Thread
Index
for those concerned with the RSCDS
Angus Henry
June 24, 2001, 6:55 a.m. (Message 26386)
The Future or otherwise of the Royal Scottish Country Dance Society: an overseas perspective from the Committee of Management, NT Branch RSCDS, Darwin, Australia.. The Society is undergoing painful but necessary change and has two major related tasks - one is to restructure and become much more efficient and economical, the other is to adjust fees and charges to ensure financial viability. However, the proposal to increase fees to £15 first, and then look at efficiencies afterwards, is seen as a total reverse of sensible management. It is suspected that this might be because decision-making members in UK are very much out of touch with exchange rates in much of the dancing world, but we ask that the following comments be given SERIOUS consideration before it is too late. We understand that discussions might be taking place during Summer School. If the comments below are applicable to your branch, please support; if not, please ignore. A. COST 1. QUOTE - " . . . over the last 12 years we lost on average just under 3% of our membership per annum; however in the last year which had a subscription increase, we only lost 1.5%." (notes to Finance Committee minutes of 28-04-2001). This does NOT compare like with like - this time the proposed increase is a huge 46.7%, not an incremental adjustment, for no increase in benefit. A similar rise in house or car rental would make most people have to think seriously about jumping ship. 2. In Australia, £15 = A$42. This will buy a good pub lunch or Asian cafe meal for 7 people; or 42 litres of petrol: a nearby hotel provides roast dinners on the 4 quietest days of the week for $3.50 each i.e. the equivalent of 12 adult dinners for the cost of an annual subscription. These prices match our comparative incomes, and we invite our UK colleagues to similarly price such cost-of-living items and translate them in pounds to see an equivalent effect to that which the rise will have on us here. 3. We have been a very loyal branch and our constitution requires that all who dance with us (visitors from interstate or overseas excepted) are members of the RSCDS. A straw poll suggests that very few if any will pay/can afford the rise. Of our present enrolments (enthusiastically already paid up for 2001-2002) of 7 Long-term, 27 Annual and 6 Junior Associates we will have, a year from December, 7 Long-term, perhaps 2 Annual, and 6 Junior Associates. By May 2003 the number of Long-term members will have dropped to 4 and by July 2006, to 2. These numbers are obviously insufficient to continue, and further recruitment will be nigh impossible to an undersubscribed and expensive organisation. To continue dancing we will therefore have to amend our constitution to permit non RSCDS members to dance, at reduced cost. By 2006 it is quite likely we will be too few even to form a Committee of Management. ONCE THIS STEP IS TAKEN IT WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE TO GO BACK; we will not be able to ask members to pay more for the same service at a later date. The RSCDS will have virtually ceased to exist in Northern Territory. B. SERVICE 1. We used to have plain but informative Bulletins; now we have big, glossy colourful empty ones; **we would be happy to do without, or have the information on the web page. 2. The Newsbriefs contain little practical information and are usually left lying on the table by members **we would be happy to do without, and have more detailed and up-to-date information on the web page. (Note - we have already saved the Society £26 000 per annum with the above two items!) 3. We know of no instance where having "a vote" has made any practical difference as far as we as a branch are concerned to the running of the Society; we would be happy to do without if this would save massive and not very efficient gatherings in the name of democracy. Indeed, we would prefer to see the Society run by a small group of practical and dynamic people whose responsibility was to the development of a lean mean and efficient machine servicing members and developing SCD world wide. 4. Our members value; (a) access to Society support for the few who make it to Summer School and for the occasional visit from H/Q; (b) the subscription book and (c) the authority which the Society brought to SCD as a world standard setter, lost for a few years of trying to be all things to all men, and seemed to be resuming recently. **BASICALLY: A LOW MEMBERSHIP FEE, GIVING ACCESS TO RSCDS FUNCTIONS, PERHAPS A SUBSCRIPTION BOOK SO THAT THERE IS SOMETHING TANGIBLE TO SHOW FOR MEMBERSHIP (IF BOOKS CONTINUE TO BE PRODUCED), AND MAYBE A CHEAPLY PRODUCED BUT FACTUALLY INFORMATIVE BULLETIN (ALTHOUGH THIS COULD BE ACCESSED VIA THE WEB PAGE IF IT WOULD SAVE MONEY) WOULD SAVE MEMBERSHIP LOYALTY. EXAMINATION AND H/Q TEACHING VISITS COULD THEN BE LOOKED AT SEPARATELY; FOR US THEY ARE FEW AND FAR BETWEEN.** IN SUMMARY: we see it as essential that the Society does all its house keeping, reorganisation and cost-cutting BEFORE adjusting fees; if thoroughly done, the increase may well prove to be totally unnecessary, but if the huge fee increase is introduced first we suggest that so many members will be lost that recovery might not be possible and economies of scale no longer be available to the Society, which in turn might become a small UK organisation only. -- Angus Henry; Secretary, NT Branch RSCDS web site <http://www.octa4.net.au/ahenry/>
