strathspey@strathspey.org:27413

mlbrown

Re: RSCDS restructure AGM motion

Sept. 18, 2001, 6:42 p.m. (Message 27413, in reply to message 27408)

Stewart wrote:


> I just have one comment on your posting, Malcolm and that is about the
level of
> fees. It seems to me that most members have got used to the 8.00 UKP level
so
> why not keep this level for what you call the "lo-cost" membership and let
the
> HQ members pay a higher fee.
> Of course I agree that a thorough - and hard-nosed - review should be
completed
> of all expenses as well. Incidentally you left out one and that is moving
the HQ
> from Coates Crescent.
> Stewart Cunningham, Vancouver

Our current Annual membership fee is £10, (1.50 for the branch and £8.50 for
the Society) - for this the members get the book and bulletin, and they and
all the other dancers in the area get monthly Dances, 2 Day Schools, 2
Weekend Schools, and a quarterly newsletter. In other words the branch
members get very little for their money. (OK we give them reduced prices at
dances, but we cannot be too severe as we wish to encourage as many people
as possible to come!) If all we gave then was piece of cardboard I doubt if
they would bother to join - if they only had to pay the £1.50 they would be
interested, and so would I! But if they don't join they cannot be members of
the branch, and without members the branch will die.

To me risks are more than just probabilities, they are consequences which
have to considered. If the consequence of a decision could be the death of
something we love, then it is a risk I am not prepared to take.

I'm sorry I forgot about moving out of Coates Crescent as a cost saving
exercise - I must be getting old!

Malcolm


>
> Malcolm Brown wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Andrew Smith" <xxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>
> > To: <xxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 6:09 PM
> > Subject: RSCDS restructure AGM motion
> >
> > > Anselm has kindly agreed to my using the good services of the
Strathspey
> > > server to advertise the motion which Bristol Branch is putting before
the
> > > AGM of the Society in November. I hope this is not too long.
> > >
> > > Bristol Branch/Local Association proposes to amend its original motion
to
> > > the following:
> > >
> > > "That Bristol Branch of the RSCDS proposes that this AGM approves the
> > > amendments (attached below) to the Draft Revised Constitution and
Rules of
> > > the Society (already circulated) as will enable implementation of the
> > > following principles concerning the Management and Membership of the
> > > Society:
> > >
> > > 1 That the present management structure of the RSCDS is replaced by a
> > > Management Board and other Committees as described in the report of
the
> > > General Purposes Committee presented to the Executive Council on 12
May
> > > 2001.
> > >
> > > 2  That membership of the Society may be as a Member at HQ and/or of a
> > > Branch/Local Association.
> > >
> > > 3 (a) That every fully paid up Member of the RSCDS at HQ shall have
the
> > > right to vote at General Meetings, and to elect such Members to the
> > > Management Board and Standing Committees of the Society at HQ;
> > > (b) That a Branch Convention be convened annually to provide a forum
for
> > > Branch members to discuss issues affecting the Branches and put
forward
> > > proposals to the Management Board of the Society at HQ.
> > >
> > > 4  That all Members of the Society at HQ should pay their
subscriptions
> > > direct to HQ, and all Branches/Local Associations should make an
annual
> > > donation to HQ proportionate to the numbers of Branch/Local
Association
> > > members which they have (exclusive of Members at HQ), the annual
> > > subscription and donation amounts to be set by the Society at HQ AGM.
> > >
> > >
> > > The philosophy which underlies our approach is to ensure that all
eligible
> > > people who wish to be regarded as subscribing members of the RSCDS may
be
> > > so, making payment for membership in accordance with their level of
> > interest
> > > and/or means. The main issue is that all members will be eligible to
apply
> > > for places at the Schools and purchase Society publications,
recordings,
> > > accessories etc at members' discount without distinction, as they all
> > > support the Society. The principal difference will be that rights to
vote
> > > for and participate in the management of the Society will only attach
to
> > > those subscribing as Members of the Society at HQ. Such Members may,
in
> > > addition, choose to be members of a Branch as well as HQ Members.
> > >
> > > There is some concern that Branches will feel the loss of their Branch
> > > Representatives, resulting in a lessening in the relationship between
> > > Branches and HQ. The reality of the structure now is such that the
> > Branches
> > > are legally separate bodies. In recognition of that independence it is
> > > proposed that there is no mandatory requirement for any member of a
Branch
> > > to also be a Member of the Society at HQ. In order to maintain the
> > > relationship between Branches and Society HQ it is proposed there will
be
> > a
> > > Branch Convention, which members of Branches may attend. Branch
Members
> > may
> > > also attend the Society AGM as observers, and of course Branches could
> > raise
> > > issues of concern with the Society at any time, as licence holders.
> > >
> > > We are also looking for the original smaller Management Board with 6
> > elected
> > > members in addition to the Officers and Committee Convenors, rather
than
> > the
> > > 18 currently proposed by the Exec.
> > >
> > > I have not appended the proposed constitutional changes to implement
the
> > > above, which form part of the motion. Anselm has offered space on the
web
> > > site for a longer submission, if people are interested. I will do my
best
> > to
> > > answer any points, and would welcome your views, and some indication
of,