David Law and his team are looking for CILIP members to contribute to the
review process. Views are solicited via a feedback form on the CILIP
website which can be accessed by clicking on "Governance review" on the
CILIP homepage or by following this link
http://www.cilip.org.uk/aboutcilip/governancereview/
The preferred timeframe for receipt of contributions is by Friday 18 August
2006
Given the concerns expressed in earlier emails about CILIP ignoring
postings to this list.I suggest that any views are posted both on the CILIP
website using the official form ( to ensure that they are included in the
review process) and also to this list.
Malcolm K Weston
URS Corporation
Frances Hendrix
<frances@LASERFOU
NDATION.ORG.UK> To
Sent by: [log in to unmask]
Chartered Library cc
and Information
Professionals Subject
<LIS-CILIP@JISCMA Re: Submission to the CILIP
IL.AC.UK> Governance Review
22/07/2006 13:17
Please respond to
Frances Hendrix
<frances@LASERFOU
NDATION.ORG.UK>
It is very useful to be able to comment on the Review being undertaken by
Derek Law and his team, and I hoe the flow of information continues, and
that views are sought form the membership.
I was a Council member some years ago., I have also served on an Academic
Board and an Academic Council, was a non executive director of
Ufi/LearnDirect for 5 years., was Chief Executive of Laser for 12 years
reporting to a Board of trustees and currently have a Board of Trustees
responsible for the Laser Foundation.I was also on the Board of trustees
for a local Community group from its inception until it was established.
I feel therefore that I probably have as much experience as many of what it
means to report to and and serve a board of trustees as well as serve as a
trustee.
I agree with many of Tony's points. I cannot recall when I was appointed a
National Councillor of any trustee type training., there was no requirement
for me to display and specific skills as a Council member which enhanced
those and supported those of the CE and his senior staff. ANY non executive
post advertised these days (and they all are open to competition), states
what skills and experience they are particularly looking for., as the post
of trustee is NOT to run the organisation, but to steer it and support the
paid staff,and frequently the skills required include strategic
management., financial acumen and experience, HR and marketing. Primarily
the Board of Directors?trustees have an overall and top priority for
financial viability, and to carry pout this function they should understand
finance at the level the company is engaged in, be able to read and
understand accounts and balance sheets and be able to ask relevant and
searching questions.
Duties and descriptions of functions are laid down in a number of documents
some form the Charity Commission and others form such as Institute of
Directors.New Trustees of the Laser Foundation were given copies of the
documents as well as induction into the way things worked at Laser. this
was very much the case when I joined Ufi.
The role of the Board normally is to oversee and approve the strategy of
the organisation,and to ask searching questions, to demand relevant
performance information and to steer a clear path for the company.
To do all of the above Tony is right you need a smaller team with the
specific skills and the authority to get to know the business and
understand all of the important dealings such as the financial matters.
The current Council is far too large, it cannot operate efficiently at this
level, and I am sorry to say there are too many members with a specific
interest rather than the primary one of the overall success of the company.
people are there to represent groups etc., and on a 'normal' board this is
very unlikely to be the case. Trustees may come from certain categories
such as Trades Union., The Arts., Education etc, but not to represent the
organisation of people in those categories.
One thing I set up at Laser in order to both involve the membership, but
keep the Board of Trustees a manageable size, was a 2 tier system. The
trustee, who had amongst their number people from other sectors who were
not members, and then an Advisory Committee of member representatives.Two
sets of meetings I know, but both with clear objectives.
I agree with the person who raised the matter regarding the rules of the
Charity Commission, and I also remind readers of the need (maybe even a
requirement now) of training for Trustees in pensions law.
All of Tony's points are pertinent.
It seems to me some of this could be amended very easily. I had a rule at
Laser that ALL Board papers were with members 3 weeks before the meeting.,
tabled papers were an exception and in limited cases. Actions were clearly
noted in the minutes and minutes were out within 2 weeks following the
meetings.
3 meetings a year are enough for the way Council is now operated, but is
far far too few for a proper Board of trustees, where 5 or 6 would be
required.
