Is it not indecent, in full economic crisis, choosing to squander more than 40 million euros of public money? How does one explain this situation while the budgets of the public are falling and there is already a center that works?
Our management has always complained about the rumors. But given the lack of information, it can not prevent personal thinking the worst. For more than a month, she has the report of Mr. Pomarède. However, she still refused to connect to all staff. Consequently, according to the departments and branches, this report circulates among the staff or not. This is intolerable. And it certainly will not in the sense of unity of the service proclaimed.
In his report, he presents the future Pomarède reserve center in Cergy-Pontoise, renamed for the occasion, Centre Study, Conservation and Restoration of Cultural Heritage (CECRP). This is a set of positions of principle, devoid of any factual data, and empty phrases. Mr. Pomarède poses the problem of searching, a new way: you're great, but we need you and such a structure? From the beginning of the file, direction C2RMF had decided to bow to the direction of the Louvre.
The Louvre wants to keep labs and shops nearby and only for his own needs. At the same time, the Rapporteur advocates the unification of the structure of foreshadowing CECRP the Louvre. (What about the Super Branch heritage?). Thus, the Louvre would have the upper hand in the conservation policy, restoration and research concerning the assets in France. The goal is laudable, concentrating its actions, missions and research to the CECRP works themselves. Permitting them to hear that the works are currently neglected. It must be said that the rapporteur, the most serious argument for keeping the research activities at the Louvre would be a question of money, because obviously the interest of scientists for a program is proportional to the funding they can withdraw.
The fact that the science programs are the result of collaboration between curators and research staff and seek first and foremost to answer scientific questions clearly identified do not appear to touch the rapporteur. This explains why he refuses to give his opinion on the future of UMR171 and AGLAE. It is clear that our last reporter does not know what that brings and UMR171 or what serves AGLAE. It's not his fault.
Having never had the opportunity to work with C2RMF, he is reduced to read and compile reports that it delivers our direction. It is no coincidence that the most detailed is dedicated to the department documentation. If you are seen by our direction you will be well placed ... CECRP What methods!
We have repeatedly called for a genuine debate on policy research and restoration of works of art. It Within this framework, Tuesday, May 11, CGT-Culture and SNTRS (CGT Research) met to develop a joint work plan report on the consequences of Vincent Pomarède and more generally on the role of industry and research personnel within the Ministry of Culture. Let us not forget that at the industry research waltzed between the paper trail or conservation. For now, this issue is put aside but it requires RGPP return to the agenda once the C2RMF will burst.
For years, the research sector is being undermined in the Ministry of Culture, the RGPP does not help. How the file is processed CERCP involved in this decay of the research sector. Pushing researchers C2RMF Culture and CNRS "to the door, they want our leaders to clear themselves of the predicted failure of CERCP? This attitude is irresponsible. We encourage all our colleagues to continue to work and set up projects, and especially not to concede defeat. We will fight to maintain CNRS UMR171 and through the development of research on the restoration and conservation. We shared a lot with the head of the research department. Also we have had discussions and meetings with officials valuable research and restoration and conservation because we had to find other contacts from the time when our leadership does not see fit to receive us, even to understand what the concerns of its agents. We took it publicly.
Already, a delegation consisting of union representatives from the CNRS and the MCC had an audience with the Director of the CNRS UMR 171. Following that, the delegation asked to meet gentlemen Bélaval and desalination, and the Minister's office.
The bitterness is so great that many of colleagues have informed us that they will boycott the May 26 meeting and ask us to be attached to this position.
Next week we will hold a general meeting to determine ways to implement this tool, to save, set the follow-up to the petition BELPHEGOR and finally what attitude should we adopt if the month of July if the UMR 171 and the chemistry section does not continue to work C2RMF from 2011. Source
0 comments:
Post a Comment