By: Charles Oppenheim

Charles Oppenheim — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:06:05 +0000

As has been pointed out by Tom Roper in his blog as a reply to this piece by Nick Poole, the governance change process adopted by CILIP Council was anything but transparent at the outset. But that in neither here nor there. The real point is that the proposals being offered to CILIP members on Saturday will, if adopted, lead to a profoundly undemocratic Council.

By: Tom Roper

Tom Roper — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 05:49:03 +0000

I am afraid that Nick Poole is simply wrong when he says that the discussions on the Governance Review were carried out ‘in plain sight’. The review began in 2012. The minutes of the March 2013 Council meeting state, ‘C2013/05 Governance Review Report Council discussed and agreed proposals from the Governance
Review Board’. Intrigued by this, on 11 July 2013 I wrote to ask when the proposals would be in the public domain. The Chair of Council replied to say that they would be available in October of that year. By the time I attended my first Council meeting in January 2014, they were still not public. The discussion on them at that meeting took place in camera, and my proposal that the discussion be moved to open session was defeated, finding no support from any of my fellow councillors. The subsequent consultation was perfunctory. I know, I was a part of it.
At my last Council meeting, members defended this secrecy, claiming that they would not have been able to talk freely if the review had been conducted openly. I fear I cannot see why members elected to office in a membership organisation by their peers should be scared of openness.

Comments on: Depth of Wirral cuts become clear, income generation and CILIP governance

By: Charles Oppenheim

By: Tom Roper