Society Consultation

[Kmcalpin]

I get that there's a lot going on just now. A new manager; pre season about to start; the prospect of comings and goings and so on. However, don't overlook the Well Society consultation on proposed membership changes taking place just now. Its a chance to put across your views. 

All in all I found it to be a commendable attempt to update some admin matters. However, I found it to be a bit vague, unwieldy and complicated.  Maybe just me. I found it hard to form a definitive opinion on some issues as I agreed with the overall principle but not the detailed changes. 

Anyway folks its your opinions that matter. Get your  responses in. 

[joewarkfanclub]

40 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

I get that there's a lot going on just now. A new manager; pre season about to start; the prospect of comings and goings and so on. However, don't overlook the Well Society consultation on proposed membership changes taking place just now. Its a chance to put across your views. 

All in all I found it to be a commendable attempt to update some admin matters. However, I found it to be a bit vague, unwieldy and complicated.  Maybe just me. I found it hard to form a definitive opinion on some issues as I agreed with the overall principle but not the detailed changes. 

Anyway folks its your opinions that matter. Get your  responses in. 

I agree.

Its good that they are bringing in some structure, where previously there had been none.

Being a member of the Well Society should come with it certain rules and guarantees. It shouldnt just be money disappearing into a bottomless pit at the whims of an Executive Board that no one voted for.

I would have liked a little more detail in respect of what certain aspects of the consultation meant, but I guess some if wont be known until its played out and we see how things are operating. Hopefully at that stage changes can be made to anything that isnt sitting right.

I think its another step in the right direction and as long as those on the Society Board keep operating in the present consultative manner, then they will maintain my wholehearted support.

[Throughthelaces]

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.

[Kmcalpin]

17 hours ago, Throughthelaces said:

 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.

A lot of work has been invested in this exercise so well done to those behind it. Constructive criticism is absolutely fine but it will be soul destroying if only a handful of folk bother to participate. 

[Throughthelaces]

39 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

A lot of work has been invested in this exercise so well done to those behind it. Constructive criticism is absolutely fine but it will be soul destroying if only a handful of folk bother to participate. 

As many folk should absolutely participate I liked you could vote per item had there been a comment box on the form I'd have liked to give my reasons for why I'm not in favour of certain parts etc. but most seemed fine.

[Kmcalpin]

16 minutes ago, Throughthelaces said:

As many folk should absolutely participate I liked you could vote per item had there been a comment box on the form I'd have liked to give my reasons for why I'm not in favour of certain parts etc. but most seemed fine.

Yes, a comment box to explain our thinking would have been very helpful.

[David]

On 6/14/2025 at 2:21 PM, Kmcalpin said:

I found it hard to form a definitive opinion on some issues as I agreed with the overall principle but not the detailed changes.

Can you provide some examples? Don't feel like you have to, I just found this comment interesting.

[Kmcalpin]

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.   

[Kmcalpin]

Apologies to the forum. I shouldn't have posted my response to David in public. It should have been in private. I don't want to influence anyone else's answers to the consultation. 

[David]

Not at all, I think the more discussion and ideas being exchanged, the better.

[coldonmac]

15 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:

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 have to agree, it was with the 'rights' of the legacy members that I had a concern, for example, do they retain the right to vote on Society issues. To me, it wasn't clear what the situation would be.

 

I emailed the Society, but no-one has responded as yet (it may be that they are going to collate all/any questions and respond in one go).

[joewarkfanclub]

4 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:

Apologies to the forum. I shouldn't have posted my response to David in public. It should have been in private. I don't want to influence anyone else's answers to the consultation. 

I dont think you need to apologise at all.

Always interested to see others thoughts on these matters. You may be raising something others hadnt considered.

[weeyin]

Agree about the legacy members. That has always been confusing, even before the monthly contributions arrived.

Maybe we can get some clarity at the Society meeting at the end of the month.