 Transparency and public responsibility. ICOM meanwhile aims to make its activities as transparent as possible, and the separation of a very small amount of confidential details to a restricted file record of the Ethics Committee’s business serves to make the principal record of the Ethics Committee’s work accessible for consultation and later study, and as useful as possible to ICOM’s work as a public organization.

7. Relationships/ connections to work of other ICOM standing committees

7.1 ICOM Legal Affairs and Properties Committee (created by the Executive Council, Dec. 2001; now chaired by Patrick Boylan)

The Ethics Committee noted the paper by Prof. Marilyn Phelan evolved through the work of the Legal Committee for an“International Mediation Process for the Resolution of Disputes over the Ownership of Objects in Museums Collections”.

This paper had been revised since the outstandingly successful forum in Korea on the basis for a possible mediation process for disputes concerning ownership of cultural property. (The forum, chaired by Geoffrey Lewis, with speakers Marilyn Phelan, W Richard West, and Harrie Leiton, had been jointly organised by ICME and INTERCOM[6] and took place during the ICOM General Conference in Seoul, Oct. 2004.)

The Ethics Committee expressed a wish to preserve its strong identity and history within ICOM, while offering co-operative support to the important new work of ICOM’s Legal Committee. The Committee did not preclude the possibility of joint action, or of a common position being recommended to Council on certain issues. However members considered that the differing vantage-points offered by separate standing committees are of positive value to ICOM.

The Chair of the Ethics Committee will continue to keep in good contact with the Chair of the Legal Committee, to ensure mutual awareness of both committees’ work, and be aware of possible areas of intersecting concern on which some co-ordination of discussions could be helpful to ICOM.

7.2Finance & Resources Committee(created by the Executive Council, Dec. 2001; now chaired by Robert Spichler)

7.3Standing Committee on International Committees

(created by the Executive Council, Dec. 2004, on a trial basis until 2007)

No ethical issues of common relevance to the work of either of these two Committeeshad been referred to the Ethics Committee for consideration at this meeting.

8. Approach of the Ethics Committee 2004-2007 to the work ahead

(as noted under [4.1] above, all but one member, including the Chair, are new members)

8.1 Historical review

Members discussed some possible emphases for the Committee’s future work. It was considered timely to compile a short historical review of ICOM’s evolving concerns through the work of the Ethics Committee over the last two decades. Members considered it would be helpful to achieve a summary historical notation on principal past business of the Ethics Committee and associated forums, with the following objectives:

• ensuring consistency of purpose;
• understanding continuities (or changes in emphasis) over time;
• noting issues that remained unresolved or suspended at one time that might resurface subsequently (the Minutes record itself is not designed to provide an editorial overview of issues evolving);
• continuing to promote public awareness of ethical issues and their ongoing connection with ICOM’s work since the organization first became concerned with establishing ethical standards for the profession (in the 1970s).

8.2 Development of a data-base of case-studies relevant to ethical issues

It was resolved that the Committee will take a proactive approach to seeking out information on useful case-studies,with a view to highlighting their effectiveness in resolving key issues of an ethical nature.

8.3 Public awareness of ICOM’s work on ethics

The Committee will encourage imaginative ways of promoting ICOM’s ethical work – perhaps turning to the application of an ethical consciousness to wider issues affecting museums – asoccurred in focusing on the problematic ethical aspects of the ‘Declaration…on Universal Museums’ by some of the world’s leading museums in December 2002: subject of an important debate through a special session of the Advisory Committee in June 2003, and later summarised, with an Introduction by Geoffrey Lewis, in ICOM News.[7]This is considered a more effective and ‘engaged’ way to promote ethical awareness than simply reiterating or stressing the existence of the ICOM Code of Ethicsalone.

9. Possible ethical issues for the Committee to address in the future, to develop a longer-term working plan for the Committee

9.1Relationship to ICOM’s Strategic Plan, 2004-2007

9.2Ethical issues relating to ICOM’s own operations

9.3Ethical issues relating to current work and Conventions of UNESCO

9.4Ethical issues evolving for museums

With only four members present (3 plus Chair), and some members still to be appointed, the Committee did not consider all of the above issues at this stage.

10. Queries referred from Secretary-General for Ethics Committee opinion

10.1Guideliness for ICOM Secretariat as toendorsement of ICOM events/ activities organised by ICOM committees or members

Examples:

• endorsement of conferences
• endorsement of publications

The Committee considered that – apart from the ‘implicit endorsement’ conveyed by the aegis and logo of ICOM, providing public identity for the activities organised by all of ICOM’s committees on an ongoing basis – it was difficult to see how the Secretariat could offer further endorsement (apart from messages of welcome or support, for example, at the opening of events). If the Secretariat was not connected directly to any delivery or quality control of content in advance, it was not in a position to offer formal ‘endorsements’.