With the Re-Branding fiasco heading to its inevitable conclusion, with
the General Meeting and the passing of the motion (unanimously,
perhaps?), it is worth considering how we got here, the motives of the
protagonists, and whether any of this was deliberate - and if so, for
what purpose?
The re-branding was dreamed up by CILIP's permanent staff, but did they
foresee the outcome? Was it perhaps intended to damage the
Council/Trustees/Board by association (so to speak)? Phil Bradley's
explanation of his role has been less than convincing: was he being
offered the opportunity to endorse the survey exercise? Did he have the
option to stop it before it did any damage?
Because what has also been happening at the same time has been the
Governance Review, which seems to have resulted in yet another power
grab by the Council/Trustees/Board, who are proposing to give themselves
the role of electing the President. As this looks suspiciously like an
Executive President, the role of the Chief Executive inevitably comes
into question.
It will be interesting to see how the re-branding fiasco plays into this
power struggle - I suppose it will depend on who takes the blame.
--
John Briggs
|