Spending our Reserves

Rob Boden has written a couple of letters in September-December 2011 issue of Signals detailing his work of setting up a Swallows campsite at the IAGM and also proposals for spending some of our funds held in reserve.

I think these proposals merit further consideration, as there is a need to move TARS forward and to recruit more and younger members. To my mind, if it comes to fruition, the proposed S&A movie is going to be the major opportunity to spread the word about AR and TARS

In addition there have been two major events this year that TARS has not been involved with and perhaps should have been present. There were the restoration and launching of the film Swallow and also the Exhibition at Brantwood. Together with no apparent positive representation at the musical, it appears much is passing by TARS. Hopefully the new committee can address some of the apparent current lack of thrust.

Looking at Rob’s proposals in detail, it is true that we collect the subscriptions at the start of the year and spend them thereafter and with no ongoing expenditure apart from insurance there seems little need for extensive reserves.

Sign boarding locations and developing a S&A Trail. This is an essential especially if the film comes to fruition. There may have to be two sets of locations as there are the “accepted” locations and another set where filming takes place. Tours of film location sites are very popular.

Replica campsite. Rob has already made great strides to set this up and his appeals for items to complete the camp should not be difficult to finance. We must also consider transportation and storage.

Charcoal burners wigwam. I agree this would need to be planned in conjunction with the forestry commission. Not sure whether this could be done in conjunction with the film company as they presumably will need to have a set in the forest unless they do it on a stage. Really ought to include a charcoal mound for authenticity.

First Edition Library. This would be an interesting project but very costly for SA and SD. Should really rely on donations from TARS or bequests from their Estates. Perhaps Linden Burke, the TARS stallholder, should be consulted.

Dogs Home Survey. I thought the point of this was that it should be a derelict building. Perhaps if the roof is to collapse completely or the walls to tumble, then action should be taken.

Schools Resource Pack. This is a slight development of the plan of our Treasurer to use existing reserves. Definitely something that we must do.

Sailing Replica of Amazon. Would rather wait to see if the film company has an Amazon and perhaps another Swallow after filming for acquisition. Unless the Literary Executors have already snapped up right to such artefacts as part of the licensing deal.

Others may have thoughts on how we might proceed. It does seem a pity that the IAGM (although I was not present) does not give time for discussion – unless this is a deliberate ploy.

These are some very good ideas for the future, and ones which will no doubt be welcomed by the Board and Regions. I just wish Owen hadn’t made the insinuation at the end, that the curtailment of the Members’ Forum might have been “a deliberate ploy”. As TARS National Secretary at the time, I take exception to that insinuation, particularly as Owen was not even at the meeting. Here are the facts, to allay any suspicions which he and other members may have.

The amount of time available for the ‘business AGM” and the subsequent Members’ Forum is a matter of negotiation each year between the TARS Board and the IAGM Organisers. The Organisers, quite understandably, want to maximise the time available in a crowded schedule for meals, other events, activities with juniors, socialising at the bar before a meal etc etc. The discussions this year were fairly frenetic, but in the end we agreed a compromise on the basic time of 4.00 to 6.30, with a possible extension to 7.00 if business had not finished by 6.30. The AGM itself did take longer than expected due to an extended (and important) discussion about the accounts audit. By 6.30 we had finished the AGM proper and everyone wanted to get up and leave the tent to stretch their legs and the other usual needs.

I agree that the Members’ Forum is important, but due to the way in which IAGMs are generally organised these days, the Forum is highly likely to be squeezed out. The Executive Officers at the time of the May IAGM are people I know very well, and neither Flo, Liz, Ted or myself would ever countenance a deliberate rigging of the timetable in the way Owen suggests. Perhaps a more helpful suggestion would be to look to the future and request the 2012 Organisers please to try and build in an hour for the Members’ Forum and, if possible, ring-fence it.