Well this is one thing you could change - SCD should be open to anybody, and then if people so desire and one would hope that the Brances would recommend it, they could become members of the Branch. I know that this is not what is happening in many places, but to me it seem like the reason why RSCDS is seen as elitist and outdated and why our membership is falling. 3. We have been a very loyal branch and our constitution requires that all who dance with us (visitors from interstate or overseas excepted) are members of the RSCDS. With regards to bulletins and other "glossies" - It is clearly stated in them when items of interest should be submitted to be included. If items or requests are NOT coming from the Branches, how can you then turn around and say that they are not containing relevant information, if there is something you want to see in these, then I suggest that you put that to HQ. It is not all branches who have access to the web, and therefore although it sounds a wonderful idea, you cannot have all information on the web only. If we don't start looking at the prices realistically, we won't have an RSCDS to belong to. RSCDS could do so much more - and much quicker - for SCD all over the world, if it was allowed the funding. Regarding the price in overseas money: How much does a CD cost around the world? and how many of you buy the occasional CD or other recorded music (not necessarily from RSCDS). The new annual proposed support for the RSCDS, stands in UK terms as more or less one CD a year. It is fine to say that it cost the equivalent of 12 dinners, but after all once they are eaten there is nothing left - with RSCDS you have a chance to support Scottish Dancing for years to come. Currently there are well over 2000 people out there from all over the world who pay £15 (gladly) and get only very little - yet they cannot have a say - and I would estimate that there are many more who would like to do this, when RSCDS finds a way to incorporate them in the management system - if all this doom and gloom is correct, these people will according to your letter be the saving of RSCDS, not the branches. To be very nasty and please don't take it personally - it is meant as a statement to make people think: Is it the case that Branch members can't or WON'T support the RSCDS when it is most needed????? The question is then: Does the Branches do enough to enlighten their members what it is that RSCDS stand for. How many of the Branches have supplied their members with the RSCDS objectives etc????? Can the failure of promoting RSCDS not also be laid at the door of the Branches, giving us the current situation. Sorry - to be such a wet blanket (I haven't had my morning coffee yet) Pia Donning her bullet proof west.
On 24 Jun 2001, at 10:02, Pia Walker wrote: > Regarding the price in overseas money: <...> The new annual > proposed support for the RSCDS, stands in UK terms as more or less > one CD a year. The question is not whether one can afford one CD per year (though for some regions and income groups, the cost of a CD is far from negligible). The question is if one wishes to pay such money to the RSCDS if you can dance just as well without. > <...> Is it the case that Branch members can't or WON'T support > the RSCDS when it is most needed????? Why should members of local groups, who are certainly loyal to that group, feel loyalty to the RSCDS, to which they do not themselves relate? (Their teacher does, of course). And if a local group would have to spend say 30 CDs per year for all dancers to be members of the RSCDS, would they not prefer to spend that money on more urgent and direct improvements, such as a better dance hall, dem costumes or extra live music at an event ? > <...> The question is then: Do the Branches do enough to enlighten > their members what it is that RSCDS stand for. I am sure the dancers know that already. I expect most would accept to pay a "trivial" fee of say 2 UK pounds (3 Euro) for the "good cause". But as soon as the fee becomes a significant expense, the question "what is in it for me" becomes a deciding factor. 15 UK pounds is not "trivial". Happy dancing, Eric Eric T. Ferguson, van Dormaalstraat 15, NL-5624 KH EINDHOVEN, Netherlands tel: (+31)(0)40-243 2878 fax:40-246 7036 e-mail: x.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xx
Does anyone know why the RSCDS quit publishing the feature in the
bulletin that had contacts for branches and affiliated groups
worldwide? Several of our members found it very useful when traveling.
