I have refrained
from commenting on this thread up until now, but it may help if I make a contribution. When I decided to resign, I did so fully aware that my place on Council would be taken by the candidate who came fifth in last year’s election, and that this candidate was John Dolan; nevertheless, I still felt that I could not remain a Council member, as I was being asked to support proposals from the Governance Review that I considered to undemocratic and bad for CILIP.
I’m no psephologist, but I think that John’s low vote in that election may have reflected both a perception that he was one of the architects of the unpopular name change, and a concern at some of the intemperate remarks he had made during that debate —though he was by no means the only person to express themselves thus.
If the Governance Review proposals are passed at the AGM, members will have even less say in who represents them on Council, as a
third of the seats will be appointed. I think the first task for everyone concerned about this is to come to the AGM and vote, or to appoint a proxy to do so if they can’t. I am willing to be nominated as a proxy for anyone who wishes.
That’s not enough, though. I said at the election hustings that I was not the sort of person who should be standing for council: I am near the end of my career, indeed several members of the current Council have already finished theirs. We need candidates with decades of professional activity in front of them to stand and, so, when the call goes out for elections, I’d say everyone who’s expressed a view in this debate should think about standing. I’ll certainly nominate anyone who’s concerned for our democracy and our future.
Furthermore, the composition of Council and our declining membership need to be thought of together. We hit
rock-bottom this year, with the worst-ever figure of 13,342 members in March. A revived, renewed Council, democratically elected, could have the will to tackle this with the seriousness it deserves.
Tom
Many thanks to all the colleagues who have responded in this
thread.
I'm not attempting to stifle further debate, but simply to reassure, might have the will
everyone that I'll make sure that I bring all of these points to the
attention of current trustees for their consideration. I'm not entire
sure how I'll answer the question that they're bound to ask which is
that since this is such an important democratic point why wasn't it
wasn't raised when either Toni Franck or Sue Westcott took over from
other trustees who resigned, but I will reassure them that it's
absolutely nothing to do with any personalities at all.
I'll also happily make the point that some members would prefer to put
to one side the result of one entirely democratic vote in favour of
having a second entirely democratic vote at a cost of somewhere in the
region of £5,000, which would be money very well spent, I'm sure.
Phil.
--
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/
