I too have watched the debate with interest and even on the odd occasion
contribute to it. Like Mathew, Paul and many others it is not because I have
time on my hands, far from it, but because I still feel passionately enough
about our profession and the Society that I want to see it make a
difference. I am also, I have to add, so far advanced in age etc as not to
be so worried about what others might think of what I say and do. I am aware
that for a lot of younger members it cannot always be easy to put your head
above the parapet and get noticed and I therefore applaud those who do and
understand as Will so elegantly put it why the sweaty palm syndrome comes
into play and puts many off.

On the more serious note I was sorry to see that the debate did not go
further but appreciate that, despite not agreeing, we are abiding on the
whole with the wishes of the Society. I still think this is stifling debate
and I agree that without this medium the consultation period is far too
short. I had not realised that we would not get a chance to view the final
draft before it becomes policy. If that is correct then some sort of protest
needs to be made about that.

So what can we do with the mechanisms of the Society to carry the debate
forward. We could, of course, all reply individually to the paper, and as
Paul says if we don't then we cannot criticise what comes out. However I am
realisitic enough to realise that most of us do not have the time or spare
energy to do this. We must, therefore, as a minimum ensure that our Region
and any Groups we belong too make a submission on our behalf and if they are
providing a means of making comment, after all most secretaries can now
receive and distribute by e mail, that we make at least one comment on the
document to them for consideration. I know the BRG Committee are about to
launch a consultation exercise with their membership prior to responding to
the Paper. As another example I have already sent a personal reply to the
Chair and I have had that circulated round my Region, via the Secretary, and
to the two Committees I sit on. We can attend the AGM, not a viable option
for many I know, where the issues will be debated for half an hour. We can
urge the Society to set up a closed discussion site on its website, which if
possible in the next month, and apologies to those who will know better if
it is not or if there are strategic reasons why this cannot be done, would
still allow us a month in which to debate the issues.

A the end of the day if we do not make the effort to respond despite the
obstacles on the way, then the Society can feel justified in doing as it
wants. If we do respond then they will have to take note and act upon our
suggestions. After all that is how democracy is meant to work. So, sorry for
sounding like a Society stooge, which I am not, but can I urge you all to
make some sort of response to this consultation.

Finally apologies to all those on the list serve who are not members of the
Society and who therefore must be wondering what we are all talking about.

