*With apologies to non-members of CILIP*
This may seem a naïve question, but given the previous discussion on this list in the last month, I believe a relevant one.
I’ve been reading the agenda papers for the AGM and especially the many pages of accompanying CILIP bye-laws notes. I can sort of understand why CILIP may want to enable Council to appoint a President, although I am not sure I approve of this. I can see it might be convenient form a purely logistic point of view, albeit an undemocratic one. What I fail to understand and would appreciate some clarification on is this proposal:
Resolution to adopt further changes to the Bye-laws of the Institute (“Resolution 6”)
Appointment of Board Members
36. The Board may appoint up to four Board Members, who *need not* be Individual Members of CILIP.
Why does CILIP need to appoint, what I assume to be lay members to Council? This is not unprecedented in other professions, however, I am wondering why in ours? Surely, our profession is already bestrewn to detrimental effect with dilettante “volunteers”? Albeit foisted ones. Now CILIP intends to do this to itself. I just need to understand what the rationale is for this, quite radical, proposal. If it is one where CILIP’s finances are in such a state that the appointment of say four financially qualified councillors would be beneficial, I *might* just go along with that. But I do think it behoves CILIP to furnish members with a proper and frank explanation of the rationale for both of these new (major) proposals.
|