 |
 |
Can we ensure posts to the list are respectful, please? Words like cabal are pejorative and unwelcome. As list owner, I'm not prepared to see the list descend the way it and others did over the summer. Volunteers for the role with time on their hands who are prepared to do so are always welcome. There are 974 members currently on this list, and I am sure the vast majority of them have neither the time nor inclination to have their inbox filled with these kinds of emails again. Please discuss topics (and other professionals) respectfully. Thanks David -----Original Message----- From: Library and Information Professionals [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of CHARLES OPPENHEIM Sent: 11 December 2014 17:42 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: page 5 of latest CILIP Update So the panel of three CAN reject a candidate's nomination, even if formal requirements have been met, on the say-so of three people who deem there is "insufficient evidence"?? I admit I failed to pick up on Regulation 61 when the AGM motions were proposed last year. I recommend that Regulation 61 be abolished. Do others agree? I repeat. It's for the membership to decide who gets voted in, not a cabal of three. Or doesn't CILIP have confidence in the judgement of its members? Charles Professor Charles Oppenheim ----Original message---- From : [log in to unmask] Date : 11/12/2014 - 16:59 (GMT) To : [log in to unmask] Subject : page 5 of latest CILIP Update Dear list members I hope you find the following information useful, regarding the recent conversation about the article in December's Update, "New CILIP Governance". On 20 September 2014, members voting in person at by proxy at CILIP AGM approved the General Regulations adopted by Council. Regulation 61 says “The Board will appoint three of its Board Members to review all nominations for election as a Board Member to confirm that evidence has been provided that candidates meet the requirements of the role specification.” The scrutiny panel is not vetting individual candidates, it is ensuring they have provided evidence of meeting the requirements. In respect of Charles' specific questions: 1. Council appoints 3 trustees (this year Liz McGettigan, Keith Wilson and Emma McDonald) 2. It’s not about liking or disliking what’s written, it’s checking evidence has been given against each point in the form. If insufficient evidence is included, the candidate would be advised that they were not being put forward for election. 3. The panel will undertake the scrutiny once nominations are closed. 4. The panel will report to the Board (or Council as it still will be this year) The CILIP governance year is 1 January to 31 December. However, decisions made at the AGM decisions had to be formally ratified by the Privy Council which happened on 5 November. The Notice of Election needs to be published in Update and the next opportunity to do this was in the December issue. With the election process taking on average 2-3 months to complete (and with Christmas intervening), it would not be possible for new trustees and the Vice-President to take up office until April. Regards Mark Mark Taylor MCIM Director of External Relations CILIP: the Chartered Institute of Library & Information Professionals