Hi Frances (et al!)

If John had declined to accept, my understand is that the Leader of
Council would then have asked the next highest candidate if they
wanted to assume the position of trustee, which in this specific
instance would have been Andy Dawson. If he had also refused as the
only other candidate, the bylaw states:

"... if there is no unsuccessful candidate able and willing to act,
the Council may hold a by-election to fill the vacancy for the
remainder of the original term of the vacated office."

I hope that clarifies the position!

Best,

Phil.

On 12 August 2014 14:13, Frances Hendrix <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I think we are all aware of that, and it is not unusual. As I understand Charles comment, he is surprised that John grabbed the opportunity so soon. With the bye laws at your side Phil, tell us what would have happened if john had said no?
> f
>
>
> Frances Hendrix
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Library and Information Professionals [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Phil Bradley
> Sent: 12 August 2014 13:59
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: John Dolan rejoins CILIP Council in Tom Roper's place
>
> I'm sorry, but the process is clear. Byelaw 58 states:
> "When the office of a Councillor becomes vacant other than at the end of a term of office and when a contest took place at a previous election for that office, the unsuccessful candidate who received the highest number of votes in the contest shall, if willing and able to act, automatically fill the vacancy. If no contest for the office took place at the previous election of if there is no unsuccessful candidate able and willing to act, the Council may hold a by-election to fill the vacancy for the remainder of the original term of the vacated office. The term of office served by a Councillor filling a vacancy in this manner shall not be counted for the purpose of calculating his or her maximum period in office."
>
> That's the bylaw, and that's the democratic process at work. I fully respect the fact that you wouldn't have done what John has done, but with the greatest of respect, that's entirely irrelevant. You know as well as I do Charles, that Council is not in a position to 'appoint someone else', since that would go against its own bylaws, and that would be showing both grave disrespect to members, and would also illustrate a level of arrogance that would be entirely inappropriate.
> Far from Council being in its own little world, it is doing exactly what it should do, according to its own bylaws. As for the decision being 'insensitive', that is again your opinion, which I respect, but equally, there were people who voted for John, and to simply ignore their votes and opinions would be the insensitive move.
>
> Phil.
>
> On 12 August 2014 13:43, CHARLES OPPENHEIM <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Well I certainly would not have accepted had I been in John's
>> position; I am a strong believer in the democratic system and if the
>> electorate did not want me less than a year ago, I would not accept
>> such an offer.  Council should have approached someone else, and in my
>> opinion, its decision was insensitive.
>>
>> Also I have made it clear I have no problem with co-option at all, and
>> indeed have no problem with co-option of non-members of CILIP, but I
>> don't like the idea of a third of the full Board (and potentially half
>> of the Board if there is a still quorate meeting of 8 Board members)
>> being non-members.
>>
>> Charles
>>
>> Professor Charles Oppenheim
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Phil Bradley <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Sent: Tuesday, 12 August 2014, 12:51
>>
>> Subject: Re: John Dolan rejoins CILIP Council in Tom Roper's place
>>
>> Charles, this is disappointing. You know full well that this is the
>> process that CILIP has always had; there is nothing new or different
>> here, and it's something that members are aware of, and certainly
>> those who stand for, or who stand down from Council know will happen.
>> This is therefore not a 'casual vacancy co-option offer', but the way
>> that a democratic organisation works; it would have been offered to
>> whoever came 5th in the election process, and that's exactly how it
>> should work.
>>
>> What would your solution be? To have Council with 11, rather than 12
>> trustees for the rest of the year, and then elect 5 this autumn for
>> 2015 (assuming that we are still using the current system). I don't
>> really see how helpful that would be, and in any case, that would mean
>> electing 5 people for next year, and if John stood, and was 5th again,
>> we'd end up with exactly the same situation; ie. him becoming a
>> trustee again. Or would you prefer Council to co-opt someone who was
>> not involved in the elections at all, which would be rather similar to
>> one of the governance proposals that you've already said that you're
>> against.
>>
>> To say that "It demonstrates a degree of contempt by Council for CILIP
>> members' views" is nonsense - CILIP members had an opportunity to
>> vote, they voted, this is the outcome, and it is taking into direct
>> account what members wanted. In fact I could argue that to actually
>> leave Council so soon after being elected to sit for three years is
>> rather more in contempt of those people who voted for them than
>> anything else. If Tom had not stood, John would have been elected, and
>> that would have been the end of the matter.
>>
>>
>> Phil.
>>
>> On 12 August 2014 12:08, CHARLES OPPENHEIM
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>> See
>>>
>>> http://www.cilip.org.uk/cilip/news/john-dolan-becomes-cilip-trustee-s
>>> econd-time
>>>
>>> Let me make it clear I have absolutely nothing against John, who is a
>>> very honourable gentleman who is 100% committed to CILIP's success,
>>> but I am astonished at this news.  If I had been rejected by the
>>> electorate at the last Council elections, I wouldn't have the nerve
>>> to accept a casual vacancy co-option offer, and nor should Council
>>> have offered it. It demonstrates a degree of contempt by Council for
>>> CILIP members' views.
>>>
>>> It's very difficult to make me nearly speechless, but this news has
>>> achieved just that.
>>>
>>> Charles
>>>
>>> Professor Charles Oppenheim
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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/



-- 
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/