« Chris Batt has resigned | Main | Difficulties in Dorset »
April 21, 2007
CILIP describes MLA "Blueprint" as "All froth and no substance"
I have been sent the following secret note, which shows the civil war in the library profession. CILIP is the librarians professional body. MLA is the body which is supposed to make public library policy and is comprised of professional librarians who have been given jobs in the Government office.
My correspondent believes this shows that John Dolan, the chief policy maker is the next person who should resign. I can't say I disagree, but there are lots of others like Mark Wood and David Lammy who need to be replaced, too. So do Bob McKee and Guy Daines.
CILIP have not been much use to anyone in the public library sector for a long long time. It is time their "Chartered Status" was removed and their right to "accredit" people who work in the public library service was ended. They have made no effective response to the criticisms made of them by the Select Committee in 2005. -- Mind you, nor have the DCMS or MLA.
The practice of councils paying membership fees for CILIP directly out of council tax is iniquitous.
(For those unfamiliar with the jargon, PLG means the "public library group" of CILIP which has lots of other groups like those of university and professional librarians.)
No wonder the library service is in such a state---
To: Chairs and Secretaries of CILIP Branches & Groups
I attach details about the MLA (Museums, Libraries & Archives Council) consultation on the "Blueprint" for public libraries in England they have recently issued. The Public Libraries Group will be putting together the response on behalf of CILIP and they have asked me to
gather in comments from Branches and Groups. As responses have to be with MLA by the end of May we are askuing for such comments to be sent by Branches and Groups by Friday 18 May 2007. As the timescale is short we will understand if the comments are from individual committee members rather than formal Branch or Committee views.
BLUEPRINT FOR EXCELLENCE: PUBLIC LIBRARIES 2008-2011
The MLA (Museums, Libraries & Archives Council) is undertaking a consultation exercise on the future vision and roles of the public library service in England. The Public Libraries Group of CILIP is putting together a response on behalf of CILIP and has asked me to canvass the opinion and views of Branches and Groups to input into that process.
The "Blueprint" has already been discussed at the Policy Development Committee and the Past President, Martin Molloy, also addressed the topic at the CILIP Council meeting on 4 April. In addition Bob McKee and Guy Daines have discussed the matter with John Dolan, who is leading the consultation exercise at MLA.
It is clear that the "Blueprint" as it stands still needs a great deal of work on it to make it fit for purpose as the overarching document providing the vision and direction of travel for public libraries following the end of the current stage of Framework for the Future in 2008. However it is an opportunity to help shape the future of the public library service in England by providing the positive but critical feedback on "Blueprint" necessary to develop an effective vision for
the future.
You will find the relevant minute from the Policy Development Committee set out below. You will find full documentation relating to the "Blueprint" on the MLA website at:
http://www.mla.gov.uk/webdav/harmonise?Page/@id=73&Document/@id=18382&Se
ction[@stateId_eq_left_hand_root]/@id=4332
(you will need to scroll down the page to find it).
The response form (aimed at individual members of the public) asks a number of questions you may wish to bear in mind:
* What do you think is the main purpose of the public library?
* What are the key roles of the public library?
* What are the key challenges for improvement?
* What are the essential elements for success?
* What will excellence in public libraries look like? For people, communities and funders?
* What should be the key actions and outcomes 2008-11?
Minute from the Policy Development Committee Meeting on 28 March 2007
Blueprint for Excellence - Public Libraries 2008-2011
The recently announced A Blueprint for Excellence - Public Libraries 2008-2011 was considered. It was noted that the Public Libraries Group would be responsible for putting together the response on behalf of CILIP, and that Eric Davies and Guy Daines would be meeting Pamela Tulloch (the new Chair of PLG) to discuss this and policy development
more generally within the public libraries sector. However the document was regarded as so important that the Committee felt it would be useful to discuss it and pass on their observations to PLG - it would also prove useful to the Chief Executive in future planned meetings with the
MLA.
