Re: Save the Dogs Home

Roger Wardale has alerted us to a photo of the Dogs Home on Lakeland Cam. The roof does look in poor repair - worse than I remember it to be. While this isn't the responsibility of TARS, it is hugely in our interest to protect this building as it represents one of the iconic images in the books, and one that actually exists and is incontrovertibly the model for the Dogs Home.

I have suggested in a letter to Signals that TARS offers to the Forestry Commission to pay for a condition survey initially for the building. This might lead to TARS offering to pay for some remedial works. I understand the idea of spending some of our reserves was discussed at the Board meeting, I haven't heard the outcome of these discussions. 

However, it looks to me as though the matter is now extremely urgent. At the very least some remedial work is needed to stop the ingress of water into the walls as several tiles at the edges have been displaced.

People have raised the issue of achievability and delivery about TARS spending some of its reserves - I am willing to work with one or two local members to try and address this particular issue urgently. 

 

Rob

 

Yes Rob I saw the picture too. It shows that work needs to be done.

I think this could be an opportunity to make a start on your ideas set out in the current Signals (Spending from the Reserves).

As the national AGM is in Bowness this year it would be nice if a members' forum could initiate action in the area. Should regional AGMs in January discuss your suggestions in advance?

In the mean time would the Forestry Commission let volunteers do a bit of maintenance?

Sheila D

 

Sheila -

I'm going to go over to Coniston on Monday and as well as going up to the Dogs Home I'll call in to try and see the Forestry Commission people. It may be that they have a maintenance budget that they could use: they also seem to employ building surveyors. 

While I would guess that there is room for some voluntary work, looking at the pictures I think it may be so far gone that it needs specialist roofing contractors. It may be the wooden battens have rotten allowing the slates to slip - this might especially be indicated by the fact that it's the slates nearest the edge where rain could have been driven in over the years - or it could just be that the iron nails used have rusted away. The best might be an immediate holding repair asap and more considered (and funded) long term work later.  There is also some concerns that the walls may already be damaged.

The IAGM usually has a members forum, and if the Board haven't done anything by then, it could be discussed at this: or a motion to the AGM itself could be put forward. Or what about a separate workshop on something like "the future of TARS"? The idea of Regions having discussions in advance is brilliant - this is more the way I feel TARS shold be structured, with a stronger tie-in between Regions and the Board.

I have raised ideas of TARS working parties in the past, for example the shoreline of Coniston desperately needs litter picking. The LDNPA has a volunteer officer, Tim Duckmanton, who I have spoken to and would be keen to support any activity. LDNPA volunteers do other things to like footpath surveys and dry stone walling.

Rob

 

TARS and other Arthur Ransome aficionados have proved willing to dig deep into their pockets to help fund worthwhile Ransome related projects, from buying Nancy Blackett and the film Swallow to help keeping various Ransome websites afloat.

I am sure that an appeal for any required funds to repair and maintain the Dog's Home would be well received worldwide, so that should not weigh too heavily on your mind when talking to the Forestry Commission, even if the TARS Board is reluctant to come up with all or any of the money needed from the reserves, though I personally believe that it would be a good use of some those reserves.

I visited the Forestry Commission (FC) people today and they were very supportive, but have no money. Interestingly, they hadn't known of the AR connection before I told them today. They also liked the idea of an information board at Machell Coppice car park (and the idea of rebuilding the replica wigwam). Interestingly, they reckon the woodland here was acquired by the FC in the 1930s, so the Dogs Home would have been owned by them when AR knew it.

I also visited the Dogs Home, and the back of the roof has also lost some tiles, and there are stones missing from the main walls, so there is a bit more to be done than the photo revealed. I'm expecting to hear from their building surveyor in the next week to arrange a site visit. This could lead to an agreement about how and who undertakes the immediate remedial work - then it would need funding!

My own view is that it is absolutely appropriate that TARS funds this  work - the FC are happy to work in partnership on this, and they also have a building surveyor who could do a longer term plan for safeguarding the building. While there could be a separate fundraising effort, donors wouldn't ever actually own anything (though we would save the Dogs Home!) so it's not quite like Nancy Blackett or Swallow. There is also a degree of urgency to get the tiles back covering the walls asap. And as TARS has such large reserves, I'd also argue there is no need!

I would welcome some input from a Board member about the debate, if any, at the Board meeting last month.

 

Rob

I'm with you Rob, we must act now before the ravages of Winter spoil a priceless landmark!

Hope TARS decides to do something.

