As a trustee of Cilip (all Councillors
are) I spoke to both someone from the Charity Commissioners and to the
Institute's auditor in connection with the 2003 accounts and the 2004
budget. This was in particular with the "Going concern"
qualification that was appended to the auditor's report and the
deteriorating state of CILIP's reserves.
I came away from the auditor conversation
feeling that we can rest assured that the accounts are thoroughly and
critically audited. I hope that we can rest equally assured that the
soon-to-be-founded Audit Committee will se promptly and in an open manner all
communications from the auditor, as was not the case when the accounts and the
qualifying letter were presented to Council as separate agenda items widely
separated on the agenda.
The Charity Commissioners do not have the
resources to apply thorough audit and governance style scruitiny to the myriad
bodies that fall under the Charity heading, but do spot checks and monitor what
amounts to a sick and in danger list. This list is fed by feedback from
trustees like myself and also by information from the media, police and other
sources, and my impression was that things have to be very much worse than the
darkest moments in Cilip's history before they get involved beyond the
very useful and helpful advice that I received during the conversation.
The fact is that the law is set up to
ensure that charities are self-correcting as far as possible. If you are
a trustee, you are in exactly the same position as a Lloyd's Name -
you are liable to the full extent of your assets for any misconduct or
inattention. Cilip Trustees are covered by insurance against losing
everything, but this insurance is void in the case of recklessness or unreasonable
torpor in the face of trouble. We should therefore expect that Trustees
should conduct effective oversight of the action of employees and the executive
board.
My personal view is that for some time at
least this has not been the case in Cilip and that the Council has not been as
active as it should have been in exercising that oversight. I have to
say, though, that this is very much a tiny minority opinion within Council and
it may be that I am being alarmist and am overreacting. However, the
questions which must be asked to all those who have written to this list
complaining about Things are these:
What
have you done about your misgivings?
Have you
sought to participate as a Councillor so that you can do something more than
just bleat on to Lis-Cilip about it?
Goodness knows there is opportunity -
currently one Group has no Councillor because it can't find anyone
willing to serve, most Group Councillors (including me) have been returned
unopposed and often have to be head-hunted (not including me!); and National
Councillor elections when they happen at all usually only have only one or two
more candidates than slots. Good grief - some years we even have
trouble finding people to be President.
Have you
even spoken to a Councillor about your concerns?
Every group (bar one) and every Branch has
one, and there are 12 National Councillors available to anyone, and it is easy
(for a trained searcher) to find out who they are on the Cilip web site.
We're most of us approachable even clubbable people, tend by definition
to be out and about more than most. And we have mostly become Councillors
because we care about Cilip and believe in democracy.
If you
have done none of these things, haven't you got the Cilip you deserve?
For all but a very, very few the
"too busy" argument is just rubbish. Most Councillors have
full-time jobs, careers to pursue, commitments and interests outside
work. If you care - do something because if you don't it will
damage libraries and information services everywhere and will long-term mean
you and your fellow-professionals never get the recognition and rewards that
many of you seem to feel is our due. On the whole, you get what you're
prepared to fight for.
This may seem an angry rant -
it's certainly a bit angry. But I worked for 16 years as a middle-manager
in a professional association where a considerable number of the membership
cared passionately about what went on. Prospective chairs of committee
and Senior Offices worked hard, lobbying and campaigning, to get elected and
Council was a stroppy, bubbling affair that was capable of putting the willies
and more up the great and the good - eg once requiring the Treasurer to
come back immediately after the lunch break with full costs and detailed
process explanation of a controversial building refurb project - and in
general will not settle for anything less than excellence. The contrast
with Cilip could not be clearer.
So, ladies and gentlemen - put up or
shut up, please. Fat chance.
Tony McSean
Health Libraries Group Councillor
From:
Chartered Library and Information Professionals
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of C.Oppenheim
Sent: 04 November 2004 16:59
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Cilip is a member led
organisation is it?
I'm not sure that the Charities Commission ever undertakes
audits - unless it suspects a charity is being fradulently run.
The CILIP accounts are in any cases audited by external auditors.....
Charles
Professor Charles Oppenheim
Department of Information Science
Loughborough
Leics LE11 3TU
Tel 01509-223065
Fax 01509-223053
e mail [log in to unmask]