Dear All

I know I'm now outside the suggested discussion timetable for the list but
I'll just add one point.  At the end of the day I suspect what frustrates
people is not necessarily the debate but the decision-making process in the
Society but I was not at my desk on Friday.  Inevitably, with the Society
comprising so many interests all geographically spready out democratic
decision-making is slow and not necessarily highly responsive as a result.
If anyone can suggest quicker ways for the Society to make decisions that
the vast majority are happy with then we will have cracked a major issue.

Time to move on to the next subject!

Regards

Elizabeth Oxborrow-Cowan

At 13:10 14/12/01 +0000, Tim Procter wrote:
>Dear all,
>
>Just before this strand of the discussion comes to a close, I'd like to
>belatedly reply to Elizabeth's comments.  David Hay very eloquently
>addressed much of this and I wholeheartedly agree with all he said. My
>posting was not "an angry e-mail to the world", it had some constructive
>suggestions and it did not criticise the amount of work and effort put in by
>anyone linked with Society; what I suggested what that some of that effort
>is perhaps mis-directed and needs review if we are to address the concerns
>that are raised on this listserv and elsewhere time and time again.
>
>This list is an incredibly powerful discussion tool - David rightly pointed
>out its many advantages, and to those I would add that is a great leveller.
>Many people who may have excellent ideas may not be comfortable speaking at
>meetings;  discussions on a list are less prone to being dominated by any
>forceful individual; and people are inclined to give their honest opinions
>as they're not faced with an audience of their peers and/or seniors. (Please
>DON'T take this the wrong way! I am not saying this is what happens at SoA
>meetings, I am merely saying that this is a medium condusive to open
>debate!)  There's also more chance to digest what has been said and
>formulate a considered response, without the time limits of a meeting.  I
>don't post often to the list and thought long and hard about whether it was
>the best place for what I wanted to say.  I concluded it was - I wanted to
>find out if anyone else felt the way I did and whether anyone else felt my
>ideas were any good. This is the most rapid and wide-ranging way of doing it
>(for example there's no general letters page in the Newsletter).
>
>Nor should we be so afraid of those outside the profession knowing what
>we're talking about.  The librarians, academics, transatlantic colleagues
>etc. who subscribe to this list might just have something of real value to
>add from their own professional bodies. The small size of the profession has
>caused problems (e.g. the Chartership issue) and as I said originally we
>need to engage more with the world to raise our own status... but I think
>that's next week's thread. We've already had some excellent ideas from this
>discussion, and not for the first time. Peter Emmerson's suggestion about
>regional cataloguing units entered a wider discussion arena after first
>being suggested on this list earlier this year. As David Hay rightly pointed
>out, this list can feed ideas into the wider professional discussion arena
>rapidly and eloquently, and, like David, I reserve the right to express an
>opinion about the profession and the professional body to which I belong in
>an appropriate medium - and this, I think, is such a medium.
>
>Yours sincerely
>Tim Procter
>Archives of Soho Project
>Birmingham City Archives
>
>(But once again expressing my own opinions.)
>
>
>>From: Elizabeth Oxborrow-Cowan <[log in to unmask]>
>>Reply-To: Elizabeth Oxborrow-Cowan <[log in to unmask]>
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: Society website
>>Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 11:48:08 +0000
>>
>>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
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
>
>
>
Greater Manchester County Record Office
56 Marshall Street
Manchester
M4 5FU
England

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