Knowing how Frances dislikes long posts I've tried to focus on one
particular aspect and to keep it as short as possible.
The CILIP “Old Guard”.
I’d like to return to this issue, since I think that it’s an important
one. I apologise if some people find this tedious but I’m concerned
that the discussion is tending towards generalities and I’d like to
address specifics.
Frances asked “WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE AND WHO DO THEY SUPPORT?” and also
referred to the ‘old guard’. I asked her if she would be more specific
and name the people she felt were in this ‘old guard’. Her response
was as follows:
“I used ‘old guard’ and I think you know what I mean., those who have
been making these decisions for some time, not the new people like Tom
who stood for change,., as for names the list is too long to include
here, but those that have led the organisation for some years I
suppose’.
The easiest way to vilify a group of people is to dehumanise them, and
to refer to that group as ‘these people’, or ‘them’ and ‘they’. It’s a
fairly common tactic because it means that you can be as vague as you
want, leading easily to fear, uncertainty and doubt. However, as it
happens I *don’t* know who you mean Frances, but since you’re
referring to people who make decisions I think we can narrow that down
to the Council. So unlike Frances I’m quite happy to name names.
I hope that we can agree that people who have been on Council for six
months cannot really be regarded as ‘old guard’, so that rules out
Karen McFarlane, David McMenemy and David Stewart. So let’s look at
the ones that have been on Council the longest – Maria Cotera, Emma
McDonald, Nick Poole. They have worked incredibly hard for CILIP
during their time in office; while they accept expenses they all have
to take personal leave to come to meetings. I know for a fact that
more than one member of Council has been hauled over the coals for the
time they spend working for CILIP by their bosses.
These people have given up their time, effort and energy to support
CILIP. Why would they want to do anything that would damage it? What’s
in it for them, since they’re also CILIP members, and they will be
working under any new system that we put in place. Why would any of
them want to vote for an undemocratic system? I’m at a loss, but since
you’ve got clear ideas on the ‘old guard’ I’m happy to be informed by
you. Of course, if you’re thinking of other members of Council – do
let us all know.
Another point – isn’t an ‘old guard’ supposed to want to keep things
as they are? In actual fact what they are working towards is improving
CILIP and making it more, not less democratic, to raise interest in
getting members to vote, to make Council more able to react quicker in
future but also to work more effectively as a charity. It seems to me
that they are the ones who are standing for change, rather than the
perpetuation of a system that no longer works. Trustees have worked
very closely this year with CILIP groups and branches, going through
the proposals in great detail, and listening to what has been said. As
I have said previously, proposals are based in large part on this
feedback.
To return to your other comment: “as for names the list is too long to
include here, but those that have led the organisation for some years
I suppose’” You say that you ‘suppose’, which rather implies that you
don’t know. Who are these people? There’s plenty of room to include a
list of names, but let’s stick to a small number, say 5 of them. Who
are they? More importantly, how are they influencing CILIP Trustees?
Are we to think of them sitting on swivel chairs in back rooms
speaking in exotic accents and stroking white cats muttering ‘CILIP
will be all mine!’? CILIP Trustees make up their own minds and they
vote accordingly. No-one else is influencing them (or if you think
they are, please let us know) in their decision making. 11 of the 12
Trustees voted one way, and 1 voted another. That’s the way that a
democratic voting process works. So I ask again – why would any of
them be voting for a system that is going to damage CILIP in any way?
(These are general questions by the way, not aimed at Frances in
particular.)
Please – let’s do away with phrases like ‘old guard’ which are not
only inaccurate but they do no justice to the hard working Trustees
who have, let’s not forget, been voted in by other CILIP members, who
presumably know what they’re doing and who they are voting for. They
are doing the very best for CILIP that they can.
Phil.
