Q1: Why are there only 2 meetings a year proposed for the Policy Forum?
Although it is suggested that there will only be two meetings a year - this still needs formal approval – it is envisaged that most of the business of the Forum will be conducted electronically probably using the e-meetings software which has been developed for CILIP using SharePoint. The face to face meetings will not have an agenda like the current CILIP Council but it is hoped the Policy Forum will experiment with other ways of doing things such as set piece debates on topics of the moment, break-out groups, or joint meetings with other organisations.
Q2: Won't the planning of the meetings need considerable attention and support for the Vice-President who will Chair the meetings?
Planning of the meetings will be a matter for the Policy Forum itself, but it is anticipated that the Vice-President will be supported by Ridgmount Street staff as necessary
Q3: Protocols for policy development by the Branches and Groups will be crucial if the Policy Forum is to fulfil its policy development function effectively.
Yes. Outside the CILIP policy priority areas it is proposed that Branches and Groups take responsibility for policy development on those professional matters where they have expertise. Even in the policy priority areas – the information society, learning and public health – branches and groups will still have an important role in policy development but in partnership with staff at Ridgmount Street and any Task and Finish Group that may be appointed to look at a certain issue. The Governance Implementation Group has asked Sue Cook, currently Chair of the English Branches Forum, to work with a Task and Finish Group and CILIP officers to draw up a set of protocols on policy development for consideration by the Policy Forum early in 2008.
Q4: It will be crucial for the Policy Forum to communicate effectively with the CILIP membership.
Yes. It is anticipated that as representatives of Branches and Groups will no longer be Trustees of CILIP they will be able to concentrate on the needs and wishes of their members. As explained above the Policy Forum will explore new ways of doing it’s business and it is anticipated that this will make its meetings attractive to a wider section of the membership. It is considered crucial that the Policy Forum puts in place effective mechanisms for regular two-way communication with the wider membership.
[see also Q15]
Q5: There should be protocols governing the relationship between the Policy Forum and Council
The relations between Council and Forum will be crucial to the effective governance of CILIP. The specification already states that all members of Council should be invited to meetings of the Policy Forum but with an expectation that the Honorary Officers on Council (Leader of Council and Treasurer) should attend the Policy Forum as well as the President and the Vice President. It further suggests that the Council should have an “obligation to respond in a timely fashion to proposals of the Policy Forum”. Regulations will have to be written for the Policy Forum and this will be the time to look at what provisions might be required to give the Policy Forum some leverage in its relations with Council
Q6: How long will members of Policy Forum stand for?
Members of the Policy Forum will be appointed by Branch and Group Committees from amongst their own numbers, and not elected directly from the Branch/Group membership. Each will have to be confirmed annually by their Committee and no member will be able to serve more than six years in one stretch. This is because the general principal of tenure in elected office – one 3 year term plus a further 3 year term if re-elected followed by a mandatory gap of at least a year in that office – will pertain to Branch and Group Committee members as much as to members of CILIP Council.
Q7: Will there be notes of the meetings of the Policy Forum?
The nature of the meeting will determine how it is recorded. Formal minutes may be rare but a record will have to be kept of decisions and recommendations. However breakout sessions, set-piece debates, electronic meetings and decisions will all need different approaches – in the case of electronic meetings there will be a verbatim record available automatically. Perhaps a summary of outcomes will be the norm, but we will learn through experience on this. Question 15 on communication also deals with this.
Q8: Couldn’t the opt-in principle for Branches undermine the Policy Forum as it might result in some regions being unrepresented?
It is accepted that the opt-in principle could result in some [geographic and/or subject/interest] areas being unrepresented. The New Business Model Working Group will be presenting proposals to Council on this issue.
Q9: What is the English Branches Forum (EBF)?
The EBF acts as the collective voice of the English Branches. It also provides the English representative on the Home Nations Forum
Although it has contributed significantly to the revision of the document setting out the Roles and Responsibilities of Branches, the working of the Framework of Qualifications at Branch level and, more recently, business planning within Branches it has no formal remit and, in effect, will become a subsection of the Policy Forum, although it may be beneficial for it to meet separately on occasion.
Q10: How will Groups be deemed viable?
This was an issue considered by the Group Review Working Party. On their recommendation Council agreed a procedure for the creation and dissolution of Groups which now forms appendix C of the Group Rules.
Q11: Does the Policy Forum have a role in creating further groups?
No. Council has the responsibility for approving new groups within the parameters set out in Appendix C of the Group Rules
Q12: There should be a costed business plan for the Policy Forum
The Governance Implementation Group is aware that it has to cost the new governance structure recommended by the Governance Review Task Force (GRTF). It shares the belief of the GRTF that the new structure should not cost more than the old structure but accepts that this must be exemplified. The New Business Model Working Group will also be keen that the new structure should not cost more as will Council.
Assuming that the AGM approves the new bye-laws and the Privy Council agree them as well, a budget for 2008 will need to be agreed by Council and it will be important that the Forum plan their activities within that budget.
Q13: What will be the involvement of the Policy Forum in budget formulation?
The Policy Forum will have no formal role in the budgetary process although it will need to understand the financial context of the Institute when putting forward recommendations to Council.
Budgetary matters will be dealt with by Council on the advice of the Treasurer and with support from the Director of Finance. The Audit Panel will be responsible for scrutinising the process and ensuring that no malpractice takes place.
Q14: Will the Policy Forum have the power to call a General Meeting of CILIP?
No. The power to convene a General Meeting rests either with Council which has a general power to convene a General Meeting, or with the Chief Executive who has to call a general meeting within a month of receiving a requisition from 100 or more individual members.
Q15: Electronic communication should only be a desirable form of communication and not the core form of communication
How can members of CILIP observe an e-meeting?
One of the key principles recommended by the Governance Review Task Force was that CILIP should actively embrace new technology when seeking to engage members in governance. The report was passed unanimously by Council (with one abstention) and therefore the Governance Implementation Group will seek to act within the spirit of this recommendation.
The e-meetings software developed for CILIP has a facility to register "observers" into e-meetings. But members who wish to observe will have to register for such meetings and cannot just "turn up"!
It will be important to identify who might be excluded from participation when electronic communications or e-governance more generally is used, but it should be recognised that the current face-to-face meetings also exclude some members. It is likely that a combination of communication methods will have to be used but that will be best determined on a case by case basis.
Q16: Isn’t there a danger that the Policy Forum will simply become a Talking Shop?
Yes. The first Vice-President, with leading members of the Policy Forum and supported by staff, will need to plan and manage it’s business in a way that minimises this risk and optimises the opportunities to make a genuine contribution to the future of CILIP. The Forum will be “owned” by Branches and Groups and so its effectiveness is very much in their hands.
Q17: Isn’t 40 people too large a membership for the Policy Forum?
The Governance Review Task Force felt 40 an appropriate number to represent the diversity of interests of the 20,000 members within CILIP. It recommended that representation should be reviewed if the number of Groups declined.
Q18: Where is the overseas representation on the Policy Forum?
None has been proposed but the Governance Implementation Group will consider the issue and report back on its conclusions.
Q19: Can members of Task & Finish Groups come from outside the Policy Forum Membership?
Yes. There is a permissive power for the Policy Forum to form Task and Finish Groups to undertake specified tasks or consider specific issues. Although it would be normal for the Task and Finish Group to be chaired by a Policy Forum member (this is not regarded as mandatory in the specification ), members can be drawn from the wider CILIP membership and even from non-CILIP members.
Governance Implementation Group
June 2006