strathspey Archive: Re[4]: Celebrate '98 and more

Previous thread: Re[2]: Celebrate '98 and more
Next thread: Indian River Strathspey

Re[4]: Celebrate '98 and more

Message 8051 · Jennifer_Sawin · 25 Jun 1997 04:01:50 · Top

Regrets to anyone who curses me for bandwidth, but I included Richard
Walker's whole reply below.

The "branch" item in the Objects was, I believe, dropped recently due
to revision in UK tax/charities laws. The revision required UK
branches, previously under the RSCDS umbrella, to restructure as
self-standing in a legal sense. US branches, by contrast, were mostly
already self-standing legal entities, so we in the States saw little
of this work. I understand it was quite a major effort for many.

However, I agree with Richard's concern about inter-branch
communications. Is there any piece of these new UK laws that actually
*restricts* what the Bulletin should be reporting?

And I agree this may appear to be a "slippery slope" (yes, that's
lawyer jargon for "where will this madness end???"). I would hate to
see the Society's aims diminished. If the issue is money, well let's
face it - membership isn't very expensive and I suspect many folks
would be willing to pay a bit more if it would give back the things we
miss.

Jim Healy - are you close enough to these issues to brief us on them?
Anyone else?

Hoping to hear more,

Jenn Sawin




______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Celebrate '98 and more
Author: strathspey@tm.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de at UNIXGTWY
Date: 6/24/97 4:37 PM

Seems like the leadership has their total focus on money and little
on the society objects. Does annual membership fees cover a larger
bulletin, dance booklet, and other traditional deliverables or is the
society hurting for funds? When the annual bulletin dropped the
branch reports I corresponded and suggested that the decision might
hurt rather than help SCD. When membership brought a single dance
booklet for a single member and a single dance booklet for a married
couple, I again suggested that the decision might hurt rather than
help SCD. The argument (in the bulletin) for the revisions was lack
of money. The additional revisions, at the expense of meeting the
society objects, leaves me very concerned. How bad off is the
society? Was anything mentioned at the AGM?

Recent decisions
1. No dance booklet -- tradition, entitlement or promotion of SCD?
2. No mention of branch activities -- see (b) below
3. No annual bulletin -- see (b) below
4. Not accepting new dances -- see (d), (e) or (f) below

Objects of society
(a) To preserve and further the practice of traditional Scottish
Country Dances;
(b)To promote and encourage the formation of Branches;
(c)To provide, or assist in providing, special education or
instruction in the practice of Scottish Country Dances;
(d)To promote / publish by all available means information and music
relating to Scottish Country Dancing and in particular to publish, or
cause to be published descriptions of Scottish Country Dances with
music and diagrams in simple form and at moderate price;
(e)To collect books, manuscripts, illustrations and other memorabilia
relating to Scottish Country Dancing and to the Society.
(f)Generally, to do such other things as are or may be considered by
the Society to be incidental or conducive to the attainment of the
objects above stated or any of them.
Richard L. Walker
Pensacola FL (City of Five Flags) USA
rlwalker@granis.net

Previous thread: Re[2]: Celebrate '98 and more
Next thread: Indian River Strathspey
A Django site.