문화재위원회의 운영개선방안 연구
(A) Study on the Operation of the Cultural Properties Committee
문화재위원회 운영개선방안 행정정책학;
- 원문 URL
The Cultural Properties Committee is an advisory committee established under the Cultural Properties Administration with the aim of carrying out examination and deliberation on preservation, management and use of cultural properties. The Cultural Properties Administration is the highest administrative organization in terms of Korean cultural properties. It was founded to produce and execute policies on cultural properties, an important task that requires a high level of specialized knowledge, skills and academic expertise. It involves in-depth investigation and consultation of experts in the field of cultural properties. An organization consisting of distinguished experts, the Cultural Properties Committee plays an important role in policymaking on cultural properties of Korea. Governmental committees in Korea are largely divided into consultation committees and administrative commissions. Consultation committees are subdivided into consultation committees, deliberation committees and legislative committees. The Korean government established the Bureau of Cultural Properties in October 1961, and enacted provisions (as a presidential decree) on the organization on March 27, 1962, according to the Cultural Properties Act established on January 10 of the same year. The Cultural Properties Committee was opened as a deliberation committee according to the law, on which currently 90 members serve in 8 subcommittees. The term of office of a committees member is two years. The deliberation of the committee, which covers the entire range of cultural properties, including their designation and cancellation, is normally concluded by the deliberation and decision of each subcommittee. This study aims to analyze and evaluate of the role of the Cultural Properties Committee as the highest organ for the deliberation of policies on the matters of cultural properties, and to suggest effective measures to improve the committees performance. The subject of the analysis in this study is the performance of the committee in the 16-year period between 1987 and 2002, and a questionnaire survey that was conducted between Oct. 20 and Nov. 29, 2003, of 116 former and current members of the committee. This study consists of a general survey of cultural properties, the theoretical background of the committees scheme, history and current activities, research via documentary records and questionnaire analysis. The effective measures are presented in the closing part of the study. First, the research via documentary records shows the following result: in terms of the importance of agenda, the ratio of important items to ordinary items deliberated by the committee was 30% to 70%, and the figure reveals that the committee has not operated effectively, spending too many resources on less important issues. The result shows that the committee needs to improve its operation by concentrating its resources more on important items and less on the deliberation of ordinary ones. The rate of approval was 62%, a moderate figure, but the addition of the rate of conditional approval, 9%, raises the figure to 71%, which is not low by any means. However, the rate of rejection (17%) of the subjects, which shows the coordination capacity of the committee in connection with the outside environment surrounding cultural properties, and the rate of reservation (23%), which is interpreted as a negative element in the deliberation process, tells us that the committee, as a body making decisions based on mutual agreement, needs to strengthen its coordination and integration. In terms of trustful deliberation, an analysis of the committees operation process including the rate of attendance, 82.4% (a fine figure and it has continued to grow), reveals that the committee members have been highly motivated. Meanwhile, the rate of member substitution for the targeted 16-year period is 25.4%, but recent analysis shows that about half of the committee members are substituted every four years. The situation may be interpreted as a reflection of a fast-changing society in the era of globalization. The average age of the members has been 61 to 65, but in 2003 it dropped to 59. As for their professions, 77% are professors. It is also revealed that 9 members dealt with 13.4 cases in a 2-hour session. But the figure in the last two years shows that the number of items on the agenda doubled, meaning that a conclusion for each item had to be made every four minutes. This can become a major obstacle in conducting reliable deliberations, although the rate of attendance remains high. The period of service for each member has been 6 years and 3 months, being reelected 2.2 times on average. This shows that the current term of service is rather short. Second, the questionnaire survey of committee members has produced a number of results. Most committee members say that they are well aware of the importance of the committee as an organization aimed to help produce policies based on a fair, just and rational basis as well as a high level of expertise in cultural properties. They also wanted the committee to be promoted to a legislative committee that can reduce its legal burden. Two-thirds of the respondents said that they are satisfied at their contribution to the policymaking, suggesting that the committee has played an active role in the process of making policies concerning cultural resources. Most committee members, however, revealed dissatisfaction at selection of items for the agenda, making reports of decisions, the time allotted to reviewing agenda items, and the criteria for and process of inviting new members. They also wanted a support facility, such as a secretariat, and felt it necessary to keep a minute book of the committee. As for the deliberation process, most members said that they give their views freely in a democratic atmosphere, and decisions are made by majority opinion after compromises and mutual consents. They do, however, sometimes feel the influence of a traditional patriarchal society in which a small group of experts disproportionately affects a decision. The measures to improve the operation of the Cultural Properties Committee as determined by analysis of the survey are as follows: 1. Reduction of the number of agenda items to better focus on essential subjects for policymaking In order for the committee members to focus on important policy-related subjects, it is necessary to reduce the number of ordinary items that require a simple and repetitive procedure. A possible solution may be to establish a subcommittee or a special body entrusted with dealing with ordinary tasks. At the same time, the committee needs to increase the number of items related to important policymaking to over 50% by discovering new agenda items. 