[Community Sub-Committee]
Michael Comerford
I'll be chairing the wonderfully titled : Community sub-committee.
TERMS OF REFERENCE
The Community sub-committee, will oversee the development of a revised
Constitution for the HRC which reflects the needs of the membership
and ensures the democratic structures are properly maintained for the
future.
Through this document but also subsequent policy documents the sub-
committee will develop the community aspects of the Club which will
reflect unique character of the HRC and the membership.
MY RESPONSIBILITIES
Facilitation is the name of game, I'll work to provide a space for
members (not only those on the CoM) to develop the constitutional
arrangements for the HRC and foster the sense of community we want to
see in the new Club. This business can be carried out face-to-face or
online which ever suits. This may involve small focus groups with
members to discuss issues, editing of a joint document which can help
form a revised constitution, or simply collating contributions to the
google group.
INITIAL INVOLVEMENT
First port of call is the current constitution, I'll post it as a
google doc and then invite comments (not direct editing!) on the
various sections and policies. My job in this will to make sure we
don't make piecemeal changes that don't fit together as a whole and
that we comply with the relevant legislation/university agreements,
etc.
Alongside this for the less Constitutionally minded we'll have a
discussion thread on the google group for the Community aspects of the
HRC (I'll transplant the relevant conversations that are already
happening).
GET INVOLVED
Send me an email if your interested in joining the sub-committee,
we're keeping things pretty informal so one off contributions are also
welcome. I'll set about organising some contact with the wider
membership shortly!
Michael
JohnEwing
<commissarkollon...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi guys,
> I'll be chairing the wonderfully titled : Community sub-committee.
>
> TERMS OF REFERENCE
> The Community sub-committee, will oversee the development of a revised
> Constitution for the HRC which reflects the needs of the membership
> and ensures the democratic structures are properly maintained for the
> future.
> Through this document but also subsequent policy documents the sub-
> committee will develop the community aspects of the Club which will
> reflect unique character of the HRC and the membership.
> INITIAL INVOLVEMENT
> First port of call is the current constitution, I'll post it as a
> google doc
In view of references in the Constitution to Rules, and to Policy,
could these documents, and any other ancillary documents, also be
posted?
John
Sarah
At the moment, there is only the constitution and policies. I was
part of the working group (in about 2004) which revised the
constitution. Rightly or wrongly, the rules were either incorporated
into the constitution or delegated to policy.
A return to the three tier system may be advisable. However, I do not
have a copy of the old rules. Maybe Paul Connor or Iain Thompson can
come to the rescue?
Paul Connor
I've passed on any former versions that I had to Seumas. These
included versions circa 91 and 94, and yes they did show the 3 tier
system. I'm slightly reluctant to publish them directly to the group,
even though that's a possibility, mostly because I think that anything
other than current documents may cause confusion. I'll leave it to the
Hon Sec's discretion to decide if to publish, and if so decided I
would recommend a clear naming convention be adopted. That being said,
if anyone else would like their own copies then drop me a line and
I'll pass them on.
Paul
Michael Comerford
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hetherington Research Club - General Discussion Group" group.
To post to this group, send an email to hetherington...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hetheringtonclub-g...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hetheringtonclub-general?hl=en-GB.
Thomas Coles
To move the discussion from 'Is Bad Press Good' to here.
As has been mentioned by John Ewing and Seumas Bates: it is important that we clarify both the legal status of the club, as it is. And also the legal status we wish it to fall under.
I am very surprised that the QM and the GUU are unincorporated: this leaves their CoMs potentially exposed to huge personal liability (as was terrifyingly explained at the EGM, the previous HRC CoM was liable for the club's debts).
I think we should seriously consider incorporating and becoming either a 'Private company limited by guarantee' or a 'community interest company' (CIC). It would avoid the situation imposed upon the previous CoM, i.e. limit the liabilities, and also create some useful legal constraints on business practices that would help avoid the 'muddling along' that otherwise occurs.
CIC information: http://www.cicregulator.gov.uk/
Companies Act 2006 Guidance http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/guidance.shtml
I am not set on this by any means, but I do think it would be useful to consider. And I will agree with anyone that comments on how unduly complicated it all looks. Are we certain that the 'other places', QM and GUU are really based on such a loose legal concept? 'unincorporated associations' that are as good as a handshake and a whistle.
(p.s. any corporate lawyers on the list?)
