Thread

strathspey@strathspey.org:44912

Previous Message Next Message

  • Andrew C Aitchison

    Andrew C Aitchison March 30, 2006, 9:35 a.m. (Message 44912)

    Re: The RSCDS Constitution

    On Wed, 29 Mar 2006, john.m.sturrock wrote:
    
    > Now that that 
    > discussion has run its course, perhaps we might turn back to the topic that 
    > could be significant to the future  -  the re-writing of the RSCDS 
    > Constitution.  Membership of the Society has roughly halved over the last 16 
    > years, and we must be coming to some sort of crunch.  Added to that, my own 
    > observations of dancing in many places lead me to estimate that less than 
    > 10% of those dancing regularly in the Milligan tradition, are actually 
    > members of the Society.
    
    If falling membership is the problem, is it appropriate that non-members
    can't see what they think of the proposed constitution ? They may be the
    ones best placed to see if it will cause them to (re)join ?
     
    > The current Constitution was ratified less than 17 months ago, and the 
    > previous Constitution only 24 months before that.  Given the current 
    > situation of the Society, one has to wonder if constant re-writing is in its 
    > own best interests, if the new one will prove any more workable than the 
    > old, and if limited management time would not be better employed facing 
    > problems within the bounds of the existing Constitution(s)?
    
    >                                  Among other things, it appears to grant 
    > future responsibility for future Constitutions, to a newly shrunk Management 
    > Board.
    
    I'm uncomfortable with that in principle.
    Fundamentally, if the members don't control the constitution they don't
    control anything. OK, asking the membership to change it is an effort and 
    an expense, but it shouldn't need changing very often.
    If the membership was obstinately conservative and repeatedly refused
    to make necessary changes to the constitution, that might be an argument
    for a change here, but recent experience is that the membership *are* 
    prepared to change it (perhaps too willing ?).
    If the members wont agree the right changes, that is their perogative;
    if the constitution is changed against their wishes (which is the 
    only reason I can see for this change - I don't accept "expense")
    why should they even bother to remain members ?
    
    [ I'm not a member of the RCSDS, as I rarely dance SC these days. Why not ?
      It isn't a good way of meeting single people in their thirties.
    ] 
    
    Andrew
          

Previous Message Next Message