 |
 |
Tony Could I just clarify whether these are your personal views as an individual. I don't think you can claim to not speak for CILIP while you have your Chair of CILIP Council hat on... Kind regards Jackie ________________________________ From: Chartered Library and Information Professionals [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mcsean, Tony (ELS) Sent: 13 July 2006 10:50 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Observations on the Lis-Cilip decision I'm speaking from my vantage point as chair of Cilip council not in any way officially on behalf of Cilip (or anyone else). The facts: Cilip council debated this issue at length and in detail. Before the meeting I worked closely with Chris Armstrong to ensure that he would have the fullest possible opportunity to present his case - as I would with any member of Council who had a difficult and controversial issue to present (ie not just people like Chris whose work on Council I admire immensely). The arguments for both sides were presented fully and anyone who wished to speak on this issue was able to do so. At the end of the debate, council voted decisively though not overwhelmingly to close lis-cilip at the point at which the replacement Community of Practice was functioning at such a level of activity as to constitute a replacement. Democracy: There has been a lot of talk on the list about democracy, most of which has been in my opinion tosh. Cilip is not a pub quiz team, it's a multi-million pound charity founded on our royal charter. The vote in council is democracy, and democracy includes putting up and going along with properly-constituted decisions which we happen not to like. Shouting loudly on lists is satisfying, necessarym, helpful - all sorts of things but democrcy it ain't. I topped the poll at the last national councillor elections with barely 10% of the electorate voting for me, so it's certainly flawed democracy. At Chris A's instigation we now have a governance review under way; early straws in the wind indicate that it will go through Cilip's structures like a ninja in a bad kung fu film so this at least might be improved radically and quickly. Council having voted after full and proper debate, this is a done deal. I for one would be reluctant to see any matter return to council's agenda simply because some reople really, really didn't like the decision first time round. Criticism: I feel I should lay this to rest.It's been said that councillors who voted to close the list don't like criticism, so they close the list that criticises them. I think this is untrue and unfair. For one thing, I'd be surprised if a third of those who voted against lis-cilip were members. It never came up as an issue during the debate, either explicitly or in coded references to "pulling together in this time of crisis ect ect". I would personally prefer it if the debate didn't encompass name-calling, but hey I like a hearty exchange of views as much as the next mouthy little wicket-keeper. Priorities: Given the problems crowding in on Cilip and our profession generally this mus barely register on the radar, particularly when it can be solved by 20 minutes' decisive action (see below). To give a modest selection: 1. Cilip is in the financial mire. We're not in the bankruptcy court yet but we are, metaphorically listening to the debt-dodging adverts on daytime television. We have a long period of austerity and uncomfortable decisions ahead of us (and thank goodness we have a treasurer with abilities to match his problems). 2. Cilip membership is in a decline which may be inexorable and is certainly proving hard to reverse. 3. A huge chunk of Cilip income comes from classified recruitment advertising, which to say the least has a cloudy future 4. Libraries of all types are facing anti-professional attitudes and serious questions about staffing levels in a networked world. STM and many other research libraries are teetering on the edge of a period of fundamental change, and I'm sure the same thing is true of types of libraries I'm less familiar with. 5. Many of our traditional professional skills have been and are being overtaken by IT based solutions - both end-user solutions which by-pass the professional altogether and efficiency gainers within library processes. In this environment, we don't want to be sitting around arguing which song we want the orchestra to play next as the rising water shorts out the chandeliers. Cilip name: Legal considerations aside, it would simply be daft and credibility-puncturing to set up a replacement list which used the Cilip name or any "clever" little variation on it. If it's worth doing it stands by itself and there's been enough divisiveness already. How about what we might call the Zindane argument - not degrading oneself for the joy of a momentary sneer? Phasing out Solution: One of those who feels strongly - get off yer bum, set up a list called lis-prof or whatever and post the joining instructions to lis-cilip. Then we can all migrate away and carry on as before. If you can't find someone for whom JISC will set up the list, there are hundreds and hundreds of commercial list providers (eg www.listserve.com who will do it for not much money. Merton's Law Charles Oppenheim points out that according to Merton's Law one would expect there to be about 150 active members of CILIP. In fact, and excluding lis-cilip membership, the actual figure is between two and three thousand depending on how you define "active" - which is prety phenomenal and gives hope for the future. CONCLUSION Accept that the fait really is accompli, move on, sort out an alternative, let me know how to sign up when you have. And start discussion real issues not froth. My opinion on the Lis-Cilip Question: (Given last because it's not germane to the points I want to make but I don't want to set any more hares running - I have a day job.) I don't care much either way but after hearing the argument and seeing the commotion I think things should have been left alone because the benefits of fiddling not match the costs of the fall-out. After 16 years at one of the world's most successful member organisations my much-repeated opinion is (a) membership organisations are there to provide services to their members , and (b) people who are not prepared to join their professional association and participate in some small way cannot be considered fully professional and do a disservice to the profession on whose periphery they hover. This is strongly worded, but it's how I feel and when I ran a library it was part of recruitment and staff appraisal arrangements. I am also enough of a grumpy old man to KNOW in my bones that something called a "Community of Practice" is a load of b*ll*cks and no good to man nor beast. So, I think that something called lis-cilip should be member-only. However, there is clearly a need for somewhere for the wider LIS diaspora to go when they feel the need for a good rant and there probably is space for an open, unmoderated list for this purpose. I'd probably even sign up. But in the end, having seen the vociferous nature of the opposition, I think that pushing on with the lis-cilip closure has been a misjudgement. The actual numbers of Cilip members who care are obviously miniscule, but as I've said before the issue is only a sideshow. The real concerns, the real democracy and the real opportunity to (in the words of the wonderful Betty Carter song) DO SOMETHING - these lie elsewhere and on the whole require a bit of work. Tony Tony McSean Director of Library Relations Elsevier 84 Theobald's Road London WC1X 8RR +44 7795 960516 +44 20 76114413