Cilip Board Elections 2017

Cilip members have the opportunity to vote for three new Board members over the coming weeks, 2nd – 27th November. There are four people standing, including myself, and further details can be found on the Cilip website. The fact that there are more candidates standing than positions available is good for the democratic process and demonstrates the willingness of the nominees to work for the good of the profession. Dawn, Naomi and John have kindly agreed for their details to be listed below.

Elections are a two way process, which require candidates and membership to be engaged. That’s why I encourage all members to vote, not just for this, but in all relevant Cilip elections. I shall be returning to the topic of the Board Elections over the coming weeks as well as tweeting regularly and I hope members also take to social media to find out more about the candidates and to promote the poll.

A professional body is only a strong as the people who speak out for it. Please make your voice heard by voting, so we can make our voices heard on your behalf.

Leon Bolton: Librarian and Blogger

I am a strong advocate for libraries and library staff and the benefit they bring to society. However, as individuals we can only accomplish so much which is why the interests of the sector is best served by a strong professional body that champions library and information services nationally. Cilip brings together not just public libraries but school, academic, health, etc. as well as those from the related IP and KM sectors.

I started out as highly critical of the body but my view has changed thanks to Cilip itself changing as it continues to  advocate for library and information services in all sectors. I would like to be part of this change and contribute to Cilip becoming the professional body its members need and making it relevant to current, new and potential members.

I recognise that the work of the Board is to ensure that the organisation maintains a secure financial footing and meets all the legal accountabilities of its charitable and chartered status. This is the foundation for ensuring a sustainable association and if elected I am committed to working with the staff, fellow trustees, and presidential team to help secure the long-term interests of the body for the good of the profession.

 

Dawn Finch: Librarian and Children’s Author

As my time on the CILIP Presidential Team draws to a close, I am keen not to lose touch with the work and the campaigning I have done over the past three years. I feel that the campaign for libraries (sadly) has a long way to run, and that we all face a much tougher struggle ahead, and I want to be at the sharp edge of that process.

There are also issues of ethical concern within the profession, and as chair of CILIP’s Ethics Committee, I feel that having a vote and a voice on the Board will strengthen that role. Speaking personally, I would also like to make a difference to my own sector – children’s and school libraries. This campaign is hotting up and I think that having someone on the Board who represents and understands the needs of school librarians, and the children they work with, is essential.

 

Naomi Korn: Managing Director and Consultant

Since 2015, I have been proud to sit on CILIP Board as a Trustee and on CILIP’s Audit Committee. Apart from being a CILIP Trustee, my relationship with CILIP, its members and the wider information and library community is extensive, well established and goes back many years. I have worked closely on a variety of projects and activities with CILIP.

I became a Trustee in 2015 because although i had a well established relationship with CILIP, its members and the wider information and library community, I wanted to become more involved in the strategic direction of travel of CILIP at a crucial time of library closures and when CILIP was  planning its future. Running a small business myself, I felt I could offer valuable business insight, as well as a professional perspective on risk, compliance and business planning.

I have decided to run as a CILIP Trustee again because I love working with CILIPs talented Board and i want to do everything I can to support Nick and the Exec team in the successful implement of CILIP’s Action Plan and CILIP’s new membership offer.

I believe that my business acumen, professional compliance and risk skill set compliment the skills we already have on the Board, crucially bringing a synergy of sectorial understanding and business & compliance know-how at a critical time for CILIP and the members we represent.

 

John Trevor-Allen: Outreach / Reader Services Librarian

Over the past two years I have been extremely privileged to have been a CILIP Trustee, and I have worked hard to ensure I contribute to the development of CILIP as a strong professional association.
 
As a Trustee, I currently sit on the Ethics Committee as we work to develop and modernise the existing Ethical Principles and professional code of practice. Particularly in the current climate I believe it is essential that information professionals and librarians have a set of clear, modern values we can point to, demonstrating our commitment to open, reliable sources of information. I want to remain a Trustee of CILIP to help deliver an ethical framework that can support the profession and provide the tools we need to build a tolerant, open, just society.
 
As librarians, our value is not always obvious, and a strong professional association is vital to ensure that information professionals, at all levels of society, and in all sectors, are properly represented – and respected for what we can offer.
 
My first library post was as a pupil assistant in my school library, and as a professional I’ve worked in a number of sectors – academic, public, and now health. I’ve been lucky to always have a front-line role, and I’ve seen the ways in which we, as librarians, can have a direct and meaningful impact on our users.
 
