The IAML Constitution revisited —a progress reportAuthor(s): Anders LönnSource: Fontes Artis Musicae, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Januar-März 1988), pp. 3-6Published by: International Association of Music Libraries, Archives, and Documentation Centres(IAML)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23507575 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 06:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

International Association of Music Libraries, Archives, and Documentation Centres (IAML) is collaboratingwith JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Fontes Artis Musicae.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.96.115 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 06:37:08 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The IAML Constitution revisited - a progress report Anders Lönn (Stockholm)

Summary An interim report on the work of the IAML Constitution Committee, the article discusses the suggested re

visions in the draft under way. TVvo major changes are (1) transferral of powers from the General Assembly to

the Council, and (2) direct nominations (i. e., without Council approval) by National Branches or other

groups of members for the election of President and Vice-Presidents of the Association. Several other issues

are presented and commented on.

At the Stockholm Congress, IAML ' s Constitution Committee1 was charged with a fundamental

re-examination of the principles on which the Association is governed. This was partly in response to criticism by IAML UK,2 partly in recognition of problems that have manifested themselves

since the present constitution was adopted in 1980.1 have been asked to submit this report to the

members of the Association on the work so far. While I hope that most of my comments represent the views of the Committee as a whole, a personal opinion or two may have crept in: if so, please make the appropriate allowances.

Changes to the constitution are of course governed by the constitution now in force. In other

words, the following rules apply (Article IX; footnotes are mine):

This Constitution may be amended only by a regular General Assembly. Proposed amend

ments3 shall be circulated to the members of the Association not less than 60 days in ad

vance of the session of the General Assembly; however, revisions4 to such amendments

may be proposed to the Secretary General not less than 20 days in advance of the session

and shall be circulated at the opening of it.

All amendments must be submitted to the Council5. For the adoption of an amendment

not approved by the Council a two-thirds majority of the votes shall be required.

Members of the Constitution Committee met in Berlin, GDR, in February 1987, to draft a ques tionnaire that was subsequently circulated to the national branches. Five of the six (out of 20)

branches which returned the questionnaire answered "Yes" to the initial question, "Are your members satisfied with the present arrangements for administering the Association?". The odd

branch out was the UK.

To be able to finish in time for the next General Assembly, the Committee had decided to make

a start on a new draft in Berlin, fully prepared to change its mind on any central issue, should the

results of the questionnaire so dictate. In the event, they gave no guidance: and so the Committee

spent its time in Amsterdam polishing (I will not say perfecting) the Berlin draft.

This is by no means to say that the UK views have not influenced the Committee's thinking: in

fact, quite the opposite. One of the two major changes in the new draft - the revised nomination

procedures for elections to the IAML board - is a UK proposal. The other - the transferral of pow ers from the General Assembly to the Council - does not stem directly from the UK Branch, but

it grew out of the discussions of the role of the General Assembly and how to give members greater

influence. The Branch's suggestion to allow postal voting on changes to the Constitution seemed

a less happy solution, for reasons given below.

The draft revision is now at a stage that will allow ample time for IAML members to consider

1 Heinz Werner (chair), Maria Bryce (ex officio), Roger Crudge, Wolfgang Krueger, Anders Lönn, Catherine Massip, Neil

Ratliff/Veslemöy Heintz (ex officio). 2 See The Constitution of IAML: a United Kingdom view, in: Fontes 33/1,1986, p. 12 - 14. 3 which can be made by any IAML member or group of members. 4 "revisions" means just that: slight changes in wording, other time limits than originally proposed, etc.; not entirely new or

wholly different rules. 5 not necessarily before they are circulated to the members, but before they are voted on at the Assembly.

This content downloaded from 188.72.96.115 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 06:37:08 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A. Lönn: The IAML Constitution revisited

the proposals well in advance of the statutory 60 days. This report will be a first guide to the direc

tion in which the Committee's thoughts are going. Otherwise, the timetable is as follows:6 - autumn of 1987: additional work on the constitution draft by the Committee -

simultaneously, work on revised rules of procedure will start -

early 1988: afinisheddraftoftheconstitutioncirculatedbytheCommitteetoallNationalBranches - the Committee completes its draft of the rules of procedure, to be discussed in Tokyo - autumn of 1988: after considering any comments by National Branches, the Committee will fi

nalize its draft at or immediately after Tokyo, so that the draft can be circulated to all IAML

members, together with any alternative proposals from other parties, at the appropriate time

before the General Assembly in 1989 - summer of 1989: the proposed changes will be voted on by the Assembly. If the revisions are ap

proved, the new rules of procedure can be adopted by the Council at its second session during the 1989 congress. If they are not, or only partially approved, it may or may not be possible to

edit the rules of procedure for adoption at the congress. In other words, IAML members will have the following opportunities to influence the new

constitution:

(1) by writing to the Constitution Committee on the basis of the present report

(2) through the National Branches before the Committee finalizes its draft at Tokyo

(3) by proposing amendments to the Secretary General in time before the final circulation to all members in early 1989

(4) by proposing revisions (cf. footnote 4) to the circulated draft up to 20 days in advance of the

1989 General Assembly

(5) by communicating with their Council representative prior to the first Council session in 1989

(6) by voting either in person or by proxy at the Assembly in 1989.

It is the earnest hope of the present reporter - shared, no doubt, by his fellow members on the

Committee and most especially its chair - that these extensive opportunities for consultation will

result in a document that can satisfy the needs of the members of this Association for some years to come.

