What, you may ask, has been going on with CIPS and the debate about the proposed changes to governance of the esteemed Chartered Institute of Procurement and Supply? (Start here if you are new to this topic).
You may remember I raised concerns about the way members were losing their right to vote (directly and / or indirectly) for members of the Global Board of Trustees (GBT), who ultimately bear responsibility for the Institute. That followed the abolition of Congress and its replacement by a Membership Committee – a step that, whatever you think of its merits, was not particularly well handled or communicated. Under the proposed model, Trustees would be appointed following an application and interview process, run by the Nominations Committee (NC).
As well as the issue of member democracy, many of us were also concerned about the power these changes vested in the NC, which did not appear to have the independence required if it was to play such a key role. (I didn’t agree with the abolition of the President role either, but I didn’t feel so strongly about that).
I ran a quick survey that showed many other members shared my concerns, but then I had positive discussions with CIPS leadership on these topics in December. Critically, we agreed there would be a genuine and open consultation with members on the voting issue. That led to the Chair, Paul Thorogood, sending me an email in mid-December, laying out what he and the team had agreed would be the next steps. He agreed on a consultation in late January, which would address a number of issues, including, “The mix of trustees – appointed vs elected – on GBT and the process for appointing/electing members”. He also said that “Options will be proposed for each, together with pros and cons. Members will be asked to select their preferred option in each case”.
I was happy with that, and backed off from my campaign whilst the consultation was being prepared; hence my silence on the issue recently.
I was therefore surprised – and annoyed – when I saw the communication from the CIPS CEO (Malcolm Harrison) to members last week and the new message on the website. That extolled the benefits and virtues of the process for appointing Trustees based on an application and interview process. It did reflect our discussions about the NC at least – but made no mention of member voting being retained.
Hang on, I said to Paul and Malcolm, that’s not what we agreed you would do. Sorry, they said, the consultation is coming soon, this was just a communication about what is already happening now that Congress has been abolished – so new appointments to the GBT in recent months have gone through the interview process. And we didn’t mean to go back on our agreement, they said, we didn’t think this communication was anything to do with the forthcoming consultation.
The problem, as I pointed out, is that members would read the new note and feel the interview route and resulting dis-enfranchisement of members was a fait accompli. You’ve said all these positive things about the interview option – that is not exactly the level playing field we had agreed for the consultation.
So in this week’s communication – mainly about ambassadorial roles – it was good to see some acknowledgment of that, as Malcolm says this about the Trustee issue.
“In my message to you last week, I covered the proposals to open up the recruitment process for the trustees on our Global Board of Trustees which we had already communicated last year…. We wish to consult with members on several options, not just the proposal which we communicated last year. These options will be laid out in the consultation document which will be issued by the end of January”.
Confused? So just for the avoidance of doubt, the consultation, when it comes, is still important. If you feel strongly about preserving democracy in some form as a CIPS member, please make your voice heard. Personally, I would go for a mix of directly elected and appointed members for the GBT – but I accept that members may choose to support the 100% appointed route. No other major Institute has done this, as far as I can see, but CIPS could be a pioneer. My main interest through this whole process has been to give the full membership a proper voice in the discussion, rather than just see a small group driving vital decisions.
The changes already made and proposed to the democratic process, to Congress, the Presidency and the GBT are really fundamental and change the whole nature of CIPS as it is currently described in our Charter. So it’s vital that CIPS does take governance – and the views of its members – seriously.