I wrote a post recently about the SCL not supporting the My Library By Right Campaign. I think it’s fair to say that my irritation and pique came through more strongly than perhaps intended. It appeared at the time to be a failure by the SCL to show what I considered to be fairly simple support for the profession, Cilip, and the incredibly important aim to encourage the DCMS to provide statutory guidance regarding the 1964 Libraries and Museums Act.
However, I am always ready to admit when either I have made a wrong assumption. So here’s some things I didn’t know then about the SCL that I do know now – and many thanks to the SCL members who have spoken to me about the matter:
- The SCL has no constitution: this was technically correct but only in so far that the SCL is incorporated as a company limited by guarantee and governed by Articles of Association.
- No individual membership fees: this was correct. Individual members are not required to pay membership fees but the local authority pays fees on the Head of Service (HoS) behalf.
- Consultation mechanisms: Members are able to effect policy through the regional groups, which are then taken to SCL Executive by regional representatives. The Executive has quite a lot of authority under the articles and are able to make decisions on behalf of the membership. Thus, it was the Executive that felt unable to support My Library By Right (January 2016 minutes refer – under AOB). The annual conference is also another opportunity to discuss and influence SCL decisions and direction of travel.
- Equally, members, like many membership organisations such as Cilip and ASCEL, give freely of their time to ensure the running of the organisation.
That said, it’s a great pity that such information had to be conveyed verbally or the relevant documents sent. As a body made up of information professionals such information should be readily and publically available. SCL has to bear some responsibility for failing to do so.
I also refer back to another post in which the SCL indicated that they did not consider themselves a campaigning body, or as HoS, many of which are in politically restricted posts, able to overtly criticise central or local government policy. The consensus appears to be that they consider themselves more of a ‘development agency’ for libraries and as such can accomplish more for the profession as part of the Libraries Taskforce.
In the post I also recognised that the SCL has over the years promoted good practice, encouraged senior librarians to support each other and work together on a regional and national basis, and has been responsible for the Universal Offers. The Universal Offers are in my opinion one of the best schemes that libraries have undertaken. And for this the SCL should be given full credit.
Speaking to SCL members there also seems to be an acknowledgement that communication via the website could be improved and governance made more transparent. I welcome this move and hope it can be accomplished sooner rather than later. Perhaps a quick win would be publishing details of the upcoming conference.
Now all of this does not necessarily mean I agree with the SCL over its stance. To my untrained legal eye there is nothing in the Articles that would prevent them showing support – which is not the same as campaigning – for issues that affect their members as well as the wider profession. This includes support for statutory guidance around the 1964 Act, establishing a national strategy for England, and adopting a range of national standards. After all, in this, England is out of step with the rest of the UK so precedents have already been set.
However, while it is perfectly acceptable to disagree I broke my own rule about keeping such discourse courteous and professional.
That said, the SCL only represents the interest and opinions of 151 members so I maintain that it lacks the legitimacy to speak on behalf of the wider profession and that having fees paid for by the local authority compromises the independence of the SCL.