I think it might help to try and clarify one or two points, and to
correct some misconceptions.

The Governance Review first met on 23rd February 2012 and delivered
its final report to Council in Autumn last year; less than 2 years,
not the 4 years that has been referenced. It was not in 'secret' -
what would be the point, since it was going to be discussed with
members, who would then (democratically) be able to vote on it. There
have been articles in Update and information on the website regarding
the whole process. There was nothing to let people see prior to this
because the panel was looking at a whole range of different options
and to say 'we might go for option A or option Z' would not have
helped the process at all.

Let me take the role of President first, which is something that I
have some experience of. We could either have an entirely honorary
post, which is nothing more than cutting ribbons and giving awards,
which would cost the organisation all of the expenses to little end.
Alternatively, we can have a President who actually does things, has
their own particular interests (mine was social media, Barbara's is
school libraries), but that takes time. I was generally spending about
2 days a week on CILIP matters - visiting groups or branches, giving
talks, speeches, awarding things, sitting on various committees and
dealing with correspondence. That's an awful lot to ask of someone,
and reduces the pool of people who are able to do it quite
drastically. I don't believe that the current system works any longer
- not just for that reason, but because my second year as President
was unelected. Our current President and Vice President have not been
elected either. I'm really not sure quite how democratic this is, and
it's by no means a new phenomena at all.

If we choose a President from those who are elected (in the same way
that we currently chose the Leader of Council) they can in turn chose
one of their own to take on that role. We will then have a President
who HAS been elected; this will hopefully lead to more people having
an interesting in standing for Council, giving us a greater pool of
candidates to consider - which again I think is a democratic way
forward. There will be even more reason to vote at elections, since
they'll also be voting for someone who may become President, which
should increase the turnout - another democratic outcome. The workload
is of course going to be an issue here, and trustees will be in a
position to take on a little more of that workload, which will include
meeting members, giving talks and so on. Again, I think this is a
positive step forward; I think the current status quo means that
trustees can be seen as being too removed from the membership, and
this will address that criticism.

CILIP is a multi-million pound charity. Trustees take on a personal
liability (which also includes financial) when taking up position.
While there is insurance, they are responsible for getting
professional advice and experience as necessary - often at
considerable cost. It is rare to get a trustee who has experience of
charity law, knowledge of pensions, an indepth understanding of
financial aspects and so on. Moreover, a lot of the people who are
elected have an interest in their specific subject area, and that's
generally why they get voted in. This is in no way critical of current
or previous trustees, but in order to run a charity we need people
onboard who are experienced, and we don't always get this. If members
vote for the changes we will be in a better position to plug those
gaps in our knowledge; that makes Council more, not less effective,
and it means that those trustees who have little interest in pensions
etc will be able to focus on the subject at hand - promoting and
protecting library services and librarians.

'Secrecy'. Trustees and CILIP staff have run a series of meetings with
branches and groups, as well as meetings with the devolved nations.
The proposals have been presented, and feedback was received. The
views of individual members were also been taken into account, leading
to the current set of proposals. This was not some meaningless
charade; as many trustees as possible were involved, with as many
meetings as possible to give all members an opportunity to share their
opinions. It's also worth making the point that at the January meeting
the default position was taken that items under discussion at Council
should be public unless there was a compelling reason not to do so.
Could this have been done before? Yes, I think it could, but it's
happening now, so far from being more secret, Council deliberations
are becoming more transparent. However, I should also make the point
that in all of the Council meetings I have been involved with I think
I could count on the fingers of one hand the people who have actually
turned up to listen. Hopefully we will see more in the future, and I
am sure that I can count on your support here.

With regards membership. No, there isn't a specific section in the
register on membership figures because the entire register is about
finance and membership! It's broken down into specific sections, and
there is a constant emphasis on improving membership figures. I don't
think I attended a single Council meeting in the last three years that
didn't discuss membership. CILIP has appointed an expert in the
subject area, and he gave a paper at the last Council meeting in fact.
As you know, CILIP have provided free memberships to students to
encourage them to become full, paying memberships when they qualify.
CILIP also has the well attended New Professionals Day at various
different places around the country to provide information, help and
assistance to that group.

Moving onto 'democracy'. I've already covered this in some detail, so
I'll keep this as short as possible. CILIP has moved to a situation of
electronic voting to encourage more people to vote in elections.
Contrary to expectations however, when it was used for the first time
last year the number voting actually fell, it didn't increase, which
was disappointing. There are many potential reasons for this,
including I suspect disillusionment. I am however hopeful that once
members see the importance of voting for Trustees and President that
will encourage more of them to become involved. One further point here
- the decision that Tom felt strongly enough over to resign was voted
on by Council, and as he himself said, he was in a minority of one.
Unfortunately, that's what democracy is all about; you can't pick and
choose which results you like and which you don't.

With respect to a couple of comments mentioned in this thread - yes,
Trustees and the Presidential team get expenses for their travel and
incidentals. Is anyone seriously suggesting that they shouldn't? If
they were, they should understand that we'd then end up with trustees
who were rich enough not to have to worry about train tickets, or
people who simply happened to live within easy travelling distance.
I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem particularly fair or democratic to
me. One of the points that is often made is 'how many member
subscriptions would that cost?' This really does help focus the mind
and trustees and the Presidential team always look for the cheapest
prices and book as far ahead as possible.

There was also mention of the 'old guard'. I'm not really sure what
that means. It's always much easier to refer to 'they' and 'them' or
'Council' or 'Trustees' without actually naming people. I'd be really
interested - as I am sure other people would - to see who this 'old
guard' actually is, so can we have some names please? As for 'who do
they think they are?' the answer is simple - they are the
democratically elected members of Council who have been elected by the
membership to work on their behalf, to the very best of their ability,
and that's exactly what they do.

