of the
AIC Code of Ethics/Guidelines for Practice
|
|
|
| Evolution of the AIC Code of Ethics/Guidelines for Practice | ||
| ||
This document was scanned from AIC Newsletter, Vol 19, Number 3, May 1994.
During the issues session of the general (business) meeting in Nashville, the final proposed revision to the Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Practice will be presented and discussed with the membership. I urge each of you to attend and join in the final discussion of this vital document. In preparation for this meeting, and to reach members unable to attend, I would like to take this opportunity to review some of the differences between our current code and the proposed revision and to explain the rationale for these changes.
The final proposed revision, the culmination of years of concentrated study and research, can be found in the center section of this newsletter. In drafting this document, the Ethics and Standards Committee has worked earnestly to maintain a focus on the responsibilities of the individual, thus providing a foundation for each conservation professional to make informed judgments and decisions concerning the appropriateness of actions in a wide range of situations.
Review of this proposed revision will reveal clear, concise language; consistent and appropriate terminology (the use of conservation professional, cultural property, and eradication of an gender references); realistic expectations (the term reversible is maintained yet limited to discussions pertaining to compensation for loss); and the elimination of unnecessary repetition and redundancies that occur with alarming frequency in our current Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice. Serious omissions in our current Code are carefully addressed in the proposed revision, including: the purpose, preservation, and access of documentation; the importance and need for preventive conservation and recommendations (following conservation treatment) for subsequent care; and issues pertaining to health and safety, emergency situations, and client confidentiality. The Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Practice further clarifies and codifies additional issues of concern, including the potential for conflict of interest, justification and suitability for examination and/or treatment, contractual agreements and consent, laws and regulations that may have a direct bearing on professional activity, and the selection of methods and materials that may be appropriate to the objectives of specific treatment procedures.
In the revised document, an explicit distinction has been painstakingly maintained between ethical principles and more specific directives (Guidelines) for the pursuit of ethical practice. This important distinction simply does not exist in our current Code and Standards. Furthermore, in the revised document, ethical statements are no longer punitive in tone, with a resultant increased emphasis on professional expertise and experience. Conservation professionals are encouraged to use their best judgment (note the inclusion of language such as "where appropriate"). Likewise, the revised document is inclusive in tone; distinctions addressing the nature of employment (private versus institutional) have been eliminated.
A strong preamble (in the proposed revision) defines the primary goal of all conservation professionals to be "the preservation of cultural property" (a definition notably absent in our current Code), while acknowledging our obligations to the cultural property, to its owners and custodians, to the conservation profession, and to society as a whole. In the revised document the conservation professional is directed to attain the "highest possible standards in all aspects of conservation, including but not limited to, preventive conservation, examination, documentation, treatment, research, and education. " On this issue our current code is considerably more narrow in focus, addressing only the importance of adhering to the highest standard of treatment.
Recognizing that circumstances may very well limit the allocation of resources applied to a particular situation, this document resolutely maintains that "the quality of work performed by a conservation professional shall not be compromised." (Note that this statement is more realistic than our current Code, which maintains that the "quality of treatment should never be governed by the quality or value of the object.") The guiding principle that all conservation professionals perform within a continuum of care--and will therefore rarely be the last entrusted with the conservation of a cultural property--is clearly stated in the proposed Guidelines. Finally, this document reaffirms the importance of open communication with allied professionals and the ongoing need and responsibility for each of us to contribute to the evolution and growth of the profession.
The AIC Board is confident that this carefully prepared and thoroughly reviewed document is in its final form and ready to be voted on by the AIC membership. Very special thanks are due to all members of current and past Ethics and Standards Committees for the enormous effort, professionalism, and deliberate thought that they each contributed to this revision process.
As has been discussed in previous presentations and newsletter articles, the Ethics and Standards Committee has recommended the preparation of Commentaries to accommodate more detailed descriptions of practices appropriate to the various areas of professional specialization. These Commentaries should provide an effective mechanism for further defining specialty group and subject-specific concerns. It is very likely that the drafting and preparation process may prove even more important than the documents themselves. This process will provide an opportunity to initiate needed and important discussion within the profession and our specialty groups.
It must be understood that the Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Practice should, first and foremost, serve as a document of definition--a document that can provide authority and meaning to what those who practice conservation do and, by extension, who we define as conservation professionals. While the Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Practice is enforceable, as provided in the Bylaws and described in the Guidelines, its primary intent is not as an enforcement mechanism. In the short term, the AIC Ethics and Standards Committee may wish to focus their energy on rendering advisory opinions (on hypothetical or actual situations, although confidentiality must be strictly maintained), with a strong emphasis on interpretation and education.
Ethics are not a list of commandments dictated from above (ironically, as I write this, I am also catching parts of the Ten Commandments on television). Rather, they reflect the traditional values drawn from experience on which standards and practice are based. It is my hope that in reviewing the revised document for the final time, you will agree that this Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Practice very successfully define a common ground of values to which all conservation professionals can and should subscribe. This common ground was carefully defined through an inclusive and calculated process of review and comment. On many different occasions, our entire membership has had ample opportunity to comment on both the contents and scope of the revised document. I am quite certain that both the document and the process by which it was created will serve as a model for continuing projects and future initiatives within AIC.
The rewriting of the Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice has offered each of us the opportunity to reexamine our personal views of conservation. I am sure that we would all agree that our profession is rapidly changing in a way that demands a careful and constant review of its ultimate purpose, its membership, its mission statement, its goals and objectives. This proposed revision document is just the beginning of a long process of self-redefinition and reevaluation.
I hope that those of you who can attend the Nashville meeting will make every effort to come to the issues session of the business meeting scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, June 9.
The board has allocated time during an evening session in Nashville (8:00-10:00 p.m., Thursday, June 9) for an open forum on issues facing our professional organization. The board is very interested in your thoughts and ideas as they relate to the AIC's current and proposed future programming. I view this discussion as a useful opportunity to solicit advice, opinions, and creative ideas from our membership. At the same time, I certainly appreciate that not all of you can attend, so I encourage your comments and ideas via mail, telephone, or fax.
I look forward to seeing many of you in Nashville. It certainly promises to be an interesting week!
[Evolution of the AIC COE/SOP] [Current COE/SOP]
 | ||
 |
 |
 |