The Role of the TARS Forum

A common misunderstanding seems to have arisen concerning the function of this Forum and rather than break into threads with important topics, eg the Dogs Home, I thought it best to raise the matter separately. An example occurred in a recent posting, where there is mention of the new Board being “more connected with the Forum”. It is my understanding that the TARS Forum was set up as an adjunct to the TARS Website to enable ‘member-to-member’ communication. The idea was that members could exchange views on all AR topics, including TARS itself and the way it is run. However, the Forum was never intended to be a ‘direct line’ to the Board, and nor should it be, as proper channels are provided for members to put proposals before the Board, ie usually by communicating via their Representative Trustee (listed in Signals) – this is what the Reps are for.

To say that the Board should take regular notice of postings on this Forum, or “be connected with the Forum”, is surely to claim preferential treatment for those individual members (a tiny proportion out of 2,000) who take part in Forum discussions, and we have even had a suggestion that all trustees should install an RSS feed so that the Forum contributors’ latest ruminations on some topic or other can be flagged up immediately on the trustees’ browsers. This is nonsense. What this Forum does (and we are seeing examples of this now concerning the Dogs Home) is provide an efficient way of raising a topic and kicking it round a bit, getting feedback from other members. If it is clear that other members favour a proposal, then it can be formalised and presented to the Board in a proper way (as Rob has done).

Of course, individual trustees may take an interest in what Forum contributors are saying (via a feed if they wish), and that would be very welcome but, IMO, there should be no formal ‘connection’ between the Forum and the Board as this would be unconstitutional.

You are quite correct, Peter, that proposals must be properly presented directly to the board.

I did say that I “hoped” that the new Board would be better connected to the Forum. This was said because in my view any concerned and conscientious Trustee would want to be aware of what was happening around them. Perhaps this is applying a commercial standard to a volunteer Board, but it does seem to be good practice.

You are correct that only a very small proportion of TARS contribute to the Forum.  Possibly all the rest communicate directly with the Board. Perhaps you can recall from your time as Secretary how many direct proposals a year were received by the Board from the rest of the TARS population.

I cannot see how being aware of what is happening can be deemed to be unconstitutional. There is no special pleading in gauging the measure of discussions on this and other Fora.

“Possibly all the rest communicate directly with the Board. Perhaps you can recall from your time as Secretary how many direct proposals a year were received by the Board from the rest of the TARS population.”

To my knowledge, no (or very few) members communicate directly with the TARS Board. That’s not how TARS works. The Board operates with and through the various committees. There are 6 regional committees in the UK and these can and do submit proposals for Board approval. In addition, there are various Board subcommittees, of which the principal two are the Publications Committee and the Literary & Resources (L&R) Committee. Proposals concerning the publications (for instance to include colour pages) obviously derive from the Publications Committee. General projects within TARS, such as the Red Slipper Bursaries, are put forward by the L&R Committee; and this Committee also came up with the idea of appointing a TARS Press Officer last year.

There are other sub-groupings dealing with specific areas or objects (eg the Coch-y-Bonddhu Committee). It is true to say, as Rob Boden did recently, that nearly all TARS activity is organised outside the Board. The Board tends to operate as a monitoring body. Most of the time at Board meetings is devoted to listening to, and considering, reports from the various Committees, and also reports from the TARS Officers, the most important being the Treasurer’s Report and the Membership Secretary’s Report. All these reports are submitted in writing, and in the weeks leading up to a Board meeting the trustees are bombarded with information. None of this precludes consideration of proposals from members, but it is reasonable to expect the member concerned to make the effort to approach the Board and submit the proposal in writing. The view that “any concerned and conscientious Trustee” should be aware of all Forum postings and should take further any idea which is mentioned by a member there is, in my view, totally unreasonable in the circumstances, and Owen and I will have to agree to differ on this.

Thank you the information on the structure, Peter.

Who actually attends the Board meetings, please?

Is it just the 8 Trustees (knowing that some of them have additional duties as sub committee members), or do the regional representatives also attend?

I certainly agree that all proposals should be made in writing to the Board, but I would consider that any Board member (or at least one of them) should make the effort to be aware of what is going on in the AR world around them. Otherwise there is a danger becoming isolated.

Board meetings are attended by all 14 Trustees - ie the 8 Elected Trustees and the 6 Regional Representative Trustees. It is sometimes thought, erroneously, that the Regional Rep Trustees are not "full" Trustees, as the Elected Trustees are. In fact, the Elected and the Regional Trustees have exactly the same powers and the same ability to speak and vote at Board meetings. The only difference between them is in the way they are appointed.

In addition, the TARS President may attend Board meetings and may speak and vote. The Vice-Presidents may attend but cannot vote. The Trustees may also, if they wish, invite along "a Society member or person who can provide them with specialist advice or guidance":- see Leading Lights r. 2.6.

All these matters are governed by the TARS Constitution, which includes Leading Lights. Anyone interested in the way TARS is governed should really be familiar with these. The TARS Rules really ought to be available on-line - perhaps they are, but I am looking in the wrong place?

