But it surely does not need a group to check that the forms are filled in correctly (depends what you mean by ‘correctly’!) and that the nominees are CILIP
members? It’s not as if there is ever a deluge of people wanting to stand for election that need to be processed.
Apart from CILIP I’m proud to belong to five other professional societies – Royal Society of Chemistry, British Computer Society, Royal Society of Arts, the
Royal College of Organists and the Incorporated Association of Organists. I have been a member of for over thirty years of four of the five. In the case of none of the five have I ever, even for one moment, had doubts about the governance framework. I just
pay my fees and get great member services which always seem to anticipate my changing requirements for skills and networks.
Martin White
Intranet Focus Ltd
From: Library and Information Professionals [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Chris Armstrong
Sent: 11 December 2014 14:02
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: page 5 of latest CILIP Update
Well spotted and well said, that man!
The article even says in the second paragraph what Charles says after his questions: 12 trustees elected by the members / There will be the possibility of co-options…
if there are gaps in “skills, knowledge, diversity or geographical representation”
… and then goes on to describe this vetting process.
Perhaps (we can but hope) it is a misunderstanding and the small group will simply look at the forms to ensure they are completed correctly and that the nominees
are indeed CILIP members… but that is NOT what it says in this unattributed editorial piece. I have copied my email to the name given at the foot of the article as a contact for queries.
Transparent governance requires that the membership has the chance to vote on all the individuals nominated and not only those that the current board finds
to its liking.
________________________
Chris Armstrong
Information Automation Limited
t: (+44) 1974 251302
s: chrisatial (Skype, pre-arranged)
e:
[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
w:
www.i-a-l.co.uk/resource_ebook2014.html
_____________________________________
Registered address: Penbryn, Bronant, Aberystwyth SY23 4TJ
Registered in England: 2110002
From: Library and Information Professionals [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of CHARLES OPPENHEIM
Sent: 11 December 2014 13:45
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: page 5 of latest CILIP Update
According to the article about CILIP's new governance set up, "A small group of current trustees [i.e., CILIP Board Members] will look at the completed forms [i.e., of those nominated to stand for election for the new Board] to ensure that
all the candidates bring the right skills and experience to take on the demanding and important role of CILIP trustee."
This statement raises so many questions:
1. Who comprises this small group, who elects them?
2. What if they don't like what they find? Do they have the right to veto someone's nomination, or make disparaging remarks about them on behalf of the Board?
3. At what stage do they do this vetting? As soon as a nomination is received, after nominations are closed, or when?
4. Who do they report to? Just the Board, or to the membership at large? In what way do they report back - verbally, in writing….?
5. When do they make their report? If they report back before nominations close, is it their job, or the Board's job to encourage others with the "right balance" to enter the race before it's too late?
etc.
It is none of the existing Board's business who stands for election as long as they fulfil the formal requirements of CILIP membership and proper nomination and seconding. The membership decides, by means of its votes, who joins the Board
and who does not. If, in the Board's considered opinion, the right balance of skills and experience is lacking, it can later co-opt.
I trust the Board will abandon this vetting idea right away.
Charles
Professor Charles Oppenheim