This forum...

[JulienW]

Surely as all members have paid a subscription to the 009 Society that makes us all shareholders in the company (with full voting rights), rather than employees?

Just a though...

[George Surridge]

I think all this began because Chris Ford wrote that the Forum seemed dull. Well that problem has been cured!
I am astonished by Rod's comment that the Directors are elected by the members if the Society, but are under no obligation to publish any account of their deliberations and activities.  The clue to this surely lies in the words Members, and Elected.
I asked some days back if and when Minutes are ever published and if not why not, apparently the answer is no, because it's none of your business Mr. Member.
And all this just when I receive my annual subscription renewal.
Will I renew?  Well,, this forum alone is currently worth the money!

[MickT]

It's a pity we don't have a Grrrrr topic and also that there are no "like" buttons (maybe a "dislike" button would be very appropriate as well).

Within the past hour or so I have posted a passionate outburst on the other topic that Chris opened up which is supposed to concentrate just on The News. I'm sure I will now be blackballed and vilified in some quarters, but there you go!

I do not want to open up all sorts of new cracks in the fabric here but there are one or two things that have been said that do need to be commented on.

Rod has several times expressed his view about how or even if the Directors should be responsible for passing information to the membership. Sorry Rod, I appreciate and understand what you say (I think) but have to gently try to correct you.

1. The policy of the Society regarding minutes dissemination has been announced at AGM's - Either Charlie or David (both I think) have stated that AGM minutes will not be published in 009 News but are available to members on request to the Secretary. Unfortunately as this statement has been made at several AGMs that I have attended, so 50 or so members are or should be aware, the other 1900 aren't as I don't think this policy has ever been stated in The News! Some may not agree with this policy and consider that minutes should be distributed to all members, as happens in some other Societies/Associations. "You may very well think this, I could not possibly comment" .

2. Some years ago I raised a query at an AGM and also in direct correspondence reference promulgation of Director's meetings and dissemination of the minutes thereof. The answer I received, so should be recorded in minutes of whatever AGM this was raised at (I haven't checked!) was that minutes of Directors meetings are made, but not disseminated, for good reason, BUT, a summary record can be provided to any member who requests such. Unfortunately this was not published in the News either, but that was indeed a statement that was made. I have not tested this out, other life matters got in the way, but in the light of clearly recent dissatisfaction about communications within the Society, I will probably do this and suggest that any other member who is concerned about information dissemination from the Board does the same - this will actually probably support your own view Rod, that hardly anybody cares and apathy rules actually!

3. Regarding attendance at Board meetings. You are not quite correct here. The rules, if anybody bothers to comply with them nowadays, state  (or the only PUBLISHED set that I am aware of do) that (sic): a Group may send ONE representative as an observer to Society Board meetings by previous request/notification ie you can't just turn up unannounced., this happened once at a Committee meeting that I chaired when I was a member of the Committee and the gentleman concerned had to be "asked" to leave. The rules of the constitution of Recognised Groups also make it clear that a member of one of these Groups who is not a member of the 009 Society may not represent that Group in Society matters, so only a Society member who is also a member of a Group, either Affiliated or Recognised, may attend. There is no provision for individual members, not a member of an area group, to attend. This may be something that one of our members, who is not a member of a group, but would like to attend a meeting may like to raise themselves.

4. You mentioned Lee Bryant as an example of a member who attended a meeting. Not quite right, Lee is the co-opted/appointed Sales Officer and attended in that position.

5. This brings me to what looks like a misunderstanding of where "Commitee members" who are not Directors, since the Society became a limited company, stand. As most of us know, there are 5 Elected Directors who form the Board. If anyone does not know this, then clearly they are not reading page 2 of 009 News as this is quite clearly laid out! What is not actually explained is that the 5 elected Directors are the ONLY ones who have a vote on executive decisions at Board meetings. This IS stated in the constitution but I would have to go back several years to when the new constitution was distributed with The News to get the wording exact - which supports the several statements that have been made about lack of communication, particularly to members who may have joined in the last 8 or 9 years (and that is probably about half the current membership!).

6. Since the Society voted to agree to become a Limited Company (Yes, they did, democratic decision, stop moaning, abide by it!! - shades of Brexit Referendum here!) it has never been made clear where we are regarding any difference between what used to be either Co-opted and Appointed committee members.

