Present: Alan Knox (Aberdeen, Convenor), Neil Curtis (Aberdeen, Secretary), Alison Hadfield (St Andrews), Ewen Smith (Glasgow), Dawn Kemp (RCSEd), Justin Parkes (RGU), Donna Holford-Lovell (Abertay)
1. Apologies
Jane Cameron (Stirling), Jacky MacBeath (Edinburgh), Peter Trowles (GSA), Matthew Jarron (Dundee)
2. Minutes of previous meetings
The minutes of the committee meeting on 26th October 2006 were approved.
3. Matters arising
a) Culture Bill
The UMIS response to the Culture Bill is now credited to UMIS, not Aberdeen University. It was unclear what the status of the Bill was since the election.
b) Cultural Engagement/ Knowledge Transfer/Beacons
Two bids, led by Glasgow and Edinburgh universities had been selected for the second round of the 'Beacons' scheme. It was unlikely that, if successful, much money would be spent on university museums as a result. Likewise, the cultural engagement funding had not reached museums, with only Aberdeen having developed a procedure which might enable museums to bid for funding from this source.
c) Significance
The Hunterian Museum and the collections of RCSEd had been awarded the status of Recognised Collections of National Significance. St Andrews bid was to be consider at the October meeting, along with that of Aberdeen which had been deferred. ES offered to make Glasgow's bid available on request.
d) Framework Agreement
The Framework Agreement was being implemented at different speeds in different institutions. ES noted that, while front of house staff had benefited, the more senior curatorial staff seemed to have reached a ceiling.
4. Heritage Assets/FRED40/Corporation Tax
The Accounting Standards Board was revising its exposure draft and conducting further consultation before implementation of Heritage Assets Accounting in January 2008. Under this scheme, the heritage assets would have to be included in the accounts of institutions, potentially having a significant impact on museums if collections had to be valued. See http://www.frc.org.uk/asb/publications/it37_p304.html for information.
A change in Cororation Tax from 1st August 2007 might also affect university museums as it removed the benefits of charitable status from non-core activities of charitable bodies. While aimed at removing a loophole by which commercial activities by charities were being exempted from tax, there was a risk that museums might be classed as non-core activities. UMIS members should discus this with University Finance offices in the meantime.
5. Treasurer's report
The UMIS account was healthy with c£4000. As this was more than was needed to underwrite the conference, money could be spent on an advocacy strategy, including the production of an advocacy document.
6. Building strategic partnerships
The need for university museums to build strategic partnerships was discussed, noting particularly initiatives by NMS and the impact of RDCF. The strength of the Scotland and Medicine partnership was highlighted, noting the importance of a strong theme, rather than local partnerships. Scotland and Medicine had been awarded continuation funding for a year and a £650,000 bid had been submitted to the Wellcome Trust focusing titled 'Mapping the Mind' focusing on brain science. The Hunterian was also involved in work with Historic Scotland as a result of the Antonine Wall World Heritage Site bid.
The ability of libraries through CURL (UK) and RLG (US) to effectively advocate their needs with bodies like JISC was discussed and it was suggested that UMIS and UMG could build a partnership with such bodies. It was agreed that closer links with UMG be explored, including the possibility of the 2008 conference being arranged jointly by both organizations, while links with the library sector could be further developed.
7. SFC funding and advocacy
The future of SFC funding beyond 2009 was unclear and it was noted that this was coincident with the future of funding in England delivered through AHRB. There was concern that funding might not be specifically allocated for museums or that there was an absolute reduction in funding. Advocacy would be essential. William Fox (SEED) might be able to advise. ACTION: AK to contact David Lott of the SFC.
It was agreed that UMIS should produce an advocacy document, building on Opening Doors for Learning' as part of an advocacy strategy over the coming 18 months. UMIS funding would be available for publication costs, while it might also be possible to contract out the writing of the document. ACTION: ALL to discuss a brief for the advocacy strategy before AGM.
8. Metrics/benchmarking
There was discussion about the possibility that future SFC funding might be more reliant on metrics, such as those discussed by Universities Scotland Cultural Engagement Metrics working party, while Nick Merriman's presentation to the UMG conference about metrics and Manchester Museum's production of a 'Facts and Figures' document in place of an annual report was also discussed. Despite the problems of gathering data and their validity, it was agreed that we should collect figures on a wider range of our activities. It was also agreed that we should collect case studies as examples of best practice alongside metrical data.
9. 2007 AGM
It was agreed that the 2007 AGM should be held in Glasgow with the 2008 conference to be held in Aberdeen.
10. AOB
All members were urged to send information about exhibtions, events and developments to MJ for inclusion on the UMIS website.
There was general agreement that UMIS should support a nomination to SMC Board to support communication between SMC and UMIS. As UMIS Convenor, AK was willing to stand in this capacity.
11. Date of next meeting
Date to be arranged in October on the same day as the UMIS AGM in Glasgow
Back to menu