Although members were aware that the Blueprint was the start of thinking about what should happen after the current stage of Framework comes to an end in 2008, and that it was important to be constructive and positive in approach, there were serious reservations expressed
about the Blueprint as it stood . Amongst the points made in a wide ranging discussion were:
* The document contains a great deal of froth and but little of substance.
* The wording of the propositions is badly drafted.
* The document fails to acknowledge the value of the skills and competences required of professional library staff - this must be the key concern of CILIP.
* The general approach is too silo-based and there is little recognition of the importance of partnership across library sectors currently illustrated by greater interest in joint use libraries and the development of access schemes
* There needs to be a stronger emphasis on the contribution libraries make to learning and a more rigorous use of terminology if libraries are to win the respect of others engaged in this area.
* A significant omission within the document is the contribution public libraries make at local level. Public libraries have a demonstrable impact on economic regeneration. The document makes no mention of this.
* There is no mention or consideration of the contribution of public libraries to the Shared Priorities agreed between what is now DCLG (Department of Communities and the Local Government) and the Local Government Association
* The coverage of funding is thin, and where national funding is proposed it is for a national development programme and not for the provision of services by local authorities. Nor is the context set of efficiency savings, the need to live within limited means and the importance of sharing
* The document makes no mention of libraries preserving the national memory.
* The document takes no cognisance of developments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and their respective thinking on the roles and future of public libraries
* There is no evidence of the active engagement of DCMS or alignment with the strategy currently set down in the Framework for the Future policy document.
* The document places too great an emphasis on the provider perspective and not enough on the user's perspective
* There should be explicit exploration of the idea of a "library entitlement" to bring it into line with more general government thinking on public services
Following the discussion it was agreed that:
* The minute on this item would be made available to the Committee in advance of the full minutes so that it could inform the work of PLG and the Chief Executive in his meetings with MLA
* Eric Davies and Guy Daines would arrange a meeting with Pamela Tulloch of PLG to discuss the response to the Blueprint and arrangements to devolve the development of public library policy to the Group more generally
* PLG would be responsible for putting together a response to the Blueprint on behalf of CILIP
Posted by Tim Coates at April 21, 2007 10:13 PM
Comments
I can't say I'm a big fan of the Blueprint, the MLA or (at times ) CILIP. CILIP needs to stand up for things more, this much is true.
So, if CILIP is dissolved (by what? fiat?) what takes its place? Nothing? Who or what will provide some/any sort of overview of training, development etc? The market? A trust? Tim Coates? ;)
I ask in the spirit of genuine enquiry.
Posted by: Pete Smith at April 23, 2007 9:19 AM
CILIP does need a boot up the bum but suggesting that it be dissolved is akin to saying 'Let's scrap the Law Society' or 'Do we really need the Institute of Chartered Accountants?'
CILIP has not been much use to anyone in ANY sector for a long long time but it's the only thing which allows our profession to be regarded as such, so we should hang on to it.
Posted by: Julie at April 23, 2007 10:07 PM
In response to Pete Smith's concerns about what would replace a defunct CILIP - would anyone notice its demise?
More and more libraries are appointing, and actively recruiting, staff with non-library experience - retailing, teaching, administration, IT - and the service doesn't appear to suffer because of their lack of CILIP-accreditation!
Anyway, the on-the-job accreditation which CILIP provides is largely overseen by senior colleagues who receive minimal reward or support for doing so.
As for staff development, this is, in practical terms, undertaken in-house by most library authoities now, as few can afford the fees CILIP charge for their courses.
The bottom line is, would library users notice if CILIP wasn't there? The answer has to be NO - but they would notice if the thousands a year local councils pay in CILIP subs for their staff, were ploughed back into frontline library services!
Posted by: Verity Penglais at April 25, 2007 10:49 AM
Who are these councils who pay their members subs for them - mine certainly doesn't!