Basically I don't think there is a difference now, but for the benefit of anyone who is confused, anyone who is not one of the Elected five Directors who is undertaking a task that is necessary for the wellbeing and function of the Society is termed an Appointed Committee Member, who has been "co-opted" and "appointed" by the board to do that task - and I emphasise, THAT task and that task alone!. The appointed committee member does NOT have voting powers at Board meetings although obviously the member may be involved with and contribute towards any decision making that does take place. I have been present at a meeting in pre-limited company days where that rule has been blatantly ignored and have even seen a co-opted committee member exercise a veto on a proposal when it went to a vote! I trust and hope that this does not and has not happened under the current management!

Examples of appointed posts are: Editor 009 News, Trade Liaison Officer (why was that post allowed to stay vacant at this time of all times?), Sales Officer, Publicity Officer, Membership Secretary and Archivist. There may be others who are co-opted/appointed by the board from time to time as if you like "sub-committee" members for specific roles, for example there was a member who produced a number of informative and useful booklets for the Society (why wasn't this continued and developed?) and another who was appointed to produce the long awaited new Handbook (also seems to have faded away as far as anyone in the overall membership is aware - communications again). And, dare I say it, an appointed Heritage Collection officer.

Just to also clarify for the benefit of those who may not be aware, Elected Directors are required to be re-elected (should they wish to remain on the Board) at the AGM annually, Appointed officers are not elected and having been appointed by the Board, undertake the appointment for as long as the Board requires and of course as long as the officer wishes to remain in the post. Appointed officers work under the guidance/control of the relevant Director who is responsible for that function, ie Operations, Communications and in one case, Treasurer. I think it would be very useful if the Board could publish the exact chain of command and areas of responsibility for each of the Directors, I certainly find a border definition between Operations and Communications Directors TOR's very difficult to identify, I'm sure I'm not alone.

ANY member may put themselves forward for any of the five Director posts. All they have to do is have a proposer and at least one seconder. You could propose yourself as long as you have somebody who is willing to second you. This should be submitted 3 months (if I remember correctly) before the AGM at the time that the Secretary announces the AGM in the News and invites proposals. If there is more than one member applying for election to one of the posts, then there is a democratic ballot and the winner gets the job. Yippee, great fun! EDIT: ADDENDUM TO THAT STATEMENT: I should add that, this is then ratified by vote of acceptance (or rejection - it has happened!*) by those members present at the AGM or EGM, provided there are sufficient members present to constitute a quorum.

* Some 10 years ago after the then sitting Chairman retired, only one member responded to the invite for proposals for the post, this therefore only needed ratification by vote at the AGM, which was rejected by those present by a considerable margin, if not unanimously (I can't remember, I'm sure there are members here who were present and can clarify). This then resulted in a new ballot, where there was more than one candidate this time and an EGM was convened (It was the 2nd of only 3 EGMs that have been convened (to date!) in the history of the Society), to vote the successful candidate in. Failing memory may have distorted my recollection, but in essence, that is what happened (I think!)

7. "If you don't like it, don't moan about it, do something about it - within the bracket of the Society Rules - if you don't like the Society Rules, then do something about that - in the proper way! If you don't like the way the Board goes about its business, then again - do something about it! Put your own name forward for election if you think you could do better!"

8. And finally before I duck under the parapet, regarding Groups, which have been mentioned in some posts: It's on the Society website but as I've already hijacked a lot of bandwidth I might as well carry on. Here is what the Society's position on Groups is:

"Affiliated and Recognised Groups

The 009 Society has always encouraged local groups; historically these would have been solely composed of members of the Society. However, as time has gone on some groups have included non-members with the groups having their own financial and organisational structures separate from the 009 Society. The Society has no view either way on this issue; the only distinction is that only 009 Society members can attend meetings of the 009 Society committee.

Each local group is free to decide how it is linked to the Society and is encouraged to use the method that best suits the local group. The two groups follow different regulations as listed below. Groups are asked to update the secretary on the status of their group and their primary contact.

a. Affiliated Groups: These are groups that are formally constituted as part of the 009 Society. Their membership shall consist solely of 009 Society members and they will be required to submit their annual accounts to the Society Treasurer and follow the Society's governance on the protection of vulnerable groups. They are welcome to call on Society support (including Sales support and publicity) for members' days and are welcome to send a representative to meetings of the 009 Society Committee.

b. Recognised Groups: These are groups that are not formally constituted as part of the 009 Society, although the Society recognises and supports their activities. To be of 'Recognised' status, membership of the group must have a minimum of three 009 Society members. There is no requirement to either submit accounts or follow the Society's governance on the protection of vulnerable groups (although they are welcome to follow the Society's policy). They are welcome to call on Society support (including Sales support and publicity) for members' days and are welcome to send a representative to meetings of the 009 Society Committee providing that representative is a member of the 009 Society."

