Ringing Forums

I have to gently disagree with Jane.

What she fails to recognise is the scrutiny role of the Executive that members of the Council now have.
So if members don’t like what the Executive is doing they can call them to account and even elect a new Executive which is democracy, just in a different form.

I agree with Simon, the Council is now getting things done and not getting stuck in long debates with limited outcomes.

As a "rank and file" ringer observing from afar, before the CRAG changes my impression was the Council was a pointless talking shop, whereas now stuff seems to be happening, albeit still slowly in some cases.

If "democratic" means "everyone has to vote on everything before anything gets done" then yes, it's less "democratic", and a jolly good thing too. I don't see it as any less accountable though, in fact I suspect if anything in practice it's more as the changes have meant more people are taking an interest and scrutinising what's happening.

The meeting itself might have been a 'pointless talking shop' as you describe, but many of the committees did lots of stuff that perhaps went unnoticed, or their work was not particularly publicised. Not all committees did lots of stuff of course, and that became part of the problem. I was at the meeting when we had the Philip Earis outburst, when he challenged one committee chairman on the lack of activity in the committee. It depends on how broad your definition of 'Central Council' is.

as I said, "from afar" ;-) From the outside the CCCBR can look like one fairly amorphous blob, the distinction between "Central Council", committees and the CCCBR isn't really interesting. It's measured by those not intimately involved by what it does, not how it organises itself - frankly, people don't care as long as it is visibly doing things - something which I think post-CRAG has significantly improved. The Dove's website & database revamp, the new belfry upkeep site, the Devon CC eBook, the mobile belfry, "Calling It Round" are I think all good examples of things that have visibly changed - and I know there are other new things as well, those are just the ones that immediately sprang to mind.

Democratic involvement in the CCCBR is not limited so much by structure as by the lack of interest of the majority of ringers.

Democratic involvement in the CCCBR is not limited so much by structure as by the lack of interest of the majority of ringers. — A J Barnfield

Precisely.

• How many territorial rep posts are competed for?
• How many territorial associations struggle for candidates to take on the post of CC rep?
• How many territorial associations hold their reps to account to ensure they are adequately representing their society?
• How many workgroups are on the lookout for new members?
• Were the team responsible for setting up the Nottingham AGM overburdened with offers of help?

There are many ways to get involved, with lots of information available on the Central Council website. People wanting to exercise their democratic right need to get stuck in; and raising an issue with the Council's actions is not overly-impossible.

Thanks for your appreciation of the online offerings, especially "Belfry Upkeep". The SM Workgroup are working on two further documents in the same format, covering "Running a Tower" and "Major Projects" (not necessarily the final names). One of the advantages of online documents is the ability to update rapidly in response to changes in regulations or comments (constructive, please) from users. Comments on Belfry Upkeep, addressed to smsecatcccbrdotorgdotuk, would be welcome.

I haven't read through all of the Belfry Upkeep one yet but it looked good from a quick glance - I'll feed back anything after I've read all of it. The other two sound interesting as well, I project managed our rehang in 2018, I'll be interested to see if it contains warnings about all the mistakes we made ;-)

Jane Wilkinson .... the Council is seen as increasingly undemocratic.” — Simon Linford

I have heard that sentiment several times in recint years, in Council meetings, from opponents of the reforms the reforms that the Council has now overwhelmingly accepted.
Outside the Council the complaints I have heard are about being effective or useful, not about being democratic.
Democracy matters with an organisation that has power, to make laws or whatever. But the Council has negligible power. It can only achieve results by persuasion or example.
It's old structure was slow, cumbersome and erred on the side of not making decisions. Ive seen a lot of good ideas kicked into the long grass during my time on the Council.
In contrast, the new structure gives the Executive a remit to get on and do things, and to report on what it is doing so the representative members can hold it to account. If we don't like what the Execitive does then it's our job to hold it to say so, and in extremist to call in its decisions.
So far, the new system is working better than the old. There's some way to go though, so no cause for complacency.

... the Council is seen as increasingly undemocratic ... — Jane Wilkinson in Ringing World

Of the many aspects of a democratic organisation, I posted here about the relationship between each ringer and the central ringing organisation (to use CRAG's terminology).

At our CCCBR AGM, I expanded on the point by encouraging all our member-Associations to see their membership of the Council as a positive selling-point to new ringers in their area.

Which is also a reminder that all of us at the AGM should be telling our member-Association's ringers what went on, what we thought of it all, and how it will (or won't) advance the cause of ringing. ...

For example, we all had a chance at the new mobile Ring; we can see how our donations have been used, or why we should be contributing and booking visits ...

I’m not convinced there are degrees of democracy. The CCCBR is a representative body which can be held accountable by its members if they choose to do so.

Rank & file ringers' engagement with CCCBR fluctuates for a multitude of reasons and their individual perceptions of it must fluctuate also.

I've had some highly satisfactory dealings with individuals on different workgroups etc but also some disappointing ones as well. I suspect that the reps of the County Associations, Guilds etc have similar experiences during their working with the CCCBR. Perhaps the problem lies with the quality and depth of the information that gets transmitted from the Guilds etc to their members.

