Hello Everyone,
Anne Nash, organiser of the lunchtime session on 7 September at the BA Festival,
has authorised me to post here on her behalf the letter of complaint that she
has sent to Peter Briggs. I was present at the event, and I can certainly
confirm all the deficiencies of which she complains, and I agree that they
deserve wide airing rather than being buried in the BA filing system.
Best wishes
J Ralph Blanchfield MBE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
27, Severn Drive,
Walton on Thames
Surrey KT12 3BH
12 September 2000
Mr Peter Briggs
Chief Executive
British Association for the Advancement of Science
23, Savile Row,
London W1S 2EZ
Dear Mr Briggs,
BA Festival of Science
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As organiser for the lunchtime session on Thursday 7 September, I write to
express my dissatisfaction about the organisation of the BA meeting.
Meeting room
~~~~~~~~~~
* The room allocated (340) was changed to 311 after the programme had gone to
press but session organisers were not advised of this. I found out by default.
* There was no addendum slip put into the programmes either sent out in advance
or available 'on the day'. Not helpful for visitors!
* Directional signs provided by the BA were totally inadequate. The room was
not easy to find. The other organiser and I both had to put up our own notices
to provide adequate signing. (The speakers' room was equally 'discreetly'
hidden)
Structure of the programme
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* When I applied for a lunchtime slot, the timing was clearly set out on a
sheet giving a clear hour from 1 - 2 pm for the lunchtime session with a quarter
of an hour either side for set up/clear up. BUT the programme as printed did not
reflect these times, the afternoon session being timed to start at 2pm.
Effectively, we lost 25% of our time! This is not acceptable.
* The lunchtime session wasn't advertised in the programme adjacent to the full
day meeting on 'the future of food'. Why not? They complement each other.
The objectives?
~~~~~~~~~~~
Clearly the BA's objective was to satisfy the media and to publicise the BA.
This demanded a lot from the speakers in preparing abstracts, full papers for
the website and attendance at press conferences. Fine, but what about attracting
the public to come and listen, question and meet with the speakers?
>From my perspective, there seemed to be no real interest in attracting a live
audience. Apart from the difficulties, summarised above, that a member of the
public might encounter at the time of their visit, the timing of the meeting
itself and publication of the programme in the middle of the summer holidays
precluding a visit to the Festival being integrated into any school or college's
programme. Interest groups / organisations take a break in the summer, so
attracting visits by them via the programme is a lost cause also.
I realise that you can't guarantee an audience or force people to come but do
you have to make it so difficult for them?
I am most disappointed and disillusioned about the motive for the Festival
itself. The organisation of whose behalf I acted paid £500 for the privilege of
participating. The speakers put a lot of effort into satisfying BA demands but
what real support did the BA give the session?
Yours sincerely,
Mrs Anne Nash
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|