Thread
Index
What happened?
Hello I am sharing Stewart's anticipation - sitting at the other end of the world we do think about these things. I was thinking about the AGM most of the weekend and was wondering what was happening. Even some quick brief feedback would be good if people don't have time for longer responses. Katharine Hoskyn Auckland, New Zealand Katharine Hoskyn xxxxxxxxx.xxxxxx@xxx.xx.xx Phone: 917-9999 ext 5349 Faculty of Business Auckland University of Technology Private Bag 92006 Auckland >>> xxxxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx 6/11/01 06:34:31 >>> OK lets quit the anticipation - could some one who was there let me know what happened at the RSCDS AGM last Saturday. The silence is killing me! Stewart
Greetings! The headline version of the AGM, as requested. 1. Audit of accounts (financial statements) had not been completed so they couldn't be approved. 2. Elections - all unopposed except six to Executive who are: Dorothy Hamilton Andrew Kellett Alistair Reid Margaret Ross Pauline Stewart David Watson 3. Fees - increase to GBP 10 approved (GBP 15 tossed out and GBP 12 withdrawn) 4. New 23 member Management Board to be elected at next year's AGM (Option 1) approved by a large majority 5. Bristol motion for one member one vote (Option 3) was defeated by a margin of about 3 to 1. 6. Edinburgh motion to put it all off to next year was defeated 7. Proposal to set up "Friends of the RSCDS" was defeated. The meeting ended at 6:50 pm having started at 2:30 and was technically an adjournment as a re-convened meeting will be needed to approve the Accounts when they are available. There were also some social functions but I was far too involved in those to be able to report on them. Jim Healy Perth, Scotland
So does this basically mean that the only major change from the average branch member's point of view is that there will an increase in the dues sent to Scotland? I.e., there will continue to be one level of membership, and that all those who are members through a branch (as opposed to members through headquarters) will continue to be serviced via the branch? I'll certainly be interested to hear more details when someone has time to provide them, but from everything I heard up until now, it seems to me that increasing dues by GBP 2 isn't really going to solve the financial problems faced by the Society. Are we going to end up having another round of proposals next year? --Lara Friedman-Shedlov Minneapolis, MN USA ******************************* Lara Friedman-Shedlov xxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx ******************************* Quoting Jim Healy <xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx>:
No the Society which is a registered charity since the 1950s and whose members are supposedly more interested in what they can do for the charity than what their memberships gives them as members has taken some very important steps towards a far more responsive and reactive organisation. The Society will in the next year or so create a far more streamlined management and as a result hopefully an organisation, that can better meet the challenges that face the Society in the years ahead which also should save the Society money And although the subscription increase was lower than the Finance Committee would have liked at least it is an increase towards the level it should be I believe that next year we should be asking for more yet again As a final remark as a Scot I would say to all those "members" who aren't really interest then leave the Society now and save the Society a fortune in producing things in which you are not really interested And to all real true members pay your subscriptions direct to HQ and make things even better Finally.... If the Branches want non Society members then they can have them if they only knew how and it's really quite simple but you have to work it out yourselves Regards, John
>As a final remark as a Scot I would say to all those "members" who >aren't really interest then leave the Society now and save the Society a >fortune in producing things in which you are not really interested >And to all real true members pay your subscriptions direct to HQ and >make things even better If that is not an inflammatory remark, perhaps someone could educate me on what is??? Oberdan. 184 Estaban Drive, Camarillo, CA 93010-1611 USA Voice: (805) 389-0063, FAX: (805) 484-2775, email: xxxxx@xxxxx.xxx
