 |
 |
You make good points., and I am a firm believer in getting involved. However we cant all be involved all the time, and some, like myself have been in involved in some ways at different times and stages of my professional life. This changes depending on the stage you are at in your career and family life. One of the ways of course people want to be involved is via a quick and simple email list, and the arguments you heard at council maybe should have been aired via the list we are currently debating. I have a fear (may be paranoia), that Cilip do not like any public boat rocking. I am sure, even though I am currently supporting Cilip by membership of one of its committees, that I am branded a trouble maker, along with one or two others. Why? Well probably because I speak out. I have been in and worked for and supported this professional and Cilip for over 40 years. I have been on Council, been Chair of Enterprise Board, Chair of the National Forum for Bibliographic Services, a scrutineer, a member of 4 interest groups (and still am), participated in many many activities and spoken on and about the profession on numerous occasions., I have written extensively and have no wish to see our professional body fail. But I am not happy with some of the perceptions and impressions I have been getting in recent years which appear to be of a closed shop, of a lack of empathy with members, with restrictions on what others have called 'free speech'. Of course we should not bring our professional body into disrepute, but too much sensitivity of what people think and say, and too little exposure and understanding of members could have dire consequences. The list does no harm. I have 'met' very interesting members of the profession via their emails, and picked up interesting thoughts and ideas. Council also should consider who and why they are members and what their role is. This last email discussion has elicited more comment from council members than I can ever recall. Council needs to appeal to as wide an audience as possible and to attract new young blood. As I recall it was a Council member whom alerted the list that it was under the axe., other wise what would we have known? No one, as far as I have read and understood, blame council members, or think little of Cilip staff. I know many Cilip staff (and some of those made redundant), and know the majority are doing very good jobs, are committed and anxious to see the organisation succeed., but also the recent redundancies etc cannot have been good for staff? Any profession is dependant upon new young blood, minds and hearts. We have had a membership 'crisis' for sometime, we need to address it., a more open and transparent engagement of ALL members, in an easy and accessible way, would help. I may be a trouble maker in some peoples eyes, but I am at least contributing, and shall continue to do so, unless prevented. f -----Original Message----- From: Philip Wark [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: 10 July 2006 12:21 To: Frances Hendrix; [log in to unmask] Subject: RE: Closure of this list I am the councillor representing the Community Services Group of CILIP and was at council when the discussion and vote took place. I had no favoured view on whether the list should be closed or not prior to the discussion. Having listened to both sides of the argument and been given assurances that the communities of practice would provide a suitable platform for communication I voted to close the list. Quite often Council votes against something I and CSG members/committee are in favour of, such as the restructuring of special interest groups but we have to accept that Council works as a democracy. The majority view wins - not always the right choice but I have to accept it! Having been on Council for a couple of years I can assure you that CILIP staff work extremely hard to make the organisation work and to communicate with members. Sometimes it gets it wrong - who doesn't make mistakes? CILIP is a member organisation and if members don't like something they should get involved and help to change it. It is interesting that the closure of this list has caused such a furore - let's hope members take an equal interest and make a stand on other important issues - like the future of CILIP. Philip Wark Chair of CSG Principal Librarian Midlothian Libraries 2 Clerk Street Loanhead Midlothian EH20 9DR Tel: 0131 271 3971 Fax: 0131 440 4635 -----Original Message----- From: Frances Hendrix [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: 07 July 2006 09:33 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Closure of this list And comments made of a personal nature on the list by a member of council not so long ago! So no hypocrisy please. I wonder what % of council do use the list? f -----Original Message----- From: Chartered Library and Information Professionals [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of C.Oppenheim Sent: 06 July 2006 15:36 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Closure of this list I agree with Diana. If someone stands as, and is voted in as, a Councillor, they have to accept the rough with the smooth. "Dummies" and "gullible" is moderate compared to remarks made publicly about John Prescott, but he seems big enough to cope with the criticisms. Charles Professor Charles Oppenheim Department of Information Science Loughborough University Loughborough Leics LE11 3TU Tel 01509-223065 Fax 01509-223053 e mail [log in to unmask] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Diana Nutting" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 3:30 PM Subject: Re: Closure of this list > So here's the nub of it. Those Councillors who voted to close the list > don't like criticism, so they close the list that criticises them. Well, > sorry, but if you put yourself forward for office, then you are > accountable. > If Councillors consider themselves above reproach, and treat the members > who > elect them like children whose best interests they know, that perhaps > goes > a long way to explaining CILIP's problem. > > Diana Nutting > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Cook [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: 06 July 2006 15:14 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Closure of this list > > > Perhaps Councillors voted to close the list because they disapprove of > some > of the comments made on it. > > Referring to Councillors as "dummies" and "gullible" are not very > professional and lend force to the argument for closing it. > > The Councillors are there because they have the interests of the > profession at heart. > > As Karen Blakeman has already advised, there were good arguments put > forward from both sides. > It was then put to a vote. > > Democracy in action. > > Stephen Cook > National Councillor. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chartered Library and Information Professionals > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Frances Hendrix > Sent: 06 July 2006 14:54 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Closure of this list > > > When you do, and you send out your manifesto, do mention this > > As an old age pensioner and list user I may join you! > f > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chartered Library and Information Professionals > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Diana Nutting > Sent: 06 July 2006 14:47 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Closure of this list > > I am getting more and more of the opinion that we need to elect national > councillors who are in tune with and are representative of the > membership. > So let's encourage and support the 11 who seem to know which way is up, > and when the time comes replace the 23 and the 7. It's the Council that > makes the decisions and the composition of the Council is in our own > hands. And no, I've never stood for Council, but I might. > > Diana Nutting > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Karen Blakeman [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: 06 July 2006 14:42 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Closure of this list > > > Hi All > > Just caught up with this discussion re the closure of LIS-CILIP. > > This was agenda item number 3 at Council. Chris Armstrong's paper on why > LIS-CILIP should be retained and Jill Martin's paper on the Communities > of Practice were both discussed in detail by councillors. The essence of > Chris's paper has already been circulated via this list. > > I am not going to attempt to summarise the discussion but I felt that > all the arguments for keeping the list were well presented. > > The motion on which we voted was to retain LIS-CILIP alongside the > communities of practice. The votes were as follows: > > For: 11 > Against: 23 > Abstentions: 7 > > For the record, I voted to keep LIS-CILIP. > > I recall that it was also agreed that LIS-CILIP should remain until it > can be demonstrated that the Communities of Practice have at least the > same number of members and level of participation as LIS-CILIP. > > Karen > > > -- > Karen Blakeman, UKeiG Management Committee > mailto:[log in to unmask] > t: +44 118 947 2256 f: +44 20 8020 0253 m: +44 7764 936733 > 88 Star Road, Caversham, Berkshire, RG4 5BE > > > 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. > > > > > > This message has been scanned for viruses by BlackSpider MailControl - > www.blackspider.com > > > This message has been scanned for viruses at Business Link for London. > ======================================================================== === The information contained in this message may be confidential or legally privileged and is intended for the addressee only. If you have received this message in error or there are any problems please notify the originator immediately. If you are not the intended recipient you should not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print, or rely on this e-mail. ======================================================================== ===