 |
 |
In order to stimulate discussion on LIS-CILIP, CILIP Councillor J Eric Davies explains why he opposes the subscriptions reform proposals. (In a parallel posting, Tony McSean supports them.) Subscriptions Reform - a personal perspective As an ardent supporter of CILIP's aims, and an enthusiastic participant in its activities I take second place to no one in wishing to see CILIP thrive. For CILIP to maintain its important place as a key player in the Information Society in its broadest sense, it has to generate a substantial income and maintain, if not extend its strong membership base. However, I am unwilling to support the current package of proposals that incorporate a flat fee for membership. Fundamentally, I do not believe that these proposals will achieve what is wanted, that is - improve retention of existing members and attract a significant number of new ones. Moreover, the approach to 'streamlining' aspects of renewals is confused in this 'take it or leave it as a whole' package. I am troubled by the inequity that a flat rate fee represents for quite a significant proportion of the membership on modest incomes which are, nonetheless, above the threshold for 'means testing' and concessionary rates. Where is the fairness in me paying the same subscription as, say, a colleague who earns half as much as I do? Moreover, the much-vaunted tax refunds that membership fees attract benefit higher earners even more than those on the lower pay scales. Already I have difficulty persuading young professionals of the affordability and attractiveness of membership. These proposals will not help! It has been argued that, just like any other service, the price of CILIP should be uniform for everyone. That is all well and good if you want to want to regard your membership as just something you 'buy' like a sack of potatoes or dry cleaning. CILIP membership is about much more in terms of professional values, behaviour and involvement, as well as fellowship. I therefore see no incompatibility in a subscriptions structure that recognises and respects differences in the ability to contribute to, and participate in a community with a shared purpose. The January timing, and the complexity of the renewal process has been claimed to be a disincentive to prompt renewal, as well as an administrative challenge. Clearly, staggered renewal dates do not have to be allied to a flat rate subscription; this is simply the way the package has been constructed. In addition, the assertion that the renewal form is too complicated insults the intelligence of a membership accustomed to far more demanding tasks and documents. The serious issue that confronts us is attracting and retaining members. We must redouble efforts to stress what enormous value CILIP membership represents. Allied to this is the need to work at making CILIP even more attractive by highlighting yet further the role and capacity of members to contribute to the Information Society. In these circumstances, tinkering with subscription mechanism is a distraction. I shall vote against the proposals. I hope that a resounding 'no' vote will encourage those involved at CILIP Ridgmount Street to think again and bring forward proposals that combine fairness with improved mechanisms for collecting subscriptions. J. Eric Davies Director LISU - Loughborough University. LIRG Councillor and Member CILIP Policy Development Committee. Note: The views expressed here are my own and do not represent LISU or LIRG policy.