I'll attempt to answer a few questions and comments regarding the
CILIP Governance review. I have of course been closely involved with
it myself so have a particular bias towards the recommendations which
should be taken into account. It's also worth stressing the following
is my personal opinion and should not be taken or considered as any
definitive response.
Council or Board? I prefer Board - I think it's a better term and more
accurately describes the group who make decisions for the charity. I
fail - completely - to see how changing the name divorces the trustees
from any real decision making. The trustees currently make decisions
based on their experience, deliberations and discussions with members.
I believe that if the recommendations in the review are carried out
trustees will have just as much, if not more importance in making
decisions.
Separate Office of the President. I feel that I can speak with some
experience to this point. Given the current climate that we're in, I
think that the charity is going to be very lucky to get someone who is
in a position to give the role the time that it takes. I was certainly
working on average for 2 days a week on CILIP issues of one sort or
another. We're very fortunate that Barbara Band has an very
understanding employer who is able and willing to give her time to
undertake her duties. Alternatively, if we cannot get someone in full
time employment we have to look at either end of the spectrum - a new
professional (which some people may well criticise for not having
appropriate experience or gravitas), or someone who is recently
retired. While there is much to be said for youth and enthusiasm or
age and wisdom, it's a difficult call. It does also depend on what
sort of President an individual wants to be. It's quite possible to
simply sit back and do very little apart from cut ribbons, but I think
anyone who wishes to be that involved with the charity is going to
want to do more than that, and this will eat into the time they have
available.
The point that seems to have been ignored in this discussion is the
fact that - like it or not (and I don't) there appears to be very
little enthusiasm among the membership FOR the role of an independent
President. I should not have to remind people that there have been
very few contested elections in recent years, and this year no-one put
their name forward at all. If the general membership felt strongly
about the position I believe that many more would have put themselves
forward for consideration, but the simple fact of the matter is that
this simply does not happen.
Running a charity. There is no conflict between running a charity and
promoting sensible strategies for the information sector. However, I
believe that there is a fundamental difference in roles. CILIP is a
multi-million pound charity and it needs to be run as such. People get
elected to Council on a basis of their professional experience and
their knowledge of their particular sector, and that makes sense if
that is what they are being asked to get involved with. However, much
of the work of Council is involved with decision making of an entirely
different nature, and a working knowledge of Charity Law, Pensions,
the ability to read a complicated financial spreadsheet etc are not
desirable extras, they are a vital part of the role. While the
trustees have insurance, it is theoretically possible that if they
take the wrong decisions they are personally responsible. I would be
hesitant to make a decision about an issue I knew very little about,
and would wish to take expert outside opinion - probably different
opinions in order to formulate a view. I don't believe that CILIP has
the funds for continual outside opinion, nor do I believe that we have
time for trustees to pick this up on the job. I believe that it is far
better to encourage people (who may or may not be CILIP members) but
who have an interest in running a charity and more importantly the
skill and expertise to do so, to get involved. We are, after all,
unhappy about the idea of enthusiastic but unprofessional and
inexperienced individuals attempting to run libraries - we should have
the same concern about a multi million pound charity. This is not of
course to denigrate current or previous trustees who have done a great
job, but in this area I would prefer experience over enthusiasm.
Furthermore, a policy forum, which can bring to it the understanding,
expertise and enthusiasm for the profession will ensure that trustees
will have greater involvement, not less. I'm really not entirely sure
where the idea originated that trustees do as Senior Management tell
them - the very opposite is the case. It is the role of the CEO and
SMT to advise Council, but in the final analysis it's up to Trustees
to decide on strategy - to imply otherwise would seem to me to
denigrate their work over the last years.
CILIP staff on Council. There is no suggestion that CILIP staff should
be Trustees - this is a straw man of the worst type. Indeed, it would
be highly inappropriate, since the CEO and SMT reports to Council; you
can't have an employee having some sort of control over what his or
her line manager does. SMT does already attend Council meetings as
appropriate and they do not have any vote.
Conflicts of interest. Trustees and the Presidential Team have to
confirm every year what, if any conflicts of interest they have. At
the beginning of each meeting the question is always asked, with
respect to the items on the agenda. Trustees also always remind
colleagues when they speak and will abstain from voting.
Resignations. There is already a by-law regarding attendance or lack
of attendance. Given that there is now a reduction in the number of
times per year that Council meets, plus the fact that much can be
achieved electronically, to say nothing of the ability to be directly
involved in Council meetings without physically attending I think we
could look at this issue again, but I would like to have a clearer
indication of what 'attendance' means, since it's increasingly
unclear, given current technology.