Posted by: Wendy at April 26, 2007 1:51 PM
Verity,
granted some points, e.g. cost. As people aren't paid for mentoring and sitting on MCLIP boards, maybe fees shouldn't be charged.
As for recruiting people with no library experience, fine as far as it goes. I mean, it's really about teaching/selling/managing; there is nothing distinctive about libraries after all is there? If you've run a shop you'll be a great school librarian! Better if we can pay less because you have no qualifications. Why do we need people who look into libraries? It's all about the 'frontline' after all; never mind if that frontline is *slightly* better paid library assistants and there are no people planning for a better service.
Sarcasm aside, there still needs to be *some* sense that people in libraries are training and learning and some way of recognising that; that doesn't necessarily need an organisation like CILIP too, but we shouldn't throw the cliche out with the aphorism.
Posted by: Pete Smith at April 26, 2007 3:04 PM
2 points
1. In my view nothing is more important than some new management training for those operating the library service. At the moment the managers do not even know how to allocate expenditure within the budget to the priorities that the public wants.
2. Public and professional bodies like the Law Society and others provide a guarantee to the public that their members will conduct affairs in particular ways, in the public interest. That provides a regulatory framework for their members. They exist first for the protection of the public and second for the interest of their members. That gives their profession the entitlement to respect and establishment. CILIP doesn't do that-- if it did it would be a much more useful body. There is nothing in CILIP which refers to the quality of service which the profession will guarantee to the public. There should be.
Posted by: Tim at April 27, 2007 12:59 PM
"Thousands a year local councils spend on CILIP subs"....can you cite any evidence for this figure?
Very few employers in any sector pay CILIP subscriptions for their staff, and fewer still in public libraries. I have worked in more or less every part of the library and information world, and no one has ever paid my sub, for CILIP or for the old LA and IIS.
Posted by: Tom Roper at April 27, 2007 1:15 PM
CILIP has a Code of Ethics, but it is not enforceable in the way the Law Society's code (or the BMA etc)is. Not that enfoceable codes mean no problems... but I can't see you giving CILIP powers to 'strike off' librarians Tim. Nevertheless, CILIP does counsel good practice. And the hint that librarians themselves do not do so is, for the majority of us unfair. Not all lawy@@@ librarians are weasels.
That said, a slimmed down CILIP which worked to monitor standards in training and practice is what I see as the most viable option for the organisation.
Posted by: Pete Smith at April 27, 2007 2:08 PM
I regret that at least two fellow professionals do not share my good fortune in having worked for the library services of councils who paid membership fees for professional bodies, including CILIP. I know of at least three councils in my immediate vicinity who directly or indirectly pay such subscriptions(in certain cases, only after some heavy arm-twisting by UNISON - so it might be worth approaching your shop steward..., if you are keen to see public funds used in this way.)
As the average subsciption for branch librarians would average about £150, it would not take long for a council employing 20 professionals to run up a bill of 'thousands a year'.
Posted by: Verity Penglais at April 27, 2007 3:32 PM
This is typical of any professional organisation. Ask them to comment on an important document and it turns into navel gazing rants. Wake up! Discuss the Blueprint, not CILIP subs etc.
Posted by: Sean at May 1, 2007 9:25 AM
Well, the focus of Tim's post was on CILIP/MLA civil war, and he discussed how useless CILIP is.
The blueprint is overly bureaucratic in language and seeks to place libraries too much in the government's social policy. Libraries should be left to do their thing- which, to borrow someone's words, is these days 'books and...'- and they will thereby contribute to community cohesion and the like.
Posted by: Pete Smith at May 1, 2007 4:44 PM
I think serious concern about CILIP's potency and efficiency as a professional organisation is a legitimate topic for discussion for anyone interested in the future of public libraries. Such discussion should reasonally include the source of the membership subscriptions which finance it. The Blueprint is but one of a long, mostly ineffective succession of papers on the future of the service, CILIP, for good or ill, is apparently always with us....
Posted by: Verity Penglais at May 2, 2007 11:16 AM