Summary of responses relating to Bye-Law changes
Summary of responses during consultation with Fellows relating to Bye-law changes
Suggestions
“Anyone involved in Governance must realise they are in a position of trust and all duties should be clearly laid out for them.”
“A formal review should take place in 3 years to assess the changes.”
“The Fellowship council should include the UK Regional Chairmen (12) and the Overseas Chairmen (5), plus Elected Fellows (20) and Fellows elected by the Board (3), totalling 40 as recommended.”
“The Society should hold meetings of the Board and Fellowship Council in the UK regions and challenge each Regional Committee to arrange events to coincide with the meetings, giving local communities the opportunity to see the Society in action.”
“Section 3.2 of the paper concerning the Trustee Board and its powers regarding quorums, meetings and ability to make decisions with or without Board meetings should be re-examined, perhaps with an expression of whether certain matters should only be discussed at regular appointed meetings of the Board.”
“The powers of the Chief Executive need to be redefined and perhaps circumscribed if the power-structure of the Society is not to become unbalanced.”
Concerns
“There is no mention of Regional Committees in the recommendations, other than the negative statement that the requirements for annual conferences of Regional Chairmen would be removed, which implies that the work of Regional Committees is not valued by the society.”
Point 3.2: Board members would be permitted to participate in meetings by telephone or by electronic means, and to be counted in the quorum for those meetings. “This could result in a meeting with no one present, which is not good Governance.”
“The proposed Fellowship Council is too large. It should represent the views of the membership and should be directly elected by membership. There should be no place for elected Fellows.”
“All hints of ageism should be removed - both young and old are valuable.”
“The Nominations Committee is only 6, 3 of those have to be Trustees who know so little of us so it would be a choice from ‘their’ circle.”
“The gap between the Board and Fellowship is big. The power of the Board to co-opt is OK but not 4, or you should make the Fellows a bigger number than 6, otherwise we again have the ‘who you know’ not ‘what you know’ culture so endemic in the RSA.”
“I do not agree with the Board appointing up to 20 members of the Fellowship Council. The Fellowship committee is meant to represent Fellowship, and as such should comprise a Board made up mainly of elected Fellows.
There is a danger we will revert to the ‘old boys’ style of ‘Friends of the Board.”
“The age qualification should remain at 25.”
“An element that seems likely to promote instability is the shortness of the terms for which Trustees and members of the Council are permitted to serve.”
“There is no mention of a mandatory minimum of meetings a Trustee should have to attend. Now that electronic attendance is included, this should surely be even more relevant.”
Support
“Wholeheartedly support these changes and I am happy to concur.”
“I fully support the proposals.”
“I fully support the proposed changes.”
“This seems like a sensible solution for involving Fellows in the organisation.”
“I am impressed with the new Governance proposal, congratulations to those who have drawn it up.”
Share