Stronger Together

cilipI make no apologies for this post being unashamedly a recruiting drive for Cilip after seeing on Twitter that membership is still falling by 3%. However, as with everything, the context needs to be understood to see this fall as a positive and not necessarily a negative.

For years I was a harsh critic of Cilip, not because it had lost its way, but because it didn’t have a way forward at all. It was floundering under the pressure of austerity and the resulting widespread hollowing out of public libraries with the loss of jobs and thus membership. Worse of all, this was happening without Cilip speaking up for the profession or advocating the advantages of retaining a professional workforce.

It also faced the challenge of arresting the decline in membership. My own opinion was that members where leaving because they could no longer see the relevance of belonging to a professional body, and paying expensive subscriptions, that was too far removed from their everyday experience of year-on-year budget and job cuts.

But all this has thankfully changed. Cilip now has, and continues to develop, a strong voice in defence of its membership and championing library services in different sectors; public, schools, health. It challenges Government policy and intervenes, as much as it can, in local decisions to reduce services. Cilip is becoming the professional body its members need it to be.

I contacted Nick Poole for further information about the fall in membership and he sent this reply:

“The current rate of attrition is just over 3%. That’s actually around half what it was 3 years ago, but it’s still a declining number. We follow up with people who don’t renew, and the underlying reasons are informative. A significant proportion are due to retirement, which is why we’re working to improve the offer the retired members. Similarly, we see a significant drop-off in the transition from free student membership to full membership. We have seen a decline in the number of people leaving because of dissatisfaction with CILIP.

 Of course, over the past 10 years, the most significant decline in sector terms is membership among public library staff. This is one reason why we launched the new Careers Hub on the CILIP VLE – to provide support for public librarians who find themselves having to make a transition to other parts of the library sector. We know that public libraries are changing, but we see it as essential that public library staff are encouraged to engage with their professional body, develop their skills and maintain the connection to the wider library and information profession. This is why we are pleased to be working with SCL on the new Public Library Skills Strategy, which will help address some of these issues.

 We know from the workforce mapping project that there are around 69,000 people in the library & information workforce in the UK. With around 12,500 members, we currently represent around 18% of that workforce. The average for professional association membership in other sectors is around 20-22%, so there is scope to grow our membership base. It is important for us to do this because the more of the sector we can represent, the more credible we are when advocating for librarians and information professionals.

 When we went out to the wider profession, we found that a lot of people want to be part of CILIP as their professional body but don’t currently regard membership as affordable. The new membership model on which members are currently voting is designed to help us retain and support our existing members, and reach more of those people. We also found that there are a lot of people who want to be part of the profession but aren’t yet ready to commit to Professional Registration. Welcoming these people to the CILIP community and encouraging them to take up Chartership has been a major factor in the design of the new model.

Ultimately, the sector needs a strong independent voice – I’d argue now more than ever. We understand that people expect value for money from their membership, and we are working hard to deliver that. This is a model for growth and we are really hoping that members will support it and empower us to reach out to those people who could and should be members, but currently aren’t.“

All I ever wanted from my professional body, what I had the right to expect, is that it speaks up in defence of its members and profession. Cilip is absolutely doing this, which is why I have changed from critic to proponent for the body.

I absolutely understand why library workers have drifted away from Cilip in the past but I genuinely believe it has changed and would encourage all library and information workers, especially public library staff, to stay connected to the profession.

Here’s some very simple reasons I think you should stay with, join, or rejoin Cilip:

  1. Advocacy: a strong voice for the profession
  2. Lower subscriptions and better value for money
  3. Advice & support including access to employment law advice
  4. Professional development and networking

Ultimately, we are stronger together, and I look forward to Cilip expanding towards the 69,000 target.

Please do forward your question and indeed criticisms via the comments area and I shall ensure they are passed on to Cilip to answer.

