Thread Index

RSCDS restructure AGM motion

Previous Thread Next Thread Unindented

  • ...

    Andrew Smith Sept. 17, 2001, 7:09 p.m. (Message 27394)

    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,
    hopefully, support. Thank you for your patience.
    Andrew.
  • ...

    mlbrown Sept. 18, 2001, 1:59 p.m. (Message 27405, in reply to message 27394)

    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
  • ...

    Stewart Cunningham Sept. 18, 2001, 3:51 p.m. (Message 27408, in reply to message 27405)

    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
  • ...

    mlbrown 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,
  • ...

    Andrew Smith Sept. 18, 2001, 8:50 p.m. (Message 27422, in reply to message 27405)

    Hello, Malcolm,
    Thank you for the analysis. I was originally advocating distribution via
    Branch Secretaries, but gather there seems to be a significant minority who
    are very bad at issuing things to members, so I have to accept that an
    individual mailing is the consequence. Pace all those Secretaries who do a
    sterling job. One mitigating circumstance would be if the publication dates
    were co-ordinated, so that as with shareholder information, in the normal
    course of events one gets the Annual Report and all the AGM material in one
    mailing. There are several models for managing a dispersed electorate. My
    Trade Union had a committee which composited motions as appropriate, so it
    is entirely feasible to do away with the "preliminary and final agenda"
    scenario, for example.  I feel that it is an issue for the Management Board
    to get sorted.
    
    With respect to representation, I feel most strongly that if I am going to
    pay more I want to have my own two-pennyworth rather than through a branch
    rep. As we have pointed out, the Branches are autonomous in law, and it is
    valid for those who wish to support the work of the RSCDS directly, and to
    pay accordingly to have the say in what happens, and not have some branches
    "throwing their weight about" on a size basis. There is nothing in the
    proposed scheme to stop branches running fund-raising activities for the
    Society if they so wish.
    I can imagine that branches might for example put a 50p surcharge on a dance
    ticket, which would have the advantage of probably touching the pockets of
    non members as well.
    
    In this day and age for most of us, and I am on a pension now,  £25 is still
    a considerable sum of money, but in fact it is not much more than a good
    meal out with wine included these days. ( I am paying more than double that
    per term for a yoga class, for example.) I believe that there are many who
    have an emotional commitment to the ideals of the RSCDS and what it stands
    for and has stood for - look at all the pleasure, health and friendships it
    has inspired, and want to give it a kick-start in to the new millennium so
    that new generations can enjoy what we have  enjoyed, and still enjoy.
    I look forward to seeing you at Perth,
    Best wishes,
    Andrew.
  • ...

    Rudge, Janet Sept. 18, 2001, 3:47 p.m. (Message 27407, in reply to message 27394)

    To pick up on a couple of Malcolm's earlier comments -
    
    I don't think the discussion of restructuring the Society for
    the future should always get bogged down over the cost of sending 
    out books and bulletins.
    
    I, for one, have never used the dance instruction books which 
    are sent - I wouldn't bring myself to actually throw them away,
    but they are stuffed at the back of cupboards and I would prefer 
    not to receive them at all.  NB I'm just a dancer not a teacher
    so I don't feel I need my own full copy of dance instructions
    (especially with music which I can't play!).
    
    Also, I hardly do more than flip through the bulletin when it 
    arrives - in fact, this List is a far better source of fuller
    and more up-to-date information anyway.  So, I would prefer not 
    to receive the bulletin either, but to have its contents 
    available on the RSCDS website where I would be able to refer 
    to it but it isn't cluttering up my house.  The same would go 
    for HQ Newsbriefs.
    
    So there's some costs saved straight away.  Even at present
    membership rates, HQ could still have the same amount of money 
    from me and I wouldn't have lost anything I wanted in the first 
    place!
    
    Perhaps I'm not representative, I expect you'll all tell me so!
    
    Malcolm's cost-saving suggestions mostly seem common-sense and 
    presumably can be applied whatever the new management structure 
    looks like - indeed, why haven't they been applied before now?
    I would argue with one, however... Doesn't experience suggest 
    that adding an extra (regional) layer of bureaucracy would have 
    quite the opposite of a cost-saving effect?
    
    I would support Andrew's outline of the Bristol Branch motion 
    for the AGM as a way forward for managing the RSCDS.  I think
    we should bite the bullet now instead of trying some form of
    compromise/deferring tactic for a few years, during which
    things may get steadily worse.
    