On 17 July 2014 15:01, Frances Hendrix <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> See below
>
> But oh dear, this is such a lengthy email
>
>
> Frances Hendrix
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Library and Information Professionals
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Phil Bradley
> Sent: 17 July 2014 11:50
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: LIS-PROFESSION Digest - 14 Jul 2014 to 16 Jul 2014 (#2014-118)
>
> I think it might help to try and clarify one or two points, and to correct
> some misconceptions.
>
> The Governance Review first met on 23rd February 2012 and delivered its
> final report to Council in Autumn last year; less than 2 years, not the 4
> years that has been referenced. It was not in 'secret' - what would be the
> point, since it was going to be discussed with members, who would then
> (democratically) be able to vote on it. There have been articles in Update
> and information on the website regarding the whole process. There was
> nothing to let people see prior to this because the panel was looking at a
> whole range of different options and to say 'we might go for option A or
> option Z' would not have helped the process at all.
>
> Well there is a point, if you were reviewing up to 26 options you would want
> to revise them down and put the main contenders to the members surely?
>
> Let me take the role of President first, which is something that I have some
> experience of. We could either have an entirely honorary post, which is
> nothing more than cutting ribbons and giving awards, which would cost the
> organisation all of the expenses to little end.
>
> The previous Honorary post did have some very high profile people, if I
> remember correctly this included the Duke of Edinburgh. I am not opting for
> that, BUT it did give some sort of higher status to the association, and
> some kudos? There are so many high profile authors who support libraries, it
> would not be amiss to use them in some capacity.
> Alternatively, we can have a President who actually does things, has their
> own particular interests (mine was social media, Barbara's is school
> libraries), but that takes time. I was generally spending about
> 2 days a week on CILIP matters - visiting groups or branches, giving talks,
> speeches, awarding things, sitting on various committees and dealing with
> correspondence. That's an awful lot to ask of someone, and reduces the pool
> of people who are able to do it quite drastically. I don't believe that the
> current system works any longer
> - not just for that reason, but because my second year as President was
> unelected. Our current President and Vice President have not been elected
> either. I'm really not sure quite how democratic this is, and it's by no
> means a new phenomenon at all.
>
> I imagine there were some advantages of having this post and this profile.,
> otherwise who would do it. Very good and thank you. I remember Jean Plaister
> doing it and she worked extremely hard and travelled a lot. I am sure all
> Presidents do so.
>
>
> If we choose a President from those who are elected (in the same way that we
> currently chose the Leader of Council) they can in turn chose one of their
> own to take on that role. We will then have a President who HAS been
> elected; this will hopefully lead to more people having an interesting in
> standing for Council, giving us a greater pool of candidates to consider -
> which again I think is a democratic way forward. There will be even more
> reason to vote at elections, since they'll also be voting for someone who
> may become President, which should increase the turnout - another democratic
> outcome. Wonder why the turnout is so low, not just for this reason only
> surely? The workload is of course going to be an issue here, and trustees
> will be in a position to take on a little more of that workload, which will
> include meeting members, giving talks and so on. Again, I think this is a
> positive step forward; I think the current status quo means that trustees
> can be seen as being too removed from the membership, and this will address
> that criticism.
>
> CILIP is a multi-million pound charity.(no financial problems now then, even
> with so few members, Does multimillion mean millions, how many? )Trustees
> take on a personal liability (which also includes financial) when taking up
> position.
> While there is insurance, they are responsible for getting professional
> advice and experience as necessary - often at considerable cost. This is
> always the case with small companies, and has to be accounted for in the
> budgeting is rare to get a trustee who has experience of charity law,
> knowledge of pensions, an in-depth understanding of financial aspects and so
> on (I do not believe that? No one will have all these skills but some will
> have one at least., but of course as I have said a small organisation like
> Cilip will need professional advice. Moreover, a lot of the people who are
> elected have an interest in their specific subject area, and that's
> generally why they get voted in. This is in no way critical of current or
> previous trustees, but in order to run a charity we need people on board who
> are experienced, and we don't always get this.(is there a confusion here,
> does Cilip have charitable status, or is it a charity., it is a membership
> organisation first and foremost., all charities that are on the small side
> have professional help for finance and legal matters, it is not unusual)./
> If members vote for the changes we will be in a better position to plug
> those gaps in our knowledge; that makes Council more, not less effective,
> and it means that those trustees who have little interest in pensions etc
> will be able to focus on the subject at hand - promoting and protecting
> library services and librarians.
