Responses to the news that the RGS-IBG Council has rejected the
Strathclyde motion appear to have produced two workable suggestions and
two unworkable suggestions.
To take the latter first, I do not believe
that the threat of mass resignations would have any effect other than to
anatognise the majority of the RGS-IBG Council and to split the Critical
Geography camp between those who would be willing to resign and those who
wouldn't. Without any alternative organisation to resign into I cannot see
anything constructive coming out of that course of action at the present.
A postal vote, as Liisa Cormode suggested, has more attractions, but
unfortunately the RGS-IBG Constitution does not allow for a postal ballot
on an issue like this and I cannot imagine the RGS establishment bending
or changing the rules to help an anti-Shell victory.
That seems to leave two options:-
Either we accept the Council's decision and turn our attention to ensuring
that the Ethics Committee is a serious, authoritive, body and encouraging
it to review all of the RGS-IBG's current corporate patronage. This, as
David Sadler commented, would be the most constructive action we could
take; but it would mean effectively conceding that the specific battle
over Shell has been lost. The Ethics Committee may choose to look at Shell
again, but I am sceptical that it (a) has the power to revoke Shell's
sponsorship against the will of the Council, and (b) would be willing to
re-open the argument. Then again, after 8 months maybe the specific issue
of Shell has become irrelevant?
Or, we press the Shell issue further by calling for a Special General
Meeting to vote again on the Strathclyde motion. Under the RGS-IBG
Bye-laws the Director has to call a SGM if more than 40 fellows or
associate fellows express their disatisfaction with the Council's decision
on the Strathclyde motion. At the SGM the motion would need the support of
two-thirds of those *present* in order to be passed - a high hurdle to
jump. Calling for a SGM would involve a considerable commitment in terms
of attending the meeting, encouraging colleagues to attend, and
campaigning to persuade non-academic RGS-IBG members to support the motion.
More immediately, it would also need the commitment of at least 40 fellows
or associate fellows to write to the Director now. So far there has been
no indication that support for pressing the Shell motion further exists in
that kind of number. Is silence to be read as a vote to accept the
Council's decision?
Michael Woods
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|