April 1999

BACKGROUND
OVERALL RESPONSE
VISION
MISSION
FEATURES
MEMBERSHIP
EQUIVALENCIES
REGIONS
THE GLOBAL CONTEXT
SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS
GOVERNANCE
FINANCE
STAFFING
TITLE
THE NEXT STEPS
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Appendix : Summary of key responses

1. In 1996 the AGM of the IIS approved a motion from a private member that discussions should be initiated with the LA, with a view to assessing the scope for a formal alliance between the bodies. This AGM resolution was endorsed by the membership at large in a postal ballot. In 1997, after exploratory talks, the LA/IIS Unification Planning Group (UPG) was set up.
2. The UPG reported to the two Councils in October 1998 with a set of proposals for a new professional organisation embracing the two existing bodies. It recommended that these proposals be distributed as a consultation Green Paper to all the members of the Institute and the Association. Both Councils agreed that it should be issued with some minor suggested changes.
3. The Green Paper, "Our Professional Future" was issued to all members of both bodies in November 1998 with a deadline for responses of 15th March 1999.
4. An independent firm of consultants, Chambers & Stoll of London, was engaged on behalf of the Unification Planning Group to prepare an analysis of the responses. This was completed in time for a meeting of the Unification Planning Group held on 30th March 1999.
5. A copy of the "Analysis of Consultation Document Responses" is being presented to each of the two Councils together with this report of the Unification Planning Group. The IIS Council is scheduled to meet on 26th April, The LA Council on 30th April.

6. The initial reaction of several members of the UPG was slight disappointment at the low volume of responses. Duplicated, identical responses sent to both the IIS and the LA were counted and analysed by the consultants only once. They also combined different responses sent to both bodies by the same respondent. The resultant total number of separate responses was 213. Several of the responses were, however, compiled on behalf of existing IIS and LA branches and special interest groups and were, therefore, intended to represent comparatively large numbers.
7. A number of meetings of members was also organised, usually by branches. They attracted significant audiences, in some cases about double the attendance at general meetings.
8. UPG Members did take heart at the "high level of approval" for the principle of unification recorded in the responses. As the summary of key findings reports: "Overall 57% [of responses] volunteered approval while only 10% explicitly disapproved". The summary, prepared by Chambers & Stoll, appears as Appendix A to this report.
9. The UPG considered at some length its interpretation of the response in terms of the overall recommendation to the two Councils. A high level of approval amongst those who responded suggests at the very least that the proposed unification is acceptable to the vast majority of the two memberships.
10. UPG members remain convinced that the time has come for unification. In our view the strength and tenor of the responses on the fundamentals of our proposals set out in the Green Paper support our conviction. Some respondents, interestingly often LA members, expressed the concern that the IIS would simply be absorbed by the LA. Respondents who are members of both bodies did not seem to share that concern. It is our view that the proposals are for a new organisation, building on the strengths of both existing bodies. Members of both and of neither would find a home in the new organisation.
11. The UPG believes that the combined strengths of the IIS and the LA would place the new, unified, body in a strong position both to respond to external initiatives and to form strategic alliances with other appropriate organisations. In our view it would be a partnership of two membership bodies with much to be gained by bringing together both their common and complementary interests.
12. Some respondents argued for an alternative "umbrella" organisation which would in effect leave both the IIS and the LA as they are. The umbrella would provide a shelter for them and any other organisations in the wider information world which wished to join. We had considered this option in depth at our earlier meetings and rejected it. In the light of the comments we received we revisited the idea, but on reflection we still believe that this would simply add another costly layer of bureaucracy to little or no effect. It would, in our view, be better to continue recent initiatives in calling the many LIS organisations together when joint action seems likely to be effective. A new, unified, organisation would be in an even better position to do this. The Group's firm recommendation to the two Councils is therefore to proceed with unification (Recommendation A).
13. The Group then considered the analysis of responses in relation to the sections in the consultative paper.

