The following message might be helpful in the context of recent
comments about the last RGS-IBG Council meeting. I write as one of
three members of Council who voted for the Strathclyde motion.
The debate over Shell was long and in the main thoughtful, even
if many of the speakers were against the Strathclyde motion. I was
struck by the care taken to articulate the reasons for this
opposition. Members of Council had clearly thought long and hard
about the issue. I was not (and am still not) convinced by their
arguments, but I am personally prepared to accept that I was in a
minority, and to abide by Council's collective decision.
So: where next from here? There could of course be a campaign to take
the specifics of the Shell issue further, and force a Special General
Meeting. As several contributors have already commented, this would
probably be doomed to failure. It would also be seen (rightly or
wrongly) as sending a message that members of the former IBG were
keen to disrupt the merged organisation...
Alternatively, there is now another front, the so-called ethics
committee. It was agreed in principle at the last Council meeting
that the RGS-IBG should constitute such a body, and that it generally
be empowered to consider sponsorship/patronage issues, even if this
meant re-negotiating existing arrangements. The discussion document
prepared by Crispin Tickell is I think available from the RGS-IBG for
comment (if not it ought to be, but that's another story). There are
some important issues to be considered here, including the terms of
reference of the committee, and its membership. This for me is now
the constructive way forward. Let's have a strong and clearly stated
ethics policy, and an influential committee to make sure it is
implemented.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|