I believe CILIP has a vital role to play in raising the profile of libraries and information skills and ensuring that everyone understands not only what a 21st Century library is, and how the support of trained information professionals can transform lives. What libraries offer is amazing, and CILIP is key to shaping how that offer should be supported, protected and expanded. I want to keep using my experience and skills to support CILIP as it works to achieve that vision.

 

 

Cilip AGM 2017

It’s been a busy week in the library world with the main event being Libraries Week, showcasing as it did the wonderful and diverse range of work that libraries and library staff do. As illustrated on the LW website libraries are still ridiculously well attended and not necessarily in terminal decline as some would have us believe.That said, libraries still face quite significant challenges.

Despite being the representative of a government that has overseen the closure of 340 libraries and the loss of 8000 library staff John Glenn wasted no time in exploiting the event for numerous photo opportunities. He appears quite happy to use libraries as a backdrop to deliver inane governmental platitudes but not actually do anything to protect them. As the old adage goes ‘actions speak louder than words’ and by taking none the new libraries minister is as much a paper tiger as previous incumbents of the post.

Ethics Workshop

This week also saw the Cilip AGM take place and it’s become a tradition on this blog to report back from it. Just before the AGM I took part in one of the ethic workshops that have been organised as part of the Big Conversation. While ethics might seem a long way from the practical, everyday situations librarians find themselves in the reverse is true and our values and behaviours should underpin everything we do. In my opinion we cannot claim to be a profession or act professionally if we don’t understand why we do what we do.

As Dawn Fince observes:

“It is worthwhile to reflect for a moment as to why ethics and professional values are so important. Our ethical principles do sit at the centre of our Professional Knowledge and Skills Base (PKSB), and should inform and inspire the way we use all the skills and knowledge set out in the PKSB, but they should be even more far reaching. At their best they should also protect the user, engender trust across all stakeholder groups and enable better judgement and decision making. To do that they need to be embedded in every aspect of our professional practice and promoted more widely within our user communities. This review is very much about the “public good” of our profession which, for CILIP, we express in terms of the following goal: “to put information and library skills and professional values at the heart of a democratic, equal and prosperous society”.

It was heartening therefore to discover that over 1500 responses had been received to the ethics survey. If you havene’t had the opportunity yet I would encourage members and non-members alike to visit the Ethics Review page and to read the recent blog what are the work-based ethical issues concerning you?

For a more in-depth look at the topic it’s worth reading the seminal Our Enduring Values by Michael Gorman and an excellent round-up of the various issues by David McMenemy: Sustaining Our Common Values (slide presentation).

Libraries Change Lives

The Highlight of any Cilip AGM is the Libraries Change Lives Award and this year was no exception. It’s worth viewing all four shortlisted projects, with introductory films, to see how much impact libraries can have on peoples lives. And while every year throws up wonderful and innovative work being done, this year’s winner was particularly inspirational and moving. So congratulations to the library at HMP Norwich that delivers weekly cognitive stimulation therapy to elderly prisoners serving life sentences, who are suffering from memory loss, dementia, and depression.

Congratulations also to the other shortlisted candidates:

  • Ipswich Library’s Chat and Chill:  for women from diverse and international backgrounds living in Suffolk
  • Kirklees Libraries’ Family Storywalks: bringing local families together outdoors to take part in learning and nature-based activities
  • Story Café at the Women’s Library in Glasgow: a women-only shared reading group which brings women from different backgrounds together to connect over literature

Honorary Fellowship:

There was also the awarding of five Honorary Fellowships

  • Joy Court – Carnegie Greenaway Award Chair, Children’s librarian and children’s literature expert
  • Martin Hayes – local studies librarian for West Sussex County
  • Stephan Roman – former Regional Director of South Asia for the British Council
  • Sheila Webber – Senior Lecturer at the University of Sheffield’s Information School

And last but by no means least:

  • Chris Riddell – triple Kate Greenaway Medal winning illustrator, political cartoonist and former Children’s Laureate

All thoroughly deserved and Chris Riddell kept the room entertained with an amusing story of why and how librarians had inspired him:  “This honorary fellowship has given me a chance to think of the important librarians in my life. She was called Helen…!”

Finally

It was an excellent day and a chance to catch-up with colleagues old and new and the opportunity to network. I would certainly encourage all members to attend an AGM if they get the opportunity.

Finally, Cilip members will have the opportunity to elect three new trustees to the Board over the coming weeks. Among the candidates is a certain Likable Loquacious Blogger..! Need I say more.

