Convergence of UK conservation organizations

On convergence, the work of IPC and with reference to comments made
by Jonathan Farley and Sarah Clay on 25 June 2004, shame you threw
away the consultation document Jonathan, as this would have been a
prime opportunity to voice any concerns you may have had to the
committee and the rest of the membership.

The Institute of Paper Conservation (IPC) is not a political party
or a union, and despite your feeling that the document presents
convergence as a forgone conclusion, I can sincerely say as a recent
ex-committee member that this is *not* the case. IPC has charitable
status therefore cannot act in a political way.  The petitioners are
aware that their points are being dealt with and they know that the
vote is not in IPC's hands, and are heavily dictated by the Statutes
and the Charity Commission. The committee is made up of people just
like you, Conservators with motive only to ensure the stability of
continued ongoing IPC activities for the good of the membership.  It
is not in the interest of the committee to do otherwise, as many
seem to forget the membership includes the committee members
themselves.  We have all worked hard to ensure that IPC stays
afloat, but now it is time to move on, as just staying afloat is not
what the membership requires anymore from any professional body.

The consultation document was meant to represent just that--to
*consult* the membership, on if the IPC were to converge how would
you like to see the new professional body work. The document was
only meant to gauge some/any kind of opinion from the membership,
and updates on Convergence and the presentation of the Document to
the membership were given through the Chair's report and various
flyers. We *all* have our worries about how a converged body should
work for our membership needs and as was always intended, hopefully
these concerns including money matters, membership issues, and the
proposed structure of the new body, will be ironed out up until the
yes/no vote.  The purpose of the Consultation Document was to help
prepare for the vote going either way.

It was great to see the AGM so packed this year and am hoping the
reason for this was to see what the committee have done to date to
improve resources and activities for the membership, as much as for
understanding convergence.

Everyone knows how IPC works and how for years it really has relied
on the voluntary involvement of it's membership. The committee has
worked hard to keep IPC on an even keel but with the ever-changing
needs of the membership, especially with a new generation of
Conservators who rightly demand support from it's membership
body--IPC cannot physically cope! IPC has been for a long time
one-step behind and really we need to move on from that.  Clare
Hampson was the fighting force behind IPC for many years but we know
that she believed IPC had to move on, as reminded by her brother
James' comment,  'She loved IPC and was furiously proud of what you
had all achieved. Please know that she would want you all to move to
the next phase without being encumbered by what she might have
wanted or not wanted'.  Although individuals like Clare are truly
missed, the IPC still has the energy and passion that was there when
it evolved all those years ago.

IPC still exists and is involved in some great projects and
activities, irrespective of a yes/no vote it still requires
assistance. It has taken me over a year to hand over graduate
membership work to the new Graduate Liaison representative. And even
though I finished my time in March, am still involved in advising
students on their futures and directing them to others who can also
assist.  There are still many things to do, such as updates on
salary and career recommendations; update the web site; encouraging
people to donate to the Sponsored Membership Scheme; organising
meetings and talks; internship advice; funding training; diversity
issues; graduate talks; mentoring; accreditation matters; CPD
updates; profiling conservation and preservation; setting standards
and guidelines etc., and we have a great conference to prepare and
look forward to in 2006.

We all know that the Conservator role has changed tremendously since
the IPC began. We have to realise that the demands on a Conservator
have become far more wide spread, and include making complex
decisions on preservation management issues and being expected to
work as researchers, scientists, project managers, teachers, budget
co-ordinators, collection movers, exhibition facilitators,
diplomats, collection careers et al.  In order for all these roles to
be supported by a professional body, information, projects,
resources, facilities, advocacy, training and collaborations need to
be provided. It is the responsibility of the membership to act as
the managers of their professional body. As with all managers, to
get the best out of your professional body you have to work for it,
before you can expect it to work for you.

Where have you been Jonathan and Sarah?  I have been working on the
committee for over four years and don't ever remember hearing a
dickybird from either of you before on any IPC issues.  I need not
remind you all that Clare was ill for along time and has been dead
for nearly 2 years and Warwick died last year, everyone was full of
condolences but did anyone offer to actually help? No they didn't?
The committee is increasingly struggling to find people to stand and
the Chair I know is looking forward to the prospect of having her
work and social life back! But in saying all this the committee
still puts it's heart and soul into all the activities.

Remember the IPC is a charity and as with all charities it needs
active involvement, there is a big difference between participation
and observation, it's not just about waiting for your newsletter,
journal and notice of meetings, it's also about being actively
involved in the demands of the membership as a whole, however big or
little the contribution might be. I have completed 'my time' on the
committee, but understand that IPC still needs help. It is
everyone's future and it is up to you all, no matter how busy you
are, to ensure that we either develop further what we have or create
a new refreshed body.  We are all clever enough to ensure that we
can make the most of a converged body...let's show everyone we can
do it, and if not convergence, then work out how else we can improve
and stop functioning as if treading water.

Time to move on, we (the IPC membership) need to make it work either
way for the future of Conservation. Get volunteering, get helping
and most of all work together

I have purposely not gone through the specifics of the proposals for
convergence as this information can be directly obtained from the
IPC committee or NCCR. For those of you who would like to continue
or begin voicing your opinion on convergence or would like to help
the IPC continue it's on-going activities, please contact the
Institute of Paper Conservation by email: information [at] ipc__org__uk or
by post to IPC,

    The Secretary
    Bridge House
    Waterside
    Upton Upon Severn
    Worcestershire WR8 0HG
    UK

and your letters and comments will be put up on the IPC web site
<URL:http://www.ipc.org.uk>

Lara Artemis ACR MIPC
Conservator also ex-Graduate Liaison Representative for IPC


                                  ***
                  Conservation DistList Instance 18:8
                 Distributed: Wednesday, July 21, 2004
                        Message Id: cdl-18-8-031
                                  ***