Reply to: Calling all IPSE Members

[administrator]

Thread locked as requested.

[PhiltheGreek]

Seriously, I never understood why this is being discussed on CUK at all. Jolly amusing for those of us who are not members.

Last time one's valet looked, there were 5 times more contractors on here than independent professionals on there. One assumes, that's why.

[mudskipper]

I am an outsider so this is really none of my business. But 16/14 seems wrong. Why do so few members stand? Is it like the CUK meet ups which are cliquey?



He is too busy Darren Upton spotting.

Seriously, I never understood why this is being discussed on CUK at all. Jolly amusing for those of us who are not members.

The pre-voting is closed now, so I hope the discussions will close.

[GreenMirror]

1. 14 places and 16 candidates is not exactly democracy in action, especially when a fair number of those standing are already in post.

I am an outsider so this is really none of my business. But 16/14 seems wrong. Why do so few members stand? Is it like the CUK meet ups which are cliquey?

Anyway, this is not the forum to discuss these issues in any detail. You haven't been so vocal on the IPSE boards I notice.

He is too busy Darren Upton spotting.

Seriously, I never understood why this is being discussed on CUK at all. Jolly amusing for those of us who are not members.

[malvolio]

1) The CC is not self-selected, we are chosen by the membership, you derise a situation in the same sentence in which you compliment the exact same situation.

While at first glance this seems a positive step and the Board will say it is handing control back to the membership, it is actually a retrograde step. The membership already votes for the CC, and in recent years the turn out has been low. In 2018 587 people voted out of a membership that runs into tens of thousands, and all that entailed was reading a personal statement of each candidate.

The last Director elections comprised of a video pitch, face to face hustings and weeks of forum activity where candidates we grilled and probed by members of the CC to ensure those fortunate to be elected were deemed worthy not only the legal responsibility that comes with such a role, but also the duty to the membership to represent their best interests. I am all for members voting for the directors, but until the organisation finds a better way for people to engage, I feel removing the checks and balances that the CC give will be a backwards step.

1. 14 places and 16 candidates is not exactly democracy in action, especially when a fair number of those standing are already in post.

2. Here we go with the "checks and balances" thing. You don't offer any and never have. It's not in your remit, which is to be a point consultation and an electoral college.

3. I've done the director election thing. I was not impressed buy the quality of questioning, nor by the preliminary efforts by the then CC to examine the candidates.

2) The existing CC is drawn from the whole membership, at the last CC elections we had members of Uber stand, creatives and many other type of freelancers and self-employed.

OK, but how many outside the standard member profile were actually elected? How many of the 20-odd thousand members voted? More than 1%?

To be fair the Members Forum will still be self selecting, from those who are interested enough to volunteer. OK, the BoD will have the final say, but there are people on the existing CC I wouldn't want in there anyway, so that's not exactly a major issue.

3) I don't think it is on the CC to explain why the Board thinks it is now surplus to requirements, the the deafening silence from all but the CEO allows people to make up their own minds on how communication between the SLT/BOD/CC currently runs. Whereas the CC have been very vocal (as proven by this very thread and many others) in why we do not support the changes, which has drawn out some members from the shadows to be active again in the discussion.

Yes it is. You have made no attempt to understand why you have been sidelined in recent years. To be blunt, your complaints lack credibility

4) The work that the CEO and his team have shown IPSE is not run by amateurs, I would hazard a guess those in the corridors of power do not know about the CC, they are more focused on the number of voices we claim to represent. These changes, which as mentioned are not all disagreeable

Well you clearly know more than I do. I beg to differ.


Anyway, this is not the forum to discuss these issues in any detail. You haven't been so vocal on the IPSE boards I notice.

[SimonMac]

OK, let's leave aside potential dangers for now.

The Pros:

1. Directors are elected by the whole membership, not a localised electoral college of largely self-selected people, some of whom appear to be following their own agenda.