2. Establishment of a subcommittee or an expert review board One way to reduce the burden of the committee and to ensure a more substantial deliberation is to establish a subcommittee or an expert review board. Such a subcommittee might be used for prior consultation or deliberation of issues before they are sent to the committee. 3. Keeping open minutes of the committee meetings Considering the historical significance of the deliberations and decisions of the committee, it is necessary to keep a faithful record of statements by committee members. The minutes should be structured in such a way that they can help clarify where the responsibility lies. The public opening of the minutes may need to be restricted for a certain period of time to avoid damage to the reputation of committee members. 4. Increasing the term of office to four years Because the current term of membership, two years, is too short to maintain consistency and in-depth deliberation on a stable basis, it needs to be increased to four years. The increased term of membership is expected to help members overcome difficulties related to inexperience in early stages, and to ensure continuity and coherence in the issues they deal with. At the same time, there should be a limitation in reappointment of members to avoid rigidity in the committee. 5. Appointment by public recommendation As the function and performance of the committee is directly related to the quality of its members, the process of selecting members needs to be carried out in an open, democratic way via active participation from related academic circles and organizations with public recognition. Selection by a small number of bureaucrats can lead to a lack of transparency and fairness. 6. Promotion of the committee to a semi-legislative organ The Cultural Properties Committee needs to maintain its current status as a deliberation body to ensure flexibility, because becoming a full legislative organ might introduce rigidity to its policymaking process. However, it would be desirable to ensure that the decisions made by the committee are reflected in policymaking on an obligatory basis, thus promoting the committee to a semi-legislative organ. 7. Operation of a support organization The committee needs to have a support organization that will help it conduct substantial deliberations. Committee members expressed the need for support in dealing with paperwork requested by the policymaking authority and in providing enough materials and reference data to be reviewed by the committee. 8. Reorganization of subcommittees Considering that subcommittees of the Cultural Properties Committee should be divided according to the categories of cultural property, the current structure should be reorganized. The Museum Subcommittee, for example, needs to be reviewed, because the issues it deals with - establishment, operation and registration of museums - are not directly related to cultural properties. The Intangible Cultural Properties Subcommittee, which currently deals with traditional crafts and artifacts and folk entertainment, needs to be restructured. The work of traditional crafts and artifacts should be transferred to the Movable Cultural Properties Subcommittee. The Buried Cultural Properties Subcommittee needs to be integrated into the Archeological Sites Subcommittee because it deals with excavation in archeological sites. The Cultural Properties Scheme Subcommittee, currently focusing on policies and systems for the protection of cultural properties, needs to be reviewed. One suggestion is that it be reorganized, as in the case of the National Treasure Designation Subcommittee, into a special subcommittee whose chair is held by the chairperson of the committee. 9. Expansion of researchers and the technical staff in the Cultural Properties Administration As a governmental agency aimed at executing government policies, the Cultural Properties Administration must possess a high level of administrative and coordinative capacity. Because it is also an organization that needs to deal with various academic issues, however, it maintains harmony between administrative skills and academic knowledge. The researchers and the technical staff of the organization are armed with specialized knowledge and experience as well as a high level of diversity and flexibility. However, they usually lack the administrative and coordinative capacity that a first-line public employee needs in order to perform his or her professional obligations. Therefore, the Cultural Properties Administration needs to expand and balance its administrative line and academic staff. Some effective measures to achieve this would be operating a special recruitment program and transferring administrative posts into specialized posts for researchers and technical staff. 10. Other measures to improve effective operation of the committee Measures to ensure the efficient operation of the Cultural Properties Committee include finding an effective way for the members to access new information and academic data, careful consideration in selecting agendas for deliberation, the provision of sufficient time for review, the establishment of high moral standards and positive attitudes towards decisions made by the members.