Mike
--
---------------------------------------------
Norma Briggs Voice: 608 835 0914
Michael J. Briggs Fax: 608 835 0924
BRIGGS LAW OFFICE
1519 Storytown Rd Oregon WI 53575-2521 USA
---------------------------------------------
HTTP://BRIGGSLAW.HOMESTEAD.COM
---------------------------------------------
On 24 Jun 2001, at 14:25, Angus Henry wrote: > <...> from the <..> NT Branch RSCDS, Darwin, Australia.. > > <...> However, the proposal to increase fees to £15 first, and then look at > efficiencies afterwards, is seen as a total reverse of sensible > management. and Angus clearly spells out the danger that this may cause a massive loss of membership. As I posted earlier: > Two local affiliated groups with whom I dance have annual > contributions (all classes but no socials included) of about 90 and > 60 Euro. If we include ancillary costs (travel; clothing; drinks; overnight stays, Balls and Socials; hospitality) one can guesstimate that few dancers will spend less than 100 Euro / year on their SCD hobby. Few members of Affiliated Groups are RSCDS members; the same applies to some Branches. The proposed RSCDS fee (15 UKL) = would add about 22 Euro. For those who "just want to dance" in their local and neighbouring groups (the vast majority) this is an excessive expense, with NO benefits. They read no Bulletin, need no books(let)s, don't go to Summer School, ... For them the RSCDS is nothing but a distant organisation, who once trained their teacher, and supplies unlimited good dances and recordings (via that teacher). Very few will accept 20% increase of total costs (and more % increase of subscription) for nothing extra. In countries with lower cost of living (South Africa, Australian NT) the percentage increase will be even larger. The RSCDS has some 19 000 members (correct me if needed). But the total number of RSCDS style dancers must be at least three times that. Does anyone have an estimate? Why does not the RSCDS try the other approach: instead of "high fees from the few", ask "a small fee from the many". Management Committees of Branches and Affiliated Groups know how important the RSCDS is to them; without the RSCDS they would probably not even exist. I expect that every one of them would be quite prepared to pay let us say 3 % of the annual Branch/Group turnover (membership fees; admission tickets to events) to the RSCDS. Put that at 3 Euro (2,5 US$, 2 UKL) per dancer per year. If ALL SC dancers in the world paid that, it would be a significant "basic" income to the RSCDS (for which hardly any "benefits need to be supplied), and the dancers would "hardly notice the difference". This would in effect eliminate (financially) the difference between "Branches" and "Affiliated Groups" and within each of these between "RSCDS Members" and "other members". Of course some RSCDS members DO want the "individual advantages", like the annual book(let), bulletin, Newsletter, etc. These could then either become "separate subscriptions". or a "Full Service Membership" at a higher fee could be created. For the moment, let us leave out of this discussion the issue of "voting system / voting rights". The present issue is: what strategy does the RSCDS use to keep financially alive. I am convinced that the "small fee from many" is a far better solution than the present proposal. Happy dancing Eric Eric T. Ferguson, van Dormaalstraat 15, NL-5624 KH EINDHOVEN, Netherlands tel: (+31)(0)40-243 2878 fax:40-246 7036 e-mail: x.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xx
While discussing fees, it would be wonderful if a single total annual "per member" fee could be computed that would include everything required to keep the organization running. Right now we tell the dancers that membership costs $14US per year. But in truth it doesn't. There is still the affiliation fee. This is a low cost for groups with many members; it is a huge cost for groups with few members. For our small group, this adds more than 1/3 more per member. If this fee were spread out evenly to all members, it would be lot easier on the small group. We are already touch and go on a year by year basis. Add a substantial increase to the current amount and I can assure you our membership will go poof. There also appears to be hesitation to use the internet to distribute annual publications. Every year I hear about how expensive it is for postage, yet use of the internet as an alternative is rejected. Why? If the material would be made available (pdf format, as done with a recent news article, is fine) I'm fairly certain a way would be found to get that information to anyone not owning a computer. Most of us would simply print a copy and take it to those dancers. If the postage could be eliminated, it would be possible to add features that were dropped, like branch photographs of events. I hope the organization is not spending money creating several recordings. Years ago the RSCDS was about the only group making recordings. Today that is hardly the case and not making recordings seems like it would be one place to save some money. Dance publications should continue. I feel it is imperative to continue having the annual (if at all possible) dance booklet. Those dances have gone through the approval process and meet the RSCDS standards. Could substantial money be saved making those available via the internet rather than paying publication and shipping costs? Is it necessary for the RSCDS to handle items like insurance that benefit part of the organization and not the entire organization? Is this insurance included in everyone's membership fee even though everyone doesn't receive the benefit? "Richard L Walker"<xxxxxxxx@xxxxxx.xxx> Pensacola, FL 32504-7726 USA
Eric wrote:
> (...)Branches and Affiliated Groups know how important
>the RSCDS is to them; without the RSCDS they would probably
>not even exist.
Having previously told us, Eric, that you estimated the total number of
dancers to be at least three times the number of society members, you might
have made the opposite argument:
Without the thousands of people that enjoy dancing around the world (and
without the hundreds of group leaders and teachers quietly doing their
work), the RSCDS would not be as large as it is.
While many dancers are not much interested in what goes on in Edinburgh,
every year there are a few that get the bug and decide to become members
and make the investment (not cheap) of a journey to Scotland. If their are
new recruits at summer school, it is thanks to work done at grass roots
level. If the people that we send to St Andrews are pleased with what the
experience, they will continue to pay their membership fees (it happens).
If they are disappointed (it happens), they will certainly not renew RSCDS
membership -- though we can hope that they will continue dancing on their
home territory.
