The Perils of the Renewal Process

Isabel Hood
Semple Fraser LLP

The current intention of CILIP to change the administrative structure of the membership renewal scheme is one that I have to agree with. 

Every year without fail the renewal forms land on my desk in December / January and they’re still at the bottom of a pile in June because I haven’t (quite) got round to all those many pesky little bits of paper that renewing has always involved.

I am, in fact, only finally galvanised into hasty renewal when I realise I’m about to be cut off… And I’d imagine a lot of people have a fairly similar experience. 

So what are CILIP trying to do? They’re trying to revise current procedures so that the process is streamlined and controlled and to take away the (presumably financially unnerving) experience of them spending Feb - May wondering if a substantial proportion of Members are actually intending renewing or not while still receiving a full service.

If, as Members, this means that we get far fewer bits of paper and can happily automate the process entirely if we so wish, this has to be welcome. Especially the promise that for new Members renewal will eventually be a calendar year after their own renewal – so they’ll escape the fateful ‘Xmas / New Year Renewal’ problem entirely.

Change would have disadvantages as well as advantages, that’s perhaps inevitable. There are problems with the proposals.

Collection of salary data

The present renewal system requires us to declare which Salary Band we come within. Analyse salary band along with postcode and sector and you get solid statistics on what salary levels are being paid in different sectors in different locations. This is valuable data for advocacy work on pay and status issues. Without this annual salary declaration presumably CILIP will develop another tool to collect salary information – but it’d have to be voluntary. Therefore a far smaller proportion of the membership is going to participate with a detrimental affect on accuracy and utility.

The Threshold

This is the big debate thus far. In order to automate renewal CILIP want everyone to pay one standard renewal fee – about £150. However, there will be rebates available, for which folk will have to declare that their annual salary is less than 14k. If your current renewal happens to be higher than £150 then you’ll save money.

So argument one goes that it is unfair that higher-paid members will get a full service for less money whereas folk who are paid just over the threshold amount may end up paying slightly more. And those under the threshold will have to declare salary (which no one else will need to do) in order to ‘prove’ their relative penury to get a rebate.

The response to the above tends to be that it could be said to be equally unfair that the higher-paid Members have historically always subsidised the lower when everyone receives the same standard of service and access to the same membership resources.

And the response to the response is then that as an information profession we, above all, shouldn’t be associating with a policy that would equate information access to income.

Yes, the new system would create new (slightly different) inequalities, so it comes down to what you believe is the more paramount consideration – automation of renewal processes or everyone paying the same proportion of whatever their salary is. You just can't automate renewal without the majority being on a flat rate subscription.

In drawing up their proposals CILIP have tried to ensure that the largest percentage of the Membership are paying about the same as they do under the present system and that overall CILIP get the same membership income as they do now under the present system. The problem with this method of calculation is that this means that the threshold for rebates to apply becomes a figure that many, myself included, would argue is too low (at 14k). 

I’d much prefer the threshold was raised to 17k and that the largest percentage of the Membership agree that we pay slightly more in terms of the standard flat rate renewal fee in order to obtain this for lower-paid Members.

Transparency of Consultation

CILIP looked into various options re changing the membership renewal process. However consultation with the membership on the preferred option that was finally decided upon has been very brief – it’s arguable that involving the membership at an earlier stage would have allowed for a less hurried debate and more explanation.

Conclusion

The provision of a mechanism for automatic renewal requires a mostly flat rate membership fee. While I have some concerns about the effect of the detail of proposals I nonetheless feel that the overwhelming objective, of a streamlined predictable income stream, is worth it.

Isabel Hood
Legal Librarian
Semple Fraser LLP
Isabel.Hood@semplefraser.co.uk