Present: Evelyn Silber (Glasgow, Convenor), Ian Carradice (St Andrews), Neil Curtis (Aberdeen, Secretary), Matthew Jarron (Dundee), Dawn Kemp (Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh), Jacky MacBeath (Edinburgh), Peter Trowles (Glasgow School of Art), Carl Magee (Stirling), Alan Knox (Aberdeen), Ewen Smith (Glasgow), John Scally (Edinburgh)

In attendance: Judith Henderson (Assistant Director - Research Policy & Strategy, Scottish Funding Council), Zenobia Kozack (St Andrews PhD student)

1. Apologies
Jane Cameron (Stirling)

2. Minutes of previous meetings
The minutes of the committee meeting on 21st November 2005 were approved.
The minutes of the AGM on 21st November 2005 were noted.

3. Matters arising
3.4 Most of the presentations from the last UMIS conference had been web-mounted.

7.1 The SMC Collections Development Strategy Working Group had not yet met.

4. Meeting with Judith Henderson of the Scottish Funding Council
It being five years since the last quinquennial review by SHEFC of funding arrangements for university museums in Scotland, UMIS had invited Judith Henderson of the newly renamed Scottish Funding Council to discuss future funding arrangements. There was a full discussion covering many issues facing museums in universities and members were reassured that there was likely to be little change in funding arrangements in the coming academic year that would be announced in March 2006. Members urged that any review of criteria, funding arrangements and the assessment of applications involve representatives from UMIS and SMC. The main issues discussed were:

Short term funding arrangements
HEFCE were currently funding university museums through AHRC competition, but from 2009 would be disbursing funding through their main awards to HEIs. SFC would not participate in the AHRC scheme, so it was expected that SFC would continue to take direct responsibility for funding in both the short and medium term. The purpose of funding was currently in recognition of the additional funding burden borne by HEIs in caring for museum collections of importance to the nation and there was currently no intention to broaden the scheme to encourage the promotion of additional activity (above inflation). Prior to any review, it was unlikely that there would be additional funding for collections currently supported or for collections that were not currently supported. Nor was it likely that there would be any funding for one-off development work.

Funding arrangements in future years
JH explained that SFC had not yet decided whether it would be announcing funding arrangements for a single year or for a longer period. UMIS members highlighted the importance of collections not currently supported, and thus the strength of the case for additional funding for university museums and collections. JH noted the tensions that would be caused by enlarging the top-slice from HE funding to create ring-fenced funding for university museums, suggesting that UMIS would have to persuade Principals to argue in favour of such ring fencing if it was felt to be a useful funding mechanism. UMIS members noted that museums in English HEIs received substantially more funding on a like-for-like basis than those in Scotland and that project funding was also available those in receipt of no or minimal core funding to develop capacity and access. This was partly due to the close links that had developed between AHRC and university museums that recognised the value of museums, changes that were taking place in museums and in expectations of them by the academic community. However, the merits of a simple monitoring scheme were also noted. The symbolic importance of recognition of particular collections by SHEFC was discussed, raising their status within an institution.

Criteria
UMIS members urged SFC to take account of the data in the National Audit which had not been available at the time of the last review and to reconsider the criteria by which applications were assessed, particularly taking account of the changing expectations raised by government, such as the desire for cultural engagement. IC noted that the last review had falsely raised expectations that were impossible to satisfy (within a static budget) because the criteria had not been changed from the previous review.

Cultural Engagement
The recent emphasis on cultural engagement as one of the strands of Knowledge Transfer funding was discussed. This funding is not ring-fenced but announced in the main grant letter to institutions. JH noted that four task groups had been established by the SFC Research & Knowledge Transfer Committee: economic development; social policy; cultural engagement; colleges. She also noted that Universities Scotland had established a working group to discuss the establishments of metrics to measure cultural engagement, which would be producing an interim report soon. This group was chaired by Duncan Rice (Principal of Aberdeen University) and had met with a number of people including JH and representatives of AHRC and bodies such as RSAMD. The work of this group could be significant, as it was unlikely that SFC would direct significant levels of funding towards cultural engagement until metrics were established. As there was some concern that this group might not be taking sufficient account of museums (exhibitions, publications, documentation etc. could be forgotten as important aspects of cultural engagement), JH suggested that contact be established with this working group. It was emphasized that cultural engagement outputs should not be confused with the costs of collections stewardship. JH encouraged UMIS members to contact Universities Scotland and the members of the SFC Knowledge Transfer Committee in their own institutions to ensure museum and collection based outputs were fully appreciated in the development of metrics and that infrastructure costs were clearly differentiated.

Funding from SFC
Apart from funding directed towards developing cultural engagement activity, it was unlikely that any other funding would be made available for museums from within the current funding from the Executive to SFC, nor was it clear how the SFC could argue for such additional funding. Universities with important museums experienced challenges extending beyond their normal teaching and research responsibilities, yet had little influence on those with responsibility for cultural funding.