Tom
JohnEwing
> I think we should seriously consider incorporating and becoming either a
> 'Private company limited by guarantee' or a 'community interest company'
> (CIC). It would avoid the situation imposed upon the previous CoM, i.e.
> limit the liabilities, and also create some useful legal constraints on
> business practices that would help avoid the 'muddling along' that otherwise
> occurs.
>
> CIC information:http://www.cicregulator.gov.uk/
> Companies Act 2006 Guidancehttp://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/guidance.shtml
Another alternative: Charitable Incorporated Organisation. See
http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?r.s=m&r.l1=1073858808&r.lc=en&r.l3=1077475650&r.l2=1073859215&r.i=1077475675&type=RESOURCES&itemId=1077476119&r.t=RESOURCES
(I'm not sure how much of that link is required :-) )
As I said elsewhere, that's for England and Wales - or will be soon -
but there is apparently a Scottish equivalent.
>
> I am not set on this by any means, but I do think it would be useful to
> consider. And I will agree with anyone that comments on how unduly
> complicated it all looks. Are we certain that the 'other places', QM and GUU
> are really based on such a loose legal concept? 'unincorporated
> associations' that are as good as a handshake and a whistle.
Both QM and GUU are listed as 'unincorporated associations' by the
Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator.
John
Thomas Coles
"Both QM and GUU are listed as 'unincorporated associations' by the
Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator."
Personally I think this is an insane situation (obviously relying on the University's tacit undertaking to prevent them from failure, i.e. bail them out) especially considering the huge level of debt the GUU recently ran up.
Regarding this, incorporation might have the effect of distancing us too far from the University for them to consider us a intrinsically linked organization. Or to feel any obligation. Simultaneously it would be a statement of confidence.
Tom
John
Michael Comerford
These are initial thoughts, and I'll do some more detailed thinking later...
Student Unions have traditionally been unincorporated associations because the student officers form a sort of trustee board (this has been formalised by the new charities act in England) For the most part this meant the full time sabbatical officers (usually provided with a remuneration for living costs, etc.) took the liability and in my opinion rightly so. In a democratic organisation with a decent turnover (my old SU was just over 1mil) the officers should be held legally accountable, as this provides one mechanism for keeping them focused on doing a good job.
It is different with the HRC, the CoM aren't paid and is made up of part-time volunteers - it would be worth looking at charity models with unpaid part-time trustees and whether they are liable for the finances.
I would resist (pretty strongly) any move toward forming a company, and feel that incorporation is not a best fit for what we're trying to do.
I suppose this comes down to a debate we've had already - you can't set up a model based on everyone being rubbish and failing to do their job, otherwise you might as well not bother, you find a reasonable fit and build in safe guards. I feel we still fit the description of an unincorporated association, and we'd be better to stick with that, or a similar model based on a democratic management system.
JohnEwing
to pass this on:
"The club was defined by the University Court as a student union -
this was part of the Rules, indeed the very first point 1.1.
"Student Unions come under the purview of the Education Act 1994 (Part
II section 22) which does mention restrictions imposed by the laws
regarding charities (paraphrasing wildly). It does not spell out that
they are to be treated as charities but the inference is there I
believe - paragraph (4) I think.
"Emphasis should be on the phrase 'treated as' there, not a
requirement to actually be a charity
"Search for OPSI Education Act 1994
"Paul"
John
JohnEwing
> Regarding this, incorporation might have the effect of distancing us too far
> from the University for them to consider us a intrinsically linked
> organization.
That could be awkward. We got VAT-exemption as regards catering
because we were 'providing catering for and on behalf of the
University of Glasgow'. Once the VAT authorities had a letter from the
University stating that, we got exemption, and a cheque for VAT
overpaid in previous years.
John
David Russell
also considered student unions by the University (oddly enough!), but
in the previous thread a point was made that the QM is legally an
unincorporated association with the committee members personally
liable for any debts with their name on them. Thus the requirements to
abide by charity legislation mentioned above (I suspect this is
because student unions receive funding from their parent institutions
which 99% of the time are themselves charities) do not in themselves
confer any status of incorporation or separate legal personality on
the HRC.
As regards whether we should incorporate or not, I fail to see any
reason for failing to do so (suggestions as to the precise method of
incorporation I'll leave to those who did better than me in level 2
Business Organisations :P). Unless we can get a guarantee from the
University that it will prevent (by paying them) any debts from being
enforced against CoM members (good luck with that!) then there is no
viable alternative. Having students potentially liable for thousands
of pounds' worth of debt (NB: The whole CoM is not jointly liable for
the debt - the unlucky person whose signature is on a debt is liable
for ALL of it) is in my opinion intolerable - though of course others
may disagree.
