Charles, this is disappointing. You know full well that this is the
process that CILIP has always had; there is nothing new or different
here, and it's something that members are aware of, and certainly
those who stand for, or who stand down from Council know will happen.
This is therefore not a 'casual vacancy co-option offer', but the way
that a democratic organisation works; it would have been offered to
whoever came 5th in the election process, and that's exactly how it
should work.
What would your solution be? To have Council with 11, rather than
12
trustees for the rest of the year, and then elect 5 this autumn for
2015 (assuming that we are still using the current system). I don't
really see how helpful that would be, and in any case, that would mean
electing 5 people for next year, and if John stood, and was 5th again,
we'd end up with exactly the same situation; ie. him becoming a
trustee again. Or would you prefer Council to co-opt someone who was
not involved in the elections at all, which would be rather similar to
one of the governance proposals that you've already said that you're
against.
To say that "It demonstrates a degree of contempt by Council for CILIP
members' views" is nonsense - CILIP members had an opportunity to
vote, they voted, this is the outcome, and it is taking into direct
account what members wanted. In fact I could argue that to actually
leave Council so soon after being elected to sit for three years is
rather more in
contempt of those people who voted for them than
anything else. If Tom had not stood, John would have been elected, and
that would have been the end of the matter.
Phil.
On 12 August 2014 12:08, CHARLES OPPENHEIM <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> See
>
http://www.cilip.org.uk/cilip/news/john-dolan-becomes-cilip-trustee-second-time>
> Let me make it clear I have absolutely nothing against John, who is a very
> honourable gentleman who is 100% committed to CILIP's success, but I am
> astonished at this news. If I had been rejected by the electorate at the
> last Council elections, I wouldn't have the nerve to accept a casual vacancy
> co-option offer, and nor should
Council have offered it. It demonstrates a
> degree of contempt by Council for CILIP members' views.
>
> It's very difficult to make me nearly speechless, but this news has achieved
> just that.
>
> Charles
>
> Professor Charles Oppenheim
--
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/