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 firstname.lastname@example.org ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lara Friedman-Shedlov" <email@example.com> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 > email@example.com > ******************************* > > Quoting Jim Healy <firstname.lastname@example.org>: > > > > 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.