strathspey@strathspey.org:44914

Anselm Lingnau

Re: The RSCDS Constitution

March 30, 2006, 9:57 a.m. (Message 44914, in reply to message 44912)

Andrew C Aitchison wrote:

> 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 ?

Taking this the other way round, I don't think people generally leave the 
Society on purpose because they have a beef of some kind with its 
constitution. In fact I wonder how much of the membership reduction is due 
to, er, biological reasons -- old members of long standing passing through 
the Pearly Gates with not enough new members coming in to make up the 
shortfall. Are there any numbers at HQ giving an insight into this?

The question then remains not primarily how to maintain existing members, but 
how to attract new ones. This has more to do with how the Society presents 
itself to prospective members, and again I would venture to guess that the 
constitution is the least of its problems in that regard. Sure, the 
constitution should be a reasonable one and allowing for efficient management 
of the Society, but how many people have recently said »Well, SCD is really 
the bee's knees but with *that* constitution I'm never going to be an RSCDS 
member«?

> >                                  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.

I agree with Andrew here. I'm all in favour of efficient management of the 
Society, but the Management Board has been elected by the membership (in a 
roundabout way, but still elected) and should not be given the power to 
basically perpetuate itself into eternity by changing the constitution in 
that regard. Not that I believe this is likely to happen, but it is good to 
have the safeguards even so. (We Germans have a story or three to tell about 
things like this, if you look at the history of the 20th century.)

Incidentally, I don't know about Scottish law in this regard and I expect this 
has been vetted beforehand, but an arrangement like this would not be legal 
here in Germany. Changes of the constitution of an »eingetragener Verein« 
(registered association) must always be approved by a general meeting of the 
membership. There is no way you would get this change past the court of 
registry.

> [ 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.
> ]

You should come to Germany, then :^)

Anselm
-- 
Anselm Lingnau, Frankfurt, Germany ..................... xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx
None can love freedom heartily, but good men -- the rest love not freedom, but
license.                                                        -- John Milton