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.

Keep library staff to keep changing lives

For anyone who has missed it there is an excellent interview with Kathy Settle, Chief Executive of the Leadership for Libraries Taskforce and Nick Poole, Chief Executive of CILIP, talking about library priorities particularly in relation to the Government Spending Review in November.

You don’t have to agree with everything that’s said but there are some very important points for library staff and campaigners alike to reflect on. Amongst the many comments the following from Nick Poole really stood out for me:

“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.”

I doubt there is anyone within the sector that would disagree with these sentiments and all credit to Nick for making such assertions so publicly. This acknowledgement of the importance of paid staff is further evidenced by Cilip Board members support for the resolution on the ‘amateurisation’ of public libraries proposed by Andy Richardson. The reason for the proposal is explained by Andy here.

The importance of skilled and qualified staff delivering a meaningful service to communities is highlighted through the Libraries Change Lives Award. Every year this provides a showcase for wonderfully innovative projects that have a real social impact within communities. It’s worth reading through the list of past winners and this year’s shortlisted finalists to get a flavour of how important libraries are and can be to their communities.

78460718
The real point here is that it is paid staff that dream up, develop, and deliver on these initiatives.

And let’s not forget that this is just the tip of the iceberg of all the projects that happen everyday within libraries. The real point here is that it is paid staff that dream up, develop, and deliver on these initiatives. Without them none of this innovation would be possible.

Unfortunately, the steady encroachment of volunteer run libraries threatens to undermine all of this. As Martyn Wade, Chair of Cilip Board states:

“Volunteers should be an asset. We should recognise the valuable skills, knowledge, enthusiasm, experience and fresh perspectives that volunteers can provide. But we must act when the quality and long-term sustainability of library services is at risk.”

Even innovation that is now taken for granted and considered standard service e.g. reading groups and film nights were first and foremost instigated by library staff or developed in partnership with individuals and organisations. Other initiatives developed with bodies like the Reading Agency have become mainstays of library provision such as the Summer Reading Challenge or Reading Ahead (previously the Six Book Challenge).

Staff continue to provide innovation from the library based Fab Lab in Exeter to the Get it loud in libraries project. Despite the challenging financial reductions and the fragmentation of services innovation is in the blood of librarians.

However, for this to continue skilled and qualified staff need to play a central part in all libraries; not just as managers and supervisors of volunteer run libraries, the overseers of the charity shop or hub and spoke model run by unpaid amateurs but as innovators embedded in their communities delivering core services.

For an overwhelming argument in support of paid staff look no further than the Libraries Change Lives Awards. Good luck to all those shortlisted.

The Leadership Void

I have to admit to admiring mavericks. Individuals that stand above the mainstream and are quite happy to challenge the system or status quo from without or within. Think Tony Benn. Such maverick behaviour is a time honoured and valuable political tradition. Principles before party and all that.

Then again, perhaps I just watched too many films such as Rebel without a Cause, Easy Rider or The Wild One when younger! The phrase ‘what are you rebelling against’, which elicits the reply ‘whadda you got?’ resonates down the decades.

Rebellion seems rife at the moment over the governance review with barbed comments flying thick and fast on LIS-PUB-LIBS. Even without Tom Roper’s resignation to add to the mix the issue was always likely to cause a furore. As far back as February I highlighted elements of the proposals, which to me, went against the democratic principles of a membership organisation. Equally, many other individual members also raised concerns in their feedback to Cilip. Certainly Tom’s resignation has not caused the resulting uproar but it has brought it into sharp focus.

Many campaigners and those outside the profession are both perplexed and as Desmond Clarke observed, appalled, by what they see as an unnecessary distraction to campaigning against library cuts and closures:

“All this energy being spent by the CILIP leadership on changing the structure of its Council at this time is appalling when the library service faces a major crisis and thousands of librarians are losing their jobs. Fiddling with the composition of council at this time is not going to help anyone, neither CILIP, its staff. CILIP members or the public that libraries exist to serve. No one would be affected if the changes were put off for a year or two while everyone focused on ensuring that a library service is available to the millions of people who need it.”

Now I have to say that I see things slightly differently. Despite the unfortunate tendency towards mud-slinging the debate has thrown-up, the governance of our professional body is an important issue. If a revised structure improves the running of the organisation than well and good. It’s been a long time in the planning and deserves proper consideration and debate by the membership.