Currently it seems there is some sort of Board, but the communications
between it and Council are blurred, and that the role of the Council is
unclear. If as I understand the Council is made up of Trustees, then they
are the decision makers, but actually are not. The Council/Board needs to
be redefined and be THE BOARD and made up a much smaller group of people
who meet the skills and experience to run the sort of company/organization
Cilip is. The members need to know their role and be able to meet more
often, be able to understand the financial, HR and other key activities and
challenge the fulltime staff. The Council then could act as an Advisory
Panel and as now. But no one should be a trustee without the very clear
understanding of their responsibilities and liabilities.
Cilip is a vital organisation that seems to be in trouble, lost its way,
lots support of much of the profession and has lost much of its influence.
It needs a small expert team as Trustees who can help steer a course for
the future. It needs people form outside the profession with financial
skills, membership organisation experience, marketing skills etc, as well
as members, to help it do that.
This morning I received a copy of the Annual Report of the BL for 2005/6 It
has a Board of 11!, including the Chief Executive, it has 3 committees
Audit,Remuneration and Capital projects., each of those have 3 or 4
members.New members of the board attend the National School of Government
Training for NDPBs. It meets 6 times a year. Have a look at page 34/5 to
see how its done!
Yes Cilip is a membership organisation, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't
run its affairs properly and efficiently?
I welcome this review, I urge that it is brave and makes the possible
unpalatable recommendations that are needed, and that Council are then
courageous enough to support and endorse them. We need to make Cilip
viable, fit for purpose, efficient, attractive to members and ready to face
the future.
f
From: Chartered Library and Information Professionals
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Diana Nutting
Sent: 19 July 2006 11:31
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Submission to the CILIP Governance Review
I think that this is just the sort of communication that members need. To
know where council members stand is always extremely useful and for the
record, Tony' s suggestions sound eminently sensible to me
Diana Nutting
-----Original Message-----
From: Mcsean, Tony (ELS) [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 17 July 2006 10:09
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Submission to the Cilip Governance Review
Dear Derek
Thank you for your letter asking me to submit my views to Cilip's
Review of Governance. What I have set out below are my own personal
opinions, incubated over many years' service on the LA and Cilip
councils and on the boards of both bodies. In the interests of
openness and in the hope of promoting a useful and informed debate I
am copying this to both the council list and to the thousand members
of lis-cilip.
I strongly supported the setting up of this review and was delighted
when you agreed to act as chair. Speaking (in this sentence only) as
chair of council, I hope that you and your colleagues will take this
opportunity to respond to the urgency of Cilip's difficulties by
bringing to the December council meeting far-reaching and radical
proposals - and that council will consider them thoughtfully and have
the resolve to drive through a revolution by consent.
Yours sincerely
Tony McSeán
Director of Library Relations, Elsevier
& chair of Cilip Council
Why Don't Council and Executive Board Work Properly?
In the Bye-Laws:
The bye-laws charge Council with "the management of the affairs of
the Institute". Council is further charged with appointing an
Executive Board "which shall report to Council on matters affecting
general policy, legal and parliamentary business, on developments
proposed in the work of the Institute and on business not assigned to
any other standing committees, and shall act on behalf of the
council, in an executive capacity, in matters of urgency".
Structural Problems With Council
The structure and operations of Council do not allow it to do justice
to the role assigned it in the bye laws:
1. Meetings: Council normally meets only three times a year. These
meetings are not held at times significant to the management of
CILIP, particularly the financial management. There is no mechanism
to provide councillors with management or financial information or
reports on a regular, routine basis. With such reports councillors
would be equipped to ask questions and develop a fuller understanding
of the progress of Cilip, notably the secretariat, in relation to
defined goals. There is currently no use made of closed lists or
equivalent technologies to canvass council opinion or spark
discussion in the long gaps between meetings.
2. Minutes: Council minutes have not until now been cast in a form
which makes easy the identification and monitoring of action points.
Board minutes are not distributed to councillors other than in the
main pack before meetings.
3. Size: Council is too big. It is unwieldy in discussion and
participation of individual councillors in meetings is uneven and in
some cases non-existent.