Yes, we are pleased that the RSCDS exists, but, considering the amount of
help we get from headquarters, I can't say that the independent clubs and
classes would cease to exist if the RSCDS disappeared. But there would be
fewer RSCDS members, if we were not working to entertain, recruit, teach
and maintain enthusisam in far-flung outposts.
As for publications, you can get as much reading in "the Reel", published
by dancers in London 4 times a year for £4, as from the one annual bulletin
from Edinburgh.
Martin,
in Grenoble, France.
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/scots.in.france/scd.htm
(dance groups, events, some new dances ...)
I am a long term member of the RSCDS with membership expiring in 2003. My membership is held with the Houston Branch although I live 400 miles away. As the instructor of the group I value my membership, but I have not pushed it with the other dancers in the group partially for financial reasons (many of my dancers are students or single income families). I would be willing to push an "affiliate" member level that did not include all the publications to each member. I think the suggested rate of the equivalent of 2 pounds would be a reasonable rate. Local branches and affiliates might consider a small discount for "Card carrying RSCDS members" for dances. I do think small from many will be much better supported than large from few, but those who direct the individual groups must see there is some advantage to mass, low- cost membership. Darla Granberry, Lubbock, TX ===== Duin do bheul agus dannsa.
Greetings! If I have understood it correctly, Angus's posting and Eric's comments on it can be summarised as essentially arguing for what was Option 3 rejected at the recent Executive Council meeting. It was, of course, the preferred Option of those who put together the discussion paper. The rejection by the Executive - your Branch Representatives - means that only Option 1 which includes a significant fee increase will appear on the Agenda in November. That is unless some Branch comes up soon with a properly approved motion which puts it back on that Agenda - there have been some suggestions that this might happen. I agree with Angus and Eric that Option 1 will result in a significant loss of members, particularly overseas. I am even more concerned that we will find ourselves in November with a "no" vote to Option 1 which, in addition to delaying correction of the Society's finances, will also have the effect of rejecting the restructuring of the management which many people agree is urgently needed. At the end of the day, therefore, this is going to be down to getting the votes out and making them count. Given the significance of this AGM, it is vital, IMO, that every Branch ensures that they have appointed the delegates to which they are entitled and have instructed them fully in how they wish them to vote on this issue. Jim Healy Perth, Scotland PS There will be plenty of room to dance for all who wish to come to Perth in November :)
The problem here is people are mixing apples and pears The apples - subscriptions The subscription will be going up substantially, unless the delegates vote for something else at the AGM in November since the Society needs money to do what is being asked to do. The problem is we were having to guess in April 2001 as to the effect of increasing subscriptions from July 2002 and knowing that the effect will not be known until after 30 June 2003 when the full year's effect of the increase will become apparent. Two years ago at the May Exec there was a motion for £15.00, but it was voted out, and there was a motion from the floor at the Nov AGM in the same year for £12. So it's not new it just takes a while for people to realise its what is needed to keep the Society going in its current format. It does not make any difference which option the Executive voted for about how the new management structure was elected, the subscription increase is still needed to enable the Society to continue to supply the services that the Executive say they want. The pears - options on the future management structure Option 1 which is the one selected by the Executive, actually has the least effect on the subscriptions, in that the method of voting does not cost the Society anything, since delegates to the AGM either pay for themselves, or are paid for by their branch. Option 2 made the election process as one member one vote, and that whilst the ideal would cost the Society more so would actually mean a higher subscription rate over and above the £15.00 to pay for the postage to cover the elections, since it means posting to each person directly, NOT via branches as at present. Option 3 allowed Branches to have non Society members (Remember the Society is a registered Charity and the Branches are independent so there are two "related" bodies involved) which would suit those who just want to dance and aren't interested in the Society and it's charitable objects. The effect on the Society would mean fewer members, and some lower costs, but an additional increase in the subscription over and above the £15.00. It will be a long AGM John Fenningworth
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, John Fenningworth wrote an comprehensible discussion of our current concerns: I only want to make one point: > It does not make any difference which option the Executive voted for about > how the new management structure was elected, the subscription increase is > still needed to enable the Society to continue to supply the services that > the Executive say they want. I feel less concern in paying about the same amount to another society. Why? They have demonstrated concern for their administrative costs by moving out of a high-rent city to a small town. The first apparent effect of the move was to separate, physically, the local (city) branch from the national society. A side effect of their move was to find a cheaper, brighter, wooden floor dance hall to use for national-group sponsored dances. A third effect, not analyzed by Hdqtrs as far as I know, was to retain their subscription members, and indeed, too see the membership grow. I don't know if this analogy applies to the RSCDS. But I should be told. Member since 1957; member how much much longer? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Priscilla Burrage Vermont US (xxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx.xxx)
