Minutes of 20th Board (352nd ) meeting held on Thursday 28th January 2010

Attachments
 BoD 28thJan10.doc [67 KB] ::

The CiB Accreditation Advanced Level programme has now been launched. One person has already signed up and two others are taking the pre-entry exam. Meanwhile, we currently have four cohorts at different stages of the Foundation Level programme, with another set to start in March and four more people already booked for the cohort starting in May.

A major feature about the first year of the CiB accreditation programme foundation level is now available to download from the professional qualifications section of this site - see http://cib.uk.com/content/images/PDF/cib_accreditation.pdf. Also, stand by for launch details of the programme's advanced level, which should be available in the next few days.

Hi everyone,

The annual CiB Central Region Awards are now open. Whether you work in-house, at an agency or freelance, there’s a class for you to measure your achievements against your peers.

So dust down your best work from 2009 and submit your entry by Monday 30 November.

Read more and enter via the CiB main story: http://cib.uk.com/content/latest-news/1587-cib-central-region-awards-and-annual-seminar.html
 
The awards dinner will be on Friday 5 February 2010 at the National Motorcycle Museum, Solihull.

Central Region Annual Seminar
The awards dinner follows our third annual seminar featuring a range of speakers, all experts in their field.

This year, we ask ‘Are you ready for the upturn?’ with topics including:

- Opportunity Knocks: navigating the internal communications jobs market
- Recession-Proof Yourself: career-building tips
- Credit-Crunched Comms: doing more with less
- The Bottom Line: measuring return on investment
- Perfect Pitches: winning new business from cautious clients.

More information on the seminar coming soon; in the meantime please do contact me with any questions about the awards or seminar.

Good luck and hope to see you in February.

Kate

Hi everyone,

The annual CiB Central Region Awards are now open. Whether you work in-house, at an agency or freelance, there’s a class for you to measure your achievements against your peers.

So dust down your best work from 2009 and submit your entry by Monday 30 November.

Read more and enter via the CiB main story: http://cib.uk.com/content/latest-news/1587-cib-central-region-awards-and-annual-seminar.html
 
The awards dinner will be on Friday 5 February 2010 at the National Motorcycle Museum, Solihull.

Central Region Annual Seminar
The awards dinner follows our third annual seminar featuring a range of speakers, all experts in their field.

This year, we ask ‘Are you ready for the upturn?’ with topics including:

- Opportunity Knocks: navigating the internal communications jobs market
- Recession-Proof Yourself: career-building tips
- Credit-Crunched Comms: doing more with less
- The Bottom Line: measuring return on investment
- Perfect Pitches: winning new business from cautious clients.

More information on the seminar coming soon; in the meantime please do contact me with any questions about the awards or seminar.

Good luck and hope to see you in February.

Kate

Dust down your most impressive internal comms of 2009 and get ready to enter the CiB Central Awards.

The awards will open in late October and the winners announced as part of Central's annual seminar in February 2010.

Due to changes in regional boundaries, Anglian members will enter the Central awards this time round.

Read more on our main article or contact me with any queries.

Good luck and hope to see you at the seminar.

Kate

Dust down your most impressive internal comms of 2009 and get ready to enter the CiB Central Awards.

The awards will open in late October and the winners announced as part of Central's annual seminar in February 2010.

Read more on our main article or contact me with any queries.

Good luck and hope to see you at the seminar.

Kate

Two things - it's not true to say that the board refused to publish the "no" wiki: what they said was that the forum for the publication is here; that this space was created explicitly to encourage free and open debate, and its existence has been publicised repeatedly in emails and personal letters sent to every member. This wasn't good enough for Malcolm and his supporters, who argued that this space was ineffective and chose instead to publish it in a separate space and asked members to let each other know it was out there. That's their business, but people should be clear that the "no" wiki could have been placed here at any time.

Second point is about balance. I hope anybody interested in this debate will take the time to listen to the recording of the live discussion we held a couple of weeks ago in London. It will explain the background and the rationale for change, and it does feature Malcolm and couple of other freelance members expressing their dissent clearly and forcefully. But for me the most interesting point to come out of it was when a couple of people spoke of the apparent divisiveness of this debate.

What's missing is a perspective on where the division is coming from. Listening to the recording you could be forgiven for thinking there was a body within CiB called the Freelance Forum, which was firmly against the proposed change, but even this isn't true. The Freelance Forum has something over a 100 members. Of these as far as I can tell between 30-35 have spoken out against the change, so we are talking about a minority within a minority.

It's reasonable to expect that anyone against this change will take the trouble to vote (I hope so). Now, our own research has suggested repeatedly for something over 75 per cent of our members, internal communication is their primary field of activity. For this vast majority I imagine the apparently agonised debate about whether we should be focused on internal communication is puzzling: the most common response I've had in any discussion outside the Freelance Forum is "just get on with it". Whether these people will vote is much more questionable. I would love to think that we will have more than 50 per cent participation in this vote, but anyone who has worked in this field will tell you that it's extremely unlikely. That's why the law requires only a a 75 per cent majority of those voting.

If it turns out that the vote against this is between 30-60, then it will put the divisiveness of this debate itself in perspective. The board will be entitled to assume that the 1000 or so other members are either actively or passively supportive. I imagine that some of the no votes will turn into resignations, though I hope not all of them. But whatever happens if the vote does go in favour of change, I don't think CiB will start the next phase of its development as a divided organisation, and I hope those "no" votes who remain will switch their energies to getting the most out of the new organisation.