From William Whyte My own conclusions regarding the AGM are more positive than those posted so far. My first comment would be to console those ardent reformists who are disappointed that the Bristol motion was defeated. Personally I doubt that the amended Exec Council motion would have received the necessary two-thirds majority vote if it had been the only choice on the agenda. Having the Bristol motion on the agenda initiated a debate on what amount of reform to have, rather than a debate whether to have reform at all. Thus we (those who want change) should be grateful to Bristol for presenting this catalyst. A move to one member - one vote is not excluded in the longer term, once we see what a leaner executive system can do. As a first-time attendee I was impressed by the quality of the debate, albeit I heard no reasoned/serious argument for a zero increase in subscription fee whereas there must be a case to be made for finding alternative ways to increase the Society's income. If there is such a pathological distaste for raising subscription levels there surely are other ways to extract money in a less painful manner. But again if John Fenningworth had not argued for a large (percentage-wise) increase to 15GBP the actual increase to 10GBP might well not have gone through. My feelings now however are that a repeat request at the next AGM will need a more detailed justification to get approved. The biggest bonus of the new constitution is that there will be elections to a Management Board, thus bringing new energy into the decision-making process. But this will bring some aspects probably not present until now, politics for one. I do not know how much 'politics' there has been in the past, but where there are elections there is politics. Issues will be more defined, and indeed the grand debate; "are we a charitable association intent on promoting SCD world-wide, or a members association interested in having fun dancing" might come more to the fore. Since SC dancers are in no way immune from the human weakness of wanting to believe in two opposing things at the same time, this is unlikely to be settled one way or the other, but maybe the question will be understood by more members than is presently the case. Regarding attendance, I do not know whether to be pleased that we had 235 delegates or not. How many of these were overseas members and how many were UK members "standing-in" with or without specific voting instructions? It would be interesting to know the number of delegates that could have been there if all branches had been fully represented. Lastly I was struck by the fact that the results of the votes were all 'fairly' sensible. I have seen situations in other associations where the AGM ended up voting for contradictory resolutions, or making rather unwise leaps into the dark. These not uncommon mistakes were avoided, despite the fact that the mish-mash of motions and amendments were not structured for easy understanding. So common-sense was well in evidence, yet major progress was made from a "governance" viewpoint , and we also had a good time thanks to the Perth Branch. It didn't rain in the real Scottish style either ! Bill Whyte personal id xxx@xxxxxxx.xx
Someone asked me whether progress had been made. Although I accept that this depends on your perspective, my answer was "yes" although it is slow. As I see it the important change that has occurred is in the speed with which decisions may be made. Under the old structure they could only be made at Executive Committee meetings that were held just twice a year. Under the new structure (that won't come into effect until after the November 2002 AGM) a new Management Board will be created that will be able to meet much more frequently, will not be so unwieldy (although 23 is still a large number) and will hopefully be able to make quicker and better decisions. Have I got this right? Stewart
I was sitting thinking about whether progress had been made, and for some reason my thoughts went to Darwin, dinosaurs and what happens when your off-spring looks different from you. Darwin had theories on evolution. Dinosaurs didn't - and look what happened to them and just imagine what Mr and Mr Neanderthal and their social circle would have said if their son/daugther one day in the supermarket managed to reach the top shelf without trouble? - they would have been horrified of such a strange creature.:>) You can read into this what you want, but yes I think progress was made - enough so we won't become extinct this ice-age, but not enough to reach the top shelf of the supermarket yet. Pia Who still wants people out there to acknowledge the HQ members, by letting them have a say. and whose brain has been on standstill since Sunday and whose backside is now just about alive again. :>)
Jim was too modest to report on the social functions: they were most enjoyable, and an exciting experience for a first-time attendee. Over 500 dancers on the floor (probably a conservative estimate) at times, and superb acoustics inside the splendid dome of the Bells sports centre. Both bands, David Cunningham for the Friday ball, and the Colin Dewar Quartet for Saturday's dance, gave us amazingly danceable music. The only criticism would be the supper facilities, and the time the third sitting had to wait, but it was a good supper, and it gave one the chance to socialise. It wasn't feeding the 5,000, but I bet the catering staff felt as if they had been. The crib (or "cheat", as I think some call them) booklets were handily sporran/evening bag sized and very welcome, and will make a souvenir of a memorable weekend. Thank you, Perth Branch. Andrew.