Jim says that the ideas being put forward sound like option 3 - but option 3 included the proposal that the keen enthusiastic RSCDS supporters pay even more than the proposed £15 to continue with the current level of service, while even those who wanted a low cost version would pay £4 or £5 just for being a member of the Society and getting nothing in return (plus of course they would have to pay whatever their local branch admin fee was) - my attitude to the high cost membership was similar to Angus' reaction to the £15 increase - no-one would pay it, and the lo-cost version didn't sound like much a deal either! The proposals that will go forward to the AGM from the Exec are 1) that the subs be increased to £15 2) the option 1 re-organisation (with its smaller management structure) There is no reason why the first proposal cannot be rejected and the second approved. I was interested to read the suggestions for cost saving - but I think we are trying to find solutions to other people's problems. We have a Finance committee and an Exec Council, but the Finance committee only seems to point out the consequences of undertaking all the various activities which are approved by the Council. The suggested increase in subscriptions is a consequence of trying to do too much, and the option of delaying some projects is never seriously considered by the Council (apart from anything else it is too unwieldy for such discussions). There are several possible solutions to the current situation where Income appears to be less that Expenditure - reduce the expenditure, either by finding more cost effective ways of doing the same things, or by reducing the number of things we do, - or increasing income either from supporters by raising subscriptions, or by some other means such as organising profit making events (i.e. obtaing income from the non dancing public!), ---- or we could even just run at a controlled deficit for quite a number of years! The only solution which is ever proposed is to increase subs! Malcolm
In a message dated 25/6/01 10:51:59 am, x.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xx writes:
>Dear Nicolas,
>On 25 Jun 2001, at 4:42, xxxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx wrote:
>> EFDSS subscription stands at £26.00 p.a.
>The issue is not total cost, but how much you have to pay to HQ
>over and above the fee needed to keep the local group running, and
>what you get from it?
>Can you please explain on the List what members get for the 26
>pounds?
>Eric
>Eric T. Ferguson, van Dormaalstraat 15, NL-5624 KH EINDHOVEN, Netherlands
>tel: (+31)(0)40-243 2878 fax:40-246 7036 e-mail: x.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xx
Our organization is different, in that we no longer run local groups from the
centre - they are run autonomously and independently.
Those who choose to belong to the Society pay £26.00, and for that they
receive four quarterly issues of English Dance and Song (glossy coloured
magazine, A4 and approximately 40 pages) inside which is a 4-page in-house
produced Newsletter; The Folk Journal (annual scholarly A5 publication
running to approximately 150 pages); free access to the Vaughan Williams
Memorial Library, and discounted entry to many events at Cecil Sharp House
and elsewhere round the country.
There is a further category, which is Affiliation (of groups), where the
publications are supplied as to an individual, and in addition the Society
offers Public Liability Insurance cover at no cost to the Affiliate. The
Affiliate subscription is £35.00 (from memory, which might be a pound out!)
Nicolas B., Lanark,
Scotland.
One area that could use a bit of improvement (and that might even bring in a buck or two) is my perceived(?) contradiction where kids are concerned. We say we want them but we can't just say "pay your dues" and "here's your card" along with everyone else. They end up feeling like non-members -- which I guess they are. Why? Other organizations seem to give kids (full) membership even if they aren't old enough to vote, hold office, etc. "Richard L Walker"<xxxxxxxx@xxxxxx.xxx> Pensacola, FL 32504-7726 USA
G'Day, Lydia, Have you looked at the License agreement? As I read it, the licensee must pay a capitation fee for every member of the licensed organisation. If you do not, then your Branch no longer holds a license. I think that one initial solution is to vary the license agreement to permit all Branches to do what the Nova Scotia Branch has done. I had been thinking of raising this issue before Lydia did so. Sydney Branch Committee members have already raised the principal concerns raised by Angus and others prior to the meeting which selected option 1. We couldn't prepare a proper submission as there wasn't time to do so, but we made our concerns known; it had no effect! Brian Charlton, Sydney, Australia.
Brian, The license may require that "the licensee pay a capitation fee for every member of the licensed organisation," but it doesn't require that everyone who attends a class must be a member. Although we are an affiliate and not subject to the license, the Austin group separates membership from class participation and fees. Members get a discount on class fees. -- Tim Harrison -- Austin, Texas
> Should we perhaps follow the lead of the ancient Romans and appoint a > "Dictator" to sort things out? > They tend to be much more effective than committees ;-) A dictatorial approach might not be suitable in a country which stated in 1320* what the limits of executive power were to be. Besides, effectiveness is no longer a valid criterion - what we should be striving for is consensus, ownership and resolution. Peter Hastings Royal Observatory Edinburgh :) * for those unused to the 24 hour clock, 1320 is just after lunch...
And how many need the RSCDS to dance? One doesn't NEED to be a member of the Sons of the American Revolution because one is descended from a Revolutionary soldier. One doesn't NEED to be a member of any equestrian society to ride horses. Etc., etc. Dues increases will, after a certain point, start making many members depart. Same principle as the Laffer curve.
