Ringing Forums

what is the new structure that will replace it, how will it remove those problems without creating a myriad of new ones? — Alan C

Why not just let groups of ringers form up and then decide what scratches their particular itches? What's appropriate for an urban area with high population density and lots of towers may not be for a rural area. And "hard" organisational boundaries are a demostrably a bad idea, why not allow for overlap, so towers can be in more than one group if they want?

If there's a need for provision of central services such as online calendaring, tower contact lists, chat groups, insurance, maintenance advice, teacher training, safeguarding and whatever else then we already have two organisations that either provide much of that already or could do so if required. Why not do that and allow ringer groups to "Pick & Mix" whatever services they need?

Why not just let groups of ringers form up and then decide what scratches their particular itches? — John de Overa

The Whiting Society of Ringers did that in 1968. What stops any group of ringers from doing what you suggest right now?

Though that would seem likely to lead to greater fragmentation.

Not cohesive - how so? Inward looking - how so? What issues need tackling?

For the avoidance doubt: I am not saying these things are incorrect - it is just they do not set out the challenges that need to be addressed. How can any alternative structure be assessed if we do not have a clear expression of what is needed.

The Whiting Society of Ringers did that in 1968. What stops any group of ringers from doing what you suggest right now? — Alan C

Indeed they did, and I know of another more recent example. No, there's nothing to stop others doing so, perhaps the fact that they haven't bothered with that or with engaging with the existing structures means there's not much of a need in the first place?

Though that would seem likely to lead to greater fragmentation — Alan C

Why would that necessarily be an issue?

I think in many areas this already happens.
I ring in towers from four different territorial associations reasonably regularly and many other ringers cross over at least two associations regularly with no complaints about membership (until you ring an peal there) and no less right to be there.
Equally we have some towers in our annual report and website which sit on boundaries and are also listed in bordering annual reports and websites, usually as an affiliate in one and full tower in the other. But again, it makes no difference to how they are treated.
On top of that there are then informal or semi formal ringing groups based on geography which crosses borders and brings local ringers together.
I am surprised that in some parts of the country people are not invited to cross boundaries or it’s not easy for towers and ringers to organise and take part in local activities when this crosses diocesan boundaries.

I don't think there's any issue with people ringing cross-boundary here either, it's just that mostly they don't. That probably wasn't an issue when there were more active advanced towers, but it is increasingly a problem.

what is the new structure that will replace it, how will it remove those problems without creating a myriad of new ones? — Alan C

The new structures are already emerging. They need not result in a myriad of new problems as they will be flexible, responding from the bottom up, rather than the top-down Victorian approach. New local groupings will spring up, and ringers will align with others of similar interests.

The National 12 Bell Competition has successfully operated outside the Victorian structure for around five decades. The Association of Ringing Teachers has been delivering a considerable amount of teacher training for the past 15 years. It is not run on a shoestring and currently employs three part-time staff to help with workload and support its volunteers. The Whiting Society is run by a small group and focusses on ringing, rather than holding business meetings. The ASCY and SRCY are thriving and existed for centuries before the Victorians.

CRAG also resulted in the CCCBR replacing its committee structure with an executive and workgroups, where people can volunteer without first needing to be a representative member. We are also seeing new local groupings of ringers emerging, responding to needs at a local level, and challenging existing boundaries and monopolies.

Several territorial societies are also taking steps modernise. In recent weeks we have seen the Bedfordshire Association vote to restructure itself and simplify its General Committee and District structure. The Kent County Association is also considering altering its Bell Restoration Fund rules to move away from ‘advancing the Christian religion’ to ‘provide financial assistance to towers and churches’. This may sound subtle, but an increasing proportion of rings are hung in towers that are not, or are no longer churches.

Many societies still have their Victorian objectives in their rules such as “…promoting co-operation with incumbents and an appreciation and observation of the tower as part of God’s House; the recognition of the position of ringers as church workers; and the encouragement of ringing for Divine Service, the cultivation of change ringing and the preservation of the church bells in an efficient condition…” The ringing of bells and the art of change-ringing is an important cultural and heritage activity, appreciated by the wider community. It will be those societies who look at their objectives and update them that will survive in the new structure.

Not cohesive - how so? Inward looking - how so? What issues need tackling? — Stuart Palin

For the avoidance doubt: I am not saying these things are incorrect - it is just they do not set out the challenges that need to be addressed. How can any alternative structure be assessed if we do not have a clear expression of what is needed. — Stuart Palin

The major issue in ringing that needs tackling is that we have far more bells than we have ringers to ring them. In the longer term, many of our rings of bells are also hung in churches where the frequency of services is being substantially reduced, or they are under threat of closure.

Our inward-looking structures are slow to react and are dominated by those who remember the heydays of 40+ years ago. Many societies are sitting on substantial financial resources, some are even in receipt of six figure bequests, but are still focussed on spending them on hardware. They should be looking at using them address the people issues that need to be addressed, whilst there are still enough ringers in those towers where ringing can thrive, so that they can refresh their local bands.