14. Responses suggested that the vision of the new organisation described in the green paper did not sufficiently inspire many respondents. Several commented that it did not encapsulate the unique opportunity unification would represent. It is recommended that the Vision is redrafted in such a way as to make a more convincing case for the advantages of unification and the disadvantages of the status quo (Recommendation B).

15. Since there seemed to be general approval of the mission, our recommendation is that the text is left unaltered (Recommendation C).

16. In general, the features of the new organisation in the proposals were welcomed. There was significant expressed support for a body with a Royal Charter and with charitable status. There was also an expressed demand from several respondents for more details of the services the new organisation will offer. It is recommended that a prospectus of the range of services envisaged is included in a revised set of proposals (Recommendation D).

17. The proposals envisage a new organisation that would be primarily a personal membership organisation. They do, however, include provision for institutional membership. One respondent understandably called for a range of benefits and services appropriate for institutional members. It is recommended that proposed benefits and services for institutional members be included in a revised set of proposals (Recommendation E). However, it should be noted that the Privy Council takes the view that professional bodies should be governed by the elected representatives of the professional members. Institutional members would not, therefore, have voting rights.
18. A similar restraint applies to Affiliated Members; the Privy Council would not agree to the extension of their voting rights beyond the kind of provision currently in place in the LA. The tone of several responses suggest that greater assurance should be given about the future of Chartered status. There is already a great degree of collaboration between the two bodies on accreditation of courses. A Joint Accreditation Instrument is likely to be ratified shortly. There also seem to be some misperceptions about the degree of rigour employed by the two existing bodies on the admittance to their professional registers.
19. Both existing organisations already make exceptional provision for candidates whose career paths have taken an unconventional route (for example, without having taken an accredited course in information science or library/information management, or without having worked in a 'library', but as an academic, or having started a career in information systems, migrating to information management). The continuing availability of these routes in a new, unified, organisation should be emphasised to reassure those worried about a more restricted (as opposed to rigorous), or exclusive Chartering process. It is recommended that revised proposals explain the processes in a little more detail. It is also recommended that a commitment to high standards equivalent to the best practice of the two existing bodies is contained in the revised proposals (Recommendation F).
20. A number of Life Members of the LA expressed concern that this category was not mentioned. It is recommended that a commitment is given to protect the status of existing Life Members in the new organisation and to consider a similar provision for the future (Recommendation G).
21. Several respondents criticised the proposal that Honorary Fellowships be awarded only to people "who, not being members of the profession, have rendered significant service in furthering the interests of the profession", on the grounds that a way should be found of honouring outstanding achievement by members. On reflection, UPG members agreed with this suggestion. It is recommended that Honorary Fellowships be awarded as originally recommended, but that ways also be found to honour members for outstanding achievement (Recommendation H).

22. There was some uncertainty about the equivalencies table, especially in respect of Affiliated Members of the LA and Affiliates of the IIS. It is recommended that definitions of the various categories be included in the revised proposals. It is also recommended that a statement is included to the effect that the membership status of existing members would not be adversely affected by the unification process. It should also be made clear that those members of both existing organisations who were professional/chartered members of both would in future be entitled to only one set of post-nominal letters (Recommendation I).

23. Some concern was expressed in this section and elsewhere that the proposed organisation would be too London-centered. UPG members take the view that the proposals strike a good balance between the need to have a headquarters in London (to take advantage of the UK transport network and the ease of meeting and lobbying the vast majority of organisations which are also based in London) and the need to provide opportunities for active participation in the affairs of the new body by members located throughout the UK. No change to these recommendations is proposed. However, the facility for establishing sub-branches within the proposed regional structure should be emphasised (Recommendation J).
24. The position of members in the Republic of Ireland needs to be further considered (Recommendation K), in light of the fact that IIS has a branch covering the whole of Ireland and the clear indication that the LA would not wish the new body to encroach on the territory of the Library Association of Ireland. The implications for members in the Republic of the new body being granted a Royal Charter also need to be taken into account.

