Judith
Admin
Admin
|
Project? Group? Society? - 2004/02/13 17:55
I’ve been giving this some serious thought, and these are my (rather lengthy) views :
We surely could do more to promote Jake with more money to work with, and I see this as the most important purpose of any possible change of status. But perhaps we can explore other ways of raising funds without becoming a formal body with subscriptions. (Possibly a higher price for Jakefest tickets, for example, or selling our products - music and T-shirts - with an element of profit.)
It’s not the subscription itself that frightens me - though like Pam I would find £52 p.a. excessive: I am not among the most dedicated Jake fans, but I would want to sign up, though for me it would be as much a case of membership of a congenial group, as of making a donation for a good cause, and I would think in terms of £15-20 tops.
But I share Ian’s caution about greater formality, although I am a committee person myself and have drafted more than one constitution. As soon as you start taking subs from people on a regular basis, a much higher level of accountability is required from whoever is managing the show.
And I think most of us would agree that some form of management is necessary, in order to make things happen, in an orderly and proper fashion, at the level which we would like to see. Otherwise things can get sloppy and mistakes can be made.
If people are paying subs for membership of an ‘inner circle’, they are likely to expect more in the way of ‘services’ - a regular newsletter for example, annual accounts of course, maybe first claim on any future limited editions. I've been on the inside of a highly informal organisation becoming more structured, and a lot more people now need to work very hard to keep it going, because the structure has fed upon itself and grown!
I reckon with Ian that we should not rush into change, but continue to explore its possible implications, and other ways of raising funds; and of course plenty of discussion on the message boards, and consultation before action is taken.
With regard to ‘media clout’ and ‘authority’ : could we not, in our present form, find an appropriate way of getting the approval and support of Jake’s family, and of Jake himself in our early days, put into words on Gordon’s website? This would give us something like official status.
And possibly we could change our name now too, without becoming more structured. I agree ‘Project’ should go, and we should not claim ‘Authority’ for ourselves. I personally don’t mind either ‘Society’ or ‘Group’, and wondered about ‘The Jake Thackray Society ’ or ‘The Jake Thackray Action Group’. Or we could have a ‘Co-operative’ or a ‘Collective’. I would also be happy with a song title, although I think “Castleford Ladies…” suggests a female membership only, and we already have a “Topica Ladies’ Magic Circle”.
I don’t quite follow the technical arguments for not needing JT in the name, and if I had known I was activating bots and crawlers every time I go a-googling, I would have been more careful! They belong in Terry Pratchett’s disc world.
That’s all folks!
|
