Reasons to accept the CIPS governance proposals

We're now just 9 days away from the vote on the proposed CIPS governance and organisational changes, and excitement has reached fever pitch. Comments, for and against have been flooding in and...

No, I can't lie to you, our esteemed readers. So we probably have to accept that even though we've given more space over to this debate than Supply Management or the CIPS website, we've had precious little visible feedback or real interest. It feels like we're fighting a losing battle to get CIPS members interested – but today and tomorrow we will have one last try! And perhaps some of you reading this might consider sending a link to it to all your CIPS contacts  - see if we can get a bit more engagement on the topic? Or share using the various buttons below. Many thanks if you can do that.

Because I do think the lack of interest is a worry for CIPS. As we've said, the arguments for and against the changes are quite finely balanced, we believe. So the lack of interest may reflect the fact everyone thinks the proposals are great, but it more likely means that people don't really care about how CIPS is run and governed. Which in turn suggests the ties that bind members to their Institute may not be as strong as those of us who have been close to it would like to imagine.

Paula Gildert, CIPS Vice-President

It was good to see Paula Gildert going into print in the recent edition of Supply Management and supporting the changes – the first Council / Board member I've seen doing that. Thanks Paula for putting your head above the Easton parapet, even if her piece got no comments. So today we'll run through the positives – taking some of her points and some of our own. Then tomorrow we'll come back to the negatives, and I will tell you – for what it’s worth – how I intend to vote. (And Past Presidents do unfortunately just get the one vote).

So here are the positives as we perceive them.

  • A lot of effort has gone into the proposals, and the people who have been involved are smart and must have thought about the issues far more than I have!
  • The big positives are around allowing CIPS greater speed and flexibility of action.
  • The Trustees of the Institute will also be the Board, so they can take rapid decisions. There will be no unwieldy, infrequently meeting body (like Council currently) holding up decisions
  • The Congress will be elected based on number of members, so it will reflect better the international make up of the Institute.
  • Congress will elect half the Board members – slightly more than Council currently does.
  • Having a Chief Executive who is also a Trustee aligns him / her with the overall objectives of the Institute.

There are also a couple of points that I feel are neutral. Moving from 4 ‘officer” roles (Chair, President etc.) to just 2 has positives and negatives, for instance – I can’t get excited either way.

Tomorrow we’ll feature what we perceive to be the negatives around the proposals.

Voices (3)

  1. VegasChild:

    Good to get a debate going Peter. Personally I’m torn between a change that frankly I’m struggling to find out enough about to understand, and the fact that it has already been approved by the current elected body who I voted for originally anyway.

    A quick question, I read in the SM article “The new and smaller Board of Trustees will carry the legal liability for governance and will be linked to Congress through an elected chairperson, whose 
role will be to ensure 
the board takes 
account of the issues that matter to our members and other key stakeholders” but the notes on http://www.cips.org say that there are two Chairs, one of the Institute, one of the Congress. Any idea which one SM refers to and how both get elected?

    1. Peter Smith:

      My understanding is that the Chairman of Congress will also be a Trustee and sit on the Board to represent the Congress view. There will also be a Chair of the Board, and a President who sits on the Board (but not Congress I think) . But I’m not clear whether Congress elect their own Chair or whether they are appointed by the Board in which case it all seems a bit circular! I have asked Easton anyway. The Chair of Board is selected by the Nominations Committee (but I haven’t established who selects them)!

Discuss this:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *