Calling all IPSE Members

[Coalman]

Another IPSE member here

Sent from my SM-T830 using Contractor UK Forum mobile app

[mudskipper]

I think it's important for people to make up their own minds.

The board think that governance changes are necessary to allow IPSE to fulfil its potential. They are doing this for what they believe are sound reasons, and you can read their reasons in the AGM videos and leaflets.

As the (ex)director who resigned, I don't share their views, but neither am I arrogant enough to assume I'm right.

I'm against the changes for much the same reasons as the CC members who raised the EGM motion. For members who are interested, I've outlined my reasons on the IPSE forum. See below.

Log in | IPSE Community | Forums

I do think the board have been somewhat selective in which bits of the change they've highlighted - as an example, one has to read beyond the obvious to find that the CC is being abolished, it's not spelled out. If the board believe in their changes, then communication needs to be transparent, open and honest. There will be no CC to do the reading between the lines going forward, so they really do need to get this nailed now.

For me, the EGM motion raised by a majority of CC members on whether the Chair is the right person to lead the organisation depends on what the membership decides about the governance changes. If they decide that the CC should stay, then I think it will be an uphill task to rebuild trust and respect, but that's not to say that with a genuine will to make it work she could not do it - if she has that will. If however they like the board's proposal, then Caroline is the right person to take it forward.

Please read the presented material from both sides, make up your own mind and cast your vote accordingly. If you're not interested enough to follow the arguments, then either don't vote, or give your proxy to someone who is sufficiently interested.

I suspect the vast majority of members really aren't that interested, and whichever way it goes most will be unaware of noticeable changes. The people who stand for board and volunteer for the CC care deeply, and IPSE is richer for that. The current disagreement and resignations are because people do care, so while it may be messy and possibly tedious to the casual observer, it's a sign of the emotional commitment that the people you have put in charge of your organisation have made to its future.

[malvolio]

I hope I'm being absolutely neutral here. It concerns the next AGM where various changes have been tabled.

There are several elements to this, some of which both sides do actually agree on.

To be fair to both sides it is a complex argument, despite appearances. At its absolute basic level it's the CC saying that they are doing their job and holding the BoD to account for trying to take IPSE in a direction the CC feel is wrong, and it's the BoD saying the CC aren't doing their job and/or they have outlived their usefulness and IPSE need a better solution.

It's not something that can easily be summarised, and not something that needs discussion outside IPSE, so you will have to get on the IPSE website and either read the various notices or wade through the several threads on the forums. Or even both.

Also there is a separate item, which is the EGM calling for the removal of the current chairman - allegedly regardless of who that actually is - in protest at the way the BoD have approached the whole matter. That I do disagree with, not because I agree or disagree with the point being made, but because in my view it is divisive and unnecessary and will do far more harm than good. But again, I urge those interested to do the reading and make their own decision.

[eek]

Interesting comment here from a former CC member LinkedIn which seems to have been intentionally hidden by the author of the article.

[mudskipper]

Interesting comment here from a former CC member LinkedIn which seems to have been intentionally hidden by the author of the article.

Unfortunately the ability to delete a comment appears to be broken, so the author had no option but to turn commenting off which removes all existing comments. Unfortunate, but the commenter has a personal grudge that he has failed to explain despite several prompts, and the claims he made are fundamentally untrue. The author likes her linkedin profile to remain professional. (Depending which former CC member you were referring to - two had commented and only one of those was a problem)

[eek]

Unfortunately the ability to delete a comment appears to be broken, so the author had no option but to turn commenting off which removes all existing comments. Unfortunate, but the commenter has a personal grudge that he has failed to explain despite several prompts, and the claims he made are fundamentally untrue. The author likes her linkedin profile to remain professional. (Depending which former CC member you were referring to - two had commented and only one of those was a problem)

In the past the IPSE board denied attacking me anonymously even though the mods on here had confirmed the identity of the culprit via their IP address - so shall we just say that some IPSE members have form for being rather unprofessional and then denying it when all evidence pointed otherwise.

And in case I haven't been clear I probably should state my opinion. Once IR35 comes in the private sector in April 2020 IPSE will be irrelevant for most contractors - it's core offering won't be required by most contractors so this is a case of either fiddling while Rome burns or fighting over pennies while tripping over pounds...

[mudskipper]

In the past the IPSE board denied attacking me anonymously even though the mods on here had confirmed the identity of the culprit via their IP address - so shall we just say that some IPSE members have form and I suspect there is some truth in the commentator claims...

And the fact that people may think there is truth in the claims where there is none is why it had to be deleted.

[mudskipper]

In the past the IPSE board denied attacking me anonymously even though the mods on here had confirmed the identity of the culprit via their IP address - so shall we just say that some IPSE members have form for being rather unprofessional and then denying it when all evidence pointed otherwise.

1) The "IPSE board" do not post on this forum - individuals who post do so in a strictly personal capacity.
2) I do not know whether the post "attacking" you was posted by a board member or not
3) Shared IPs are an indicator at best - there are plenty of instances where I have shared an IP with other users.
4) I'm pretty sure that revealing a posters identity to other posters unless required by the courts is a DPA breach (even before GDPR)
5) If you don't want to be called a ****ing dick, then don't behave like one.

[eek]

1) The "IPSE board" do not post on this forum - individuals who post do so in a strictly personal capacity.
2) I do not know whether the post "attacking" you was posted by a board member or not
3) Shared IPs are an indicator at best - there are plenty of instances where I have shared an IP with other users.
4) I'm pretty sure that revealing a posters identity to other posters unless required by the courts is a DPA breach (even before GDPR)
5) If you don't want to be called a ****ing dick, then don't behave like one.

Deleting a post in anger rather than answering that the allegation is without merit could be seen to give the allegation more value than it would otherwise have...

As for the above did I hit a nerve

I will happily destroy your points 1 by 1 as well if you so desire...

[GreenMirror]

If you don't want to be called a ****ing dick, then don't behave like one.

Gosh IPSE sounds fun right now! Even worse than the Brexit firum?

I have a mind to join to access the forums...