Dear All,

Since I raised this issue at the beginning of the week, perhaps I can be
permitted another word under Dick Sergeant's governance (I am babysitting
while my wife is out having a life). Forgive the bullet point approach.

1/ Firstly, I think we are all agreed no criticism has been made or implied
of Simon Wilson and others who have been or are now involved with the design
and maintenance of the site. They have done and continue to do a great job,
largely in their own time for all of our benefit.

2/ Similarly, no criticism was meant by me of our elected officers in the
amount of hard work they do. I offer a sincere apology if this was how my
message was interpreted. Having undertaken the odd Society activity myself,
I am well aware how hard their responsibilities are, how this is often
unseen and unacknowledged by the rest of us, and how hurtful it must be when
this is rewarded by apparent ingratitude.

3/ Nevertheless, I defend absolutely my right as a member to challenge the
direction and strategy of my professional body as a corporate organisation,
and to discuss the same - without personal criticism or malice - with my
colleagues and peers. The fact that the Archives-NRA is the only vehicle for
doing this quickly is evidence of the issue I originally raised. The point
has been made that this list is open to non-members, but there is currently
no closed members list on our website as an alternative. And hasn't an
obsolete and limited site sent just as negative a message to the outside
world, albeit passively? In fact, I think this debate to be healthy, and not
at all shaming to our community that it is so open. What is more important?
Saving face or moving forward?

4/ We are encouraged to use traditional (although re-organised) methods of
communication. The fact that we are having this debate - amongst others -
shows that these traditional routes alone (of course they remain crucial)
are slower and not as inclusive as the means now open to us. As evidence,
again, is the time it has taken to propose, discuss and agree a revamped
website. Surely we should be embracing newly available communications tools,
not avoiding and discouraging them or regarding them with suspicion. It may
at times feel uncomfortable, but it does bring officers and members closer,
as this debate has shown.

5/ The issue of prioritising resources needs much more extensive
consultation, and there are clearly seriously challenging issues here. I
personally can't see that we can employ a web designer / administrator full
time, but I find it hard to believe that we cannot buy in expertise as
required, on a contract basis if necessary. Nor do I believe we can simply
say we must do (and pay for) everything we are already doing without a
searching review at least. I really don't think a big increase in subs is an
option that people would find acceptable.

Finally, thanks to everyone who has responded and contributed on and off
list to this discussion. I for one am more informed and enthused as a
result.

David Hay
BT Group Archives

-----Original Message-----
From: Elizabeth Oxborrow-Cowan [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 07 December 2001 11:48
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Society website


Dear All

As a recently retired Assistant Treasurer and thus a former member of the
Management Committee and Council I would just like to heartily concur with
Gareth's comments.  The Society has to fund a very wide range of activities
- just look at the number of Society bodies listed in the Year Book.  While
certain issues may look paramount from outside Council meetings, once in
the meetings one quickly realises that the Society is called on to address
a whole host of issues, all of prime importance to the profession.

I strongly support Gareth's suggestion to members to use the current
methods of communication to put across ideas and concerns. Reorganization
was implemented to try to spread the workload, speed up decision-making and
bring the role of the regions, many members' only link with the Society, to
the heart of the Society's process.  PLEASE use these mechanisms along with
means such as the AGM, the Newsletter, the Annual Report to understand what
the Society is doing.  When there is more than one person involved
comprehensive communication is always difficult but we do have lines of
communication that feed into the decision-making process. (You might want
to consider standing for Chair of the Society and really get to the heart
of things.)

I would also like to dispel the myth that Council and the Management
Committee are some Machiavellian force which works in some dark,
undemocratic way.  Don't forget that anyone can stand for membership and
that the Society members vote for their composition.  All Council work is
reported in the Newsletter and financial activity is summed up in the
Annual Report.  The two bodies have an enormous workload while constrained
by a severe lack of time, finance and manpower.  There is also no personal
glory or payback, other than the interesting work and the pleasure of
working with other motivated professionals.  Council really does work with
the best interests of its membership in mind while working within the
confines of issues such as Charity Law and competing needs of Society
bodies.

I would strongly suggest that if you have an issue about which you feel
strongly please put together a coherent paper which you could present to
Council or your Regional Representative outlining the issues and possible
solutions (with resource implications maybe?).  Please don't just criticise
the Society's decision-makers, inform and assist them. If you have concerns
about what goes on in Council perhaps you might attend as an observer
(Byelaws permitting).  You would soon realise the constraints and
complexities within which decisions have to be made.

The Society is not perfect and perhaps it does have to reconsider how it
communicates with its membership and where its priorities lie.  Perhaps new
solutions such a quinquennial membership consultation to draw up a 5 year
business plan or replacement of the Newsletter with purely the Website
might address these issues. There is no ideal answer but if you think you
have one please tell the Society constructively.  Don't just send out an
angry email to the world about it.

Regards

Elizabeth Oxborrow-Cowan
Greater Manchester County Record Office
56 Marshall Street
Manchester
M4 5FU
England

Tel + 44 161 819 4705
Fax + 44 161 839 3808