Nigel






> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brough Paul [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 28 March 2002 07:51
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: Recent Debate
>
> Thanks to Tom for the helpful suggestion that some of us have time on our
> hands!
> The Society has set a process in motion. I agree that it's too short a
> consultation for serious debate. However, democratic processes only work
> if people contribute. If members do not work with those who are offering
> mechanisms (such as my region) or make their own contibutions direct to
> the Society, they will not in a position to criticise the outcome.
>
> The officers of the society have every right to expect a high level of
> response. The real test will be what is done with those responses. My
> greatest fear is that the Society is not in listening mode...
>
> Paul
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Townsend, Tom [ <mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
> Sent: 27 March 2002 16:11
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Recent Debate
>
>
> I, too, have to admit that I was, to some extent, enjoying the recent
> debate concerning the stategic review but I also suspect that
> participating is an activity engaged in by those of strong opinions with
> (dare I say it?)enough time on their hands to think of and 'pen' a
> coherent contribution. Perhaps coffee breaks are longer elsewhere.
> Seriously though, of course this debate should be happening somewhere,
> and if not here, then where? In my opinion, the Society is in danger of
> losing touch with its members, but then, many of its members are just
> not interested enough in the archival world at large to care what the
> Society's stance is on anything. (I'm not being too harsh, am I?) Many
> of us are only members because we think that it will be of use to us in
> our careers. Unfortunately, the bodyblow concerning our inability to
> achieve chartered status has lessened members' commitment to the
> Society, as has its recent admission that it can no longer sustain a
> role in training diploma candidates. To many, training without some form
> of assessment ultimately lacks credibility. How many attendence
> certificates to training events have you binned recently?
> So, in summary, what am I saying? I think that the Society does have a
> broad educative role both to its members and to those in the wider
> world, but, more importantly for its future continued existence, that
> its key function should be that of providing authoritative training and
> other work-based benefits to its members. It's a sad old world, but I'm
> afraid that, at present, too many archivists are asking themselves
> exactly what do they get for their membership fees and coming up with
> the answer that they don't know.
> Tom Townsend
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Wed 27/03/2002 13:07
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Cc:
> Subject: Recent Debate
>
>
>
> From: Alison Drew, Archivist. Modern Records Section x4072 or
> C
> ity Museum and Records Office 92827261.
> Subject: Recent Debate
>
> *** Forwarding note from INETMAIL--PCC 27/03/02 13:03 ***
> From: I0015126--INTERNET [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Recent Debate
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> From: Alison Drew, Archivist. Modern Records Section x4072 or
> C
> ity Museum and Records Office 92827261.
> Subject: Recent Debate
> I have to admit that I was quite enjoying the recent debate on
> the strategic
> review. Whether the debate should be taking place on the
> listserve or not, it
> is good to see it happen. The annoying thing is, the debate
> has stopped. Are
> we to assume that those people who stuck their necks out were
> in a minority
> and were just venting their frustration on the listserve, or
> that many members
> were in agreement with what has been said but are too scared
> to say anything?
>
> If enough people feel strongly enough that the debate should
> continue on the
> listserve, then hopefully some sort of agreement could be
> reached with the
> Society's councillors.
>
> Alison Drew
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept
> for the presence of computer viruses and none were found.
>
> Portsmouth City Council. IT Services
> (New Rich incoming )
>
> **********************************************************************
>
>
>
>
> The information contained in this email is intended only for the person or
> organization to which it is addressed. If you have received it by
> mistake, please disregard and notify the sender immediately. Unauthorized
> disclosure or use of such information may be a breach of legislation or
> confidentiality and may be legally privileged.
>
> Emails sent from and received by Members and employees of Norfolk County
> Council may be monitored.
>
> Unless this email relates to Norfolk County Council business it will be
> regarded by the Council as personal and will not be authorized by or sent
> on behalf of the Council. The sender will have sole responsibility for
> any legal actions or disputes that may arise.
>
>
>
> ***************************************************************
> Important: This e-mail and its attachments are intended for the
> above-named only and may be confidential. If they have come
> to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must
> you copy or show them to anyone; please e-mail us immediately
> at [log in to unmask]
>
> Security Warning: Although this e-mail and its attachments have
> been screened and are believed to be free from any virus, it is
> the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that they are virus free.
> The Authority will not accept liability for any damage caused by a virus.
>
>
> WEB ENABLED TECHNOLOGIES CODE OF PRACTICE NOTIFICATION
>
> This e-mail has been scanned to ensure it complies with the Group's Web
> Enabled Technologies Code of Practice.
> For more details on the Code see the Group Intranet/Business/Policies &
> Procedures.
>


ALLIANCE & LEICESTER PLC, CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

This communication, and the information it contains
a) is intended for the addressee named above and for no other person or organisation, and
b) may be confidential and/or legally privileged and/or protected in law.

Access to this communication by anyone other than the addressee is unauthorised.
Unauthorised use, copying or disclosure of all or part of this communication is strictly prohibited and maybe unlawful.

If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately by return e-mail and destroy all copies of this communication.

Alliance & Leicester plc is a member of the Legal & General Marketing Group, which is regulated by the FSA.
Alliance & Leicester plc only sells the life assurance and investment products of that group.

Alliance & Leicester plc, Registered office : Carlton Park, Narborough, Leicester LE9 5XX.
Company No: 3263713. Registered in England.
Authorised as bank pursuant to the Banking Act 1987. Member of the British Bankers Association.