A comment on the below. Everything has a useful life, and dies. Has the RCSDS completed its useful life???? Bye At 01:52 PM 6/25/2001 -0400, you wrote: >And how many need the RSCDS to dance? >One doesn't NEED to be a member of the Sons of the >American Revolution because one is descended from >a Revolutionary soldier. >One doesn't NEED to be a member of any equestrian >society to ride horses. Etc., etc. Dues increases will, >after a certain point, start making many members depart. >Same principle as the Laffer curve.
> how many need the RSCDS to dance? None How many need the RSCDS to do RSCDS-style SCD ? Historically - all Short-term - none Long-term - all The absence of the RSCDS (or a similar co-ordinating body) will lead to the fragmentation and localisation of our pastime, but it won't happen quickly so we don't need to worry about it... Peter Hastings Royal Observatory Edinburgh :)
In a message dated Tue, 26 Jun 2001 7:45:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Peter Hastings <xxx@xxx.xx.xx> writes: The absence of the RSCDS (or a similar co-ordinating body) will lead to the fragmentation and localisation of our pastime, but it won't happen quickly so we don't need to worry about it... --- Hasn't there traditionally been localised forms of country dance? That was certainly true of highland dance until some group decided they wanted to standardize highland dance for competition purposes. There is something to be said for that so everyone is competing on the same scale. But outside of competition, if I do my highcuts differently than someone else, no one probably cares.
xxxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx writes: > --- Hasn't there traditionally been localised forms of country dance? > That was certainly true of highland dance until some group decided they > wanted to standardize highland dance for competition purposes. There is > something to be said for that so everyone is competing on the same > scale. But outside of competition, if I do my highcuts differently than > someone else, no one probably cares. That's fine if you're a highland dancer. The point of highland dancing, after all, is making a spectacle of oneself (only), and who cares about all the others on the stage? Scottish country dancing as a *social* pastime had had local variations for a couple of centuries, and see where that got it -- it was only after the (R)SCDS was established and the dances and dancing were standardized that SCD really took off as an international thing. There are more Scottish country dancers today than there ever were when `local variations' were the done thing. And I personally happen to think that it is probably the greatest asset of the Scottish country dance scene that I can go from Frankfurt to Edinburgh, Boston, Cape Town, Tokyo or Melbourne and expect everybody to dance the figures the way I do, which means I can join in instantly without having to figure out all the `local variations' first. Compare that to, say, international folk dancing, where teacher A will gladly tell you X and teacher B Y (the direct opposite), and they will both claim that their way of doing things is the One True Way, or with (contemporary) ballroom dancing, where you can count yourself lucky (or very able indeed) if you can manage to strut your fancy stuff with anyone other than your designated partner that you have been practising together with for month. Being able to dance socially, from the word go, anywhere in the world with people from all over the world is the true legacy of the founders of the RSCDS and not something to be thrown away at all lightly, for the sake of a few quid a year. Anselm -- Anselm Lingnau .......................................... xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied on to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers. -- William James
Anselm wrote:
>it is probably the greatest asset of the Scottish country dance scene
>that I can go from Frankfurt to ... Melbourne (and) I can join in
instantly ...
>
>Being able to dance socially anywhere in the world
>with people from all over the world is the true legacy of the founders
>of the RSCDS and not something to be thrown away at all lightly...
Very true (it's no fun at all ballroom dancing or folk dancing with peoople
that have learnt a different style).
But a strange comment from someone living in a country where most of the
groups seem to be flourishing quite independently of Headquarters. The
enthusiasm in Germany is such that we can easily more information of dance
events around Europe than we ever get from Coates Crescent.
In what way does the RSCDS encourage its members to attend events outside
of Scotland?
Martin,
in Grenoble, France.
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/scots.in.france/scd.htm
(dance groups, events, some new dances ...)