Again, thank you for the information, Peter.

Not sure that I have ever seen the TARS Constitution including Leading Lights. I joined several years after TARS started and do not remember receiving anything when I joined. Nothing happened until literature (MM etc) started to arrive.

It would be very useful if this documentation were available on line. If any one has a copy of this, it should be fairly easy to scan in to MS Word and thus post on line. I presume it is in either printed or typed format.

Previously Peter Hyland wrote:

One of my suggestions for Qwen's communication on TARS and Technology for the Board.

All these matters are governed by the TARS Constitution, which includes Leading Lights. Anyone interested in the way TARS is governed should really be familiar with these. The TARS Rules really ought to be available on-line - perhaps they are, but I am looking in the wrong place?

 

If I recall correctly, copies of the Society Constitution (The "Memorandum of Association", "Articles of Association" and "Rules of the Company", the latter aka "Leading Lights") were sent to all existing members with one of the publications in 2006 or 2007. Together they run to 8 fairly closely typed pages of A4.

I think Peter's suggestion that the Constitution should go on the website is a good one, and I can't immediately think of any reason why the Board wouldn't want to do that. But I'd suggest the Trustees need to make that decision on behalf of the Society, rather than an individual doing so. If nothing else, it'll be their responsibility for ensuring that any version published is completely up to date, and tfor making arrangements to ensure that it is kept up to date in future. Having an out-of-date version online could be just as problematical as having no version at all.

Previously Owen Roberts wrote:

Again, thank you for the information, Peter.

Not sure that I have ever seen the TARS Constitution including Leading Lights. I joined several years after TARS started and do not remember receiving anything when I joined. Nothing happened until literature (MM etc) started to arrive.

It would be very useful if this documentation were available on line. If any one has a copy of this, it should be fairly easy to scan in to MS Word and thus post on line. I presume it is in either printed or typed format.

 

Thank you for this Geraint. I cannot remember receiving these 8 pages with other literature. This may be down to the efforts of the post office. Their imagination knows no bounds. About this time a friend sent a letter to me in “The Royal County of Berkshire”. The post office managed to route this via Berkshire County in Massachusetts.

Anyway a slightly tongue in cheek view would be, if as Peter intimates, that the Board ignores the Forum and Website then it does not matter what is put on the website as they would never know.

However realistically it might be better to email the Chairman and tell her that the Mem and Arts are being put on the site. I assume there has been no Board decision banning their publication so probably it should not be a matter for discussion.

Properly it would be within the province of the Company Secretary to ensure such documentation is up to date. As changes only seem to occur at some IAGMs, this hardly seems an arduous task.

I regret that my patience with Owen's postings is being stretched somewhat. I did not say that "the Board ignores the Forum" but that the Forum is not regarded as a 'direct line' to the Board, and in the present circumstances (ie only a handful of members use the Forum) that is understandable. Whether any individual trustees read the Forum postings is something I do not know.

Simply to inform the National Chairman that the TARS Constitution has been uploaded onto the TARS Website,  without consultation, would be high-handed, to say the least. Similarly, to expect the Company Secretary "to ensure such documentation is up to date", without the courtesy of consulting him, would not go down well either.

Owen tends to compare TARS with a commercial business operation. All I can say is that if these are Owen's business methods, I don't like them.

I am not really sure where Peter is coming from with these comments.

TARS is a Limited Company as is subject to the Companies Act 2006 as much as applies to small company limited by guarantee. Peter, as a former Company Secretary, will have ensured that all Company Documentation was up to date, as required by Company Law.

I assume his successor will carry on automatically with the same task. Therefore I am asking for nothing that he is not already obliged to do.

I expect Peter, again in his former role, will remember that the TARS Constitution or the part thereof that relates to Companies Act documentation which will certainly include the Memorandum and Articles of Association, Registers of Directors etc, is a public document and open to inspection and copying. Usually copies for members are free and others have to pay 10p for 500 words.

This is not a matter for discussion for the Board but a duty of the Board to ensure such documentation is available on request. Putting up to date information on line will ensure that they easily comply with this requirement.

I would never have suggested to Geraint, tongue in cheek or otherwise, to put up such information if it needed any Board decision. I certainly would not have wanted to put anyone in a difficult situation.

I cannot agree that TARS is not a commercial business operation. The fact that it is staffed by volunteers who willingly give their time and effort to the best of their ability and also that the majority of TARS trading is with its members, does not make it any less of a business. The only real difference is that if the volunteers were properly remunerated it would make a thumping loss and would have joined the ranks of insolvent companies many years ago.

My view is to try and introduce more commercial methods wherever possible to reduce the load on the volunteers.

Owen,

So far as I can see we are all arguing for the same thing here: proper management of the Society and fulfilment of the Board's and Officers' duties by the relevant post holders. Yes the "Trustees" (properly the Company Directors) and the Company Secretary have obligations.  As an ex-trustee and Chairman I'm fully aware of that myself, and I've no doubt Peter is also from his experience as an ex-trustee and Company Secretary. But we also know, from experience, that the Board and Secretary stand a much better chance of fulfilling their duties effectively if all the Society members co-operate with them, and don't attempt to subvert or bypass their roles. OK, I accept that your suggestion was tongue-in-cheek. But  it remains the case that putting a (possibly out-of-date) version of the Constitution online without their knowledge is hardly helpful, as it makes it rather difficult for the Company Secretary to ensure that it is updated when necessary.