If on the other hand the vote for change is not carried, then everyone will have to respect that, and work out what we do next.      

   

Dear Members

The wording in Malcolm's recent posting may give the impression that the Board decided not to publish his document for some shady reason.  Please be reassured that the whole Board considered in detail what Malcolm has produced and decided unanimously not to publish it for 3 reasons:

- it covers arguments and issues debated at length during the period in which we agreed to recommend the proposed name change.  These have been considered by the Board, included in their deliberations and factored into the decision.  There is nothing new or revelatory in the document.

- we disputed some of the conclusions and assertions make from the evidence

- we have as a Board agreed unanimously that the switch to becoming the Institute of Internal Communication is the best option for the long term survival of our association.  Our recommendation to members is to support the move and we therefore felt we should not put our name to a document which was designed expressly to get people to vote 'no'.

 We did say that, of course, Malcolm or anyone else is welcome to make their case to other members themselves, which is what he is doing.

Vote 'Yes'  - if you can't be there please send your proxy form to Kathie Jones

Thanks

Regards

Dominic

Dominoiq

Hello

It is good to see the important issue of the vote on our future as an association being debated on the forum.  Having read Malcom Davison's recent postings, however, I think it is important to make the following points.

Firstly, what is proposed is about much more than a mere name change.  What we are voting on is a key part of a longer term shift designed to ensure that the association best serves its members now and into the future.  To do this we need a focus, a credible offer, and a strong presence.  The proposed new positioning will help us secure all three. Please remember that the right to use the title 'Institute' is hard won and reflects our standing in our field.  The proposal to use it is about demonstrating our credentials and showing our worth.  It really represents a well deserved promotion for CiB, rather than a simple change of name.

Secondly, we all know that words and the way they are used are important.  Malcolm talks of Paul's membership of the 'name change committee' when no such body exists.  All decisions have been taken by the Board and will continue to be taken democratically in this way.  My concern is that this phrase and others like it make it look like these proposals come from some shadowy, unelected groups.  Please be reassured that every decision has been made by the Board, following consultation with members and according to the constitution.  That's how it will stay, too.

Thirdly, in Malcolm's note addressed to Paul Brasington, he claims that no credible research has been carried out to support the proposed change. He then quotes wholly anecdotal evidence from his own work to back up his case.  The organisations he mentions are significant and important, but all come from one relatively limited sector. The Board has taken evidence from a wide cross-section of our profession, from agency to freelancer, consultant to inhouse practitioners in public and private sectors, and based our recommendations on that.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly is the recent posting in which Malcolm requests that we all read a summary of findings he has produced about the proposed change.  He is right that the Board decided at its last meeting not to publish it more widely - we did so for several very good reasons.  Much of the content covers areas we have discussed many times before over the past two years or more.  We felt publishing this would be like David Cameron and Gordon Brown preparing for the next election by sending the electorate minutes of all their policy meetings for the past two years when what people really need is a short summary of policies.

Also, Malcolm's document is not a balanced debate which outlines the pros and cons of the proposed change.  It has been edited and prepared to promote a specific agenda - a viewpoint which differs from the unanimous recommendations of the Board.  It would therefore be odd and confusing if the Board were to publish it. 

The proposed change is a big move.  Many members will have questions and possibly concerns.  If you have, please come along to the next two planned discussion events in London on 2/9 and in Edinburgh on 10/9 and/or submit questions on this forum, directly to the Board or to me. 

Malcolm and I agree on one key point - it is crucial that we all vote - in person or by proxy.  The Board unanimously believes that the proposed change to become the Institute of Internal Communication represents the best way forward for us as an organisation.  Please support it.

Regards

Dominic Walters

National Chairman

Hello all

I've been tasked with looking at reward and recognition for my business, does anyone have any agencies that they can recommend?

Many thanks

Paul,
 
As a member of the name change committee you have just confirmed that no credible research has been done. No figures (including totals of people interviewed) were quoted in your reply.

No organisation thinking about a rebranding should proceed without briefing the membership on the reasons supported by solid research.

Through my training business I have, in recent years, had the privilege of visiting scores of inhouse communication departments in UK and mainland Europe. These include local authorities, Whitehall departments, the Scottish Government, Welsh Assembly, European Commission and the UN plus banks and other commercial organisations.

The internal and external communicators are working closer together more than they have ever done before. Staff are now frequently being relocated between the two disciplines. Very few communicators will in future spend their whole careers in just internal communication.

Rather than accept a high churn rate of membership we need to provide our members with an organisation that will represent the breadth of their experience for the duration of their careers. And we need to honestly represent what our members actually do - and not what you would prefer them to do.

Malcolm

The board has decided that the collated views of those opposing the CiB name change should not be published (see the July board minutes). However they have agreed that 150 words will be circulated by email to members, but they then failed to include the link to the full version.

We would like you to read the full version - see below. We also need your help, please, to circulate the link to other CiB members too - or the attached file. Please don't circulate it outside the CiB membership.

The arguments were democratically compiled by a group of members using an online wiki and have recently been updated, we think you will find them very interesting.

http://cibname.wikispaces.com

Or download the attached file.

Please don't leave it to others or save the stamp - and return your Proxy Form today and vote against!

Malcolm Davison

Attachments
 Wiki contra arguments.doc [35 KB] ::