>
> I have been on boards of directors of charities and those with charitable
> status, financial matters are of concern to trustees, including pay,
> remuneration and pensions, and the paid experts present the case and the
> detail to trustees. I think you underestimate the trustees. I Am a chair of
> a charity now, and Laser had charitable status, and I have served on other
> boards of directors.)
>
> 'Secrecy'. Trustees and CILIP staff have run a series of meetings with
> branches and groups, as well as meetings with the devolved nations.
> The proposals have been presented, and feedback was received.(details would
> be good please) The views of individual members were also been taken into
> account, leading to the current set of proposals. This was not some
> meaningless charade; as many trustees as possible were involved, with as
> many meetings as possible to give all members an opportunity to share their
> opinions. It's also worth making the point that at the January meeting the
> default position was taken that items under discussion at Council should be
> public unless there was a compelling reason not to do so.(so what was the
> compelling reason?)
> Could this have been done before? Yes, I think it could, but it's happening
> now, so far from being more secret, Council deliberations are becoming more
> transparent. However, I should also make the point that in all of the
> Council meetings I have been involved with I think I could count on the
> fingers of one hand the people who have actually turned up to listen.(tut
> tut, we are not all local, able or free to attend) Hopefully we will see
> more in the future, and I am sure that I can count on your support here.
>
> With regards membership. No, there isn't a specific section in the register
> on membership figures(?) because the entire register is about finance and
> membership! It's broken down into specific sections, and there is a constant
> emphasis on improving membership figures. I don't think I attended a single
> Council meeting in the last three years that didn't discuss membership.
> CILIP has appointed an expert in the subject area, (an expert in what?)and
> he gave a paper at the last Council meeting in fact.
> As you know, CILIP have provided free memberships to students to encourage
> them to become full, paying memberships when they qualify.
> CILIP also has the well-attended New Professionals Day at various different
> places around the country to provide information, help and assistance to
> that group.(all very good!, and what any membership organisation needs to
> do.)
>
> Moving onto 'democracy'. I've already covered this in some detail, so I'll
> keep this as short as possible. CILIP has moved to a situation of electronic
> voting to encourage more people to vote in elections.(hooray)
> Contrary to expectations however, when it was used for the first time last
> year the number voting actually fell, it didn't increase, which was
> disappointing. There are many potential reasons for this, including I
> suspect disillusionment.(very true) I am however hopeful that once members
> see the importance of voting for Trustees and President that will encourage
> more of them to become involved. One further point here
> - the decision that Tom felt strongly enough over to resign was voted on by
> Council, and as he himself said, he was in a minority of one.
> Unfortunately, that's what democracy is all about; you can't pick and choose
> which results you like and which you don't.(of course you can, it is called
> freedom of will and mind)
>
> With respect to a couple of comments mentioned in this thread - yes,
> Trustees and the Presidential team get expenses for their travel and
> incidentals. Is anyone seriously suggesting that they shouldn't? If they
> were, they should understand that we'd then end up with trustees who were
> rich enough not to have to worry about train tickets, or people who simply
> happened to live within easy travelling distance.(I don't recall any one
> saying this., it would be idiotic to do so, of course people must be offered
> and given expenses)
> I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem particularly fair or democratic to me. One
> of the points that is often made is 'how many member subscriptions would
> that cost?' This really does help focus the mind and trustees and the
> Presidential team always look for the cheapest prices and book as far ahead
> as possible.(we all do, of course we do, especially when claiming from a
> charity‼) For years I travelled first class to London from choice , but
> always claimed, when I did, 2nd class, or whatever the fairs are now called.
> I did so because of my arthritis and the need for space and to avoid the
> risk of standing.)