Besides this, your own post makes it clear that the Company (the Society) is only required to make the Constitution available f.o.c. to its members. It also needs to make it available tfor inspection by the public, but how it does that is up to the Company, as is the question of whether it charges anything to cover its costs in so doing. It may well be wise to make it freely available for all online: this would fulfil the obligation and benefit prospective members (provided, in both cases, that it's up to date). Personally I can't see any over-riding arguments against making it available online, but my opinion doesn't really matter. The point is that there is a decision to be made over the process by which the Constitution is made available and kept up to date. It isn't a huge decision, and it shouldn't tax competent trustees or officers unduly. But the authority to make that decision does lie with them, not you or me, and I think that is the point that Peter was making.

It follows that if you want to persuade the Board to publish the Constitution online, you need to make your case directly to them, not on this forum.

Catching up - Thank you for these thoughts Geraint.

As you have correctly enlarged on my point regarding the option to charge non members for access to our Constitution as being a Board decision - I have formally made a proposal to the Board via Mike Glover, our secretary, for the matter to be discussed at the next meeting on 3^rd March 2012.

As TARS National Treasurer, TARSnet administrator, and (for a while this year) assistant membership secretary - database), I have been averse to forums of any kind.   Not because of age (I have been programming since 1965!), but because of lack of time, and the fact that they seem to serve more to give folk an excuse for letting off steam rather than sharing considered and informed opinion.

The above exchanges on the relationship of the Forum and the TARS Website, however, do require four comments.

1) I am surprised at the confusion between the Forum and the Website itself.  The website clearly signposts in the horizontal tabs to Regions as well as in the sidebar.  That is where up to date information has been posted by Regional Secretaries for years for their members - never the forum!

2) The suggestion on a "how-to" was implemented on the website some years ago in order to facilitate Regional Committees to upload their material.   It is in the form of a step-by-step "idiot's guide".    Simply type in "idiot" into the search box at the top right of the page.

3) I have been developing - as time allows - a "members only" section of the Website in order to provide members with resources that were more easily available to the original members of the Society, but are less so for newer members (like myself). On it is a copy of the TARS Articles and Rules, previously circulated to members on hard copy.  No need to make a charge.  See: http://arthur-ransome.org/Members/ted/restricted-members-only-page.  You need to be a member given a login in order to access it.

4)  The suggestion for corporate email addresses is a good one and should be easy to implement.

Thank you for these thoughts, Ted.

Whilst philosophically I might agree that a forum can be a place for people to let off steam. Practically an active site, which is reviewed regularly by management, does provide a focus for people who are concerned about lack of progress and direction of TARS.

If the website forum appears to be semi inactive or ignored, people vent their feelings on other websites which must make TARS appear in a very poor light.

Looking at your observations

1)” I am surprised at the confusion between the Forum and the Website itself.”  The forum is actually part of the website. In addition you mention the tab to access the Regions. However looking at the Forum header it is divided into 3 sections, Arthur Ransome, TARS and TARS Regional. Possibly this is why most forum users decided that there was little activity (apart from the valiant Midland Region) in the regions and did not look at the tab.

2) The suggestion on a "how-to" was implemented on the website some years ago in order to facilitate Regional Committees to upload their material. Not sure that this addresses the aspect of a Users Guide or “How to”. Many good sites do have a How to link on their home page. This addresses the scope of the site and how to use it to advantage. Looking at the TARS and Technology strand on our Forum, others feel that this is an omission and this is one I have volunteered to rectify by penning an initial draft, which I will send to Geraint and yourself  shortly for technical comment - as promised, then post on this site for further comment with a view to sending for publication in April Signals. Long ago the software industry leant that the best user guides were written by users. Hence the popularity of “xxxxxx for Dummies” range and similar publications.

3) I have been developing - as time allows - a "members only" section of the Website in order to provide members with resources that were more easily available to the original members of the Society, but are less so for newer members (like myself). This is an excellent idea and some sites have this facility. Unfortunately the link you provided leads to a “We're sorry, but that page doesn't exist…” message even though I have logged in. Not surprising if the area is under development and you have cloaked it. I have recommended to our Trustees that the Memorandum and Articles are open to all, in common with a number of literary sites.

4). Corporate email addresses. Some will look forward to these although our Secretary does seem to forward messages quickly. Definitely an advantage if the Secretary is sick or on holiday.

Addendum to the above.

You need to login via the website before you can access the members only pages.  Then use the link on the first page of the TARS section of the website to get to the members only pages.  Any suggestions for these would be most welcome!

There was an included "." in the Members Only link provided by Ted Evans. If you use this one it should work properly http://arthur-ransome.org/Members/ted/restricted-members-only-page