ACTION

• NC to ask JH for a list of the members of the SFC cultural engagement task force and the dates of meetings.
• ESi to invite Charles Marriot (Universities Scotland Research Policy Officer) to a UMIS meeting.
• ALL to identify people involved with cultural engagement, knowledge transfer and Universities Scotland within institutions.
• ALL to improve the circulation of information within institutions about UMIS activities.
• ES & ESi to initiate writing a letter outlining the costs and benefits of stewardship and cultural engagement activities in university museums
• ALL to identify the additional burdens for universities with collections.
• ESm to circulate copy of the submission made by the Unievrsity of Glasgow to the Knowledge Transfer consultation exercise.

5. Scottish Executive response to Culture Commission report
While there was disappointingly no mention of university museums in the Executive report, media release or parliamentary debate (all available at www.scotland.gov.uk ), it was noted that the SMC response was positive and a number of aspects could be very beneficial for university museums:

1. The significance scheme for non-national collections had been highlighted with a scheme to be launched by summer 2006.
2. SMC's position seemed to have been reinforced and collaboration between national and non-national institutions encouraged.
3. The establishment of a digitisation scheme.
4. Local authority planning for a cultural entitlement scheme also offered scope for the involvement of university museums. Direct contact between members and relevant local authorities would be important, while UMIS would try to establish contact with COSLA.

ACTION

• NC to identify contacts in COSLA

6. Arrangements for 2006 Conference
The dates and themes of the conference were discussed. Possibilities for a theme included a focus on cultural engagement, cultural entitlement and subject specialist networks. It was agreed that a focus on the place of improving subject specialist knowledge as the basis for cultural engagement, beyond simple cultural entitlement, would be particularly relevant. As this would be in response to Executive priorities, it was suggested that a Minister be invited to give the opening address.

ACTION

• MJ to circulate possible dates and suggested conference titles and write a call for papers

7. NMS consultation on regional partnerships
University museums had been represented at the consultation meetings in Glasgow and Edinburgh, with a particularly strong presence in Glasgow. NMS appeared to be keen to establish partnerships with universities and it was agreed that it was important that university museums were therefore closely involved in such partnerships.

ACTION

• Jilly Burns (NMS) to be invited to attend a UMIS meeting

8. Reports from officers

Chairman
ESi reported that she was taking voluntary severance from end May 2006, after which ESm would be leading the Hunterian Museum and Art Gallery. Her offer to continue as chairman until the next AGM was welcomed and it was agreed that UMIS would pay her travelling expenses after May.

Treasurer
ESm reported that subscriptions for the current year had started to be paid and that the current balance was £3300. He was arranging for the signatories to the account to be changed to reflect ESi being chairman in place of IC.

9. Membership request from the Royal Scottish Academy
This had been withdrawn.

10. Other business

Performance indicators
ESm reported that SMC would be funding studies into the development of performance indicators for museums. While this was primarily focused on the needs of local authorities, SMC were willing to consider a bid from a UMIS member as similar issues were being faced by university museums. Discussion highlighted the difficulties of counting the 'visitors' to small displays outwith formal museum spaces and to web-based resources created by museums. It was felt that with bids due in the 9th February, however, the timescale was too short and that a bid in November might be more appropriate.

ACTION

• ESi to highlight the issues raised in the discussion with Joanne Orr (SMC) in the hope that they might be considered in the study
• ALL to consider a bid for submission (outline) in November 2006.

Human Tissue (Scotland) Bill
Dawn Kemp reported on a meeting between members of the SMC Working Group on Human Remains and the Wellcome Trust, and the amendments to the Human Tissue (Scotland) Bill that had been discussed in the Scottish Parliament. Key issues were that:

1. The Executive would maintain a list of bona fide museums to be exempted from a requirement to be licensed to display human remains. This was likely to be large, based on the list of Registered/Accredited museums in Scotland.
2. The requirements for licensing would only apply to material acquired since 1988
3. There would be no specific restriction on the use of images, it being considered that this was already covered by the Communication Act.
4. Exhibitions of material on loan from museums on the list of exempted institutions would not require to be licensed, even if held in museums not on the list

Research Assessment Exercise
There was some discussion of the RAE and its impact on university museums. Some individual staff were involved, but it was not yet clear how museums would be considered as contributing to the overall research environment.

Council of Europe
The Council of Europe had published a document on the governance and management of university heritage, which could be useful for lobbying purposes as it came from an independent body. This would be accessible from the UMIS website

ACTION

• MJ to create a link on the UMIS website

Universeum conference
A conference titled 'Investigating and preserving university collections: what for?' would be held in Strasbourg on 22nd-24th June 2006. More information about Universeum is available at www.universeum.de, while enquiries about the conference should be sent to sebasten.soubiran@adm-ulp.u-strasbg.fr

11. Date of next meeting
Thursday 30th March - Aberdeen, Marischal Museum at 11:00
Thursday 22nd or 29th June - Glasgow.

Back to menu