>
> There was also mention of the 'old guard'. I'm not really sure what that
> means. It's always much easier to refer to 'they' and 'them' or 'Council' or
> 'Trustees' without actually naming people.(I used 'old guard' and I think
> you know what I mean., those who have been making these decisions for some
> time, not the new people like Tom who stood for change,., as for names the
> list is too long to include here, but those that have led the organisation
> for some years I suppose) I'd be really interested - as I am sure other
> people would - to see who this 'old guard' actually is, so can we have some
> names please? As for 'who do they think they are?' the answer is simple -
> they are the democratically elected members of Council who have been elected
> by the membership to work on their behalf, to the very best of their
> ability, and that's exactly what they do.(jolly good., but who do they
> really think they are?)
>
> I apologise for the length of this post, but I wanted to cover the points as
> best as I could; to do anything else would not have been respectful to the
> people asking questions or those reading the thread.
>
>
> Thank you I have learnt a lot from this email. No doubt I will be told off
> for my response and comments, but hey I am old and free!
> f
> Phil.
>
>
>
>
> On 17 July 2014 10:26, Frances Hendrix <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Cilip
>> Read, listen and learn
>>
>> This isn't me writing, but someone you should respect!
>> f
>>
>> Frances Hendrix
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Library and Information Professionals
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wendy Foster
>> (Hywel Dda UHB - Knowledge Services Manager)
>> Sent: 17 July 2014 07:43
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: LIS-PROFESSION Digest - 14 Jul 2014 to 16 Jul 2014
>> (#2014-118)
>>
>> I can understand why Tom felt the need to resign. This is ridiculous!
>> However, CILIP has not been a democratic organisation for a long time so I
>> suppose we should not be too surprised. With this information now available
>> to us all I think far fewer of us will be renewing our membership next time.
>> What would be the point?
>>
>> I used to think there was some value in telling employers or prospective
>> employers that I was a chartered member of CILIP, but frankly employers no
>> longer know about or care about CILIP. I'd have done far better spending my
>> membership subscriptions on getting a masters degree and I think this is
>> what those new to the profession are doing. In any case, why would they
>> join an organisation which treats it's members in this shameful fashion.
>>
>>
>> Wendy Foster
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Library and Information Professionals
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of LIS-PROFESSION
>> automatic digest system
>> Sent: 17 July 2014 00:12
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: LIS-PROFESSION Digest - 14 Jul 2014 to 16 Jul 2014
>> (#2014-118)
>>
>> There is 1 message totaling 349 lines in this issue.
>>
>> Topics of the day:
>>
>> 1. The sad departure of Tom Roper
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 15:49:29 +0000
>> From: Frances Hendrix <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: The sad departure of Tom Roper
>>
>> I have taken the trouble of printing Tom's goodbye blog below for those of
>> you who have not seen it.
>>
>> Well it says so much doesn't it. All the hopes we had of the new
>> Councillors, and where may I ask are the others who were voted in with Tom,
>> when we the electorate wanted to see BIG changes and more democracy? Have
>> then joined the 'old guard'.
>> So 6 months into his position on Council, the first debate of the new
>> Governance proposals. Openness, democracy, it seems not, rather closed
>> sessions!!. Is this a British membership organisation we are referring to,
>> and that I have paid subs to for c45 years. It hints of something much more
>> alien.
>>
>> How do you feel about a third of Council seats being appointed and the
>> President elected by the same Council.
>>
>> BUT the saving grace and your opportunity to have your say, at least these
>> proposals are going to Cilip's AGM in September, so stand by your beds!
>> What on earth is happening to Cilip? To miss quote a well know TV series
>> 'Who on Earth do they think they are'?