The Committee's proposals So much by way of preamble. The following is a brief overview of the most important changes

that the Committee intends to present, article by article:

Article II, Purposes Add two subclauses: - To help strengthen the importance to society of libraries, archives and documentation centres at

national and international levels - To publish an official journal dealing with all matters of professional interest

Article V, Organization The main change envisaged here is a transferral of powers from the General Assembly to the

Council. Although the IAML constitution has always said that the General Assembly "shall be the directive body of the Association" (or words to that effect), this has not been the case for de cades. In fact, the General Assembly is not a suitable body for such decision-making, because of its haphazard composition and the lack of any handy way to provide it with facts and figures on

6 The only potential spoke in the wheel is the several additional charges to the Committee by the Council in Amsterdam, of which more below. It remains to be seen if they can be handled by mail during the autumn of this year.

This content downloaded from 188.72.96.115 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 06:37:08 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A. Lönn: The IAML Constitution revisited

which to base decisions. Mail ballot as an alternative has been rejected, both because discussion

on the spot is crucial to such decision-making and because of the expenditure of time and money. The Council, on the other hand, is the most representative body in IAML (with the inevitable

limitations of any representative body), and its membership is reasonably stable from one meeting to the other. Unless the IAML members take the view that the major decisions should be made by the Board, the Council seems to be the best alternative.

The General Assembly will continue to meet every three years. It "shall receive reports from

the Council and the Board and shall discuss the plans, the current work and the problems of the

Association. " The Assembly may make proposals (recommendations? ; but not decisions) concern

ing the future activity to any other body in the organization. The General Assembly will continue to be the body empowered to change the Constitution.

(Although this will not form part of the constitution - it is a purely administrative matter in con

nection with planning meetings - it is proposed to schedule an open session for all members pre

sent at the Annual Conferences, i. e. in the years between the General Assemblies. These plenary sessions will be informal. Their purpose is simply to provide an opportunity for the members to

meet and discuss with Board and Council any general matters or problems that are before the As

sociation.) The Council "shall officially represent the Association. It shall direct it and shall take decisions

concerning the work of the Association. It must take into account the General Assembly's recom

mendations."

The Council will continue to nominate candidates for the election of President and Vice-Presi

dents, however, "not more than two candidates for each seat being nominated by the Council."

In addition, and a major change, "Further nominations may be made by National Branches or

by any group of not less than ten members, not all being members of the same national branch.

Such nominations must reach the Secretary General not less six months before the General As

sembly." All such additional nominations will n o t be voted on by the Council: they will all be placed on

the ballot, but with a clear indication that the candidates are not Council nominees.

In other words, any group of members can join up with at least one member in any other coun

try, provided that there are at least ten members altogether, and place candidates on the slate. A

national branch can do so on its own.

Clearly, there is an opportunity for abuse here. On balance, the Committee tended to side with

the UK Branch: it is not likely to affect the results of the elections in any major way, and if it can

make more members feel that they have a say in the affairs of the Association, it is at least worth

a try. The question of the composition of the Council and the voting rights on it is still somewhat un

resolved.

(Again, although this is not a constitutional issue, the Council decided in Amsterdam to open its sessions - with the exception of certain agenda items - to observers. Starting in Tokyo, any IAML member present will be able to attend.)

Article VI, National Branches

The only change here is an added provision that the "constitutions [of the national branches]

shall not be in conflict with that of the international association."

Article VII, Professional Branches, Subject Commissions, etc. The article will be expanded to cover those bodies within the Association whose existence the

present constitution is happily unaware of, e. g. committees such as the Constitution Committee

and the Publications Committee, and the joint commissions with other organizations. This is the

article that still needs the most work.

This content downloaded from 188.72.96.115 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 06:37:08 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A. Lönn: The IAML Constitution revisited

Article IX, Changes to the Constitution

As already mentioned, the General Assembly will retain the right to change (this word has been

chosen in preference to the existing constitution's "amend"). Proposals for changes "must be

supported by at least five members" (this is new). The deadline for communicating the proposals to the membership has been extended from 60 days to four months before the Assembly.

The two-thirds majority required for changes not approved by the Council will be retained.

Article XII, Official journal is new: "The official journal and any other periodical shall be sent to each member regularly

and free of charge. The Editor of the journal is appointed by the Council."

Article XIV, Languages and interpretation The official languages will still be English, French and German. However, the English text of

the constitution will now be the authoritative one (at present no distinction is made among them).

And more to come...

The Council in Amsterdam added various other problems to the Constitution Committee's

brief, some of them substantial. They are posed here as questions, since the Committee has not

yet had time to consider most of them.

1) voting rights in the Council (already referred to) - should voting rights be restricted to National Branch representatives (i. e., not Professional

Branch presidents)? or extended to Subject Commission chairs (and/or others)?

2) membership of Professional Branches (and how to register it) - the present registration procedure puts a great burden on the Secretary General or the Treasurer

and the National Branches, and if Amsterdam is anything to go by, to no very great effect. Is

there a better way? Is it necessary to restrict membership (and therefore, voting rights) to one

Professional Branch only? Is the former, informal „honour system" preferable?

3) the status of the Music Information Centres - the MICs (now the International Association of Music Information Centres) have never fitted

comfortably within the class of Professional Branches. Is there a better way to provide for their

special needs, and one that will still allow them to stay within the IAML framework (as both

they and IAML wish)?

4) the status of the Project Groups - not all Project Groups existing at this moment have true projects, i. e. well defined assignments

that will be completed within a finite time. Is this a problem, and if so, what should be done

about it?

5) the procedure for electing/appointing officers in Professional Branches and Subject Commis

sions - it is not satisfactory that the incumbent officers handle the elections; and the distinction bet

ween elections (in Professional Branches) and selection of candidates for the Council to ap

point (in the Subject Commisssions) is not well understood. (This obviously ties in with items 1-2 above.) Fair with a minimum of fuss must be the goal. How to achieve it?

Any views on these or any other issues raised in this report will be most welcome.

This content downloaded from 188.72.96.115 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 06:37:08 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions