Thread
Index
RSCDS restructure AGM motion
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.
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
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
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,
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.
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
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!)
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
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