Such discussion should obviously not distract us from the major changes going on in the library sector. However, debating these changes does not equate to there being any less willingness or time spent on advocating for public libraries either by individual members or Cilip itself. They are not mutually exclusive activities.

Maybe the real point then is not whether such activities distract Cilip from campaigning but whether Cilip is capable of the robust advocacy needed in the rough and tumble of the political arena in the first place. And that’s a whole different question and debate.

Perhaps this highlights the issue of the ‘leadership void’ that so many campaigners have complained about. Not individual leaders of which there are many fine examples in libraries but rather a body that proactively seeks to defend public libraries and staff.

Cilip

One of the difficulties that Cilip faces is that it lacks both the size and political influence that say a combined professional body and union such as the National Union of Teachers has. Neither does it have a strong history of political advocacy, which immediately put it at a disadvantage during the upheaval of the past few years.

A difficult point for many outside, and even inside, the profession to accept is that Cilip has never been a campaigning body. Why this is so is not always clear. It has been argued that the charitable and chartered status of the body sets certain restrictions on campaigning activity. Equally, as a body it has limited resources so has tended to rely on co-operation and conciliation rather than taking a more adversarial approach. Perhaps it has never needed to campaign strongly and the advantages that we have taken for granted until recently, such as professionally staffed libraries, have been given to us rather than fought for and earned.

The profession is, in the main, conservative with a small ‘c’ and overall members have shown a lack of appetite for direct campaigning. Partly, I suspect, this is related to job insecurity and not wishing to put heads above the parapet. Cilip has also become quite a broad based organisation appealing to other sectors such as information and knowledge management, as well as school, academic, and special libraries, which means it’s not just public libraries that have to be catered for.

Nevertheless, we should also recognise that as a professional body Cilip does many things well, such as training, networking, highlighting good practice, raising professional standards, organising conferences, cooperating with other library associations, and contributing to important professional topics e.g. copyright law and ebooks. As such it should be given credit.

However Cilip is not, and is unlikely ever to be, a strong campaigning organisation and those that expect it to be expect too much.

Society of Chief Librarians

Equally, looking to the SCL for political leadership is also unrealistic. The SCL is not an independent organisation but is accountable to the Local Government Association and as such will conform to restrictions imposed by the expectations and policies of the LGA. The recent announcement to support ‘community libraries’ being a case in point.

The SCL enjoys close links to governmental agencies that influence the direction of travel for libraries such as the DCMS and ACE. Over the years this has usually worked to the profession’s advantage. Equally, Ed Vaizey is still happy to talk to the SCL directly (unlike Cilip), which could be viewed as keeping open important channels of communication to the Minister responsible for libraries. Conversely, it also indicates how much SCL is part of the mainstream political machinery and regarded as a safe organisation for promoting the government’s view of libraries.

Now to be fair to the SCL they have always been open about their limitations. When meeting with campaigners in 2012 they made it very clear that:

• They were not and could not be a campaigning body
• As a body they were accountable to the LGA
• They could not criticise local authorities or oppose government or council policy
• They were not a voice for librarians but for local government and that it was CILIP that was the voice for librarians

That is not to say that the SCL does not carry out excellent work. It does. Over the years the body has 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, to which the addition of a ‘learning’ strand is to be welcomed. 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.

So it’s unrealistic to expect the SCL to be anything other than it is. Those who expect the SCL to provide independent leadership for the library profession will be sorely disappointed. That is not its raison d’etre.

Rebels with a cause

In the main I am not a reformist. I do not believe that Cilip can be changed sufficiently to provide the strong focus, frank rhetoric, and forceful advocacy that public libraries need. So far this has been left to organisations such as the Library Campaign and Voices for the Library. But such groups, while providing an essential outlet, are not professional bodies or a voice solely for librarians.

The library sector is changing, driven by technology, societal pressures, and political ideology. As a profession we have responded positively to technological and societal changes but it is the ideology that is proving our downfall. In response we need to find another way to challenge the politics, to provide a united front, to fill the leadership void. One that is focussed solely on campaigning for public libraries and in which librarians are the central voice.

Not so long ago I wrote a post speculating about the need for another kind of professional body. At the time Tom Roper who was then a council member, disagreed with me (just as I disagreed with his viewpoint). There is absolutely nothing wrong with holding divergent views – which leads to debate and then hopefully consensus – but equally there comes a point when attacking organisations such as Cilip and the SCL becomes a waste of time and energy particularly if transformation is not possible or, more importantly, if they are not the most effective agents for the change that is needed.

