Tom Featherstone and Bob Usherwood, both Past Presidents of The Library Association, sent this piece to me expressing concern about the proposals for changing the way CILIP is governed.  Being these proposals will be voted on this Saturday, I am giving them their own post below.  In addition to being Past Presidents, Tom Featherstone is Chair of CILIP’s Retired Members Guild and Bob Usherwood edits its journal Post-Lib.

Democratic governance for professional organisations

“For the second year running CILIP’s AGM promises to be an unpredictable affair. This time it is its governance that will come under scrutiny and once again there is the suggestion that our professional membership organisation may be out of touch with its members. The differences between CILIP’s report on members’ views on its Governance proposals and those expressed on many discussion fora, especially perhaps LIS-PUB-LIBS have been stark and revealing. The centre of the argument has been around the concept of democracy.  This topic making headlines in the professional press and beyond when Tom Roper resigned from CILIP Council because he believed that the Governance Review contains two “profoundly undemocratic” proposals.  He identified these as “the proposal that a third of Council seats should be appointed, rather than elected from the membership, and the proposal that Council, rather than the members, should elect the President.” Much more detail can be found on his blog.

“The centre of the argument has been around the concept of democracy”

Similar concerns had been raised earlier in the year by CILIP’s Retired Members Guild when, in June, it hosted a consultation session with the Chair of Council and CILIP’s CEO. Members, many of whom had many years service on the Council, felt very strongly that that our Governing body should consist entirely of CILIP members nominated and elected by the membership at large. Concern was also expressed at the proposal that the President should be elected by the Council and that in addition to Presidential duties, should also serve as the Chair of Council.  Apart from being undemocratic it was felt this confused two distinct roles leading to a loss of identity of our professional association in the outside world.

In his presentation, the Chair of Council said that CILIP had looked at the governance of charities, commercial organisation and professional bodies and revealed that the chosen model was more often to be found in the commercial world although he was unable to give precise figures. On the available evidence, the CILIP format appears to have much in common with a model of governance described as a ‘corporate hegemony model’. For example CILIP’s “claim that professional bodies often have non-members on their Councils has been questioned.  Charles Oppenheim observing that it “is not true in my experience of membership of dozens of professional bodies, but even if it were true, three out of twelve is too high a %…”

“On the available evidence, the CILIP format appears to have much in common with a model of governance described as a ‘corporate hegemony model’.”

The British Dental Association recently reviewed its governance and its website states “the governing body of the BDA must be directly elected by its wider membership” BDA members therefore “directly elect the 15 strong Principal Executive Committee (PEC), which has overall responsibility for the control and direction of the policy and affairs of the Association.” Its members also elect committees that focus on the interests of constituent parts of the profession, such as the General Dental Practice Committee and the councils established for each country of the United Kingdom.

A recent report on University Governance stated, [“The] traditional mode of governance (and that used in many institutions internationally) is a hybrid of the stewardship, stakeholder and democratic model.” It further argued that, “universities must not have governance arrangements that preclude real democratic consideration of their future direction or of the impact on the wide body of people who make up the university community.” (Murray et al).

“The use of governance models from the private sector shifts power from the membership to management leading to “crude ‘financialisation’ of the institution and there is little sense of how that ‘executive’ is held to account”

The same must surely be true of professional bodies such as CILIP which like universities need to ensure that the wider community (i.e. the membership) has meaningful involvement in decision making. There are also issues of short term and long term accountability. The use of governance models from the private sector shifts power from the membership to management leading to “crude ‘financialisation’ of the institution and there is little sense of how that ‘executive’ is held to account …” Long term accountability asks, “Who owns the professional association?  It needs to be remembered that many CILIP members will have a much longer association with the organisation than the CEO or the management team.  Again the report on University Governance is relevant to CILIP when it notes that such members “see institutions they have dedicated their working lives to go through cyclical periods where a new principal arrives … and seeks to change strategy, emphasis and direction. …This raises questions about who actually ‘owns’ the university and how they are held accountable.” It concludes, “The overall impact of this is a lack of confidence that the ‘core values’ of these institutions are in safe hands or that their fundamental role in society is being put first by those running the institution.”

This raises important questions about purpose, vision and values.  We  acknowledge that that most of those contributing to the Governance debate want our professional body to prosper but recent professional disputes, or what the President has called “in-fighting and bickering”, ( Band 2014) are evidence of serious  professional disagreements and  maybe divergent values. Dissatisfaction with CILIP has grown following the proposed name change, the Governance Review and what many, especially in the public sector perceive as its ineffective defence of the value and values of public libraries. There have been accusations of arrogance, secrecy and unwillingness to listen to the views of the. membership. In a recent interview with The Bookseller. (Farrington 2014) the President indicates that she wants “to bridge the gap between the council and the members, and show we all come from the same place, and have the same goals.” It is to be hoped that lessons have been learnt from the rebranding fiasco but worrying that another event at last year’s AGM, the overwhelming vote of no confidence in Ed Vaizey, was not supported by Council and criticised by the President in the Bookseller article.

“There have been accusations of arrogance, secrecy and unwillingness to listen to the views of the membership”

Those able to attend the AGM on Saturday will be able to vote on the governance proposals in person but there is still time to use a proxy by downloading the form from the CILIP website address  but Proxy vote forms must be received at CILIP by 1.15 pm on Thursday 18 September 2014. At the RMG meeting in June, we heard that CILIP had consulted widely and looked at other organisations in an attempt to get things right, but then much the same was said about the rebranding exercise. CILIP members are rightly proud of the part they play in maintaining democracy and want their professional body to reflect democratic principles. For many members, the governance proposals under discussion do not do that. Council may have tried to do things the right way but as Herman and Renz (2004) observe, “finding the right fit among [effective] practices is more important than doing things the ‘right way’”. The proposals discussed above, in the view of the RMG Committee and members attending the consultation meeting, Tom Roper and numerous others, are simply not the right fit.

“we heard that CILIP had consulted widely and looked at other organisations in an attempt to get things right, but then much the same was said about the rebranding exercise”

References

Our thanks to staff at Nottingham Central Library for helping us locate source material.