Try this guy's commentary:

http://www.martinblyth.co.uk/poetry_society_shakeup.htm

I pulled this off the net somewhere. It's identical to the material I
received from the PSGB a few days ago. Veterans of the 1970s poetry
wars will no doubt smile at the reference to the members saving the
society from its leadership in the 1960s: I'd wager that this in fact
refers to a period ca. 1974.

Tony



Poetry Society Extraordinary General Meeting 30 March 2004

 The Director, Jules Mann, opened by stating:

 “The powers of the charity have been broadened so as to take into
account developments in charity law and the various activities that the
Poetry Society is now involved in. The Poetry Society Trustees have
been working through the changes of the Constitution with their lawyers
(Bates, Wells & Braithwaite) since the end of 2002. The proposed new
Memorandum and Articles are much more clear, precise and relevant to
the Society's operations than the 1993 version and should continue to
serve usefully for the foreseeable future.

 “The most controversial item in the new Articles is the proposed
change to the membership structure. This change would give the current
members of the Society rights as "Friends" to elect two trustees. At
present, members elect all the trustees and enjoy all the rights of
legal members: for example the right to vote at AGMs. In the last ten
years there have been 8 trustees nominated directly by members, and
voted on by those present at the AGM. The remaining 32 nominations
during that period were put forward by existing trustees. This has been
a compelling reason for formalising what has been the demonstrable
governance of the Society for the past decade.

 “Although this is a significant change, it is intended by the Trustees
that the full scope of the day-to-day services currently provided to
members will remain unchanged. In governance terms, the Trustees will
become the only legal `members' and existing `members' will become
`Friends'. In practice the Poetry Society membership scheme and all day
to day operations will refer to those Friends as `members' - e.g..
individual members, school members, youth members, etc.. - and there is
no change to the membership scheme, competition entry discount to
members, etc..

 “One significant improvement afforded by the proposed Rules Relating
to Friends is that Postal or Electronic Voting will be allowed: "The
Company Secretary will send a ballot paper by post and/or email to each
Friend detailing the nominees for election by post and/or email". As it
stands now, only those nominees who present their case convincingly or
are well known enough by those present at the AGM are voted on to the
Council, since proxy voting is not allowed under the current
Constitution.

 “Although the Poetry Society is a membership organisation, its
outreach is felt by thousands worldwide. It is funded by the Arts
Council for its outreach, development and education work, and many of
its other services are self-funding. Its remit is much wider than its
membership arm.”

 Dissenting views (with some additional comments from Council) were
expressed as follows:

 A member stated that she finds the proposed revised Memorandum and
Articles to be unacceptable because the disenfranchisement of members
is unnecessary, totally alters the spirit of the present constitution
and is to the detriment of members. She expressed the view that a more
effective way to solve the Poetry Society's stated concerns, namely (a)
the recent perceived non-involvement by members, and (b) the need for
an efficiently run, expanding modern organisation, is to introduce more
personnel in the shape of an Executive Committee functioning as a board
in addition to the Trustees. She proposed that the Poetry Society
investigate an alternative constitutional structure which retains
members' privileges and gives more support to the paid staff of the
Poetry Society.

 Another member stated that a small AGM attendance is evidence that the
Poetry Society has been doing well, but that this doesn't mean you
should remove the franchise - this would remove the ability of the
membership to check the Council if things start going wrong, as they
did in the 60s when the membership did save the organisation from its
leadership.

 A member argued that as soon as you lose the ability to vote, you lose
goodwill and help from members, especially those outside London .

 One dissenting Council member (elected in January 2004 after the
proposals were approved by Council) expressed his worry that the
proposed changes were the thin end of a wedge, and that market forces
would mean that the Society, which currently lets members know they are
not alone scribbling in a garret, would freeze out the membership or
sell the building for office space.

 A Member asked if there would be financial advantages to the Society
if membership was run according to the proposed Memorandum and
Articles. The Council answered no.

 A Council member pointed out that while the Council agrees that
Council elections are a good thing, the right skills mix cannot be
guaranteed from the small numbers of potential Council members put
forward. A member suggested that if a skill was missing from the
Council, then the Council could find outside expertise. A Council
member pointed out that this would both cost the Society much more and
take much more time.

 A member drew attention to the article allowing the Council to invest
money through financial advisers. The solicitor acting for the Society
explained that this is standard Charities Commission wording; a Council
member added that it carries no compulsion and only applies to moments
where the Poetry Society finds itself cash-rich and could make more
money for the Society from a short-term investment than a standard bank
account.

 Another member drew attention to the article allowing payment to
Council Members, and said that the Society should not set up any
article that could be open to abuse in the future. A Council member
explained that the Council felt it was necessary to allow modest
amounts otherwise poets on the council would be prevented from, for
example, having work published in Poetry Review; the amounts are too
low to invite abuse, but enough to tempt poets to the Council. No more
than half the Council is allowed to take this up in any one year, the
Charity Commission has approved the clause in question and the Arts
Council both audits the accounts and has a representative at every
meeting to ensure there is no abuse.