Speaking as an observer at the meeting, I'm confident the "squeezing out" of the Members' Forum was not a "deliberate ploy". As Peter mentioned, there was an unexpectedly lengthy discussion about one of the agenda items on the AGM agenda, and this ate up the limited  time available. It's happened before (indeed, mea culpa, it happened at the last AGM I chaired in Falmouth). I certainly didn't see any evidence at Glasbury to suggest that the officers had planned it that way. Nor, from what I know of them, can I imagine Flo, Ted, etc, being so underhand as to try to do so, even if the thought had crossed their minds.

In any case, if I recall correctly, some members did contribute opinions and ideas about the use and retention of reserves within the debate about accountancy fees. So it's likely that  some of the comments which might have been made in the Forum were voiced anyway, in the AGM itself.

I'm not sure what the best answer is to prevent the AGM "squeezing out" the Forum. Maybe they should be held at different times during the IAGM weekend, and with a different structure, to reflect their respective purposes? The AGM itself is meant to be a formal business meeting, so lends itself to the conventional layout of the officers facing the floor, plus a formal agenda. The Forum, however, is not a business meeting. It has no decision-making powers, but is meant to provide an opportunity for discussion and debate on any subjects that concern the members present. Maybe it would work better if held as a separate event in its own right, rather than as an afterthought, tacked onto the business meeting? A less formal physical arrangement might help too - maybe something like a circular gathering. This could be chaired by the incoming chairman (if it occurs after the officers have been elected for the forthcoming year). Or perhaps it should be chaired by someone else, thus giving the Society's officers the chance to listen more effectively to the opinions expressed, rather than focussing on managing the Forum itself.

I've no idea whether the above would produce better results than the existing arrangements. There are certainly practical disadvantages in holding the two at different times, as any previous IAGM weekend organisers may well be quick to point out. But having the Members' Forum as an event in its own right might elevate its status, and also guarantee a time slot when those taking part are reasonably fresh, not frazzled by the business meeting. It might  also provide a chance for younger members to take part and offer their ideas.

Obviously I accept Peter Hyland’s assurance that it was not a deliberate ploy to forestall discussion at the meeting.

However it does reveal a time management problem that has been present for a number of years, to allow enough time for the members, whether in a formal meeting or an informal discussion, to consider matters of concern to TARS.

I do think that the suggestion in Peter’s last paragraph of a “ring fenced” hour for a forum is very sensible.

Geraint has suggested a separate time and the inclusion of younger members which again would be helpful.

I do hope future organisers and Board members can incorporate these ideas for the benefit of forthcoming meetings.

I appreciate that the local organisers have a plethora of ideas to fill a weekend and that making time for formalised discussions can be difficult. But this time is important for the future of TARS and to ensure that the ideas and aspirations of members can be considered. This is probably more important than anything else at an AGM weekend (apart perhaps from food and drink!) for anyone who is concerned with the future of TARS.

Perhaps time could also be included for those not able to be present to put up a short paper on their ideas – or maybe a group video link. This would perhaps draw in those who cannot be present and may become puzzled by reported actions.

Unfortunately, for health and other domestic reasons, I am unable to be physically present at most TARS events at the moment and I am reliant on the reports and letters in Signals. This will apply to others unable to attend and perhaps sometimes the wrong impression may be created in these writings. It takes further explanation on a forum such as this to correct any misunderstanding. Hopefully other TARS concerned will read this forum.

I am more lucky than Adam - my copy of Signals arrived today and I have had a chance to read Rob's proposals (which largely I liked quite a bit). 

Like Adam I am an overseas member, but I am little concerned with seeing a benefit from any such spending in the U.S.; I want to see it benefit the purpose and furtherance of TARS overall, which largely means in the U.K. and could help draw more overseas people to TARS events in the U.K. as a result.

I think the really important point of Rob's letter is not even so much the specifics of his proposals (although I liked them) as that he offered specific proposals, thereby shifting the debate (I hope) from "should TARS change" to "how should TARS change".  