It is more than they had a couple years ago. Improvements come one step at a time. Right now they have country vs. branch information. Now they can add branch information vs. affiliated group information. Relational information like this is not a piece of cake to toss together on a web site. I'm glad to see them working on it. For now, the InterCity Scot site at URL: http://members.tripod.com/~InterCityScot/ does a good job for Canada and the US, and the links at URL: http://www.tm.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de/strathspey/groups.html help to provide contact information at many other locations. "Richard L Walker"<xxxxxxxx@xxxxxx.xxx> Pensacola, FL 32504-7726 USA
On 26 Jun 2001, at 18:19, Richard L Walker wrote: > The web site at URL: > http://www.rscds.org/ > has a pretty good list of branch addresses, branch contacts and > world-wide dance events in addition to the usual resources. If you travel, you need to know ALL places where there is dancing, not just the few that happen to be a Branch. What is the good - for example - of knowing all the Branch addresses in Germany (zero), when there are 9 Affiliated Groups, and in all 63 active SCD groups? Fortunately RSCDS.org now has link to the Celtic Circle site, which gives nearly complete information on events and groups in Continental Europe. All ideas on how the RSCDS could better use its website to the benefit of SCD world wide certainly deserve attention. Who has suggestions?. Eric Eric T. Ferguson, van Dormaalstraat 15, NL-5624 KH EINDHOVEN, Netherlands tel: (+31)(0)40-243 2878 fax:40-246 7036 e-mail: x.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xx
>... or with (contemporary) ballroom dancing, >where you can count yourself lucky (or very able indeed) if you can >manage to strut your fancy stuff with anyone other than your designated >partner that you have been practising together with for month... While I believe Anselm's remarks are quite on the mark, and although I do not which to seem "disloyal" toward SCD...if you are so lucky as to have a regular partner with whom to develop and match couple dancing skills, the payback for "oneness in movement" is much more frequent and of greater intensity than is possible in SCD. The reason is simple: it is FAR more difficult to get 6 or 8 people who dance together occasionally to move in a coordinated unison than for two people who dance together regularly. AND there is a couple-dancing subculture analagous to SCD called Round Dancing which is available throughout the US, Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. Like SCD, the dances are pre-choreographed to specified music so that changing partners is quite feasible if you are so inclined. Back to the original thread: I do hope the RSCDS does not shoot itself in the foot with overly aggressive subscription rates and organizational changes. I am certain that the proposed changes are well intentioned and I hope that the crystal balls of those proposing them are much clearer than mine. A major factor affecting membership in the RSCDS is that people DO have other choices for how to spend their time. How do we get them to choose SCD? Oberdan. 184 Estaban Drive, Camarillo, CA 93010-1611 USA Voice: (805) 389-0063, FAX: (805) 484-2775, email: xxxxx@xxxxx.xxx
Eric was kind enough to remind me that the link mentioned in ><...> the links at URL: > http://www.tm.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de/strathspey/groups.html > help to provide contact information at many other locations. should now be: http://www.strathspey.org/groups "Richard L Walker"<xxxxxxxx@xxxxxx.xxx> Pensacola, FL 32504-7726 USA
> From: Anselm Lingnau <xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx> > To: xxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx > > > Being able to dance socially, from the word go, anywhere in the world > with people from all over the world is the true legacy of the founders > of the RSCDS and not something to be thrown away at all lightly, for the > sake of a few quid a year. > > Anselm Well put, Anselm. Speaking from personal experience, mine, and others in our group in Central Iowa, USA. In our collective experiences, we have danced in Yemen, Kenya, Germany, Scotland, Australia, Canada, England and Japan as well as all over the United States. Here in Central Iowa, we've had dancers join us from Scotland, England, Canada, Belgium, Hungary and Japan, and several areas of the United States. When friends and I have gone to other countries to live for extended periods of time, the first thing we did was to locate the nearest Scottish dance group - aided by the RSCDS Bulletin. The various groups we danced with not only enabled us to continue dancing in a faraway place, we also made new friends. And friends is really one of the most important reasons we do this. All this would not have been possible without the RSCDS. Gayle Hoepner Ames, Iowa USA
Following an SGM of the branch, the following motion is put forward to the Society AGM: "That Bristol Branch of the RSCDS proposes that this AGM approves such amendments to the Constitution and Rules of the Society 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. Comments derisory or supportive welcome, especially constructive amendment. Fiona Grant RSCDS Bristol Exec Council Rep.
