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

Subject: Convergence of UK conservation organizations

Convergence of UK conservation organizations

From: Ylva Player-Dahnsjo <y.m.t.playerdahnsjo>
Date: Wednesday, June 30, 2004
Jane G. McAusland <janemca [at] globalnet__co__uk> writes

>Ref: The Institute of Paper Conservation and the question of

Dear Colleague, whether IPC member or not.

In their posting in Conservation DistList Instance: 18:3 Thursday,
June 24, 2004, Jane McAusland et al expend a huge amount of vitriol
on the Convergence proposal, accusing it of all manner of things.
The detailed version of the Convergence Proposal is not yet
finalised--it will be available in August and then put to the vote
of IPC members at an EGM on 30 September 2004. Hardly a fait

I wonder where she and her friends have been in the last two years.
To suggest that there has been no opportunity to signal opposition
to convergence is simply untrue.  Opinions and input of any kind
have not only been encouraged but actively sought from the very
beginning. If those who fear the worst from the very idea of
convergence have declined to contribute their thoughts, they can't
have been reading those very publications which they value so
highly, let alone The Convergence Consultation (NB) Document itself,
which welcomed free-text comments and direct contact both with the
Blue Spark consultant and with any member of the NCCR committee.

The points of view (not facts) raised in the two letters have been
repeated ad nauseam in the last few of months. They have been
published in Paper Conservation News, on the IPC Web site, and in
the Convergence Consultation Document Feedback on the NCCR web site.
Now they are also on the DistList and in a seemingly ad hoc mailshot
to some IPC members. The IPC Chair and other Committee members have
already spent a huge amount of their private time to reply to
specific concerns, but all these seem to have been ignored by the
authors. Why?

Why is there such a refusal by the authors to listen to any other
side of the debate than their own; why will they not wait for the
final proposal now being prepared; why not use the official channels
of input; and why  is there such a suspicion of the motives of those
who are in favour of convergence? Why not muck in and help to
construct the new body, instead of shooting it down before they even
know what it might look like? Why is this glass already half-empty?

Most proposals for action (including conservation treatment
proposals) have pros and cons that have to be weighed up before
proceeding, and the Convergence Consultation Process is exactly this
process. As conservators, we need to stay true to our professional
training and ethics, and look at the big picture and the long view
as well as the details of our own particular circumstances. This is
not 1976.

Ylva Player-Dahnsjo MA, AKC, HND,  ACR MIPC
Chief Conservator
Book and Paper Conservation Studio
Main Library
University of Dundee
Dundee DD1 4HN
Scotland, UK
+44 1382 34 4094
Fax: +44 1382 34 5614

                  Conservation DistList Instance 18:4
                  Distributed: Thursday, July 1, 2004
                        Message Id: cdl-18-4-014
Received on Wednesday, 30 June, 2004

[Search all CoOL documents]