There's been some discussion prompted by blog posts by Lord Llama and Katherine Widdows about CILIP's proposed subscription increases, and the debate has gathered a certain momentum on Twitter too. The proposals go to the AGM next month
For what it's worth, I don't think the proposals are outrageous and will support them at the AGM, unless I hear convincing arguments to the contrary. A number of participants in the online debate who live and work in the provinces feel disenfranchised and, unable to attend on 15 October, are voting by proxy. An interesting point has arisen here: there seems to be no provision in our rules for members to instruct the Chair of the meeting to act as their proxy, which would be normal in most organisations. I have asked Daniel Sabel of CILIP's governance unit to clarify this and he has promised to get back to me.
But I'm worried by the widespread use of proxies, because they'll be cast by people who have made up their minds without hearing the debate. For all that the AGM is attended by those who have reached that level in the profession where no one notices or cares if they aren't at work, there is something to be said for the opportunity to listen to the arguments, make one's own interventions: positions evolve, amendments come from the floor, the debate changes things.
I recognise the practical difficulties; though CILIP ought to function as an Athenian democracy (with votes for the women and slaves too), it would be impossible to herd every one of our free adult members into a hall for an ἐκκλεσία and have them thrash out every issue there is. What else could we do? Would a system of delegates work, sometimes mandated by branch or group members, sometimes free to hear debate and form an opinion, but accountable to those who elect them?
