Thread

strathspey@strathspey.org:28073

Previous Message Next Message

  • Shellagh Whyte

    Shellagh Whyte Nov. 7, 2001, 11:09 p.m. (Message 28073)

    Re: What happened?

    From William Whyte
    
    My own conclusions regarding the AGM are more positive than those
    posted so far.
    
    My first comment would be to console those ardent reformists who
    are
    disappointed that the Bristol motion was defeated. Personally I
    doubt that the amended Exec Council motion would have received
    the necessary two-thirds majority vote if it had been the only
    choice on the agenda. Having the Bristol motion on the agenda
    initiated a debate on what amount of reform to have, rather than
    a debate whether to have reform at all.  Thus we (those who want
    change)
    should be grateful to Bristol for presenting this catalyst. A
    move to one member - one vote is not excluded in the longer term,
    once we see what a leaner executive system can do.
    
    As a first-time attendee I was impressed by the quality of the
    debate, albeit I heard no reasoned/serious argument for a zero
    increase
    in subscription fee whereas there must be a case to be made for
    finding alternative ways to increase the Society's income. If
    there is such a pathological distaste for raising subscription
    levels there surely are other ways to extract money in a less
    painful manner. But again if John Fenningworth had not argued for
    a large (percentage-wise) increase to 15GBP the actual increase
    to 10GBP might well not have gone through.  My feelings now
    however are
    that a repeat request at the next AGM will need a more detailed
    justification to get approved.
    
    The biggest bonus of the new constitution is that there will be
    elections to a Management Board, thus bringing new energy into
    the decision-making process.  But this will bring some aspects
    probably not present until now, politics for one. I do not know
    how much 'politics'  there has been in the past, but where there
    are elections there is politics. Issues will be more defined, and
    indeed the grand debate; "are we a charitable association intent
    on promoting SCD world-wide, or a members association interested
    in having fun dancing" might come more to the fore. Since SC
    dancers are in no way immune from the human weakness of wanting
    to believe in two opposing things at the same time, this is
    unlikely to be settled one way or the other, but maybe the
    question will be understood by more members than is presently the
    case.
    
    Regarding attendance, I do not know whether to be pleased that we
    had 235 delegates or not. How many of these were overseas members
    and how many were UK members "standing-in" with or without
    specific voting instructions? It would be interesting to know the
    number of delegates that could have been there if all branches
    had been fully represented.
    
    Lastly I was struck by the fact that the results of the votes
    were all 'fairly' sensible. I have seen situations in other
    associations where the AGM ended up voting for contradictory
    resolutions, or making rather unwise leaps into the dark. These
    not uncommon mistakes were avoided, despite the fact that the
    mish-mash of motions and amendments were not structured for easy
    understanding.
    
    So common-sense was well in evidence, yet major progress was made
    from a "governance" viewpoint , and we also had a good time
    thanks to the Perth Branch. It didn't rain in the real Scottish
    style either !
    
    
    Bill Whyte
    personal id xxx@xxxxxxx.xx
    
    
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Lara Friedman-Shedlov" <xxxxxx@xx.xxxxx.xxx>
    To: <xxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
    Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 22:58
    Subject: Re: What happened?
    
    
    >
    > So does this basically mean that the only major change from the
    average
    > branch member's point of view is that there will an increase in
    the
    > dues sent to Scotland?  I.e., there will continue to be one
    level of
    > membership, and that all those who are members through a branch
    (as
    > opposed to members through headquarters) will continue to be
    serviced
    > via the branch?
    >
    > I'll certainly be interested to hear more details when someone
    has time
    > to provide them, but from everything I heard up until now, it
    seems to
    > me that increasing dues by GBP 2 isn't really going to solve
    the
    > financial problems faced by the Society.  Are we going to end
    up having
    > another round of proposals next year?
    >
    > --Lara Friedman-Shedlov
    > Minneapolis, MN  USA
    >
    > *******************************
    > Lara Friedman-Shedlov
    > xxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx
    > *******************************
    >
    > Quoting Jim Healy <xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx>:
    > >
    > > 3. Fees - increase to GBP 10 approved (GBP 15 tossed out and
    GBP 12
    > > withdrawn)
    > >
    > > 4. New 23 member Management Board to be elected at next
    year's AGM
    > > (Option 1) approved by a large majority
    > >
    > > 5. Bristol motion for one member one vote (Option 3) was
    defeated by
    > > a margin of about 3 to 1.
    > >
    > > 6. Edinburgh motion to put it all off to next year was
    defeated
    > >
    > > 7. Proposal to set up "Friends of the RSCDS" was defeated.
          

Previous Message Next Message