1) The CC is not self-selected, we are chosen by the membership, you derise a situation in the same sentence in which you compliment the exact same situation.

While at first glance this seems a positive step and the Board will say it is handing control back to the membership, it is actually a retrograde step. The membership already votes for the CC, and in recent years the turn out has been low. In 2018 587 people voted out of a membership that runs into tens of thousands, and all that entailed was reading a personal statement of each candidate.

The last Director elections comprised of a video pitch, face to face hustings and weeks of forum activity where candidates we grilled and probed by members of the CC to ensure those fortunate to be elected were deemed worthy not only the legal responsibility that comes with such a role, but also the duty to the membership to represent their best interests. I am all for members voting for the directors, but until the organisation finds a better way for people to engage, I feel removing the checks and balances that the CC give will be a backwards step.

2. The Members Forum (or whatever it ends up being called) will be drawn from the whole membership, with support from the centre, and is targeted at the whole UK and the whole freelance community

2) The existing CC is drawn from the whole membership, at the last CC elections we had members of Uber stand, creatives and many other type of freelancers and self-employed.

3. The existing CC has not been hugely communicative, certainly back to the membership and has failed to answer clear questions about why the BoD thinks it is now surplus to requirements. And to be clear, the MF proposal indicates to me that the BoD still value input from the membership, but from a group that is designed to be far more engaged with that membership.

3) I don't think it is on the CC to explain why the Board thinks it is now surplus to requirements, the the deafening silence from all but the CEO allows people to make up their own minds on how communication between the SLT/BOD/CC currently runs. Whereas the CC have been very vocal (as proven by this very thread and many others) in why we do not support the changes, which has drawn out some members from the shadows to be active again in the discussion.

4. The changes put IPSE's governance more closely in line with good practice for such bodies, countering criticism from Whitehall and others that it is still run by amateurs.

4) The work that the CEO and his team have shown IPSE is not run by amateurs, I would hazard a guess those in the corridors of power do not know about the CC, they are more focused on the number of voices we claim to represent. These changes, which as mentioned are not all disagreeable

[malvolio]

It would be nice, as you are so keen on accepting the changes, to hear how you believe they will benefit IPSE and enhance the organisation. I am genuinely keen to hear such an opinion because the only voice I've heard in favour is the Board's.

OK, let's leave aside potential dangers for now.

The Pros:

1. Directors are elected by the whole membership, not a localised electoral college of largely self-selected people, some of whom appear to be following their own agenda.

2. The Members Forum (or whatever it ends up being called) will be drawn from the whole membership, with support from the centre, and is targeted at the whole UK and the whole freelance community

3. The existing CC has not been hugely communicative, certainly back to the membership and has failed to answer clear questions about why the BoD thinks it is now surplus to requirements. And to be clear, the MF proposal indicates to me that the BoD still value input from the membership, but from a group that is designed to be far more engaged with that membership.

4. The changes put IPSE's governance more closely in line with good practice for such bodies, countering criticism from Whitehall and others that it is still run by amateurs.

The Cons:

1. Yes the BoD can load the NomCom to game the selection of candidates for directorship. Why they would need to do so is another issue altogether

2. Yes, the MF will be selected from people who meet set criteria. However that is a clear statement that the current CC is seen to be neither representative nor of benefit to IPSE.

3. YEs the NomCom has set the directors' stipend at any level it thinks fit. The auditors and external FD may have something to say about that, given IPSE is a not-for-profit organisation.

And FTAOD all of this has been said on the IPSE forums, plus a lot more.

[ladymuck]

Yes but...

IPSEs whole reason for existing would be destroyed if some fantasy board decided to diversify and its members and staff would desert it in their thousands. Why in God's name would anyone want to commit commercial suicide.

And let's be clear, the people charged with preventing that happening have signally failed to prevent the new proposals from being put forward.

