This can't wait

Comment by Lynn Broadbent on November 29, 2010 at 18:23

Of course no Freepost for US Fellows - please fax or email your votes at this late stage; feel free to contact me if you have any questions at all! LBroadbent@rsa-us.org

Comment by Kevin Robson on November 30, 2010 at 10:27

Thank you for this, Gerry. As a rank and file Fellow of some 14 years, initially caught up in the rising clamour against RSA governance but who, after thinking through the implications of what was going on, have changed my mind, I applaud you for your leadership at this crucial time. In my own limited way I took a stand for truth and common sense too, (http://virtual-coffee-house.ning.com/profiles/blogs/why-i-am-unable...) and, since then, have received opprobrium and even vitriol from other Fellows who not only deny what to me are basic values of Fellowship in their bullying rudeness, but illustrate perfectly the danger of what is going on; and the head of steam this issue has generated.

These moves are claimed to be in the name of democracy, but they have the odour of something else to me. It may be claimed that the wisdom of the crowd is expressing itself at present, but I see it differently. When I was a young man, I spent some years as a police officer and I have first-hand experience of how crowds can take on a collective intent that is far from wise. Perhaps the real wisdom of the crowd, that collective moving toward an outcome that is in the common good, will emerge from the hitherto silent majority of Fellows who I hope, as do you, will exercise their democratic opportunity at this crucial time? The strength of the ballot box: in the true expression of democracy, will always overwhelm overly vociferous minority factions who may find themselves in a difficult position in the long run,

Here is not the place to discuss the lessons to be learnt from this, but there is no doubt that a feeling of wanting more expression of Fellowship exists in the RSA. I have that feeling in abundance and I have expressed views on how that could be brought about (http://virtual-coffee-house.ning.com/profiles/blogs/as-long-as-the-...) amongst my regional colleagues. I have equally no doubt that Matthew, Luke and colleagues will be reflecting on what needs to be done after this affair is settled. What will be needed in the future is a rational process of structured thinking to satisfy this need but within the framework of what the RSA is about, not a takeover of the seat of power by people who don't seem to understand what the limitations are. What is needed now is more calm, and the sort of brave leadership of the sort you are showing.

Comment by Gerry Acher on November 30, 2010 at 19:16

thank you for your kind words

Comment by Ben Bennetts on November 30, 2010 at 21:15

Gerry, I'm sorry, but I don't feel that "a strong undercurrent against Matthew and the trustees" is a good enough reason to vote against the all-elected proposal - nor do I believe that it can be dismissed out of hand as "unwarranted and dangerous".

I have a rather different decision to make over the next few days - whether to renew my Fellowship and exercise my vote at all. If I do, I suspect I'll support the trustees' amended motion, as it does seem to be the more balanced of the options on offer

I'll come clean and admit that I have not followed every nuance of the governance debate - I have four children and the equivalent of two full-time jobs, so hope I will be forgiven for my lack of detailed knowledge - but your post does seem to assume a level of automatic support for Matthew and the trustees and for the Society's direction of travel during the last three years or so.

In that time there is a certain amount of which you can be proud - the Academy above all - but it is also a time in which some Fellows have become dismissed and marginalised and ignored by JAS - often in a rather high-handed or condescending way. And it is a time during which the Society appears to have departed radically from the focus on arts, manufactures and commerce set out in its Charter. For the most part, the RSA now comes across as just another public policy talking-shop. (I stress 'appears' and 'comes across as', because I have been harangued by staff at JAS about this not being the case, but it is the unambiguous message I have received from both the Journal and the lecture programme over the last year at least.)

Now, public policy talking-shops are of course important and useful. If that's what the trustees and Fellows want for it, fair enough - but I wish they would at least have the honesty and the courtesy to SAY SO. If this is the case, I will wish you all well and depart. I work in the public sector, I care deeply about the way it works, but it does not define my life or my interests.

