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
