I am prompted to write after reading the postings by Ann, Adrian and Francis. I thank all three for their honesty and for offering their considered views in careful and moderate terms.
Much has been written and posted on this list recently, some of which appears to be based on innuendo and consequent assumptions. I would suggest that there is a need to be ask considered questions, rather than make statements about personal stances. Here are answers to two questions that have not yet been asked, but perhaps might have been: (1) Ann Sessoms' posting is important. Why should it be taken seriously? She is Vice President of the Society and a former office holder. Her credibility as a person and a piper is such that, as a VP, she was asked to chair the 2009 AGM after the problems in 2008. She carried out this task with scrupulous adherence to procedure and with great fairness. Having attended recent AGMs I can confirm that her facts are correct. (2) In relation to recent suggestions that the Society's Rules be changed to allow a particular decision to be altered, the Secretary pointed out that there is a due process for this. Is this process clear? It might be helpful to supplement her information with the fact that at the 2009 AGM a Working Party was established to consider the Rules at a fundamental level and then to report and make proposals. That Working Party is responsible to AGM, as the body that established it, and includes active participation by committee members. So far the Working Party has meet formally in plenary session twice, and has embarked on considerable research into current good practice. Two members have also had conversation with a consultant from an external organization that advises on constitutional matters, and the Working Party is considering mechanisms for wide consultation. The Working Party has made an initial outline report of progress to the committee, and to the Secretary, and is close to producing a first interim report for members. I am a member of that Working Party, and I post this (although the Dartmouth list is not an official organ of communication for the Society) because the Society has neither an effective system of rapid communication with members nor an effective way of disseminating information about decisions, etc, rapidly. Nor are there efficient ways of seeking members' views. This long-standing communication problem is something that the Working Group are considering. I understand the new committee is also tackling the problem of swifter communication by introducing a new Society website. Richard Get paid to recycle old mobile phones - www.tiscali.co.uk/recycle To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
