Subject: AIC certification plan
With regard to the response by the certification Task Force where it's stated that: >In addition to the AIC Bylaws, Code of Ethics, and Guidelines for >Practice, AIC has published Defining the Conservator: Essential >Competencies. These documents can be found on the current AIC >website under Core Documents. A certification program will not >define qualifications of professional conservators beyond these >documents, but it will provide guidance to end users of conservation >services. An end user (such as a government agency, museum staff >member, or a collector) ... As a Canadian who recently went through the Employment Based Greencard experience I was unable to use the AIC core documents to support my claim that a Conservator is a Specialty Occupation. This was a disappointing revelation since it seems that it should be fairly simple to prove since I have a Master's degree in the subject and a professional organization, the, AIC to back up my claims, but this was not the case. The language in these documents was in fact detrimental to my application, and so much so that in the end I had to exclude all of it. Instead, I had to rely on letters kindly written for me by staff from museums and regional labs to state the current hiring practices for those entering the field now and explain why we are, as a profession highly specialised. I believe that the AIC can and should do more work to meet the needs of both conservators and the end users that were listed, the current core documents do not do either adequately. For example, one of the endusers noted was The Federal Government, but they currently classify us as "Conservators and Museum technicians" despite the fact that the Feds consult with professional organizations to define themselves. Curators or Librarians have their own categories in the DOL Department of Labor Occupational Handbook. By the time we get certification going, those conservators who entered the field from broader ranging backgrounds and avenues 15 or 20 years ago are very well established and have nothing to fear from changing the current definition in core documents which as they stand today are out of date. What work has the AIC done for conservators to advocate for our profession on the Federal level? I have not seen a report on this, perhaps I missed it? If museums recognized us as vital to the staff as are curators and technicians (who are usually found in any and every museum staff) then they would demand that we become certified in our profession and raise the bar from the top down so to speak. A good pilot project would be to have the Federal institutions require certification and cover the costs for their staff to get it, see how it goes, and then other museums, and later on conservators in private practise, follow suit if it proves useful for furthering our profession. Years ago, curators and Librarians could enter their field any number of ways as well, but their definition is current and ours is not. What about AAM, what standards of preservation do they demand to lend their certification to museums? If AAM relies on our core documents and the Federal Department of Labor then we have a weak case. Employers use the DOL not only to classify us, but to determine education, training, job description, and wages. Why would a museum hire a conservator when the DOL states they can hire someone with a liberal arts degree or certificate to do the same job as someone with a Masters degree in Art Conservation. We as a professional group continue to lag behind others. DOL Department on Labor Occupation handbook: 25-4013 Museum Technicians and Conservators "Prepare specimens, such as fossils, skeletal parts, lace, and textiles, for museum collection and exhibits. May restore documents or install, arrange, and exhibit materials." Shelley Smith Conservator *** Conservation DistList Instance 22:36 Distributed: Monday, December 15, 2008 Message Id: cdl-22-36-008 ***Received on Tuesday, 9 December, 2008