I've just seen the following posted (a few weeks ago) on the RSA LinkedIn group: 'When I was at RSA House on Tuesday, a Fellow was complaining to me that "Too many Fellows get involved because they are interested in the Arts".' That's why I joined ten years ago. The Society I joined was vibrant, engaging and, above all, interested in the vast diversity of the things going on around it. I miss that organisation terribly - it was a lifeline in terms of professional support and engagement when I was running my own business - but it has, I think, ceased to be. A few months ago I posted a comment on one of the online message boards - I can't remember which - asking a question about the different ways that we expect adults and children to engage with fiction. It was the kind of comment that ten years ago would have generated hours of discussion. It received not a single reply. Nor have any of my other, increasingly cautious, posts about literature, language and the arts in general.

I'd love, I'd genuinely love, someone to give me a reason to pay my sub and maintain my Fellowship in this Society which I have loved and admired for so long. Anyone?

Comment by Ben Bennetts on November 30, 2010 at 22:56

I'd just like to add a comment on your statement that "the most active fellows are delighted with the direction of travel". Is any consideration given to those Fellows who have become less active (or even inactive) in recent years precisely because of that direction of travel - because of the increasingly "single issue" focus of the RSA's activities on questions of social policy?

Comment by Gerry Acher on December 1, 2010 at 12:00

Ben, this is always a difficult one; going back to when i was Chairman, the fellows who were not happy with the direction of travel fell into 2 categories eg the climate change sceptics when we were doing the personal carbon work they stayed with us and we generally respected each other. On the other hand some of the educationalists resigned their fellowships.Generally those who are in active are happy to let things move under the direction of the trustees and this is certainly not to be discouraged. there will always be some disenchanted who become inactive some will stay some will let their member lapse but we dont have many lapses in comparison to new fellows many of whom want to play an active role in the fellowship. i hope this helps.

Comment by Ben Bennetts on December 1, 2010 at 13:29

Gerry - it helps in that it clarifies your view of things, for which I thank you; but it certainly doesn't answer any of the points I made in my first comment, nor give me any incentive to renew my Fellowship. Rather, it reinforces my impression that the RSA is not interested either in my concerns about direction of travel, or in my interests and passions. Sad.

"Generally those who are inactive are happy to let things move under the direction of the trustees" is absolutely not the case. I have spoken to a number of now inactive Fellows who are equally disillusioned with the narrowing of the RSA's field of vision.

Comment by Tessy Britton on December 1, 2010 at 13:59

HI Ben

Thank you for writing with your feelings so clearly. My observations with working closely with RSA over the last year has been that RSA's direction of travel is almost entirely focused on helping more Fellows connect and to develop ideas of interest - including the things that you have mentioned about the arts etc. The investment in the Fellowship team has gone from 1 or 2 or 8-10 people dedicated to trying to encourage Fellowship. The Fellowship Council has been trying to facilitate more specialist networks, including around the arts. This is new ground and we are still very much learning about how that facilitation might work well.

My observation is that there are limited resources at the RSA and that focus is being giving to various elements in turn and inevitably that might mean a temporary neglect of others? I can only share my experiences that my overall impression is that the intention is very much to encourage a greater sense of Fellowship, not less... and I am sorry to hear of your personal experience. Your perspective and ideas are important: Are there any things that you would like to see more or less of?

Comment by Ben Bennetts on December 1, 2010 at 14:34

Tessy, the quick and easy answers are "More breadth - less arrogance" but I appreciate that this is a bit of a smartarse answer without further context. I hope my first comment gives some of that context but I'll come back to you later with more detail if you want. Best - Ben

Comment by Tessy Britton on December 1, 2010 at 14:49

Thanks Ben - please do send through your more detailed thoughts. Having thought about it further it is a concern that the impression/experience is so far as yet from the overall intention and that means that much more work needs to be done to see the RSA from different perspectives...

Add a Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page