What I don't understand is Ray's apparant reluctance to put in the views of
a proportion of the Society's membership about an issue - what the RSS
Charter should say about "facts about society" (or whatever other terms you
like) given changes over the last 160 years.

I was not joking at all in this -  Denise Lievesley made the point that the
aim was to be inclusive in the Charter at the meeting of the RSS Council
which first considered the new Charter wording.  This is an opportunity to
have a say.  I do not see that as fanciful or misleading.

The strategy and business plan likewise needs to reflect what the
membership want, and, more broadly, what "society" may need from a learned
society in this area.  I would not recommend walking away from
consultations as a way of getting points taken on board.

If there are prior submissions from Radstats on what the strategy/business
plan should cover, then I would be interested to see them.

Greg




[log in to unmask] on 01/09/2000 22:37:00

Please respond to [log in to unmask]
Sent by:  [log in to unmask]

To:   [log in to unmask]
cc:    (bcc: Greg Phillpotts/DRS/DOH/GB)

Subject:  RE: RSS Charter





> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]

> I think it would be especially useful if you/Radstats members
> could produce
> a new aim to clarify the Society's activity and
> responsibilities in the
> area of facts about society.

It is good to see that rare occasion - RSS activists seeking support from
Radstats activists.   But this message betrays fanciful and rather
misleading thinking.   There is little evidence that the RSS has a serious
interest in facts about society.   Greg must be joking in suggesting that
RSS would take observations from Radstats about what RSS aims should be
seriously.

You don't have to look at the proposals for a revision of the Charter.  You
can see the evidence in the Strategy and Business Plan of the RSS that fail
to mention any interest in 'facts about society'.

One factor that might change the situation would be a threat to the status
of the RSS.  It would be quite reasonable to petition the Privy Council to
withdraw the Royal Charter from the RSS on the grounds of nonconformance.
It would not be difficult to show that the RSS does not take a serious
interest in facts about society or pursue any other clearly philanthropic
aims.     The RSS Strategy and Business Plan provides direct evidence that
would support such a petition.

Any support for this way forward?

Ray Thomas, Social Sciences, Open University
Tel: 01908 679081 Fax 01908 550401
Email: [log in to unmask]
35 Passmore, Milton Keynes MK6 3DY







%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%