Leaderboard

I would add that for years the WS records were a shambles with incorrect or no EMail or home addresses on file. A fact admitted by the new Board early doors and highlighted by the folk that stated they received no correspondence regards Barmack. And not everybody reads SOL or P&B for info. So how many of the Members on file in 2015 missed out on info re the changed contribution structure. I for one received no correspondence either on line or written. And my details were up to date. As recently as last week we were told some records are still incomplete despite strenuous efforts by Admin. Basically, not everyone was made aware of the change to Monthly Subscriptions. The current Board have done a heap of work and are righting many wrongs. But they inherited a minefield and any change and the implications need to be understood. But things are certainly better than they were.

I can see the reasoning behind the proposed amendments, and Philip’s responses have helped clarify the membership status issue. Ultimately, a line does need to be drawn somewhere, and this seems like a fair and reasonable approach. We’ve got a great opportunity to move forward now and further add to the coffers.

I'm not a WS member and never will be but I fail to see what the issue is here, if you sign up for something you need to make the required financial contributions at whatever level you agree to maintain membership and benefits etc. If you don't you lose said membership and any benefits. If you take out a health club membership and then stop paying you can't really expect the club to say , don't worry just keep using our facilities etc, the WS is no different.

I think that is a decent suggestion. Subject to them having contributed funds in line with others moved to the 1886....or whatever level is seen as sufficient. There hase to be safeguards but there are options. Just needs to be a willing. At least it is being discussed now and the Board are aware of concerns....from either viewpoint.

Again a valid view regards £5 contributors opting out early doors. I would have thought safeguards could easily be put in place to ensure no abuse of the system…..retained Membership after 4 or 5 years continuous contributions or when an agreed total level of funds paid in is reached….£400/£500? It just feels wrong that someone like Electric Blues could donate so much…all after 2015…and then possibly hit circumstances that end his Membership. I am not talking about someone who has chipped in £50 and then bailed out. But he is not alone as an example. When the WS was established much talk took place about how it might deter folk from donating if they knew their Membership would be cancelled if contributions stopped, for whatever reason. So the lump sum contribution, life time Membership was a compromise. No one seems to have an issue with those Legacy Members. It’s just strange that someone who has contributed thousands over the years by way of post 2015 contributions could be binned without a thought, unlike me who paid a lump sum pre 2015. Surely there has to be some sort of middle ground? And having some sort of Lifetime target might actually encourage newbies to sign up. And boost funds at a faster rate. Interesting discussion though.

The above has been a really useful debate. I hadnt fully considered the implications of stopping my direct debit as I was one of the original legacy members, so I would continue to have voting rights. I think a balance has to be struck somewhere between fairness to members who have contributed significantly and protecting the Society from any skullduggery. How about, all new members who contribute monthly will attain lifetime membership and voting rights once they reach the £300 legacy membership fee? That way, we move forward but are seen to do so in a fair and equitable manner.......

Being transferred is a bit different. I was talking more about the players that choose to move on rather than re-sign, like Hastie, McKinstry, McAlear etc.

Hi weeyin , what is one person’s dissent is easily construed as bullying or harassment, but I get your point , but since the code of conduct isn’t published in its final form, there’s only a vote on introducing it that’s probably my concern, around it the initial draft was woefully off and offering some tweaks isn’t exactly confidence building but tbh I’m more concerned that adult members are going to be stripped of membership,

Yes. Overall, I found it cumbersome and confusing to have to constantly switch between 1) comments received in the initial consultation 2) proposed changes in light of that consultation and 3) the comprehensive detailed proposals and D) the the actual voting form when casting my vote. The information provided in 1), 2) and 3) was useful however; it was just the way in which it was presented. Specific examples? A) I agreed with the proposal to simplify adult membership tiers but wasn't clear about the status of legacy members who had paid in considerable sums in some cases; sometimes in a single lump sum. Why should they be allocated en masse to the 1886 tier and not to a higher tier? B) Code of conduct: I agree one should be introduced but don't agree with specific wording about "perceived" bullying, harassment and discrimination etc. Either its bullying / harassment / discrimination or its not. For the record, bullying / harassment / discrimination etc is totally unacceptable. Someone's perception can be wrong. I get though that this is a wider societal issue. Suggested text seems to say that it doesn't matter what someone does or says rather its whether another party is offended by it that matters. C) Major votes policy. I agree with its introduction but think that 75% is too high. I would have thought that 55/60/65% was more appropriate. That still represents a clear majority. Also, the triggers for a major vote are too loose and ambiguous. For example, what is the meant by a "large scale" financial decision? Is the defintion £1m or £2m or maybe £5m? Lines have to be drawn somewhere though. From memory, I may not have recalled everything 100% but thats the gist of my concerns. To put this in context though, well done to the those on the Society Board who drafted these documents. I know from bitter experience just how difficult and time consuming it is and the ramifications of defining a term loosely that only becomes apparent a later date, when some party takes issue with it.

I voted I voted what I was in favour of and declined to agree on things I didn't like the phrasing off. Not that I don't trust those currently there but some things where worded where I thought that sounds like we can decide if you are and are not allowed to be a member of well society and some of the language around criticism. I think so long as criticism is fair there will be times where they need to be criticised and there should be no blowback for someone saying how they honestly feel so long as it's respectful and not personal.