There are other reasons for staying in and arguing at the moment.
When the decision to join was made, the campaign for a yes vote assured us that the
RGS was solvent and that there were no impending big bills for Lowther Lodge etc.
The new Director has, I understnad, opened the books and found that is far from
the case, and so there is a freeze on including, Roger and Chris can confirm this,
required reductions in the pages in Transactions and Area (our journals?!?!?)
When the IBG was the IBG the sales of Transactions and Area to libraries
not only covered the direct costs but produced a very substantial suprplus, so much
so that, in effect, IBG members got their copies free: their sub went on other activities.
Now, it seems, the 'surplus' (or part of it) will have to be sued to cover other aspects
of the RGS activities, including paying off its debts. So we are not gaining by going in,
which is what we were assured was the case: we are losing.
Some will argue that we will lose more if we end corporate sponsorship (or some of it).
But that is a choice we can make in full knowqledge of the information: some of us said at
the Strathclyde meeting last eyar that we would countenance a rise in subs to cover the
lost income from Shell (if it is lost). WE were prepared to make a cosncious, democratic
choice. Those who voted for the merger made a conscious choice on bad information (at
the very least) regarding the financial situation, and will now have to pay the price for that.
Ron Johnston
On Thu, 28 Nov 1996 09:44:41 +0000 Liz Bondi wrote:
> From: Liz Bondi <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 09:44:41 +0000
> Subject: on being in and against or out and against
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> I have a sense of deja vu! Did we not air much the same debate (about
> being in or out of the RGS) early this year? I welcome new suggestions -
> like exploring GA membership. As Adam makes very clear there are no simple
> answers about just when it is appropriate to join or resign from an
> organisation like the RGS. There are dangers in staying in, there are
> dangers in staying out. I'm not convinced that it matters as much as Adam
> and Chris suggest. Speaking personally, I've never been a member of the
> RGS and I'm certainly not (yet) moved to join, but I don't rule that out
> forever. I am going to the annual conference anyway. I left the old IBG
> for a number of reasons including the fact that I felt drained and
> despondent after several years of organising within it. I'm more than
> happy for others to take up the baton and work for change within the RGS.
> But there isn't much point (as far as I can see) in being a 'sleeping'
> member. So for those of us like me who would, at this time, do sweet f.a.
> inside (because my personal priorities lie elsewhere), it makes more sense
> to be outside.
> Liz Bondi
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|