 |
 |
The whole way that this has been managed calls the competence of certain people in question. If you don't agree - fine. ________________________________________ From: Library and Information Professionals [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Briggs [[log in to unmask]] Sent: 28 June 2013 16:17 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Rebranding Actually, that is not the case - the motion is *very* carefully worded. It doesn't instruct anyone to do anything - it simply states that the meeting believes the re-branding exercise to be unnecessary and that it should be halted. No rational person could take exception to that. One person (a trifle unwisely) has tried to make that out to be a motion of no confidence. John Briggs On 28/06/2013 13:27, Bebbington, Laurence W wrote: > The people who should be taking note of how this has been managed are > certainly the membership. A motion which was directed against the > rebranding has effectively become a confidence vote in CILIP officers > and the way the organisation is being run. > > I think Charles made this point a few weeks ago. If the vote goes > against them then a number of people will need to consider their positions. > > Laurence > > *From:*Library and Information Professionals > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Frances Hendrix > *Sent:* 28 June 2013 13:24 > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: Rebranding > > Very well said > > But who is listening and taking note > > Despair > > f > > *From:*Library and Information Professionals > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Caroline Moss-Gibbons > *Sent:* 28 June 2013 13:05 > *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > *Subject:* Re: Rebranding > > I was very surprised to see that the top story of the CILIP eNewsletter > was an exhortation to vote against the motion. Whatever happened to balance? > > I have nothing against people putting their point of view strongly, but > Ridgmount Street is supposed to be the admin support for the membership, > and Council representing the breadth of views of us all. > > It feels very wrong that the apparatus of CILIP is acting in such a > negative way to a legitimate challenge from the grass roots. > > At the very least those in favour of the motion should be given the same > space in all the 'official' member-funded outlets that have been used > by the 'anti-motion' to date. > > I look forward to Tom Roper being invited by Phil Bradley to do a guest > piece on his President's Blog, and a 'pro-motion' exhortation being > given top billing in the eNewsletter. > > Democracy 'whither?' indeed. > > Caroline > > > Sent from my iPhone > > ••————••••————•• > > Caroline Moss-Gibbons > > T: 07788 590913 > > E: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > ••————••••————•• > > > On 28 Jun 2013, at 10:58, Tom Roper <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > I'm grateful to CILIP for making the results of the rebranding > survey public, and they may be seen at > http://www.cilip.org.uk/about-us/brand/Documents/CILIP_Consultation_June%202013_25%20(4).pdf > > I'll save a detailed critique for the General Meeting on 8 July, but > I have to say that it's hard to see why it's worth £35,000. > > I asked two days ago that CILIP, having sent an e-mail to all (or > most, the system doesn't seem to reach everyone) members calling on > them to defeat the motion to allow me equal access to put the case > for the motion. So far, silence. > > Can I urge everyone to either attend the General Meeting, or to > register a proxy vote? The proxy form is at > http://fs3.formsite.com/cilip/proxy/index.html and the registration > form at http://fs3.formsite.com/cilip/form198/index.html > > Tom > > Tom Roper > [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > Twitter: @tomroper > http://www.roper.org.uk > > > > The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683. The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.