On the subject of time for members forum, I strongly support the notion of separating it from the IAGM itself.  I was in another organization which did this by holding an "open Board" meeting where the floor was open to all speakers, but it took the form of  "addressing the Board" whereas in this case I think "addressing the room" would be more valuable -- with perhaps the Secretary of the Company charged with taking relevant notes and providing a synthesis and proposals back to the Trustees. 

There is also no reason this forum couldn't be held in parallel with other events; inevitably it would be a conflict, but the IAGM organizers are already making devil's choices on how to arrange the schedule, based on the few I have attended.  If it is important to have the forum, then it is important to attend it and members do have to make choices sometimes.

Dave Thewlis

As a member on the same continent as Adam and Dave I too received my Signals at the end of last week. I found time to read it today and would congratulate the editor on producing a very enjoyable and thought producing copy.

With reference to Robs ideas I found them very interesting and something that would enhance the enjoyment and promotion of TARS. One idea I liked was the use of a CD in the new member package. I would prefer it to be a DVD and one directed not only to juniors but adult members as well. It would probably need two versions.

Now it occurs to me that The Arthur Ransome Trust does some fine things which promote AR and his works, so maybe it would be possible for them to work with Rob and the Society on his ideas.

On the subject of lack of volunteers and the need for trustees led I wonder if something like Skype could be used for meetings thereby spreading the net further for trustee applicants. I have been connected with a charity which conduct some of their meetings via Skype which cuts out the cost of traveling and accommodations. I think finding volunteers is a somewhat more difficult problem to solve, but some posts as in the membership secretaries have been solved electronically involving a member far away. Certainly this is likely to be an exception as some things have to be organised in the UK.

I hope Robs ideas will get some attention by the membership as a whole and that some other suggestions and ideas spring from them.

Yes, Adam, I agree that TARS needs to develop further for the present day. Rob Boden has set the ball rolling, though not all his ideas appeal to me, and I do think we need to make more effort to make members remember that AR was an author.

It is deeply worrying that the recent Literary Weekend, which had really excellent speakers (possibly the best ever) had the lowest number attending since 1993, and at the same time, subscriptions to Amazon Publications have been steadily declining, even though the last two publications were original AR books, either previously unpublished or not for over 80 years.

Readers may remember that two years ago, Mia O wrote to Signals as an outsider, wondering what TARS is for. Maybe that question has still not been answered.

I tried to add a comment to the Forum earlier about the lack of a "Members' Forum" at the IAGM. I can confirm it was not in any way skullduggery, but caused by the perennial problem of not enough time being scheduled for the AGM and Forum. For seven years, while I was on the Board, I tried in vain to stop the IAGM tail (the social/family events) wagging the AGM dog (TARS' essential business) but either there was too little time before a meal, or another event before the AGM overran and it had to start late. (In 2003, the coach coming back from a visit to Secret Water got lost, with the President on board!)

I believe the AGM/Forum should always be allocated a full morning or afternoon, and if it ends early, members are always happy to talk to one another informally.

I am grateful to Alan for his view because he was actually at the last IAGM. He has also had experience of IAGM arrangements, and I can confirm that this year the 'dog was wagged' to a certain extent. However, and this is surely highly significant, I did not receive a single complaint about the lack of a Members' Forum from any member who was actually present at the IAGM.

I know exactly why members who were at the meeting have not complained - by 6.30 we had all had enough. After 2 and a half hours of it I had lost the will to live. Members don't book for a TARS Weekend in May just to sit in a stuffy tent for hours on end listening to someone banging on about something. They want to be outdoors. All this talk of foul play by the Board is from another planet.

There is surely an obvious answer to the member feedback issue. Why not have a Members' Forum online? Unlike the 'once a year if you're lucky' IAGM Forum (which is not recorded), this one would be permanent and in written form. And all those members who cannot be at the IAGM could take part, instead of firing arrows into a distant unseen woodpile. Er, actually, we've already got an online Members' Forum - this is it. So where's the problem?

