Evolution of the AIC Code of Ethics/Guidelines for Practice

Revision to the Code of Ethics: It Won't Be Long Now

AIC Newsletter September 1993 Volume 18, Number 5

This document was scanned from AIC Newsletter, Vol 18, Number 5, September 1993.

In the fall of 1990, the AIC Board charged the Ethics and Standards Committee with a careful study of the current Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice. The committee was asked to identify the roles that this document plays in the work of our membership and other affiliated professionals and to analyze the Code and Standards with respect to omissions, redundancies, contradictions, unrealistic expectations, and inappropriate content.

To fulfill this charge, the committee has made a strenuous effort to examine the Code from as many perspectives as possible, including the historical rationale for structure and content, the ethical codes of other organizations, both conservation and nonconservation; specialty group and individual commentary received from 1986 to 1993; and published references to ethical practice. In addition, the committee solicited comments in response to questions posed in a series of AIC News supplements (published in 1991-92) that addressed treatment and business practices, professional obligations, and documentation procedures.

The Ethics and Standards Committee established specific goals and guidelines for the revision. The key points are as follows:

1. The revised document should establish objectives for the conservation profession and, in doing so, define the preservation of cultural property as the primary goal of the profession.
2. The revised document should be as explicit and concise as possible. It should maintain a clear distinction between ethical principles (Code of Ethics) and more specific directives for the pursuit of ethical practice (Guidelines for Practice).
3. The revised document should be practical, recognizing that it is counterproductive to promote expectations or standards that cannot be realized. Difficult semantics and ambiguous interpretation must be eliminated.
4. The revised document should be less restrictive than the current one and positive in tone. It should encourage conservation professionals to use their best judgment at all times. All unnecessary and potentially divisive distinctions between private and institutional conservation should be eliminated to promote general standards of excellence throughout the profession.
5. The revised document should not be elitist in nature, nor should it moralize.
6. The revised document should affirm the conservation professional's responsibility for continued-education and promote communication with allied professionals.
7. The revised document should not be redundant or contradictory.
8. Omissions in the current Code, including, but not limited to, preventive conservation, recommendations for subsequent care, client confidentiality, the purpose and preservation of documentation, emergency situations, and issues of health and safety, should be addressed.
9. The revised document eventually should include commentaries. The commentaries are intended to amplify the Code and Guidelines by providing more specific directives. They will be prepared by specialty groups, task forces, and/or appropriate committees of the AIC. A review process will be initiated before final approval of the commentaries by the AIC Board.

The committee has worked diligently to prepare a proposed revision that is, as described in these goals, clear, concise, practical, realistic, and inclusive. The committee has carefully considered all opinions and commentary received from members and legal counsel and has made every attempt to incorporate necessary and recommended changes.

The first draft of the revised document appears as a supplement in the center section of this newsletter. The document has been modified since the discussion at the annual meeting in Denver and the revision process is not yet complete. The committee continues to solicit your opinions about such matters as content, language, unrealistic expectations, and omissions. All comments should be addressed to: Donna Strahan, Conservation Dept., Walters Art Gallery, 600 N. Charles St., Baltimore, MD 21201.

The committee plans to respond to the most often asked questions concerning the draft in a final newsletter supplement in the spring. To help us make the new sletter deadline, your comments should be made available to the committee before December. Each member is heartily encouraged to participate in this important discussion and review process, whether you choose to address your comments directly to the committee or prefer to take part in on-line computer dialogs that have proven to be an alternative and lively forum for debate. In October, the committee also plans to provide a brief article on the proposed commentaries, that need to be written to amplify specific areas in the Code and Guidelines. Groups who wish to start working on commentaries are encouraged to begin making plans for initial discussions in Nashville.

The committee wishes to thank the many AIC members who have already contributed their opinions and recommendations during this long revision process. We look forward to working with the entire membership as we reach the final stages of this process, leading to the adoption of a revised Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Practice.--Carol Aiken and Donna Strahan, co-chairs, Nancy Ash and Dan Kushel.

[Evolution of the AIC COE/SOP] [Current COE/SOP]