>>
>> Can they not see what they are doing with membership down to an all-time
>> low of 13,342, and I would think after this dropping even more. Do they ever
>> ask why? Of course with the multitude of closures of public libraries, and
>> the replacement of qualified staff by volunteers and the 'silence of the
>> Cilip lambs', it is obvious membership will drop, but what on earth are they
>> doing to give help, courage and practical assistance to those of us who pay
>> their wages and expenses! (Yes council members will claim expenses). And a
>> risk register which hasn't registered the falling numbers. Glad they are not
>> responsible for fire risk!!
>>
>> I have highlighted Tom's last paragraph as it says it all. Do we care
>> enough about our profession to allow this to go on. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE AND
>> WHO DO THEY SUPPORT? Perhaps they should be paid by results in number of new
>> members?
>>
>> I know I will be slagged off for this by the same-old, but you know I
>> don't care if I am, I am just so angry that we have lost Tom from this
>> Council!
>> f
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> July 15, 2014
>> Farewell to CILIP Council
>> Today I e-mailed Martyn Wade, Chair of CILIP Council, to say I was
>> resigning from CILIP Council. At the Council meeting on 8 July we debated,
>> for the first time since I was elected to Council, the Governance Review
>> proposals.
>> I have written before about the Governance
>> Review<http://www.roper.org.uk/tr/2013/07/the-mystery-of-the-vanishing-cilip-governance-review-or-kittens-in-aeschylus.html>,
>> and once more here:
>> http://www.roper.org.uk/tr/2013/07/cilips-governance-review-update.html This
>> review has been four years in preparation, and kept secret for most of that
>> time. Indeed, at the first Council meeting I attended, in January of this
>> year, the agenda item on it was taken in closed session. Then, only then,
>> were the proposals put out for consultation.
>> Most of the proposals are innocuous, but there are two that are profoundly
>> undemocratic, the proposal that a third of Council seats should be
>> appointed, rather 13,than elected from the membership, and the proposal that
>> Council, rather than the members, should elect the President. Council is
>> recommending these to CILIP's AGM in September; I found myself in a minority
>> of one when suggesting we should not support these when Council had its
>> first opportunity to debate the substance of the proposals.
>> The Governance Review has been conducted during a period of a crisis in
>> CILIP. As well as last year's failed proposal to change our name to ILPUK,
>> membership has sunk, and continues to do so. At the beginning of 2010 we had
>> nearly 18,000 members; this year, in March our membership fell to its lowest
>> ever figure, 13,342. At Council meetings it seemed to me that tackling this
>> was not seen as the central concern it should be. It is not worthy of an
>> entry in our risk register.
>> That crisis may explain why the Governance Review shows such a lack of
>> confidence in the profession at large. We are not to be trusted to elect a
>> President, and when we elect Council members, our judgment is likely to be
>> flawed, so must be tempered by appointed members, who need not be CILIP
>> members.
>> We desperately need a strong professional association. We need it to set
>> standards, to bring on new generations of professionals, to speak out for
>> library services of every kind which find themselves under threat. If we
>> mute the voice of members in the way our organisation is run, we weaken
>> ourselves, and those who depend on the services we run will suffer.
>>
>>
>>
>> Frances Hendrix
>> Martin House Farm, Hilltop Lane, Whittle le Woods, Chorley, Lancs, PR6 7QR
>> Tel: 01257 274 833. Mobile: 0777 55 888 03
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> End of LIS-PROFESSION Digest - 14 Jul 2014 to 16 Jul 2014 (#2014-118)
>> *********************************************************************
>
>
>
> --
> Phil Bradley: Internet Consultant, Trainer, Social Media observer and
> Author.
> Visit http://www.philb.com for free information on aspects of the
> Internet ,
> search engine articles, social media tips and a host of other free
> information.
> Weblogs: http://www.philbradley.typepad.com/
> http://philbradley.typepad.com/i_want_to/
>
--
Phil Bradley: Internet Consultant, Trainer, Social Media observer and Author.
Visit http://www.philb.com for free information on aspects of the
Internet ,
search engine articles, social media tips and a host of other free
information.
Weblogs: http://www.philbradley.typepad.com/
http://philbradley.typepad.com/i_want_to/
|