Further information:

That Was Then…

untitledI published my first post in October 2013 outlining the Cilip AGM of that year. The context to my beginning this blog was almost utter disillusionment with Cilip: it’s lack of campaigning for public libraries, the continuous increase in subscriptions, and the constant navel gazing culminating in the ill-advised proposal to change the body’s name (‘ILPUKe’ or ‘I’ll Puke’ anyone!). It was hemorrhaging members by the hundreds and seemed lacking any relevance to the battles being fought daily by campaigners and library staff on the ground.

Thankfully, the name change was defeated and the one positive outcome of the AGM was a vote of no confidence in Ed Vaizey. I think if the name change had gone through and the vote of no confidence failed I and many other members would have voted with our feet. More battles followed and I make no apologies for being a staunch critic of Cilip in several areas, particularly membership fees.

In 2015 I gave a cautious welcome to the appointment of Nick Poole as the new CEO but within a few short months I could detect a sea-change in the organisation; a willingness to listen and engage, advocate for the membership, and address the difficult issues and decisions facing the profession. Quickly Nick began to raise the body’s profile during a round of radio and TV interviews talking about library closures and advocating for the profession.

The fact that Cilip seemed to be turning a corner was illustrated in an interview with Kathy Settle, discussing the November spending review, in which Nick stated:

“My biggest concern is that we allow services to be hollowed-out in the name of keeping up appearances, keeping the doors open while reducing the range and quality of services offered by skilled and qualified staff.

We can’t afford to focus on the short-term situation while allowing library services to be systematically under-funded. We need to fight the battles ahead while remaining focused on the real aim – which is to deliver the modern and comprehensive library network that the public need and have a right to expect.”

The AGM in September 2015 brought another surprise when the Cilip Board fully supported the motion opposing the amateurisation of public libraries. Not everything was rosy however and I continued to oppose increasing membership fees. That said, the campaigning and advocacy aspects were improving dramatically.

It appeared that at long last Cilip was evolving into the professional body its members needed it to be. This has included a growing list of positive initiatives:

Not bad for a CEO who has only been in post for 12 months. Credit should also go to the dedication of the Cilip Board Members and staff. As President Dawn Finch is a straight talking proponent for libraries, the Board appears to address the more contentious issues head on, and this is underpinned by hard working staff that make proposals and policies a reality. Long may it continue.

As part of the Fit for the Future proposals there is a short survey for both members and non-members to express an opinion. I encourage everyone to do so. The idea of a leaders network is also intriquing so I look forward to more details being made available about the scheme.

It is also gratifying to see the proposed reduction in subscriptions fees and free student membership abolished. I voted against free membership in 2013 on the basis that what students really needed was for a professional body to be relevant rather than free.

Now I understand and sympathise that for some campaigners Cilip is not as radical or political as they would like it to be. But I would argue that it is still early days and more has been done to change and improve Cilip in the past 12 months than in many years previously. Cilip is also a broad church so has to strike a balance between the different aspects and sectors it represents.

That said, Cilip still has work to do, particularly in it’s relationship with the Libraries Taskforce. Many disagreements still exist between government policy and aspirations that Cilip and individual members have expressed for public libraries. Whether or not these differences will be ironed out and a consensus reached through the Taskforce’s Ambitions document remains to be seen.

I also remain critical of the small cadre of Taskforce members making decisions on behalf of public libraries around commercial sponsorship without wider discussions in the sector. In a recent Twitter exchange I, Nick Poole and other campaigners discussed the development of an ethical policy to help inform such partnerships, which is something I hope the Taskforce will take on board.

So, from my first post to this one I see the beginnings of real change in Cilip and as an individual member feel more positive about my professional body than I have done for a long time.

Show me the money…again & again & again

The Cilip AGM is upon us shortly and members are being asked to dig deeply into financially shallow pockets yet again. In a post last year I argued against raising the subscription rate but was in a minority and the increase was passed. Unfortunately, it seems Cilip is determined to treat members as milch cows despite the job losses and limit on public sector pay.

I think the debate over fees was lost amongst the changes to the governance model last year and unfortunately might well be again this year as the focus will be on the proposal to oppose the amateurisation of the public library services.

But the ever increasing subscription rates is an important issue that should be given greater prominence.