On 4 Jul 2001, at 12:43, Fiona wrote: > <...> the following motion is put forward <...> "That Bristol > Branch <...> > 1 <...> [no comment] > 2 That Membership of the Society may be as a Member at HQ > and/or of a Branch/Local Association. > 4. <...> 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), <...> This is not clear. Will ALL members of Branches and LAs automatically be members of the RSCDS, or can each Br / LAs also have members who are not RSCDS members? Clarification is needed; otherwise muddled discussions will arise. As this is not a modification (which would need an amendment) HQ might be happy to append an addendum to the text to be circulated in the Provisional Agenda. > 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 <...> . Members living close by can attend the AGM much more easily. If it is "one member present, one vote", this rule would largely disenfranchise members living overseas. If that is not your intention, please amend your motion to clarify.. > 4 That all Members of the Society at HQ should pay their > subscriptions direct to HQ, International payments carry horrendous bank costs, and handling all these individual payments places a heavy load on (salaried) HQ staff. What is wrong with channelling such payments via some local Branch / LA in the member's country? Happy dancing, Eric Eric T. Ferguson, van Dormaalstraat 15, NL-5624 KH EINDHOVEN, Netherlands tel: (+31)(0)40-243 2878 fax:40-246 7036 e-mail: x.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xx
As a Bristol Committee member involved in the drafting of the proposals, I am not sure of the correctness of RSCDS business being aired in detail on a non-RSCDS forum, however RSCDS-orientated it may be. However, as it is now in the public arena, may I quote part of the preamble which has been sent to the Secretary with our Motion, and hopefully provide some clarification: "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. " Accompanying the submission was a copy of the Constitution and Rules amended to show ( subject to final review by the Constitution sub-committee) the changes felt necessary to implement our proposals. On the subject of membership, we see that our proposal gives 2 routes to membership of the RSCDS. We see that all members of a Branch will be members of the RSCDS by definition. A Branch/LA will not therefore have non-RSCDS members. I believe that there may be some misunderstanding here, because apparently under the present arrangements some Branches have made membership compulsory if one wishes to attend the Branch class(es). In Bristol one does not have to be a RSCDS member to attend our classes, but the class fee is higher for non- members. We are not saying that you have to be a Branch member to dance with a Branch. That is a policy matter for each Branch to decide for itself. In the "Constitution and Rules" changes we have written in that there will be postal/proxy voting, (and increased the notice time for Agendas, motions etc to 21 days from 14) so that all those who elect to become Members of the Society at HQ are not disenfranchised on grounds of distance. This mechanism is implicit in our proposal that "every fully paid up Member of the RSCDS at HQ shall have the right to vote at General Meetings".(C.f. Shareholders of large companies do not all attend the AGMs , but they can still exercise their vote in absentia, if they so choose.) On the question of international banking charges, I can make no comment, other than presumably some of the existing HQ members live outwith the UK, so it may be managed at present, but I agree that we do not know at what cost. I understood that some of the problems were down to Branches not communicating effectively with their membership, as I was previously advocating the Branches being used as a conduit as much as possible. However, I do not see a problem, if international money transfer is proving expensive, of some accommodation being reached with the Branches to collect and forward the subscriptions of those Members of the Society at HQ who would like to use that route. Even if there is a legal separation between HQ and branches, I do not see that stopping us working together, because of the unity of the RSCDS is the underlying principle. Sorry about the length - I hope it has been helpful. Andrew.
Back to reform of the Society committee structure: To provide clear strategic direction, how many members should sit on the proposed Management Board? How many would be too many? As there is a division of opinion on this crucial matter, I'd be interested in strathspey readers opinions. Or let your branch delegate know!! Fiona RSCDS Bristol
Fiona wrote :- > > To provide clear strategic direction, how many members should sit on > the proposed Management Board? How many would be too many? > > As there is a division of opinion on this crucial matter, I'd be interested > in strathspey readers opinions. > and, rather surprisingly, there has been no reply so far. C. Northcote Parkinson considered this very question in the 1950s. I have searched my house for chapter and verse, found two of his books, but not the one containing this. Has anyone else got a copy ? From memory, he concluded that Deliberative bodies became decreasingly effective as the number of members increased beyond eight. Based on this, the Publications, Examinations, Summer School, Etc, Committees are all about the right size. Eight might be considered rather small for a Board of Management, limiting the range of opinion, but at the same time, if Parkinson is right, every extra member will decrease the effectiveness of their discussions. John Sturrock Cambridge UK
In a message dated 07/04/2001 7:57:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, xxxxx.xxxxx@xxxxxxx.xx.xx writes: > Back to reform of the Society committee structure: > > To provide clear strategic direction, how many members should sit on the > proposed Management Board? How many would be too many? Fiona, Whatever number is chosen, one of the key aims should be to ensure that a wide a variety of opinion is represented on the Management Board. A larger number of members might help achieve this, but not necessarily. The WAY in which the members are elected also counts. How can we ensure the greatest diversity? I have taken a quick look at the Management and Membership proposals, and at the Constitution, but I cannot tell how the voting would be done. As a quick reaction, I would think that a system that caters to minority interests such as a single round of voting from a single list would be desirable. Chris.
Eric Ferguson <x.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xx> writes:
> > 4 That all Members of the Society at HQ should pay their
> > subscriptions direct to HQ,
>
> International payments carry horrendous bank costs, and handling
> all these individual payments places a heavy load on (salaried) HQ
> staff. What is wrong with channelling such payments via some
> local Branch / LA in the member's country?
This is an eminently sensible idea, and indeed I think that is what
happens today. We have a bunch of HQ members in our club (which is
affiliated with the RSCDS), and every year our secretary collects the
money from the annual members and transfers it to HQ in one go.
Everything else would be what in computer science we call a WOMBAT¹.
Anselm
¹ Waste Of Money, Brains And Time.
--
Anselm Lingnau .......................................... xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx
My life has a superb cast but I can't figure out the plot.
-- Ashleigh Brilliant