 |
 |
I must say that I really feel sometimes that we don't get our money's worth. Is it really too late to amend it so that we keep the banding but the renewal dates move to rolling dates. If enough people vote against it then what will they do? Miranda O'Brien KBR Information Resource Centre - Europe & Africa Tel +44 (0)1372 863146 Fax +44 (0)1372 863180 E-mail : [log in to unmask] Kellogg Brown & Root Ltd. Registered in England No 645125 Reg. Office: Hill Park Court, Springfield Drive, Leatherhead, Surrey, KT22 7NL This email, including any attached files, may contain confidential and privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorised to receive information for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message. Thank you -----Original Message----- From: Chartered Library and Information Professionals [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bye, Dan J Sent: 26 October 2004 13:47 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: CILIP AGM- subs Given that moving to rolling subscriptions is, I suspect, not remotely controversial, I find it odd that the two motions we are to be asked to consider are "all or nothing". Too late now, I guess, but was the option of keeping banding but moving to rolling renewal dates considered? (Is there anything theoretically impossible about running banded subscriptions on a rolling basis and asking members to notify CILIP of changes to their bands?). I feel stitched up, to be honest. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Chartered Library and Information Professionals > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tim Buckley Owen > Sent: 25 October 2004 11:37 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: CILIP AGM- subs > > > Dear LIS-CILIP members, > snip > > > Option 2 was prepared by the Honorary Treasurer in advance of > the AGM as a contingency measure to ensure adequate > membership income for CILIP in 2005 in the event of Option 1 > being rejected. It proposes a continuation of the existing > income-related system with a 3% inflation increase on current > subscription levels.