25. It was pointed out by several respondents that there is little explicit mention of the international context. This is true in that the proposals are largely domestic in nature. However, it is recommended that the proposals are put in the global context and explicit consideration is given to provision for overseas membership being included (Recommendation L).

26. Concern was expressed mainly by the IIS Special Interest Groups (SIGs) at the proposal that most SIGs be "fully integrated" into the new organisation. It is the firm view of the UPG that SIG members should, with minor exceptions, be members of the parent organisation. As such they would contribute to policy making and determination of the priorities of the new body and receive financial support from it and should, therefore, have the direct links proposed. No change to these proposals is recommended (Recommendation M).
27. The proposals for Organisations in Liaison (OiLs) seem to have been misunderstood, at least in one respect. The proposal is that existing separate, independent organisations would be able to apply for OiL status if they so wish. OiL status would confer certain advantages in both directions. One of the criteria proposed was to stipulate that a "significant proportion" of the organisation applying for OiL status be in membership of the new body. This was merely to demonstrate a commonality of interest between the new body and the prospective OiL. The proportion was not defined. It is recommended that, initially, it is set at 20% of the membership of the organisation concerned (Recommendation N). The new body would clearly have no view on the composition or the running of any such organisation. Existing SIGs of the LA and of the IIS could decide whether SIG or OiL status (or neither) was appropriate for them for the future. In some cases this would, of course, mean establishing an independent existence.

28. A tension was clearly discernible between those who argued for a lean and efficient governing body capable of making swift decisions and one that was democratically accountable. UPG takes the view that these desiderata are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Whilst believing that a maximum of about 40 members for the governing body is desirable, it recommends that it would be sensible to ensure direct representation from each region and each SIG as well as a number of Councillors elected by the membership as a whole. The final number would therefore be determined in part by the number of regions and SIGs (Recommendation O). To ensure swift and efficient decisions, use of Chair's action and effective use of appropriate communication channels should exploited, subject to proper reporting back procedures.

29. No changes are recommended to this section of the Green Paper (Recommendation P).

30. No changes are recommended to this section of the Green Paper (Recommendation Q).

31. There was little explicit approval for the proposal for the name of the new body. The proposed strap-line gained greater acceptance than the title itself. Several respondents suggested that there should be a national qualifier such as "British" or "UK". On reflection, and taking into account the proposals received, UPG recommends that the title of the new body should be:

supplemented by the following strapline:

32. Following the consultation process, the UPG recommends that the two Councils:

1. The Unification Planning Group's firm recommendation to the two Councils is to proceed with unification (para 12).
2. The Vision should be redrafted to make a more convincing case for the advantages of unification and the disadvantages of the status quo (para 14).
3. The Mission should be left unaltered (para 15).
4. A prospectus of the range of services envisaged should be prepared (para 16).
5. Proposed benefits and services for institutional members should be prepared. Institutional members should not have voting rights (para 17).
6. Revised proposals should explain the Chartering processes in a little more detail, including a commitment to high standards equivalent to the best practice of the two existing bodies (para 19).
7. A commitment to protect the status of existing Life Members should be given. A similar provision for the future should be considered. (para 20).
8. A provision for honouring outstanding achievement by members should be included, in addition to the proposal for Honorary Fellowships for people outside the profession who have rendered significant service (para 21).
9. It is recommended that definitions of the various categories of membership in the equivalencies tables should be included. It is also recommended that the membership status of existing members should not be adversely affected by the unification process. It should be made clear that those members of both existing organisations who were professional/chartered members of both would in future be entitled to only one set of post-nominal letters (para 22).
10. No change to the recommendations for regions is proposed. However, the facility for establishing sub-branches within the proposed regional structure should be emphasised (para 23).
11. The position of members in the Republic of Ireland needs to be further considered (para 24).
12. The proposals should be put in the global context and explicit consideration should be given to provision for overseas membership (para 25).
13. No change is recommended to the proposals for Special Interest Groups (SIGs) (para 26).
14. Initially, the proportion of membership of the new body required for Organisation in Liaison (OiL) status should be set at 20% (para 27).
15. The Council should include direct representation from each region and from each SIG as well as a number of Councillors elected by the membership as a whole. The final number of Councillors would therefore be determined in part by the number of regions and SIGs (para 28).
16. No changes are recommended to the finance section of the Green Paper (para 29).
17. No changes are recommended to the staffing section of the Green Paper (para 30).
18. The title of the new body should be:

The Chartered Institute of Information Professionals

supplemented by the following strapline:

The UK Association for Librarians and Information Scientists

(para 31).