I suppose the the problem is that most members never use this online forum, either they do not know it exists in spite of having it pointed out to them many times. Or they cannot be bothered.

Whatever the reason most discussions like this get nowhere for lack of participants.

Much has been made of the fact that I (and also the vast majority of TARS) were not at the IAGM. My apologies were correctly recorded at the start of the meeting.

However presence at the IAGM should not be necessary to understand the minutes, to indicate otherwise would appear to make the minutes deficient in recording the sentiment of the meeting.

Much of this would have been avoided, if the final minute had recorded that (presumably it happened like this) with the general consent of the meeting, it having overrun by 30 minutes, the Chairman closed the meeting at 6.30 pm.

However the abrupt statement of closure coupled with Rob Boden’s letter stating it was a shame we did not have time, led me to a different conclusion. In fact what actually happened has only come out in the course of this thread on our Forum.

Our Secretary has understandably expressed the sentiment that he had lost the will to live by the end of a long meeting. I wonder if this transmitted itself to the final minute, although their correctness and completeness must be the responsibility of the Chairman.

Probably 9 times out of 10, an abbreviated recording of the final minute would not have mattered. Perhaps with both the Chairman and the Secretary retiring there was understandably a reduced awareness of the possible impact of the letters in Signals.

There were 63 voting members present, out of probably 1350 voting members. This is just under 5% of our membership. An important figure to remember, when approving the minutes of the meeting which are circulated to all members.

Not sure about Peter’s thoughts about the meeting and whether TARS members would rather be outside. The meeting is billed as the IAGM, not a TARS weekend with as little AGM compliance as possible. Whilst Peter’s first post appears to indicate some contention for time at the weekend, it should be remembered by all that it is billed as the IAGM.

Peter’s thoughts about using this Forum as a Members online forum are very important. The real problem is lack of promotion of the website in Signals. It exists, among other links, only on the back page of Signals as a couple of lines. Also there is no mention among the TARS Board responsibilities or on the Website itself of any responsible person. There may be good reasons for this, but it does give the impression that it is unjustifiably unloved.

If asked I would willingly write a website promotion for Signals, but others closer to the management structure might want so to do.

Whilst the website could be developed, it does exist and works well in its present format. The only downside is, with increased traffic, there would be additional work for our busy moderator.

There was a welcome report in Signals, from our Treasurer, regarding the Membership Secretary and the revised cost saving arrangements for an external inspection of our accounts. Perhaps this could be developed into a four monthly outline report of just a heading plus a couple of lines explanation, made by the Chairman or Secretary, on what the TARS board and also TARS have achieved in the last four months. This could well go some way to convincing the membership that TARS is moving forward.

Possibly, longer term, a members’ area of the TARS website could replace Signals with considerable cost savings. Certainly this could come sooner rather than later for Outlaw.

For those who eschew computers, short run photocopying costs can be included when calculating total savings.

A few brief comments on Owen’s thoughtful posting. I admit that the note in Ship’s Log on the closure of the AGM could perhaps have been more informative, but in fact the AGM proper did not “overrun” – it is more correct to say that it used up all the time available. What happened next is not altogether clear to me, but I suggest that it is pointless now to re-examine this. We are in danger of overlooking the fact that the IAGM Weekend as a whole was highly successful – the pictures of smiling children in Signals say it all, and Jane Wilson and her team deserve the congratulations they have received.

On the question of publishing reports “to convince the membership that TARS is moving forward”, that would require PR skills which I do not possess ! I think Max Clifford would have his work cut out, to be honest. But let’s give the new Board and Chairman a chance to show what they can do.

I think now that this thread has gone far enough, and I would plead with ‘TARS Forummers’ to look to the future and switch their attention to Rob Boden’s posting on a new thread. Rob posted two days ago and as yet he has had no response.