"Hope TARS decides to do something"

Yes, hear, hear, but it is still not clear whether a formal approach has been made to the TARS Board concerning the Dogs Home and the other proposals made by Rob in Signals. In his initial posting Rob says that he understands that 'the idea of spending some of our reserves was discussed at the Board meeting'. Do we know whether that discussion was prompted by a direct and detailed approach from Rob? If it was not, then the discussion could have been a routine discussion about expenditure, and Rob's ideas may not have been mentioned. As I have pointed out before, posting messages on this Forum is not an effective way of communicating with Board members.

Peter -

I'm not a Board member, but I do know that Mike Glover emailed me to ask for an electronic copy of my letter for the Board meeting because Liz as Chair wanted to discuss it. About a week ago I emailed Liz and Mike, and another local Board member, for an update, but I haven't yet heard back. I will try to phone Liz over the weekend.

My letter itself wasn't definitive, but gave some of my ideas as examples and suggesting the time was right for TARS to use some of its reserves in various positive ways, which might even increase membership. Therefore any Board discussion might have been on the general principle rather than any specific ideas. And I would think it right that the membership should give their views on this. 

Having said all that, the Dogs Home I feel needs an urgent response, and the only way of achieving anything is for the Board to support a survey and remedial works up to a certain amount, even via email and phone calls, and then later consider longer term work, information board and other associated improvements.

Rob

 

I certainly agree, Peter, in normal circumstances one of our Board’s duties is to review properly costed proposals together with their likely implementation.

However, in this case, there may be considerable urgency and any Board should be able to act on its own initiative. The Board must be aware that the situation has arisen from postings on this Forum, as the webmaster who approves all postings is a Board member. Presumably also all the Board members have installed the feed from this Forum so that they can be aware of postings directly

.

Much depends on the view of the Forestry Commission’s surveyor as to the condition of the Dog’s Home and especially whether it will last a hard winter without serious deterioration.

If the need to repair is urgent, the Board must decide if it is a TARS project and in the event that it is unable to help let other know quickly so that a repair fund can be instituted.

 

Personally I would be very sorry if TARS were unable to assist in this directly connected Ransome project. It might lead members to wander whether TARS was being left behind and was any longer fit for purpose.

However I would hope that the new Board has already been in contact with each other by email or Skype and has a provisional plan in place depending on the need to repair and the cost thereof.

 

Previously Owen Roberts wrote:

I certainly agree, Peter, in normal circumstances one of our Board’s duties is to review properly costed proposals together with their likely implementation.

However, in this case, there may be considerable urgency and any Board should be able to act on its own initiative. The Board must be aware that the situation has arisen from postings on this Forum, as the webmaster who approves all postings is a Board member. Presumably also all the Board members have installed the feed from this Forum so that they can be aware of postings directly

.

Much depends on the view of the Forestry Commission’s surveyor as to the condition of the Dog’s Home and especially whether it will last a hard winter without serious deterioration.

If the need to repair is urgent, the Board must decide if it is a TARS project and in the event that it is unable to help let other know quickly so that a repair fund can be instituted.

 

Personally I would be very sorry if TARS were unable to assist in this directly connected Ransome project. It might lead members to wander whether TARS was being left behind and was any longer fit for purpose.

However I would hope that the new Board has already been in contact with each other by email or Skype and has a provisional plan in place depending on the need to repair and the cost thereof.

 

 

To correct one presumption, Owen, I haven't been a member of the TARS Board of Directors (Trustees) since May, 2008. I've continued as forum moderator since then, in the absence of anyone else within TARS showing any desire to take the task on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you very much for correcting my presumption, Geraint.

I had been informed elsewhere, that Ted Evans, among his many other duties, was webmaster and moderator.

Worth noting that Signals make no mention of any actual person connected with the website. From what you say “in the absence of anyone else within TARS showing any desire to take the task on”, it does create the impression that it is nobody’s baby.

 

If this is the case, it is a shame, as it must be a primary means of contact with members and potential members in the modern world.

 

As an aside, I wonder if it is any longer necessary for posts to be moderated in advance. There were problems in the early days when the Forum was open, however as now people who post must be current members of TARS, I wonder if this should continue. I am part of a moderating team on 3 other closed groups, there appears to be little problem with moderating in arrears. Whilst you may garner some forthright opinions, so long as they are within the Forum’s guidelines, you should be able to trust your members.

 

"Presumably also all the Board members have installed the feed from this Forum so that they can be aware of postings directly"

I am afraid I must add another correction to Geraint's. I am not sure what this "feed" consists of, but I know that Board members have not "installed" it, nor (as far as I know) do they 'skype'. Owen - I think you are in a rather different world from the TARS Board. I know from experience that on the whole the Board pays little attention to postings on this Forum. Why is this? Well, one reason is that for about 11 months in the year, this Forum is completely static. If you look at the dates of the listed threads you will see "2010" and even "2009". I myself, most of the time, only log on to this Forum once every three weeks, if that. Why bother, when there is never anything new? I dare say that the trustees feel the same way.

