strathspey@strathspey.org:27405

mlbrown

Re: RSCDS restructure AGM motion

Sept. 18, 2001, 1:59 p.m. (Message 27405, in reply to message 27394)

Greetings Andrew

The trouble is that "the devil is in the detail".

When discussing this at the Exec we were faced with two "new" facts
1) If we did nothing we were asked to support a motion that the annual subs
should be increased from the current level to £15 -

2) If we went for a 2 tier system, no-one was prepared to put forward a
detailed financial model - what they were prepared to say was that the
lo-cost membership, (membership of the local association, receiving just a
membership card) would be at least £4 or £5 plus the local association
fee. - The high cost version (your HQ members) appeared to be anywhere in
the £15 to £25 region, and would continue to receive a book and a bulletin.

At the moment the printing cost of the books and bulletins works out at
about 50p each, and the postage a similar amount (at least it did according
to some minutes a couple of years ago) - so currently members receive circa
£2 of value for £8.50 of subscription, which I think is a pretty good deal
for the Society. Of course receiving £4 for nothing more than a piece of
cardboard is a better deal, but I personally feel there is something
unethical about it.  We have tried to find out from our members what
application forms they wish to receive (Day School, Weekend School 1,
Weekend School 2, Step School), but find that this is almost impossible to
work properly - people are unable to tick the correct box, and forget to
return forms. So if the local association was to try to obtain books and
bulletins for those of its members who wanted them, they would get the
numbers very wrong. But of course the Society would still be producing them,
and the print runs would be smaller, so the cost per item would almost
certainly rise. Those who were members of HQ would expect to receive their
books directly, with an increased associated cost - it must be cheaper to
send a box of 100 items to one address rather than 100 individual items to
100 different addresses. It would appear to me that the solution you are
currently proposing would actually cost more, which in a cost saving
exercise is ridiculous. Being able to buy books from the Society at a
favourable member rate (? £2.50) does little to compensate for what they are
about to lose.

I'm sorry, but cost saving can be achieved in several ways which have
nothing to do with changing the conditions of membership.
1) We can do those things which cost money more slowly, i.e. defer some of
the spending
2) We can change the management structure into a regionalised system, with a
central management group of much reduced size.
(regionalised meetings of smaller numbers / (Overseas reps as now, but
attending whichever local meeting was convenient) - central reps to actually
represent a group of local associations, each central representative also
being equivalent to circa 1,000 members)
3) We can work to budgets, not giving people the ability to overspend at
will and then report back to people when it is too late.
4) We can appoint project managers, with defined terms of reference,
timescales, and fixed budgets, together with a regular reporting mechanism.

The other thing we can do is find ways of increasing our income from
non-members of the Society - with the current LA /branch structure and
organisation, most of the fund raising activities of Society members
contributes funds to the LA / branches not the Society (Day Schools,
Displays, Shows etc).  There are many activities which through some sort of
central organisation could be organised and raise money - the public will
pay to see SCD, especially if it part of a show. We have musicians and
singers etc.  We have skilled teachers and M.C.s who can organise ceilidhs.
We could even organise "Team Building" / "Listening Skills" / "Leadership
Training" courses if we put our minds to it, and get businesses to give us
money in return. If these were organised by "the Society", then the profit
could go into central funds.

Why do I object to paying more for what I get? Because I think I already pay
out enough, - for classes, club, Day Schools, Weekend Schools, Summer
School. Why do I object to the proposal for others to pay more - because I
think the risk of destroying the Society by such a move is significant. Why
do I object to the proposal for others to pay less and receive nothing?
Because I am convinced that it also risks the destruction of the Society.
The Society can afford to lose money for many years, as it has significant
reserves - I do not believe it can survive a major loss of members.

Malcolm