Perhaps it’s time to stop rebelling for the sake of it, for asking ‘whadda you got?’ Public libraries are a cause worth fighting for, what we need is an organisation that can take that fight forward.

Better than indifference!

The debate over Cilip’s governance seems to have generated a fair bit of discussion, point and counter-point, and unfortunately the occasional personal attack and name calling. On a positive note most of this is healthy and democratic and highlights how strongly members feel about the future direction of Cilip. Best that members disagree and generate discussion rather than no one shows any interest at all.

Tom Roper’s blog has several (so far) posts about the governance review and I would urge people to read the comments section with counter-arguments being made by Martyn Wade, Barbara Band, and Phil Bradley among others, as well as comments in support of Tom’s own viewpoint.

Barbara Band has written a spirited defence of the review on her blog. It’s a genuine, heartfelt post with lots to agree with, although, again, it’s worth reading the comments section as not everyone is in favour.

There are many comments on JISCMail, although I do feel some of the comments aimed at Frances Hendrix have been rather harsh and seem little more than personal attacks. Perhaps we all need to remember that professional courtesy goes a long way and that it is the idea that should be attacked, not the individual.

There are comments on the LinkedIn Cilip group section and I am sure that I have missed lots on Twitter about the issue.

The details about the CILIP Big Day and AGM 2014 is online, with a rather interesting programme outlined. And it would be good if this issue meant a big turnout of members on the day. In fact perhaps Cilip needs to consider a contentious issue each year to encourage a large turn out!

It looks like this debate has a long way to go yet, with more to be written and said before it comes down to the vote. To me this is a good thing, as it shows an interest and regard by members for what their professional body is doing. After all, surely the worst feedback is indifference.

 

Governance review: response from Martyn Wade

The following response was received from Martyn Wade, Chair of Cilip Council, to my request for details of the of the professional bodies that Cilip had investigated as part of the governance review.

My thanks to Martyn for providing the information and for allowing it to be shared. This will enable members to review and decide if the bodies mentioned provide the sort of model and structure that Cilip should emulate, with the caveats that Martyn has outlined.

I would also like to say that despite reservations over the proposals I absolutely appreciate the hard work that has gone into the project by both paid officers and elected members.

However, now is the time for the membership to review, discuss, and if necessary amend, the proposals put forward. This should not be viewed as a criticism of the of the hard work already done but as a natural part of the democratic process to ensure healthy debate within a membership organisation.

Hi Leon

Thanks for your email.

CILIP is a member of the Professional Associations Research Network which provided a useful source of information on structures in other professional bodies. After examining a range of models two bodies with similarities to CILIP – the Institute of Occupational Health and Safety (IOSH), and the Museums Association were looked at in more detail. Both use appointed members successfully, although their appointment processes they use have been adapted for the proposals for CILIP.

IOSH operate a model that involved a nominations committee filling most Board and committee roles which they were very positive about. The Project Board did not recommend this model to Council as they felt that members would still wish to elect the majority of trustees, but should have the opportunity to appoint some (a minority) to allow for recruitment of skills and experience that might not be available after the elections process (assessed through the board skills matrix).

The Museums Association work on a system of electing eight trustees and then identifying gaps and approaching appropriate people to bring skills or representation of an interest area to the board. The Project Board did not consider that this process was transparent enough and that a proper application process would need to be in place to demonstrate openness in recruiting appointed members.

CILIP also of course looked at what is normal practice for charities of our size, which is generally to appoint all trustees by interview.

You might also be interested in the positive response from the Privy Council which has to approve the charters of all Chartered bodies:

“Overall Privy Council Advisors felt the proposals put forward by CILIP to amend their governance structure appeared practical and also appeared to refine the governance structure and provided improved clarity. The introduction of a smaller Board of Trustees, to replace a larger Council, was felt to be appropriate. The proposals for the Board to be chaired by a President elected from among its own members was also considered appropriate, as were the proposals regarding the election of the Vice-President and the Treasurer.”

There is also an issue about having two-tiers of trustees. All trustees of a charity have equal legal responsibility for the running of the organisation. The governance proposals do not allow appointed members to be Chair (unlike co-opted trustees in the current arrangements) and the Board quorum requires there to be a majority of elected trustees present. To prevent appointed trustees from voting for their own Chair would be an additional, and severe, limitation on their decision making ability when they retain the full liability.

I hope that this clarifies things for you, and I am happy for you to share this reply.

Best wishes, Martyn