Re: Lower National Membership Fee or More Services from HQ?



On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 01:20:44 -0000, "Tony Mochan" <tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 20:38:03 -0000, <bulpitt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Which should it be? If Committee of the Council found itself in the
position to be able to reduce the national membership fee, due to a
sustained increase in its other revenue, should it do so, or should it
increase further the level of services it provides to the movement?

If the latter, which additional services/support would you like to see
from HQ?

Personally, I'd be quite happy to keep the membership fee at just under
£20.

I would look at simplifying the membership system though ... I think it's
too confusing at the moment as to whether someone is a "member" or not, or
whether they have an appointment or not.

"Would you organise X in addition to your normal duties?"

If X is a particular event, then it may not be a new appointment, merely
an extension of your current appointment ... but sometimes this can be
stretched to the limits ... i.e. Jamboree Unit Leader ... not a
"warranted" appointment around here - meaning that you have to have
something else as well, to stay a member. It's perhaps a bad example, but
I hope you see what I'm getting at.

Know hat you mean the JUL bit is not warranted so need something so
that you have a "leader warrant". Thats not quite the "stay a member"
bit though. It may be different in Scotland but AFAIK your are
confusing Warrants and Appointments with Membership. You can most
certainly be a member without holding an appointment (warranted or
not).


If you are an activities "advisor", are you a member? Some are, some
aren't (I believe!)

I dont ~believe~ they should be, as it is an appointment.


At the moment we have all sorts ... leaders/scouters,
Members ?

advisors,
Members / Associate Members ?

committee
members (administrators) etc

May be members or associate member or neither ?

... some of which must be members, some can be
associate members, and the majority (probably) which aren't either.

I don't think I've explained that very well, but it's a bit early in the
morning. Sorry.



As for increasing the level of services provided ... two options ... 1.
you mean being able to fund more things, or 2. the current things to a
higher level.

With the former, I would suggest :

a) something like a national web-based NAN form, to enable districts that
don't have the technology to accept these online (we do, and it's a
godsend!)

b) a development officer/paid staff in every
city/district/area/county/region (or where required)

Not sure about scotland but we have FDO's in regions (cover 2 or 3
counties typically) there is also 50:50 grant funding to support local
development officers that can be applied for


c) a resource dedicated to allowing and encouraging correct submission of
accounts to the relevant charity organisation (Charity Commissioners /
OSCR / Inland Revenue) ... advice on format, record keeping etc...
Development of a system that churns it all out for you - coping with
multiple accounts & sections, and even the jar under the bed.

d) overhaul of POR, to remove the inconsistencies, redundancies, stupid
bits, and ambiguities - writing it without using a single "should", "may"
or "can" - unless absolutely necessary - and also incorporating all the
required bits actually in POR, without needing to dig out 101 factsheets.
(Factsheets are very useful, but the rule should be understandable without
reference to them!)

... and with the later ...

i) more free resources (on request only basis, rather than mailed out
direct - a lot of the stuff I get is for pinning up in our non-existant
own HQ)

ii) expansion of PoL material - our Scouts like games ... OK, it's not
entirely the balanced programme, but there are too many of what my Scouts
would call "educational" things on PoL, and not enough just for fun.

iii) pumping appropriate resource into the adult training scheme, and
getting rid of all the rubbish associated with appointments. There are a
lot of very bad trainers about, most of whom haven't been at the coalface
for quite some time, and then again there are the keen current Scouters,
who just don't have the time to take on a training role as well.

iv) eliminating local rules, and establishing national procedures, not
just rules, so that everyone at least has a chance of knowing how it
should be working locally. The "Oh no, it's not done like that around
here" scenario.

Is that what you were after Wayne?

Tony
.



Relevant Pages

  • This is why Republicans should be shot down in the streets like the mad dogs they are.
    ... Congress was leaving town for the Memorial Day recess. ... Bolton was Bush's 106th recess appointment. ... William B. Cowen to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board ... Cynthia A. Glassman to be a Member of the Commission of the Securities ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: CRBs for all Trustees?
    ... can have a review done in 5 years. ... If an adult decides to be more involved either by becoming a Section ... Assistant, Exec Member, Group/District Fellowship Member or any other adult ... Dependant on role then a certificate of appointment may be issued - not all ...
    (uk.rec.scouting)
  • Re: CRBs for all Trustees?
    ... can have a review done in 5 years. ... Assistant, Exec Member, Group/District Fellowship Member or any other adult ... Dependant on role then a certificate of appointment may be issued - not all ...
    (uk.rec.scouting)
  • Re: query design question
    ... I actually have 4 other reports that each contain ... attachment field) and the third table contains appointment dates/reappoint ... there currently exists a OTM relationship between the member table ... Are you using A2007, I'm guessing? ...
    (microsoft.public.access.queries)
  • Re: Regressive "tax"
    ... The membership fee calculation is based on a regressive tax system. ... percentage of that budget. ... If the member organisation has a small ... budget they pay a larger percentage of that budget. ...
    (sci.math)