Thread Index

What happened?

Previous Thread Next Thread Indented

  • ...

    Stewart Cunningham Nov. 5, 2001, 6:34 p.m. (Message 28046)

    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
  • ...

    Katharine Hoskyn Nov. 5, 2001, 9:50 p.m. (Message 28049, in reply to message 28046)

    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
  • ...

    Jim Healy Nov. 5, 2001, 10:41 p.m. (Message 28051, in reply to message 28046)

    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    withdrawn)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
  • ...

    Lara D. Friedman~Shedlov Nov. 5, 2001, 10:58 p.m. (Message 28052, in reply to message 28051)

    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>:
  • ...

    John Fenningworth Nov. 6, 2001, 8:52 p.m. (Message 28059, in reply to message 28052)

    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
  • ...

    Oberdan Otto Nov. 6, 2001, 11:49 p.m. (Message 28065, in reply to message 28059)

    >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
  • ...

    Shellagh Whyte Nov. 7, 2001, 11:09 p.m. (Message 28073, in reply to message 28052)

    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
  • ...

    Stewart Cunningham Nov. 6, 2001, 4:20 a.m. (Message 28054, in reply to message 28051)

    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
  • ...

    Pia Walker Nov. 8, 2001, 11:01 p.m. (Message 28078, in reply to message 28054)

    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. :>)
  • ...

    Andrew Smith Nov. 7, 2001, 9:42 a.m. (Message 28068, in reply to message 28051)

    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.
  • ...

    Katharine Hoskyn Nov. 6, 2001, 10:31 p.m. (Message 28062, in reply to message 28046)

    Thank you Jim for the update on the AGM - greatly appreciated.
    
    
    
    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

Previous Thread Next Thread