19. UPG recommends that the two Councils should take the following steps:

1. endorse the principle of Unification as set out in Our Professional Future
2. adopt the recommendations in this report as revisions to Our Professional Future
3. recommend the revised proposals to the memberships of the two organisations
4. carry out an indicative ballot of all the personal memberships of the two organisations, using, if feasible, a combination of postal and telephone voting (by "indicative", we mean a ballot designed to test whether the majority of members of the two organisations are in favour of the proposals a whole and to inform the AGMs of the two bodies).
5. invite the UPG to carry out the work of revising the proposals and to prepare the indicative ballot
6. in the event of a favourable response, set up a Joint Implementation Group to prepare resolutions for the Annual General Meetings of the two bodies, new Byelaws, Royal Charter application, submission to the Charity Commission and other requirements (para 32).

This report is based on an analysis of over 200 responses to the Consultation Document received from individual members of the LA and the IIS and from representative groups.

There is a high level of approval for merger. Overall 57% volunteer approval while only 10% explicitly disapprove. LA members are more positive in their approval of the proposed new organisation than are IIS members.

Those in the South appear most involved in the debate. Respondents from the Midlands and North comment on relatively fewer sections.

Opinions are divided as to the validity of the Vision. Comments group around the difference in size between the IIS and LA; the level of convergence of librarianship and information science; the advisability of merger and the likelihood that the merger will result in a unified voice.

Generally members approve the Mission. They lay considerable stress on the need to improve the image and influence of the profession.

There is a concern among IIS members that this may not be a merger of equals. There is also uncertainty about the range and nature of services that would be offered to members. Chartered status is valued for the kudos it confers.

Both LA and IIS members express a variety of concerns about the proposed membership categories. In particular, LA Life Members are worried that there is no provision for them in the new organisation. There is also concern that the status of Honorary Fellow is to change. There is some call for consideration of institutional membership of the new organisation. And there is a more general call for established professional standards to be maintained.

Members of the LA and joint members of LA and IIS are primarily concerned with post-nominal letters. There is also a concern as to the routes and criteria to be used for conversion.

It was agreed that larger regions will require sub-groups to achieve viable communities. There was also a concern about the new organisation being too London centred. Another concern was the future of existing groups.

The situation of Scotland is seen as anomalous because of the increasing independence of the Scottish Library Association. There is uncertainty whether there would be common ground between IIS members and the SLA.

There was particular concern among IIS SIGs because of the proposed change in relationship with a parent body. There is also concern about the requirement that a significant proportion of members of OiLs need to be members of the parent body. This leads to uncertainties as to whether existing IIS SIGs should apply for SIG or OiL status in the new organisation.

There is a tension apparent between the requirements for democratic representation and the requirement of a small, efficient Council.

The main concern here is an assumption that fees for IIS members will rise substantially. IIS members might expect this to be justified in terms of services offered to members. There is also a concern about the loss of overall income to the organisation from former joint members only paying a single subscription. IIS members working in the commercial sector raise strong objections to the principle of income banding of subscriptions.

This raised relatively little concern. It was assumed that there would be some redundancies, achieved through natural wastage, consequent on merger.

There was low explicit approval for the proposed title. Overall more people preferred the strapline alone. This preference reflected the feeling of IIS and joint members. There was a very wide range of suggested alternative titles, but no clear solution to the problem of finding a generally acceptable title. There were suggestions that a national qualifier (British or UK) be appended.