I am glad I read this email, as I awoke in the middle of the night
wondering about all this and what we were really on about and tackling.

It seems to me that Cilip needs:-

To attract and retain more members

To be more cost effective in dealing with membership and collection of
subs

To bring in more revenue from subs

To do this they have looked at subs and have proposed a new rate

This has meant:-

A discussion on the two options

Concerns about the fairness of the rate

And questions about the value of the membership fee

The overriding concern seems to be ''what do we get for the money'., can
we take advantage of what is on offer., do we get support from Cilip to
improve our rates of pay and status

It seems to me that as Cilip is primarily a membership organisation, it
needs to satisfy its members, as they after all are the future. If you
consider the emails on this issue, I am sure they are the tip of an
iceberg, and many many people may feel disgruntled but done put finger
to keyboard.

I recall in my last post, in over 10 years I had 2 letters of complaint
about our services. For the one we did an investigation as to the  why
and what behind the complaint, as I felt one complaint was too many, and
others must be out there, and we resolved it. For the other, which was
more fundamental and involved membership subscriptions we got PWC to do
an independent investigation and report and acted on the results.All
done with transparency to all emmbers, and with the support of the
Board.

We do need to retain Cilip, but perhaps the bull at a gate approach of
just dealing with subs is just not enough. We need to offer some
transparency to the membership, not in long wordy documents, but simple
information as to :-

What does Cilip cost to run

What do they have top pay for buildings, rates etc

What income revenue is received from what, including subs, and what are
the costs of running all of those

What are the average salaries (and mean), of Cilip staff

Are Cilip staff all qualified librarians (as this will affect the above)


What people, categories of staff,, from where geographically, do people
attend  an London event., what events are held elsewhere than London,
and do they, as I suspect have to run at a loss.

Then the value added stuff Cilip does do for which the subs pay e.g.
chartership stuff, policy, advocacy, the excellent email news bulletins
etc and so on.(I recall filling in a very large form some time ago about
what Cilip offered how I rated the serices, what happened to that and
were changes made)?

Then some hard information about subs, percentages of who pays what etc 

I would prefer we put the subs thing on hold (is this possible in the
constitution), until we provide people with more information and some
ideas on how Cilip is going to take forward some of the members
concerns, rather than lose what we have now, and lose more members,
rather than face the music and re think

Could Cilip not invite some of those people who have raised concerns,
and a wider spectrum of members who are not on Council, committees etc,
to a forum to talk through the issues. The members count, don't ignore
them, get them inside your tent?

f

-----Original Message-----
From: Chartered Library and Information Professionals
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stella Dextre Clarke
Sent: 29 October 2004 19:28
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Re : 44% of us earn #17K (or less) - the figure is actually
36%

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars But in ourselves that we
are underlings"
- Julius Caesar, I.ii.134

Those of us with the ambition to earn the average or more need to put
ourselves out a bit, be prepared to move away from home, take on
responsibilities and perhaps long hours, pick up new skills, apply for
better jobs. Most professions have some bottom rungs with quite a lot of
people doing less well than the others, and I don't expect it is a whole
lot cushier for them, unless they are in a field where demand exceeds
supply of trained people. From our professional association we should
look for support in improving our skills, sharing experiences with
others, keeping up with developments. But it is no use relying on CILIP
for personal advancement.

That said, let's continue to press CILIP to do all it should be doing! -
without incurring costs that unnecessarily raise our subscription
levels. No-one so far seems to have raised the question of whether CILIP
really needs to be costing as much as it is. Are they spending our money
wisely and effectively? Do they need so many staff? Maybe some judicious
economies could cut subscription levels for all of us.

*****************************************************
Stella Dextre Clarke
Information Consultant
Luke House, West Hendred, Wantage, Oxon, OX12 8RR, UK
Tel: 01235-833-298
Fax: 01235-863-298
[log in to unmask]
*****************************************************



-----Original Message-----
From: Chartered Library and Information Professionals
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tim Buckley Owen
Sent: 29 October 2004 15:59
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Re : 44% of us earn #17K (or less) - the figure is actually
36%


Just on a point of information again...

It is actually 36% of CILIP members who are on income-related
subscription rates and who declare incomes of 17,000 or less - not 44%.


The 44% figure refers to income-related subscription payers who earn
between 17,000 and 22,000, and finally there are 20% earning above
22,000.

N.B. These percentages refer only to those members who are on
income-related rates, and don't take into account categories such as
affiliated or supporting or expatriate members, who are on a flat rate
already.

Tim Buckley Owen.

-----Original Message-----
From: Julia Johnson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 29 October 2004 15:38
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re : 44% of us earn #17K (or less)


I was horrified to learn that 44% of CILIP's members are on ?17K or
less.
Leaving aside the contemplation of salaries of ?10K- 12K.

As those of us who work in London know, a second-jobber secretary with
A-levels (and secretarial college, I assume) can earn more than that (My

employer is seeking someone of that ilk, and I believe the salary is
?25K-?28K)

If I had my time over, I would make sure I had decent IT, document
production and related skills.  I think that I might never have been
unemployed, while I looked for information work.  If I had been lost to
the profession, then that would have been the operation of "market
forces".

Regards
Julia Johnson