I have sent the following message to CILIP as a response to the request
for comments on the CILIP Governance Review pages. I would add here
that, with the last major governance review completed in 2006, it seems
both a little early and unnecessary to be embarking on a new one only 6
years later.
----
I should like to make a few comments on the governance review as
described on the CILIP web pages at:
http://www.cilip.org.uk/cilip/about/projects-reviews/governance-review.
 
1.	The change of name from 'Council' to 'Board; may be trendy
current fashion, but I see little purpose in the change other than to
reinforce the apparent move to corporate, industry model of 'big
business' and to further divorce the trustees from any real decision
making.
2.	By removing the Office of the President and combining the roles
of President and Chair of Council, this model loses a very important
aspect that was built into the current model. The Office of the
President acted to secure checks and balance, standing between senior
management and Council and appointing the audit panel, election panel,
disciplinary panel and ethics panel. The President was deliberately
excluded from membership of Council and given the key role of monitoring
its work. The last (2006) review concluded that there would be a clear
conflict of interest were the President to be a part of the Council's
decision making (see 7th December 2006 Report of the Governance Review
Task Force to CILIP Council). And yet this new model has one benefit
given as "better scrutiny and accountability" - it is unclear how this
will be so.
3.	It is stated that there is a "real challenge in governance terms
because of the two roles that CILIP Council have [sic] in dealing with
the running of the charity and driving the policy and strategy of the
professional body" (=different skill sets). It is unclear to me why
there is a conflict or challenge as this is effectively the same thing:
appropriate policies and strategies will run the charity effectively
(for the public good and needs of members). However, it is true to say
that Council has always struggled to maintain its independence from the
senior management team who effectively set the direction, and I hope
that whatever change is envisaged to resolve the apparent conflict (it
is not stated) will not devolve more power to the senior management
team. Membership needs clear accountability and CILIP is said to be "a
member organisation" / "member-led".
4.	While the web pages state that there will be eight of the twelve
Council members elected from the membership, it does not state from
where the four appointed members will come. Who will appoint them? Why
will they not have to be CILIP members? Are the appointed members also
to be Trustees? If 'yes', is that appropriate/good governance? Is it
intended that they be drawn from the senior management team? If CILIP
staff are to take a third of the Council seats there is even more need
for an external monitoring of Council's work by e.g. the Office of the
President.
 
I think the membership needs some real answers to these questions, which
I shall also be posting on LIS-Profession and LIS-Link.
 
Chris Armstrong
______________________________
Chris Armstrong (Past Trustee involved with the last governance review,
2006)
Information Automation Limited
t. (+44) 1974 251302
s. chrisatial (Skype, pre-arranged)
e. [log in to unmask]
 
____________________________________________
Registered address: Penbryn, Bronant, Aberystwyth SY23 4TJ
Registered in England Number: 2110002