So yes, it is a doomsday scenario. There are many reasons these proposed changes may a bad idea but this isn't one of them

It would be nice, as you are so keen on accepting the changes, to hear how you believe they will benefit IPSE and enhance the organisation. I am genuinely keen to hear such an opinion because the only voice I've heard in favour is the Board's.

[SimonMac]

Yes but...

IPSEs whole reason for existing would be destroyed if some fantasy board decided to diversify and its members and staff would desert it in their thousands. Why in God's name would anyone want to commit commercial suicide.

And let's be clear, the people charged with preventing that happening have signally failed to prevent the new proposals from being put forward.

So yes, it is a doomsday scenario. There are many reasons these proposed changes may a bad idea but this isn't one of them

Whether it’s the doomsday scenario or death by a thousand cuts, the results are the same. The difference is at the moment the transparency and openness allows us to better challenge the facts laid in front of us, if SR4 is approved this will not be the case going forward.

[malvolio]

One example:
The new AoA do not define who sits on NomCo they just say that such a body exists. Therefore, a future board could put anyone they like on it and that body will define how elections will operate. This isn't a doomsday scenario, I don't have a stash of tin foil hats on hand. It's a real concern that the lack of ToR for such an important body will be removed should the current AoA and The Rules be abolished.

You may say, aha! But in the leaflet on the IPSE website it says NomCo will be made up of two members (no info on how they will be selected), two board members and an independent chair! Yes it does say that. Please don't confuse a sales leaflet with the legally binding AoA though. One isn't worth the time spent drawing it up (it still rankles that #7 isn't a change and shouldn't be numbered), the other has had a lot of legal man hours spent on it to make it compliant to the Companies Act but be as wooly as possible.

Yes but...

IPSEs whole reason for existing would be destroyed if some fantasy board decided to diversify and its members and staff would desert it in their thousands. Why in God's name would anyone want to commit commercial suicide.

And let's be clear, the people charged with preventing that happening have signally failed to prevent the new proposals from being put forward.

So yes, it is a doomsday scenario. There are many reasons these proposed changes may a bad idea but this isn't one of them

[ladymuck]

Oh grow up. That kind of panic mongering is destroying your case. There is much more to it than the CC losing a role that they don't actually have. People need to decide on merits, not some future doomsday scenario

One example:
The new AoA do not define who sits on NomCo they just say that such a body exists. Therefore, a future board could put anyone they like on it and that body will define how elections will operate. This isn't a doomsday scenario, I don't have a stash of tin foil hats on hand. It's a real concern that the lack of ToR for such an important body will be removed should the current AoA and The Rules be abolished.

You may say, aha! But in the leaflet on the IPSE website it says NomCo will be made up of two members (no info on how they will be selected), two board members and an independent chair! Yes it does say that. Please don't confuse a sales leaflet with the legally binding AoA though. One isn't worth the time spent drawing it up (it still rankles that #7 isn't a change and shouldn't be numbered), the other has had a lot of legal man hours spent on it to make it compliant to the Companies Act but be as wooly as possible.

[malvolio]

And in doing so bear in mind that this is about how a future BoD might choose to prioritise issues and membership funds on.

Oh grow up. That kind of panic mongering is destroying your case. There is much more to it than the CC losing a role that they don't actually have. People need to decide on merits, not some future doomsday scenario

[Pondlife]

Agreed - whilst I will be voting "no", anyone who is voting should read both sides and make their own mind up.

And in doing so bear in mind that this is about how a future BoD might choose to prioritise issues and membership funds on.

[mudskipper]

A fine distinction...

I would also encourage everyone whose interested to read the other side of the story - basically go here and read the links on the right of the page - and make their own decisions

Agreed - whilst I will be voting "no", anyone who is voting should read both sides and make their own mind up.

[malvolio]

To add to LMs point.

Rejecting the changes does not mean we reject change, just we reject the change on offer.

A fine distinction...

I would also encourage everyone whose interested to read the other side of the story - basically go here and read the links on the right of the page - and make their own decisions