Excellent discussion with no easy answers. Much of the following has been
provoked by comments on this thread - too numerous to mention!

CILIP should definitely remain a professional, individual membership body. I
have never been to concerned regarding Corporate Membership while they do
not have voting power - but definitely would resist any moves to give them
greater power or say within CILIP; CILIP is not a trade union nor an
alternative to one (I have always been a unionist) & I would not remain long
in a professional body (nor trade union) that 'largely become learning and
financial services providers for members'.

On a related to question - I would happy for CILIP to be a sub-group of a
wider information professionals group, but this raises two questions - what
is considered 'information work' (could be very broad) and what is
considered a 'profession' (see above paragraph). Many other information
worker bodies I would not consider 'professional' bodies as they have little
or no relation to a 'codes of ethics' and are more 'technical bodies', no
matter how highly qualified their members.

The division between what CILIP should be doing and what is the responsibity
of employers is an interesting discussion point - especially that which
CILIP provides 'free to members'; basic computing courses should clearly
have been provided by employers at the time of 'People's Network birth
pangs', although perhaps CILIP could have provided these at cost but this
would have been competing with already existing providors. CILIP should
concentrate on what others are not providing that is particular to the LIS
profession - with charges on sliding scale (both in relation to salary & to
whether should be employer provided).
 
Reading some discussions (& articles in Update/Gazette), it seems that there
is a confusion between a professional & a technician; a professional is one
who is bound by a code of ethics to practice 'professionally' not just
'technically competent' to follow whatever an employer or client requests.
Thus, I think one of the roots of the confusion in public perception of
librarians as professionals is a confusion within the profession itself. I
remain a professional whatever the pay & whatever my employer thinks & thus
remain a member of CILIP (while I can afford it).  This also applies to
CILIP Chartership - I followed this for my own professional development, not
because of employer requirement; I would question the 'professionalism' of
those who see Chartership as a 'worthless piece of paper' - it about
personal professional development not about pay or status. IMHO, those who
put the cart before the horse lessen the chances of the profession gaining
in pay or status, and make CILIP advocacy for 'recognition, value and
high-profile representation of its professional people' all the more
difficult. 

Some discussions can get personal - whether on discussion boards or not;
however, as professionals surely we have thicker skins (we have to deal with
all types of public, let alone superiors in the workplace!

Regarding turnout figures - would be useful for CILIP to benchmark this
against similar professional bodies so members are not 'shooting in the
dark' when they comment on low turn out...

I would not wish to reduce the numbers of Trustees but would wish to see
less bland candidate CVs in the future (much more important than name
recognition). 

Disclosure: I have been active member for many years, always voted & I have
also been Council member.

PS. Will also post this to Discussion Board over the weekend after have had
time to log on & read discussion there.

Mark Perkins MLIS, MCLIP
www.markperkins.info

https://keyserver.pgp.com/