…the results of the vote on the motion at the general meeting will be known. Today, CILIP council met, though you wouldn't have known it. The only evidence on social media was a picture a Council member posted on Facebook. Time was when there was a CILIP Council blog, and a member would write a report for members after every meeting. It's still there, but the last entry is over a year old, for the Council meeting of 18 June 2012. Since then there have been four Council meetings, including that of 1 July, and not a word.
The meeting papers on the CILIP website (members only) say that rebranding was discussed at around 12.30, but there were no papers. The Project Initiation Document (PID to the project cognoscenti) was agreed at the March meeting of Council, but under reserved business, so not available to members. The only mention of rebranding that members can see, therefore, is on the agenda.
I still have no response to my request for an opportunity to correct the bias in the e-mail message to members, which tried to urge people to vote against the motion. I've asked for the same opportunity to be extended to me, as was to John Dolan. I've also asked, in a discussion on LinkedIn, for the full anonymised data from the survey to be made available. The tone of the council members who've been given the task of defending the rebrand on LinkedIn is somewhat desperate. The defence consists of homilies about change, as if the members were all lazy library assistants moaning about an innovation, or defensive accounts of how much work they do. Let me say I don't doubt the good faith of Council members one bit; the issue here is that the rebranding is not what CILIP should spend its money on now.
To remind people, if you're a CILIP member, you can register to attend the meeting, or vote by proxy.