I apologise for the length of this post, but I wanted to cover the
points as best as I could; to do anything else would not have been
respectful to the people asking questions or those reading the thread.

Phil.




On 17 July 2014 10:26, Frances Hendrix <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Cilip
> Read, listen and learn
>
> This isn't me writing, but someone you should respect!
> f
>
> Frances Hendrix
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Library and Information Professionals [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wendy Foster (Hywel Dda UHB - Knowledge Services Manager)
> Sent: 17 July 2014 07:43
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: LIS-PROFESSION Digest - 14 Jul 2014 to 16 Jul 2014 (#2014-118)
>
> I can understand why Tom felt the need to resign.  This is ridiculous!  However, CILIP has not been a democratic organisation for a long time so I suppose we should not be too surprised.  With this information now available to us all I think far fewer of us will be renewing our membership next time.  What would be the point?
>
> I used to think there was some value in telling employers or prospective employers that I was a chartered member of CILIP, but frankly employers no longer know about or care about CILIP.  I'd have done far better spending my membership subscriptions on getting a masters degree and I think this is what those new to the profession are doing.  In any case, why would they join an organisation which treats it's members in this shameful fashion.
>
>
> Wendy Foster
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Library and Information Professionals [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of LIS-PROFESSION automatic digest system
> Sent: 17 July 2014 00:12
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: LIS-PROFESSION Digest - 14 Jul 2014 to 16 Jul 2014 (#2014-118)
>
> There is 1 message totaling 349 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
>   1. The sad departure of Tom Roper
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date:    Wed, 16 Jul 2014 15:49:29 +0000
> From:    Frances Hendrix <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: The sad departure of Tom Roper
>
> I have taken the trouble of printing Tom's goodbye blog below for those of you who have not seen it.
>
> Well it says so much doesn't it. All the hopes we had of the new Councillors, and where may I ask are the others who were voted in with Tom, when we the electorate wanted to see BIG changes and more democracy? Have then joined the 'old guard'.
> So 6 months into his position on Council, the first debate of the new Governance proposals. Openness, democracy,  it seems not, rather closed sessions!!. Is this a British membership organisation we are referring to, and that I have paid subs to for  c45 years. It hints of something much more alien.
>
> How do you feel about a third of Council seats being appointed and the President elected by the same Council.
>
> BUT the saving grace and your opportunity to have your say, at least these proposals are going to Cilip's AGM in September, so stand by your beds!
> What on earth is happening to Cilip? To miss quote a well know TV series 'Who on Earth do they think they are'?
>
> Can they not see what they are doing with membership down to an all-time low of 13,342, and I would think after this dropping even more. Do they ever ask why? Of course with the multitude of closures of public libraries, and the replacement of qualified staff by volunteers and the 'silence of the Cilip lambs', it is obvious membership will drop, but what on earth are they doing to give help, courage and practical assistance to those of us who pay their wages and expenses! (Yes council members will claim expenses). And a risk register which hasn't registered the falling numbers. Glad they are not responsible for fire risk!!
>
> I have highlighted Tom's last paragraph as it says it all. Do we care enough about our profession to allow this to go on. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE AND WHO DO THEY SUPPORT? Perhaps they should be paid by results in number of new members?
>
> I know I will be slagged off for this by the same-old, but you know I don't care if I am, I am just so angry that we have lost Tom from this Council!
> f
>
>
>
>
> July 15, 2014
> Farewell to CILIP Council
> Today I e-mailed Martyn Wade, Chair of CILIP Council, to say I was resigning from CILIP Council. At the Council meeting on 8 July we debated, for the first time since I was elected to Council, the Governance Review proposals.
> I have written before about the Governance Review<http://www.roper.org.uk/tr/2013/07/the-mystery-of-the-vanishing-cilip-governance-review-or-kittens-in-aeschylus.html>, and once more here: http://www.roper.org.uk/tr/2013/07/cilips-governance-review-update.html This review has been four years in preparation, and kept secret for most of that time. Indeed, at the first Council meeting I attended, in January of this year, the agenda item on it was taken in closed session. Then, only then, were the proposals put out for consultation.
> Most of the proposals are innocuous, but there are two that are profoundly undemocratic, the proposal that a third of Council seats should be appointed, rather 13,than elected from the membership, and the proposal that Council, rather than the members, should elect the President. Council is recommending these to CILIP's AGM in September; I found myself in a minority of one when suggesting we should not support these when Council had its first opportunity to debate the substance of the proposals.
> The Governance Review has been conducted during a period of a crisis in CILIP. As well as last year's failed proposal to change our name to ILPUK, membership has sunk, and continues to do so. At the beginning of 2010 we had nearly 18,000 members; this year, in March our membership fell to its lowest ever figure, 13,342. At Council meetings it seemed to me that tackling this was not seen as the central concern it should be. It is not worthy of an entry in our risk register.
> That crisis may explain why the Governance Review shows such a lack of confidence in the profession at large. We are not to be trusted to elect a President, and when we elect Council members, our judgment is likely to be flawed, so must be tempered by appointed members, who need not be CILIP members.
> We desperately need a strong professional association. We need it to set standards, to bring on new generations of professionals, to speak out for library services of every kind which find themselves under threat. If we mute the voice of members in the way our organisation is run, we weaken ourselves, and those who depend on the services we run will suffer.
>
>
>
> Frances Hendrix
> Martin House Farm, Hilltop Lane, Whittle le Woods, Chorley, Lancs, PR6 7QR
> Tel:  01257 274 833.   Mobile: 0777 55 888 03
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of LIS-PROFESSION Digest - 14 Jul 2014 to 16 Jul 2014 (#2014-118)
> *********************************************************************



-- 
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/