They should be looking at using them address the people issues that need to be addressed, whilst there are still enough ringers in those towers where ringing can thrive, so that they can refresh their local bands. — Roger Booth

Yes, and it wouldn't need a big financial outlay to do it either, compared to the cost of an average rehang. I think your point about critical mass is very important - it's much harder to start a new band than it is to reinvigorate an existing one, providing the band are up for it, of course. I know what worked in our tower, but I'm not sure it would be generally applicable - any thoughts on what might be on the menu?

Many societies are sitting on substantial financial resources, some are even in receipt of six figure bequests — Roger Booth

Possibly so, but this money (particularly donations) will have been given for the purposes advertised at the time of the donation. If a Bell Restoration Fund has been given a donation there is an implication that is the purpose the donor intended to support. The Trustees of the fund cannot simply decide to use the money entrusted to them for another purpose - so it seems fruitless to look to these funds

It certainly seems worthwhile for organizations to set up funds for other purposes - my local Territorial Association (KCACR) has allocated general funds to training and uses subscription income to support these funds. There is work underway to further build up the support for training activities.

so it seems fruitless to look to these funds — Stuart Palin

OK, so any money donated for a specified purpose must be used for that purpose, but the trustees of all charities also have a duty to carry out regular governance reviews. The also have a duty to periodically review the objects of their charity and keep them up to date, and not to accumulate large financial reserves. It would be improper to start from the viewpoint of seeing these as fruitless exercises.

The Charity Commission publish the annual income and expenditure figures of all charities on their website and since my time on the Ringing Foundation I have monitored the details of all ringing charities. Of the 31 BRF’s that are registered charities, the level of grant expenditure has remained relatively static at around £250k per annum since 2009. Income has also remained static at around £300k per annum, although large bequests increase this figure substantially in certain years.

These BRF’s are therefore accumulating reserves faster than they are spending them, and as a whole I estimate that they hold enough in reserve to fund the next ten years grants, without more income coming in. Given that Guilds and Associations divert a percentage or fixed amount of their subscriptions into their BRF’s, they could consider pausing this for a while and perhaps diverting this money into training and development, and other benefits for their members.

They could also consider giving larger BRF grants, although they will need to be careful not to spend these resources on projects where the bells are unlikely to be rung regularly, or the church is at risk of being closed in the longer term. Many of our belfries are dilapidated and unwelcoming, so instead of confining grants to rehanging and augmentation, consideration could be given to grants to redecorating ringing rooms and renewing lighting and electrics, and improvements to help with training such as dumb-bells and simulators. With an ageing population of steeple-keepers, and some towers without someone to look after the bells, how about subsidising periodic maintenance visits by a bell-hanger?

There is also a case to consider registering the whole Guild/Association as a charity, as 12 societies have already done, in order to facilitate greater flexibility.

As a matter of interest, at last weeks AGM of ODG, when donations were being voted on, the Bell Fund trustees spoke against making a to the fund because it was not needed. By way of background I should say that no money that goes into the ODBF is ever spent because it is a capital fund, and only earnings generated by the capital go into the grant fund, which can be spent, but which currently has more than the foreseeable needs.

I certainly would not regard the review of the objectives of a society, particularly one managing funds, as fruitless. A move to better support for training would seem very worthy - and is something that is already underway in some quarters (even within a Territorial Association).

Just spotted a typo - missing word. In case it wasn't obvious I meant making a donation to the fund.

These BRF’s are therefore accumulating reserves faster than they are spending them, and as a whole I estimate that they hold enough in reserve to fund the next ten years grants, without more income coming in. Given that Guilds and Associations divert a percentage or fixed amount of their subscriptions into their BRF’s, they could consider pausing this for a while and perhaps diverting this money into training and development, and other benefits for their members. — Roger Booth

The DDA minutes have just arrived, the following bits seem directly relevant to this:

The Ringing Enhancement Fund had offered a £1,000 grant to Derby Cathedral for a dumb-bell and a £1,000 grant to Breadsall towards costs of a dumb-bell and ringing room refurbishment.

Transfer to the Fund to Enhance Ringing It was proposed that a further £2,000 grant be ‘ring fenced’ for the Fund in the general fund. This was agreed. It was also proposed that the General Treasurer would inform the BRF Treasurer of the total amount
‘ring fenced’ for the Fund in the General Account.

There might not be an easy way of extricating money from BRFs (although I suspect it is possible) but exactly as you say, there's no reason why you have to keep putting money into it.

" ... pull together a conversation with them about improvements or adjustments ... "

The Guild of Devonshire Ringers has rolled out membermojo to all members this year after conducting a pilot over the last 12 months - we have already found benefits we weren't expecting, including an increase in members paying their subscription or rejoining - we believe this is because it's easy to do at any time - you don't need to remember to hand over cash at a practice

And for the first time we have a simple way of sending email exclusively to our paid-up members. If any of those members don't renew their membership next year then the system will automatically remove them from the mailing list.

I would be interested in discussing improvements though - such as the ability to capture free text Options when a member makes a Store purchase - membermojo support have already told me this is on their development backlog.

And our Trustees would be interested if there were to be a way of creating a segmented system at a reduced cost while still meeting our operational requirements.