There is also a list of the Area Groups on the website. Rather concerning however that I know of at least one current Group, that is actually  very active, that is NOT included on the list! Should somebody be looking into this and sorting it out? I believe there is one area that actually has two groups that have the same name! Unless there has been movements and progress that is known to the Board, but again, not disseminated or published to the membership, how are the Society members expected to know?

Finally..............by the way, I believe this topic was supposed to be about The Forum wasn't it? It now appears to be about the conduct and constitution of the Society as a whole! Should we call a halt and take some time out to reflect? I think I will.

Mick

[rod335]

A lot of sense there Mick. I will correct you on one point, the Committee meeting Lee attended was (just) before his appointment, I think we took that decision in the afternoon after he had left.

I have tried to answer points made fairly, honestly and impartially. That is apparently not good enough for some people. As you say, there seems little point in continuing this thread now.

[MickT]

Thank you Rod, I stand corrected about Lee!

Can't resist a mischievous follow up to what you said:

"The committee meeting Lee attended was (just) before his appointment, I think we took that decision in the afternoon after he had left."

Did Lee get told?.................................... ::)

Mick

[Hobby]

Thanks, Mick, that was very clear and no doubt as concise as it could be!

One thing, though, I (and I think the others) never asked for the Minutes of the meetings to be published, all we ask is that the Board keep us informed of developments and what is discussed that affects us. That can (and sometimes in the past used to be) done via the News (in the Chairman's chat if I remember rightly?). I'm not asking for reams of paper, just a basic summary.. It's the lack of information about what is going on that causes most of the issues. I'm sure the Board don't just sit there and drink tea and coffee, so what's going on? (I know that some stuff can't be released for confidentiality purposes but surely we can be told something?! :)

[Malcolm]

Mick
Thank you for that.   Just because some of us have been members since what seems like the year dot does not mean that we are conversant with Society policy, rules and convention so it was most helpful to have matters set out in such a clear and concise way.  Your typing finger must be red and throbbing.
Blair
I could not put it better.
Malcolm
Edit -  They could of course use the forum.   ;)

[MickT]

One thing, though, I (and I think the others) never asked for the Minutes of the meetings to be published, all we ask is that the Board keep us informed of developments and what is discussed that affects us. That can (and sometimes in the past used to be) done via the News (in the Chairman's chat if I remember rightly?). I'm not asking for reams of paper, just a basic summary.. It's the lack of information about what is going on that causes most of the issues. I'm sure the Board don't just sit there and drink tea and coffee, so what's going on? (I know that some stuff can't be released for confidentiality purposes but surely we can be told something?! :)

I don't know why you're telling me Blair, that, in essence is what I have often said myself.

I didn't infer that you or anyone else asked for minutes of meetings to be published (I assume you are referring to Committee/Board meetings rather than AGM). I actually asked at an AGM for minutes to be distributed with the News and the response was as I reported in my long tome above. I have also asked for summary reports of actions arising from Board meetings to be published so that the membership knows what is happening - which is exactly the same as what you are referring to with Chairman's Chat of years ago. The response was the same - They are available on request to the Secretary.

I haven't tested this out as life has got in the way but after all this furore I will probably be doing that, and I can only repeat what I said before: if other members feel that they want to receive either AGM minutes or a summary report of committee meetings, then apparently all they have to do is ask the Secretary, no good complaining to me that you have done this and not received responses, nothing to do with me and I am not the Secretary, in fact I am not anything, I am just a member, same as you are.

[Frank]

Whatever anyone may think there is no obligation on the Directors or Committee members to make their deliberations public. And I stand by my comment that matters in this connection are no different from what they have always been.

Rod,

I can see you are doing your best to defend what some people seem to think is the indefensible but I must make one comment on this.

I also see the 009 Society as actually a very successful society and part of me is thinking "it ain't broke so don't try to fix it ...".  However I do think there is an important issue here.

I am a member of a number of societies in the railway world and in other areas.   Almost all of them have some way of communicating routinely with their members on what is going on within the society and what the Committee who run it are doing.  

Usually this is by way of a "letter" or update from the Chairman in the periodic newsletters.  If there is nothing much going on then the Chairman says that, but otherwise he can tell them about current issues, recent developments, decisions the Committee has taken etc. as appropriate.  He can appeal for assistance, for example, to fill vacant posts such as Trade Liaison.  

