Conservation DistList Archives [Date] [Subject] [Author] [SEARCH]

Subject: Accreditation


From: Anik Morrow <morrowa>
Date: Wednesday, July 28, 1999
As a former conservator initially trained in Italy, I can
sympathize.  As a lawyer, maybe I can offer some general direction.
The following is breakdown of the issues based on the facts as
related by you in your message.

The Malta government has set up a committee.  First, find out how
where they get the power or "jurisdiction" to do what they are
doing.  Who appointed them? You'd be surprised how many times
committees etc. exceed their powers. Second, they are currently
drafting legislation.  Generally when legislation is being drafted
that will negatively impact a group of persons, these interested or
"affected" have a right to be heard. If so, if these persons are not
consulted or given a chance to voice their concerns, then there may
be a lack of "due process".  This means the eventual legislation may
not be enforceable. You might try acting as a group and writing the
committee to tell them you want to make submissions on behalf of
Italian restorers who will be affected by the legislation they are
drafting.( you should have the written support of, or be working
with, the professional restorers organization in Italy--if not,get
together with other "affected" restorers).

Now, you may have received due process because the Istituto Centrale
may have negotiated on your behalf.  You say an agreement was
reached.  Find out if there was a miscommunication regarding the
agreement.  Talk to the Istituto and make sure you understand what
the agreement was.  If possible, get a written statement from them.
If you understood the agreement correctly, then how does the
instituto feel about the recent turn of events?  Clearly this would
suggest that the wishes of the Italian delegation have been brushed
aside by the Malta commission. Consider writing a joint letter
(istituto and group of affected restorers) to the Malta committee
and enclose a copy of the letter or correspondence you received from
the Malta Centre and ask for an explanation, taking the tone that,
clearly, a mistake has been made by the Malta Centre and you want it
cleared up because the affected restorers are eager to resolve this

Ideally, I would send the joint letter first and await a response.
Depending on the response I would then send in the request to make
submissions. But consider that a request to make submissions is not
a bad thing, generally.  Why not try to be part of the process?  Why
not try to get a written statement or clear agreement as to how the
accreditation will take place? Now, I know everyone would rather
avoid lawyers, but this issue is important to you and your
livelihood and I think some help is in order.  You will need a
lawyer if things get bumpy and "jurisdiction" etc.becomes a possible
issue.  Whatever happens, the submissions are probably best drafted
by a lawyer.  There are many issues too difficult to explain here.

Depending on your law, since you have worked, you may have a "right"
which is harder to remove because you already possess it and so you
must be "accommodated". Also there may be a conflict of interest
between the Malta commission and the Malta Centre. (the commission
is giving work to the centre).  I suggest you find a lawyer who has
civil and human rights experience and practices constitutional law.
I suggest you simply consult with them for an hour and get an
opinion and some directions. That shouldn't cost the group too much
and would be well worth it. Organize, stay focused and be
methodical. Unfortunately, as accreditation becomes more globalized
may such instances will happen.  You're simply getting caught in the
transition. Please keep us apprised.Good luck.

                  Conservation DistList Instance 13:11
                   Distributed: Friday, July 30, 1999
                       Message Id: cdl-13-11-005
Received on Wednesday, 28 July, 1999

[Search all CoOL documents]