I agree that it is most odd that the CILIP Council is proposing that it should be able to appoint four people to the Council while reducing significantly the number of elected members of council. Surely the purpose of any change should be to improve governance, especially the accountability of Council to the members.
I have not seen any convincing explanation as to why the Council believe it is necessary to make these particular changes, notably having a third of Council unelected, when some of them in their manifestos promised to improve accountability and transparency. Do they not understand that democracy is essential to a healthy membership organisation.
Frances Hendrix
-----Original Message-----
From: Library and Information Professionals [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Roger Farbey
Sent: 08 August 2014 10:14
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: CILIP AGM 2014
*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.
|