4. Composition: Most councillors represent branches and groups. In
many cases there is significantly less commitment to Cilip than to
their own constituency, little recognition of their obligation as
councillors towards Cilip. This is a structural problem not a
collective or individual failing - when I was HLG's councillor it was
true of me too. The dominance of sectional representation gives a
built-in conservatism to council, and the comparative lack of
interest in Cilip affairs per se tend to dilute scrutiny of proposals
and to concentrate effective power in board and secretariat hands.
5. Papers: Council papers are sent out only a short time before
meetings, and papers on important matters are too often tabled. The
papers tend to lack financial rigour, and there is a lack of
accountability for the results of accepting and implementing
proposals.
6. Trusteeship: Most councillors fail to appreciate their roles,
responsibilities and liabilities as trustees
7. Communication with members: Cilip does too little to inform
members of council business. Other than the President's diary here
are no regular contributions in Update or Gazette from the hon
officers, and little information from members to members about what
the current issues are and what is happening.
Operations
The relationship in practice between council and board bears no
relationship to that set out in the bye-laws. Because of the paucity
and irregularity of council meetings, Cilip is effectively run by the
board with in practice little accountability.
The nub of the problem is that important decisions are taken by the
board and only conveyed to councillors via paragraphs in the board
minutes, distributed in the circulation of the council papers a
couple of weeks before meetings. These minutes are taken late in the
council meeting, when time pressures, fatigue and a consciousness of
train departure times mitigates against proper deliberation.
Changes
1. Council should be reduced to c15 members, elected nationally
and charged with managing Cilip activity and closely monitoring
the work of the secretariat. Reimbursement to employers should
be considered, to make sure the councillors have enough time to
be thorough.
2. Abolition of the board as it now stands.
3. Council meetings monthly, supported by proper management
information from the secretariat.
4. Widespread use of ICT for discussions and decisions between
meetings and for replacement of many face-to-face meetings at
all levels within Cilip.
5. Effective and transparent accountability of the secretariat to
the trustees.
6. Proper definition of the complementary roles of council and CE,
and proper accountability on the part of the CE for the
performance of the secretariat and Cilip as a whole.
7. An entirely new arrangement for the tying in of branches and
groups to the overall life of Cilip, emphasising their primacy
in the minds of most Cilip activists. Branches and groups are
Cilip's most effective means of attracting and keeping
membership.
The Challenge
In my view, we have to work towards a 30% reduction in Cilip's
current operating budget in order to:
1. Balance income and total expenditure.
2. Rebuild the reserves to the agreed level
3. Reintroduce the adequate contingency allowances essential for
an organization of Cilip's scale
4. Fund an adequate rebuilding of press office and advocacy
activities, which in my view are a glaring and intolerable gap
in Cilip's current activities.
Achieving this will be horrible. Everyone who cares about Cilip will
see something they really value discontinued, cut back or devolved
down to groups and branches for them to sustain as best they can. At
Cilip HQ there will need to be significant restructuring,
renegotiating of terms and conditions, and redundancies.
Membership organizations are very bad at this sort of thing,
particularly those like Cilip where the membership has decent,
liberal instincts. Normally, radical change has to wait for truly
catastrophic events and then is rushed, ugly and distinctly
suboptimal long-term. (Most of us are familiar with emergency
recruitment freezes whose effect is that the best staff move on and
the average and worse stay cheerfully in post.) To achieve what is
needed we must have a strong and committed group of trustees (ie
councillors) working within a structure that encourages meaningful
debate and effective leadership.
This message has been scanned for viruses at Business Link for
London.
============
http://www.businesslink4london.com
Winner: Most effective public sector website 2004
============
This email and any attachments are intended solely for the addressees and
are confidential. If you have received this email in error, please delete
it and immediately notify [log in to unmask] You are not permitted to
disclose the content of this email or attachments unless specifically
authorised by the sender to do so. Any views expressed in this email are
those of the individual sender.
Business Link for London is a company limited by guarantee registered in
England and Wales under registration number 4110283. The registered office
is situated at:
3rd Floor Centre Point
103 New Oxford Street
London
WC1A 1DP
Although Business Link for London has scanned this email for viruses, it
accepts no responsibility for viruses once this email has been transmitted.