In contrast, Rob has announced that he has been in direct communication with the Board Secretary about the Dogs Home - well done, Rob, and let us hope that a plan will be decided on. I too would be very disappointed if the Board declined to act, but let us exercise a little patience please. The Dogs Home will last a little bit longer.

How long this Forum will last is another question altogether. Me - I think it is a dead duck.

Thanks, Owen and Peter

Owen: yes, you are correct, Ted does take an active interest in the website, and he does a lot to keep various parts updated. And, I believe, to try and encourage others to use it positively. But he has plenty of other TARS roles too (not to mention an active life outside TARS), so I think it would be a little unfair to expect him to moderate the forum as well.

Unfortunately I don't have much time available myself to work on the rest of the site these days. But the point of the site is that it was designed to allow input by any member of the Society, not to rely on one or two webmasters to do everything. OK, it will always need a small team of people willing and able to manage the site - making sure information is presented in consistent ways, to whatever standards the Society determines. But the raw task of drafting news items, event information, etc can be done by any member willing to take the time to familiarise themselves with the site and do it.

I would agree that the big problem is probably the lack of collective vision for the site, and awareness that it does represent the Society's main contact with the wider world.

I agree regarding pre- v post-moderation, and indeed suggested changing to The Powers That Be a month or so ago. You are correct that there were valid reasons for Pre-moderation when the forum started, but they no longer really apply. Going to Post-moderation may have the advantage of stimulating conversations, as people can respond in "real time". Whether they'll have a marked difference on the moderating requirement is, perhaps, another matter. If anything, there'll be a need to recruit more moderators, to ensure that someone is available to keep an eye on things when the others are unavailable (as you point out yourself, each of your three closed forums has a "moderating team", not a single moderator).

Anyway, thus far I haven't had a reply from The Powers That Be, but it may be they're considering the matter, or perhaps even developing a wider strategy towards the website.

Website and forum strategy, management and development is an interesting and relevant topic for TARS, but perhaps it'll be better to dedicate a new thread to it.  Here I'll conclude by saying that it shines a light on the Dogs' Home discussion, insofar as it highlights the "natural" speed at which decisions are made within TARS. Peter is quite right here: it's currently unrealistic to expect an iinstant response from the TARS Board to comments posted on discussion boards, even the Society's own. Even if all the Trustees avidly followed such online discussions, there are eleven or twelve of them, so it stands to reason that one or two will be out of touch at any time.

As things stand, I doubt very much that all of the Trustees are familiar with Skype (this is not intended as a slight on them, because I've never used it myself). 

Even once the TARS Trustees are all aware of a significant development - as they hopefully are via Rob's letter, assuming that's been circulated - they will quite rightly need time to consider how best to react. The answer to that, in respect to the Dogs' Home, may seem obvious to you or me, but the Trustees may be aware of other opportunities or developments within and without TARS which we know nothing about. It's their duty to weigh all of these against each other, before committing the Society to a course of action.

It's also true that the Society's constitution does not assist decision making "on the fly". Basically, the Trustees are empowered to commit the Society (and its funds) via collective resolutions in formal meetings. There's a logic in this: it's meant to ensure that there is scope for informed debate before a concensus is reached, thus preventing the "hi-jacking" of Society policy and resources by minority interests. The downside for TARS lies in the infrequency of its Board meetings, which have historically been limited by geographical and cost considerations. (Skype and future technologies may well provide a solution to those historical problems but I doubt the TARS Trustees are ready to impliment them).

There is a provision for the Board to pass a resolution between meetings, but it requires every Trustee to physically sign a copy of the resolution wording. In other words, the resolution would need to be both uncontentious and unanimous. If any one Trustee felt it would be better to discuss the issue before agreeing, then they could refuse to sign and the resolution couldn't be passed until the next formal meeting.

So far as I'm aware, the next scheduled Board meeting is in March. But I'll risk a presumption of my own, and assume that the Society's officers will respond to Rob well before then. The constitutional requirements regarding formal decisions does not prevent them from starting to discuss their options and develop a plan, after all. And if those internal discussions are favourable (it's possible that every Trusteee will feel "yes, fixing the Dogs' Home is a "no-brainer", let's do it"), they may be in a position to communicate the Society's likely response before they meet to formally vote on a policy and funds.    

 

 

 

 

Thank you for your thoughts, Peter and also to Geraint for a long and comprehensive reply.

I am going to open a separate thread for a reply, so that this page can continue to be used for the priority topic of SAVING THE DOGS HOME.

Hopefully Rob can report on the site meeting with the FC surveyor.