This is not the same as the minutes, it does not include all the details of what goes on, but it is what the Chairman thinks is important enough to let the Members know about.

This is not a matter of obligation, right, entitlement, or something written into the society's constitution.  It is just common sense and good manners to tell the people who are your members and (hopefully) supporters what you are doing.

The single exception I am aware of is the 009 Society.

Frank

[BrianE]

Getting back to the actual topic ie This Forum, I'm going to throw a few statistics at you. Make of them what you will but I've added my thoughts at the bottom

Year    A    B    C    D    E
2008   28   28   27   20   11
2009   18   16   14   10    4
2010   11    9    7    6    2
2011   13   11    8    6    1
2012   14   13   13    8    3
2013   26   21   18   10    3
2014   21   15   12    4    1
2015   26   15   11    5    1
2016   53   25   21    5    0
2017   82   45   21    3    0
2018   93   82   30    4    0

Year: The year in which forum members registered. Roughly 100 (varies 80-120) Society members register each year.
Column A: The number of members still on the forum. I have cleared out the few ex-members now and so this is what we're left with.
Column B: The number of members who have logged in this year. Obviously the 2018 figure is high but some haven't got round to logging in yet so the figure is not typical.
Column C: The number of members who have made any contribution at all ie at least one posting.
Column D: The number of members who have made at least 10 postings.
Column E: The number of members who have made at least 100 postings.

I think the data is interesting; before 2014 those on the forum log in and often contribute. After that there seems to be a lowering of the 'retention rate' despite the actual numbers being up. I wonder if this is because the forum is not seen as being relevant or useful. It's pretty obvious that there is a hard core of say 40 people who do most of the running. That's 2% of Society membership. If you think having the forum is worthwhile then you have no argument against Branchlines!

Anyway, I'll just leave this here as it is. I'm not going to scrabble around with the figures any more and I don't have any further historical data to rummage through. You can ponder the meaning of the data yourselves.

[Frank]

Thanks for the data Brian - always better to have facts to work on!

One thing that I keep coming back to is the relationship between this forum and NGRM-Online.   NGRM-Online is much bigger, many more posts are made, and of course it covers a lot more than just 009.  So the chances are that most people will spend more time on NGRM-Online than here, and if they don't have much time then most of it will be spent there.

It is tempting to say that the decline in recent joiners' retention rate in this forum mirrors an increase in NGRM-Online activity.   I don't have the data on NGRM-Online but it is suggestive of that.

So if this forum is to thrive, it has to be as something more than just a pale shadow of NGRM-Online.

The one thing that is different about this forum is that it is The 009 Society Forum and so I think that we should make as much of this difference as we can.

So the discussion about communications within the Society is for me bang on target.    This forum should be an important part of that communications, but at present the upper levels of the Society try to ignore it it seems.

That is not just bad for the Forum, it is also bad for the Society.

Frank

[Hobby]

I don't know why you're telling me Blair, that, in essence is what I have often said myself.

I know, Mick, that comment was directed at those who can do something about it, if they choose to! ;)

[invercloy]

Interesting stats, Brian. So generally the forum is growing (slowly) in terms of membership, but being posted on less frequently.

To my mind that begs the questions:



• is it still needed?
• if so, what does the Society want it to be for
• how different is that to what it contains/does now

[Chris Ford]

Brian,
Thanks for kindly posting the figures. I wish I'd had that table to hand when I first mentioned it in the editorial. Shown as a graph it could almost be summed up by two opposing diagonal lines, and looks as though two things are happening: as the society grows, more sign up, but fewer stay or feel it worth posting as the time elapses. This makes me feel that Tom's conclusions may well be well founded and his questions pertinent.   My experiences of the last few day here may explain why, and my fellow Sussex Downs member, Tim Sanderson's comments higher in this thread have rung in my ears in the last 24 hours.
My editorial for the December issue (now with the printers) mentions it for a second time and was written a week ago. I'm not so sure that I would have worded it thus if I'd written it today.

[Hobby]

I wouldn't worry, unless there's someone new who hasn't read last months, at least they've got some reading to do before they reply!

I said earlier that i feel it still has it's uses:

- A place where Society matters can be discussed and has the advantage of instant responses unlike the letters page of the News
- A "quieter" place than NGRM for those who prefer it that way (as long as they avoid threads like this one!)
- As Stan has pointed out a place for "full" branch reports - perhaps this is something that could be plugged in the News to boost new members?