    Best regards,
    
    Jan
    Beaconsfield, UK
    RSCDS London Branch
  • ...

    mlbrown Sept. 18, 2001, 6:27 p.m. (Message 27412, in reply to message 27407)

    To reply to the 2 points that Jan has made:
    
    1) She, and probably the majority of the members do not want the book or the
    bulletin - but at least they do get something for the money, and the total
    costs, including the postage are not much of the Society's budget. And we
    are not talking about not producing the book and the bulletin, merely
    producing a smaller number, with a corresponding increase per unit - say
    2,000 books sent to 2,000 individual addresses, rather than 15 - 20,000 sent
    to a few hundred addresses (say 1,500 because of the HQ members?)
    
    Anyway it is not a case of getting bogged down in details of costing, but it
    is a case of putting together a financial model and seeing how robust it is.
    Annual members who pay their subs and receive two items they don't
    necessarily want are I believe one thing ( and something which I can sell to
    my branch members every year) - paying their subs and just getting a piece
    of cardboard are something entirely different. What are the consequences if
    we lose 50% of our annual members?
    
    2) One of the major costs for the Society is the cost of the Exec Council
    meetings - we hold 2 a year with over a hundred people present at each
    meeting - most of the time it rubber stamps the decisions made by
    sub-committees, and the time is spent in trying to find out why the
    committees have made certain decisions, and then arguing about them - it is
    a cross between a debate and a law court (with the conveners of the
    committees feeling like the accused!) The majority of the people attending
    say nothing, and those who do speak often wonder whether they are wasting
    their time. The Society does not pay the first £20 of expenses, but with
    some people having to stay overnight, and people travelling from the South
    of England, some of the costs for individuals are significant.
    
    With a much smaller group of representatives meeting the costs for such
    meetings would be reduced - the costs / time for those attending locally
    based area meetings would be much less (even from York it is an all day job,
    whereas if the meetings were held in Leeds I could be there and back in an
    evening) - with smaller groups attending each meeting more people would be
    encouraged to speak (I think with area meetings the average attendance would
    be between 10 and 20) -
    
    In summary
    a) the costs would be genuinely reduced,
    b) the cost to the Society would be reduced, and
    c) people would be much more actively involved.
    
    Malcolm
    
    (It would also be more democratic, in that at present the large branches
    with hundreds of members have one voice on the Exec, as do those branches
    with 30 or 40 members, but we don't want to bring politics into the
    argument!)
  • ...

    Bryan McAlister Sept. 19, 2001, 10:57 a.m. (Message 27467, in reply to message 27412)

    In article <001d01c14061$09773fe0$xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx>, Malcolm Brown
    <xxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx> writes
    >2) One of the major costs for the Society is the cost of the Exec Council
    >meetings - we hold 2 a year with over a hundred people present at each
    >meeting - most of the time it rubber stamps the decisions made by
    >sub-committees, and the time is spent in trying to find out why the
    >committees have made certain decisions, and then arguing about them - it is
    >a cross between a debate and a law court (with the conveners of the
    >committees feeling like the accused!) The majority of the people attending
    >say nothing, and those who do speak often wonder whether they are wasting
    >their time. 
    Classic isn't.  As a member of various small organisations it always
    exasperates me the way people who weren't at the previous discussions
    fell entitled to reopen the subject from Stage 1 and go over old ground
    again and again.
    
    However it does suggest that either the structure is flawed, the papers
    distributed to members are not adequate or not read, or the Chair person
    needs to shut em up.  Suggest some effort be expended in ascertaining
    which and then take a decision...
    
    Bryan McAlister B Arch RIBA ARIAS
    Web page www.bryanmac.demon.co.uk
    Email xxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xxxxx.xx.xx
    Mobile phone 07801 793849
    FAX number - 0870 052 7625
  • ...

    Andrew Smith Sept. 20, 2001, 8:06 a.m. (Message 27474, in reply to message 27467)

    Bryan,
    This is just the point.
    A meeting of 100+ is not really manageable, for a start, and this is why
    Bristol feels that "small is beautiful". The proposed Management Board is
    just that and it will be elected to do a job, rather than being enthusiastic
    representatives to whom a Chairman might feel more inclined to defer on
    occasion. We feel that it will be more able to be focused, as well as
    cheaper.
    Records of meetings: one has a whole range of options from verbatim to
    merely recording the decisions taken. It may not be very satisfying to be
    receiving the latter, but it is really all that is needed, if the attendees
    are regular, and after all, if a meeting is missed there are always ways to
    find out some of the detail of what was discussed, so therefore punchy and
    paper conserving minutes are OK.
    I think we have had a run of very capable Chairmen with vision. It continues
    and long may it do so.  Thanks are due to them, as to the representatives,
    for their commitment.
    We see the way forward which we are proposing as clear and necessary for the
    future health of the Society.
    Andrew
  • ...

    Stewart Cunningham Sept. 20, 2001, 12:11 a.m. (Message 27482, in reply to message 27467)

    perhaps a training session on governance procedures?

Previous Thread Next Thread