Combining the roles of the President and Leader of Council. (Apologies
for dancing back and forth, but I'm trying to respond to these points
as they arrived chronologically in my inbox!) I entirely agree that
combining the roles does create a lot of extra work. This is why I
would want to see future trustees having an increasing involvement in
the running of Council - a great involvement in social media, speaking
to the press, attending meetings with politicians, attending B&G
meetings and so on. Council and members need to work together, and the
greater the opportunities for discussion and sharing of ideas and
opinions the better. This point has been made loud and clear several
times in the last couple of years, and I believe that the review
addresses this. However, the current system is fatally flawed. If the
President or Vice President resigns, for whatever reason, where do we
go? If there has been an election it would be possible to ask the
losing candidate to take up the position, but what sort of message
does that send? And - as I have already pointed out - it's unlikely
that there will BE a losing candidate. There is a process in place of
course, which is to involve the Elections panel, but it's far from an
ideal solution. If it's necessary for a Leader of Council to resign I
believe that it will be an easier and smoother process to replace
them.
Adopting different models. I'm not really sure what is meant by 'Why
doesn't CILIP...' In fact, I've never be entirely clear what this
means. Does it mean Council? The Leader of Council? The CEO? The
Office of President? The staff? The branches and groups? The
individual members? CILIP members are being given every opportunity to
express their ideas and opinions on the review - over the last few
weeks and into the near future the CEO, SMT and Trustees are meeting
with at least a dozen different CILIP groups. In the final analysis
it will be the entire membership that decides where the review goes,
since they will be in a position to vote. Indeed, this discussion also
forms part of that whole process, and I'm grateful to everyone who has
expressed a view or opinion on the governance review.
Apologies that this response is so ridiculously long, but since these
are important issues, they need to be discussed in depth. Again -
these are my personal views, with the previous caveat of my
involvement in the whole process.
Phil.
On 20 February 2014 11:24, Chris Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I have sent the following message to CILIP as a response to the request for
> comments on the CILIP Governance Review pages. I would add here that, with
> the last major governance review completed in 2006, it seems both a little
> early and unnecessary to be embarking on a new one only 6 years later.
>
> ----
>
> I should like to make a few comments on the governance review as described
> on the CILIP web pages at:
> http://www.cilip.org.uk/cilip/about/projects-reviews/governance-review.
>
>
>
> The change of name from 'Council' to 'Board; may be trendy current fashion,
> but I see little purpose in the change other than to reinforce the apparent
> move to corporate, industry model of 'big business' and to further divorce
> the trustees from any real decision making.
> By removing the Office of the President and combining the roles of President
> and Chair of Council, this model loses a very important aspect that was
> built into the current model. The Office of the President acted to secure
> checks and balance, standing between senior management and Council and
> appointing the audit panel, election panel, disciplinary panel and ethics
> panel. The President was deliberately excluded from membership of Council
> and given the key role of monitoring its work. The last (2006) review
> concluded that there would be a clear conflict of interest were the
> President to be a part of the Council's decision making (see 7th December
> 2006 Report of the Governance Review Task Force to CILIP Council). And yet
> this new model has one benefit given as "better scrutiny and accountability"
> - it is unclear how this will be so.
> It is stated that there is a "real challenge in governance terms because of
> the two roles that CILIP Council have [sic] in dealing with the running of
> the charity and driving the policy and strategy of the professional body"
> (=different skill sets). It is unclear to me why there is a conflict or
> challenge as this is effectively the same thing: appropriate policies and
> strategies will run the charity effectively (for the public good and needs
> of members). However, it is true to say that Council has always struggled to
> maintain its independence from the senior management team who effectively
> set the direction, and I hope that whatever change is envisaged to resolve
> the apparent conflict (it is not stated) will not devolve more power to the
> senior management team. Membership needs clear accountability and CILIP is
> said to be "a member organisation" / "member-led".
> While the web pages state that there will be eight of the twelve Council
> members elected from the membership, it does not state from where the four
> appointed members will come. Who will appoint them? Why will they not have
> to be CILIP members? Are the appointed members also to be Trustees? If
> 'yes', is that appropriate/good governance? Is it intended that they be
> drawn from the senior management team? If CILIP staff are to take a third of
> the Council seats there is even more need for an external monitoring of
> Council's work by e.g. the Office of the President.
>
>
>
> I think the membership needs some real answers to these questions, which I
> shall also be posting on LIS-Profession and LIS-Link.
>
>
>
> Chris Armstrong
>
> ______________________________
> Chris Armstrong (Past Trustee involved with the last governance review,
> 2006)
> Information Automation Limited
> t. (+44) 1974 251302
>
> s. chrisatial (Skype, pre-arranged)
> e. [log in to unmask]
>
>
> ____________________________________________
>
> Registered address: Penbryn, Bronant, Aberystwyth SY23 4TJ
>
> Registered in England Number: 2110002
>
>
--
Phil Bradley: Internet Consultant, Trainer, Social Media observer and Author.
Visit http://www.philb.com for free information on aspects of the
Internet ,
search engine articles, social media tips and a host of other free
information.
Weblogs: http://www.philbradley.typepad.com/
http://philbradley.typepad.com/i_want_to/
