Previous Message Next Message

  • Andrew Smith

    Andrew Smith Sept. 18, 2001, 10:06 a.m. (Message 27404)

    Fw: RSCDS restructuring

    I am not sure that this went to Strathspey or not; my apologies if it is a
    second posting.
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Andrew Smith" <xxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>
    To: "Stewart Cunningham" <>
    Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 7:59 AM
    Subject: Re: RSCDS restructuring
    > Stewart,
    > Thank you for your comment.
    > I should point out that our proposal is (basically) the same proposal
    > was Option C and which was the preferred option of the
    > working party and GP committee.
    > There was strong support from Bristol branch members of the view that the
    > Society in AGM should have the alternative laid before it, especially in
    > view of the narrow margin at the May Executive Council meeting. It was
    > that if we did not attempt to take this forward another year would pass,
    > time might not be something which the Society has at this stage. As
    > Shakespeare says, "There is a tide in the affairs of men...." (Jul Caes
    > iv,3) - pity it was not Burns.
    > The "one member, one vote" should address the overseas Members problem of
    > distance, because we have proposed the following in the Constitutional
    > changes accompanying our motion (NB. We have based our changes on the
    > proposed draft Constitution circulated to delegates to the AGM as part of
    > the Exec motion, as we felt it was a better starting point than the
    > Constitution):
    > Nominations and Elections (of Management Board etc members):
    > 10) Voting will be by [Delete: Local Association/Branch delegates only, by
    > ballot in General Meeting. [Insert: members of the Society, by postal
    > to arrive with the Secretary before the General Meeting.]
    > 3. At least [Delete: fourteen days' Insert: three weeks] notice, in
    > of any General Meeting shall be given to all [Delete: Local
    > Associations/Branches Insert: members]. Nothing done at any such Meeting
    > shall be invalidated by reason of any informality or irregularity in the
    > calling of the Meeting or by reason of the non-receipt by any [Delete:
    > Associations/Branches Insert: members] of a notice calling the Meeting.
    > Every notice shall contain a statement of the business to be discussed at
    > the Meeting.
    > Motions (to General Meetings):
    > 5. The final Agenda shall be issued to [Delete: Local
    > Insert: members] at least [Delete: fourteen days Insert: three weeks]
    > the Annual General Meeting.
    > 6. Urgent business, not included on the Agenda for the Annual General
    > Meeting, may be discussed, provided two-thirds of the [Delete: delegates
    > Insert: members] present consent.
    > 7. Except as otherwise provided, voting on all motions before a General
    > Meeting shall be by a show of hands [Insert: and by prior postal
    > from absent members].  Decisions shall be by a simple majority of those
    > voting, except in the case of alterations to the Constitution (see below).
    > In the event of an equality of votes the chairman of the meeting shall
    > a casting vote.
    > 7. The rates of membership subscription shall be determined by the Society
    > in General Meeting.
    > Under "Rules":
    > Formation of Local Association/ Branch:
    > Insert
    > (f) The Local Association/Branch must remit to the Society a donation
    > proportionate to the number of Local Association/Branch members, but
    > excluding any who are also members of the Society, the amount to be
    > determined by the Society in General Meeting.]
    > We felt that 3 weeks should be sufficient to allow a turn-round of voting
    > papers, and that should give any member not able to attend the AGM a
    > The election of Board members could be totally by post, having received
    > "Candidate Statements" with the ballot papers. Only the results need be
    > declared at an AGM, thus saving time at that meeting. We felt that if
    > multinational companies could manage their affairs thus, then surely the
    > RSCDS could do so as well.
    > As far as subscriptions go we feel that if our proposals are accepted then
    > the membership of the Society (at HQ) will be determining how much it is
    > prepared to pay, and having to determine a reasonable level of "donation"
    > from the Branches. (There are fiscal reasons for calling it a "donation".)
    > This "donation" may be regarded as a renewal fee for the licence agreement
    > or whatever, and the Branches will be free to determine their own local
    > membership rate and what services to Branch members will be included in
    > subscription. Members of the Society at HQ who also wish to be involved
    > the management, etc of their local association/branch will pay the local
    > subscription rate, excluding the "donation" element.  There may be
    > alternatives possible, but we felt that this reflected the reality of the
    > legal and corporate separateness of the branches from the Society and vice
    > versa. If you like, it is "if you want a vote, you subscribe", which is
    > unreasonable.
    > We anticipate a considerable reduction in overheads if the management is
    > streamlined, and the views of the whole membership will be heard, if they
    > wish to give them. It is not written in, but it is to be hoped that due
    > recognition will be given to the realities of the situation, as the
    > obviously cannot be "milked" to keep Society  membership rates at an
    > unrealistically low level. A balance should be achievable with goodwill
    > round.
    > Andrew.
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Stewart Cunningham" <>
    > To: "Andrew Smith-RSCDS Bristol" <xxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>
    > Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 3:01 AM
    > Subject: RSCDS restructuring
    > > Generally, I like your approach particularly the neat way in which you
    > > have, in effect, put in a two-tier membership without calling it that. I
    > > do worry that you haven't tackled the perrenial problem of overseas
    > > members not being able to vote unless they have the wherewithall to
    > > attend the AGM. Certainly the idea of a 6 man management board >instead
    > an unwieldy 18 member one is definitely a step towards >bringing the
    > > Society's governance into a modern configuration.
    > > I would have like to have seen something about the level of fees as
    > is a principal concern here in Vancouver.
    > > Way to go Bristol Branch!
    > > Stewart Cunningham, Vancouver Branch
    > >
    > >

Previous Message Next Message