Tom Roper's Weblog

For this we paid £35,000?

Today CILIP published the rebranding survey[pdf]. I'll be looking critically at the methodology at the General Meeting, but it can hardly be said to justify the £35,000 fee the consultants are charging us. 

Some members, though by no means all who have a current e-mail address registered with CILIP, also had an e-mail instructing them to vote against the moti0m. Naturally, I have asked for the same access to members' e-mails to set out the arguments for the motion. Arguably, I should have been offered that before the machine sent out theirs. I think grown-up members may not take kindly to being told how to vote. 

I also came across a piece on the Manchester New Professionals Network's blog.

 

CILIP to publish rebranding survey tomorrow; and how much did the lawyers cost?

I was e-mailed this morning by a member of CILIP staff, who told me that the rebranding survey is to be made available tomorrow on the website.

I also asked how much the legal advice they sought on the call for the general meeting, and on the conduct of business at the meeting, cost. The answer is they don't know until the invoice arrives. This seems unsatisfactory and not very prudent management of our resources. Does Council not have sufficient confidence in its judgement to be able to interpret our rules without external interference? And if they did feel they needed it, surely they would have asked for an estimate of costs? Furthermore, I see that the Law Society requires that, 'a solicitor must give you a cost estimate at the outset, usually at the first interview'. Using a solicitor

Curiouser and curiouser

Now we find that the behemoth of outsourcing, Capita, familiar to readers of Private Eye under a variant of their name, claim to be sponsoring CILIP's Umbrella conference next month. CILIP deny this, saying they're just exhibiting. Who's right?

CILIP survey still secret, with fourteen days to go

It seems we're not alone. The Special Libraries Association (SLA) is also in some disarray over names and brands: read this plea to stop the name madness, on Kendra K. Levine's Library Attack.  

CILIP have not yet published the full results of the survey. I'll ask again tomorrow, but nobody's rushed to tell me that they will publish it, even if they can't do so right away. I suppose I could always ask GCHQ. They should know. 

As well as the e-mail lobbying I mentioned, I'm told by more than one source that CILIP branches and groups are being told to get the vote out to defeat the motion. To their credit, many branches and groups are trusting their members' intelligence, and not directing them how to vote.