The current fee for those earning more than £17,501 is £204 with a proposed increase to £208 from 2016. Since 2010 subscription fees will have increased from £184 to £208 (if agreed) representing an increase of 13% and the fourth time they will have been raised in a relatively short time.

Now set this against a background of pay freezes and pay caps for public sector workers, including library staff, over the past 5 years. Many librarians have felt the full impact of the austerity measures not only in terms of job losses but also in rising living costs. The government has announced that public sector pay will be capped once again at 1% until 2018. But the 1% is not guaranteed. Greg Hands, chief secretary to the Treasury has stated that the rise should be paid in a ‘targeted manner’ with some workers getting more and others getting less than the 1%.

The change to subscriptions not only affects professionally qualified librarians but also many experienced staff who apply for ACLIP status as they have to pay the same rates. These staff are likely to be on the lower end of the subscription band and tend to be part-time workers. In fact throughout public libraries underemployment is a real issue limiting the amount of disposable income.

For library staff who have suffered derisory pay rises during the past few years the cost of membership is a major investment. With this in mind Cilip should be looking at ways of freezing or reducing fees rather than putting an additional burden on members.

One of the inequities is that the subscription band for most members ranges from £17,501 – £42,00. This is far too broad and members have repeatedly requested that different bands be created with a more equitable sliding scale. This has not happened and I suspect there will be many who will ask if the investment in membership, particularly in public libraries, justifies the cost and decide to vote with their feet. For an organisation that struggles to retain members this continuing increase in fees is not a sustainable policy.

Needless to say I will not be supporting the subscription increase and hope that others also question the need to do so during difficult financial times for members.

Addendum

As part of the justification for the increase the subscription proposal argues that:

“Wage inflation is varied with general wage inflation reportedly being 3.5%, however at the same time I am well aware that some members in the public sector will have had no inflation increase.”

However, as a recent story in the Financial Times recognised this rise is driven by private sector pay and bonuses. Thus, the above claim is misleading and a far cry from what public sector workers, who face a pay cap of 1% until 2018, can expect.

 

The ‘Amateurisation’ of Public Libraries

The 2015 CILIP AGM takes place on Thursday 24 September at CILIP Headquarters and unlike previous years is a fairly low key affair estimated to take just over two hours. As usual I would urge all those members who cannot attend to at least use their proxy votes.

The two areas that have grabbed my attention are the proposal by Andy Richardson and Anna Brynolf (below) and the, as usual, ever increasing subscription rates. The unnecessary increase in subs is something I argued against last year but it seems that Cilip is determined to treat members as milch cows despite the job losses and limit on public sector pay. This is a matter I will return to in a future post.

Well done to Andy and Anna for submitting the following proposal and saying what many within the profession think. The phrase ‘amateurisation of the Public Library services’ sums up the current situation succinctly and encapsulates in a single word the reductions, hollowing out, deprofessionalisation, and handing over to volunteers. Amateurisation indeed!

The wording of the proposal is:

“That CILIP actively oppose those public authorities and senior library staff over the “amateurisation” of the Public Library service by offering library buildings and contents to be run by the local community with little or no funding for professional or paid library staff. This is resulting in public libraries being run by volunteer staff and taking away work currently done by paid professional and library assistant staff. All current public library service points manned by paid local authority library staff should be the current base-line – and where such actions are suggested by the local authority and senior library staff, CILIP should support the opposition to such proposals and say so publicly.”

 

Vol stats

The loss of staff and increase in volunteers is starkly illustrated in this graph from the Guardian.

Recently Cilip has raised its profile around advocating for libraries and Nick Poole has done a round of radio and TV interviews talking about library closures. However, I still think Cilip’s approach is too softly-softly so will be supporting the proposal and urging Cilip to be more adversarial in its opposition to the removal of paid staff.

This proposal transitions interestingly into the announcement that Jan Parry, President of Cilip, has been appointed to lead a task-force charged with working out how Liverpool’s libraries will be funded from 2017 onwards. From one perspective this is a positive move to involve those who actually know about libraries, from another it could be seen as glossing over the relinquishing of 5 libraries to volunteers and the loss of paid staff.