David R
Seumas Bates
the bars as a gallery space? We could approach the Glasgow School of
Art and offer their fine art and illustration students the opportunity
to display and sell their work. We take a slice of the profits from
anything sold, say, 10%, and get ever-changing decor of a certain
minimum quality. They get the chance to get their work out there and
perhaps make a little money. Win-win.
Thoughts?
On 24 Mar, 22:21, David Russell <david.russell.scotl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Thomas Coles
JohnEwing
> ~(Is included in the Events & Publicity proposal. But a great idea! and
> perhaps more of a community thing.)
>
> Its crucial to remember to rotate the art.
Something similar has been done. A few points to consider:
Security - how are you going to ensure that the artworks don't get
damaged? Which leads to
Insurance - who pays?
10% is too low. I think galleries take over 30% now, but I'm not sure.
HTH,
John
Seumas Bates
wouldn't have put this under either Events or Publicity. Still,
ultimately I'm splitting hairs.
John, I suggested 10% because I wasn't looking at this as a money
spinning scheme, more as a space for community involvement and varied
decoration. I rather think that supporting young Scottish artists is a
gesture the Club should make in a 'break even' capacity.
Sara Thomas
offering the same services a gallery could, so a lower comission would
be appropriate.
as a side note, the 13th note doesn't charge anything...
> > John- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thomas Coles
David Russell
commission), or a requirement that the artist him/herself insures the
work before the club will display it? I agree that we shouldn't be
looking to make a profit out of this (since the benefit to the club
we're aiming for is having regularly rotated high-quality art on
display), but I think there does need to be a means of ensuring it
doesn't /cost/ the club money.
David R
On Apr 15, 4:38 pm, Thomas Coles <tomco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Seamus, I had included it as an idea under events as a private view, or
> exhibition opening, is an event of sorts.
>
> I agree. Or would even suggest that 10% is too much; after all, we are not a
> gallery. We want community and nice pictures on the wall, not income from
> sales. It adds value to the club, not income. I would push for free, no
> commission.
>
> See you this evening.
>
> Tom
>
> > .
Seumas Bates
of maintaining and changing the fittings on which the pictures would
hang and any costs incurred in sourcing/agreeing new artists and
changing the pictures on display. There would obviously be a cost for
these three elements (however small).
On 16 Apr, 15:53, David Russell <david.russell.scotl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
lynn.mcb
widely. The Student Association will be decanted from their long term
home - including their offices, the Vic and the night club - at the
end of the next academic year and I don't think it's yet clear where
they will be re-housed over the period until the first phase of the
campus development is complete. This means some small exhibition
spaces are going to be lost to the students along with their major
social space. It's worth considering how we want to include
affiliates in our membership, which I know has been discussed
somewhat, but I don't know what conclusions have been drawn - if any.
RE Tom's events: beyond traditional pictures on walls, one of our
upstairs spaces could be used for object exhibitions ie Environmental
Art dept, in which case it does become an event that we benefit from
in terms of foot-fall and selling the artists the booze and snacks for
their opening. Security for this is locking the door at the end of
opening hours and when open, the exhibitors arrange their own
invigilation. In this case and with the wall hangings (which I would
limit to downstairs) the fact that they are getting use of the space
for free means they take on board any losses (and fitting costs) and
it's up to them whether to use the space or not. Not advertising that
things are worth nicking by putting price tags on them along with a
reasonable level of vigilance from staff could go a long way to
preventing theft.
> - Show quoted text -
Sarah
card to sign in visitors when I go to the Vic. I'm not exactly sure
of the status of their students, but their admissions were run by GU
when I worked in admisions, so I assume they count as GU students.
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hetherington Research Club - General Discussion Group" group.
> To post to this group, send an email to hetherington...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hetheringtonclub-g...@googlegroups.com.
Thomas Coles
JohnEwing
> I agree. Or would even suggest that 10% is too much; after all, we are not a
> gallery. We want community and nice pictures on the wall, not income from
> sales. It adds value to the club, not income. I would push for free, no
> commission.
all the income it can get.
When I said 10% was too low, I was not suggesting that we should
charge the same as the galleries. However I do not intend to work out
figures now; it's more important to get the Club operating again, with
or without pictures on the walls. For the same reason, I am not going
to follow-up other postings re exhibitions (not yet, anyway).