It's not a separate issue and that's my point. Motions tabled even on a relatively specific issue often become a more general judgement of confidence in a management as a whole. That is my point and that is happening here, in my opinion.
Others can make their own minds up.
________________________________________
From: Library and Information Professionals [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Briggs [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 28 June 2013 18:45
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Rebranding
Yes, but that's a separate issue. They are incompetent regardless of the
outcome of the motion - or whether there is a motion at all.
John Briggs
On 28/06/2013 18:00, Bebbington, Laurence W wrote:
> The whole way that this has been managed calls the competence of certain people in question. If you don't agree - fine.
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Library and Information Professionals [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Briggs [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 28 June 2013 16:17
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Rebranding
>
> Actually, that is not the case - the motion is *very* carefully worded.
> It doesn't instruct anyone to do anything - it simply states that the
> meeting believes the re-branding exercise to be unnecessary and that it
> should be halted. No rational person could take exception to that. One
> person (a trifle unwisely) has tried to make that out to be a motion of
> no confidence.
>
> John Briggs
>
> On 28/06/2013 13:27, Bebbington, Laurence W wrote:
>> The people who should be taking note of how this has been managed are
>> certainly the membership. A motion which was directed against the
>> rebranding has effectively become a confidence vote in CILIP officers
>> and the way the organisation is being run.
>>
>> I think Charles made this point a few weeks ago. If the vote goes
>> against them then a number of people will need to consider their positions.
>>
>> Laurence
>>
>> *From:*Library and Information Professionals
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Frances Hendrix
>> *Sent:* 28 June 2013 13:24
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* Re: Rebranding
>>
>> Very well said
>>
>> But who is listening and taking note
>>
>> Despair
>>
>> f
>>
>> *From:*Library and Information Professionals
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Caroline Moss-Gibbons
>> *Sent:* 28 June 2013 13:05
>> *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> *Subject:* Re: Rebranding
>>
>> I was very surprised to see that the top story of the CILIP eNewsletter
>> was an exhortation to vote against the motion. Whatever happened to balance?
>>
>> I have nothing against people putting their point of view strongly, but
>> Ridgmount Street is supposed to be the admin support for the membership,
>> and Council representing the breadth of views of us all.
>>
>> It feels very wrong that the apparatus of CILIP is acting in such a
>> negative way to a legitimate challenge from the grass roots.
>>
>> At the very least those in favour of the motion should be given the same
>> space in all the 'official' member-funded outlets that have been used
>> by the 'anti-motion' to date.
>>
>> I look forward to Tom Roper being invited by Phil Bradley to do a guest
>> piece on his President's Blog, and a 'pro-motion' exhortation being
>> given top billing in the eNewsletter.
>>
>> Democracy 'whither?' indeed.
>>
>> Caroline
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> ••————••••————••
>>
>> Caroline Moss-Gibbons
>>
>> T: 07788 590913
>>
>> E: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> ••————••••————••
>>
>>
>> On 28 Jun 2013, at 10:58, Tom Roper <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> I'm grateful to CILIP for making the results of the rebranding
>> survey public, and they may be seen at
>> http://www.cilip.org.uk/about-us/brand/Documents/CILIP_Consultation_June%202013_25%20(4).pdf
>>
>> I'll save a detailed critique for the General Meeting on 8 July, but
>> I have to say that it's hard to see why it's worth £35,000.
>>
>> I asked two days ago that CILIP, having sent an e-mail to all (or
>> most, the system doesn't seem to reach everyone) members calling on
>> them to defeat the motion to allow me equal access to put the case
>> for the motion. So far, silence.
>>
>> Can I urge everyone to either attend the General Meeting, or to
>> register a proxy vote? The proxy form is at
>> http://fs3.formsite.com/cilip/proxy/index.html and the registration
>> form at http://fs3.formsite.com/cilip/form198/index.html
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> Tom Roper
>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> Twitter: @tomroper
>> http://www.roper.org.uk
>>
>>
>>
>> The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.
>
>
> The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.
>
The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.
|