So this is a precarious position for Cilip. Any move to find a solution which involves volunteer libraries will be met with outrage from members and campaigners alike and will run contrary to the above proposal if passed.

Cilip has released a statement in support of the work Jan has been asked to do. Unfortunately, it is couched in terms that immediately gives rise for concern and suspicion in that it is similar to the vague terminology and management-speak that seeks to disguise reductions to service and removal of staff.

Cilip needs to clarify in plain English whether or not this will mean supporting, even indirectly, volunteer run libraries. It would be reassuring if Cilip were to offer a base-line affirmation, along the lines of the SLIC recommendation, that volunteer run libraries without paid professional staff are not the preferred option.

There is a basic financial imperative for Cilip in all of this. It is paid staff, not volunteers, that pay subscriptions and without employment they are unable to do so. So less employment for members means less members for Cilip. Simple really!

Addendum

Interesting comment from librariesmatter:

Just a thought …..if CILIP had wider membership then perhaps it wouldn’t need to raise subscription rates and it wouldn’t be seen so much as a narrow professional body merely protecting its members interests.

For example the American Library Association provides personal membership to Library Friends, Trustees and Associates. CILIP for some reason doesn’t embrace such people.

 

 

 

Cilip subscription fees

At the Cilip AGM this weekend members will be asked once again to vote for an increase in subscription fees. The current fee for anyone earning more than £17,501 is £200 with the proposed increase to £204 from 2015. On the face of it this seems a reasonable rise. However, since 2010 (incidentally the start of the government’s austerity programme) subscription fees will have increased from £184  to £204 (if agreed) representing an increase of 10.8% and the third time subscriptions will have been raised in a relatively short time.

Now set this against a background of pay freezes and below inflation pay caps for public sector workers, including library staff, during the same period. Many librarians have felt the full impact of the austerity measures not only in terms of job losses but also in the increase of living costs. According to the TUC the average public sector worker is £2,245 worse off in real terms since 2010, and there are indications from ministers that pay caps are likely to extend to 2018.

With this in mind Cilip should be looking at ways of freezing or reducing fees rather than putting an additional burden on members.

Needless to say I will not be supporting the subscription increase and hope that others also question the need to do so during difficult financial times for members.

Show me the money!

Although somewhat a distraction from the more serious business of library closures and service reductions, librarians will debate the outcomes of the governance proposals at the Cilip AGM on Saturday (20th Sept 2014).

Rather than rehash the arguments from previous posts I refer to the wider debate at the following:

  • Public Library News: post from 2 past presidents express fear over Cilip leadership proposals and the response from Nick Poole, CILIP Councillor and member of the project board for the Governance Review
  • The various posts on Tom Roper’s blog including many comments from both sides of the argument
  • Barbara Band (president of Cilip). Barbra has also discussed the review in the bookseller but unfortunately the article is accessible to subscribers only.
  • And email lists and social media sites such as PUB-LIBS and LinkedIn

I’ve thought long and hard about the proposals and while the modernisation of the governance structure is to be welcomed the undermining of the fundamental democratic principles of a membership organisation is not. Therefore, it is with reluctance that I shall be voting against the changes.

Whether Council is in tune with the general feelings of the membership or we see yet another debacle similar to the defeated name change last year will only be decided by the vote.

On a related note, the recent announcement by Ian Anstice that he has left Cilip due to it being too expensive is disappointing but understandable news and a move I fully sympathise with. For many library staff who have suffered both pay freezes and derisory pay rises during the past few years the cost of membership is a major investment.

At last year’s AGM it was noted that the subscription model would be looked at to consider a more equitable sliding scale of payments. To my knowledge this has not happened and this year we will once again be asked to vote for a rise in membership fees. I suspect there will be many members who will be asking if the ROI of membership justifies the cost and might just decide, like Ian, that it does not. For an organisation that has already lost substantial numbers of members this would be a major blow.