Much of the CCCBR's work would not concern me beyond the fact of knowing that someone, somewhere has a firm hand on each issue. But my opinions on some issues are skewed by lack of knowledge, and hence lack of full understanding, and that nurtures criticism. I laud the work of my County Association, but they are also effectively the gatekeepers for the normal information flow both between myself and the CCCBR.

I suspect that there are times that I only become aware of something that concerns me by catching a comment in the Ringing World or the Presidential Blog. Is there not some way of increasing the amount of information about the CCCBR's work that gets published, and providing it in, say a monthly summary on the website - a position statement, if you will?

Feedback is a two-way street that defeats criticisms such as those discussed on this Forum.

I would say that the problem is that the Central Council is not "seen" at all by the majority of ringers. I don't think they are enough aware of it to care in the least whether or not it is democratic.
Occasionally I try to tell my band about CC work. But my impression is that, by the time I have uttered the mouthful "Central Council of Church Bell Ringers", they have logged it as "not interesting" and switched off.
So I would say, Central Council, keep up your great work, but you need to do something that makes you visible (or maybe audible?) to every single ringer in the country!

So I would say, Central Council, keep up your great work, but you need to do something that makes you visible (or maybe audible?) to every single ringer in the country! — Barbara Le Gallez

I think helping with training in areas where method ringing is struggling or has died out would be a one way. If the associations in those areas were capable of sustaining ringing then there wouldn't be a problem in the first place, so it's somewhere where the CCCBR could make a big impact.

Yes that would be a good idea, John. Although I think the CC might say "we are here to organise; we can't be the do-ers as well".
Um, this is awfully naff, but what about a rosette/badge for every ringer in the country? Like "I rang for KCIII Coronation". With "CCCBR" around the edge. To be delivered with big fanfare about what the CC has been doing (which I know it has, so would be absolutely true).

Yes that would be a good idea, John. Although I think the CC might say "we are here to organise; we can't be the do-ers as well". — Barbara Le Gallez

That's fair comment, but I think publicity and organisation is probably what's needed most to get the ball rolling. I suspect that the areas that are struggling the most are the "boundary badlands" where several association boundaries meet - the historic diocesan boundaries often make little sense in the face of modern urbanisation and transport infrastructure. Several towers in this area are in multiple associations, which I think shows the issue, and many keen ringers round here ring regularly in more than one association. The CCCBR is in the unique position to work across association boundaries, and I think that's what's needed, certainly round here.

Perhaps a sort of "dating website" for ringing might help - "Middle aged overweight balding ringer looking for like minded soulmates with GSH, for weekly fun and Surprise Minor"? The problem for many of us "late starters" is it's difficult to hook in to the small informal groupings who have been ringing together for decades, so unless you try very hard (and get lucky) a lot of people get so far along and then stall. Us late starters may never reach the giddy heights but I think we can perform an important role as a seed bed for the next generation.

John de Overa, you are very right that progress is a case of "not what you know, but who you know". I was lucky in that my teacher introduced me to very good ringers who were willing to put up with me and give me a chance. But it shouldn't depend on that. I know that this is exactly what the CC is trying to address with its new NW ringing course.

the course is a very welcome step forward, but there's still the problem of keeping the momentum going afterwards, which needs regular opportunities to build on what you learned on a course. Like you I've been lucky to have been taken under a good tower's "wing" but I think I'm probably in a minority.

So I would say, Central Council, keep up your great work, but you need to do something that makes you visible (or maybe audible?) to every single ringer in the country! — Barbara Le Gallez

Short of plastering the Central Council logo over anything they've had a hand in organising, I'm not sure they'll have much of a way to do this.

I suspect that there are times that I only become aware of something that concerns me by catching a comment in the Ringing World or the Presidential Blog. Is there not some way of increasing the amount of information about the CCCBR's work that gets published, and providing it in, say a monthly summary on the website - a position statement, if you will? — Mike Shelley

Certainly, I think this would be an improvement on the annual reports (and might provide an incentive for us in the workgroups to stop procrastinating)...

Perhaps the problem lies with the quality and depth of the information that gets transmitted from the Guilds etc to their members. — Mike Shelley

That's one of the problems with having membership of the CC through the TAs. Could people point me in the direction of a report from this year's AGM which they have received from their territorial associations? The feeling I get from talking to people is that much of the comms from the CC get lost somewhere between the CC and the tower.

Perhaps a sort of "dating website" for ringing might help - "Middle aged overweight balding ringer looking for like minded soulmates with GSH, for weekly fun and Surprise Minor"? — John de Overa

Something which has been suggested to me from time to time has been a website of ringing events. You could have the territorials and non-territorials posting training sessions, socials and opening ringing; competitions; individual towers could even promote their practice nights if they think they have something good worth travelling for (e.g. good progression in method ringing). Maybe 1:1 tuition could be offered too. This would all be viewable on a map which you could filter based on type of event, difficulty level, distance from a postcode, cost, date and time, and number of places available. You could maybe set it up to send email alerts too. Could create a way for good associations to get the word out about their events, and provide a way to bypass territorials who are no longer up to scratch and provide people with the information they need to progress themselves.

Although I think the CC might say "we are here to organise; we can't be the do-ers as well". — Barbara Le Gallez

I think the issue is that the Central Council is... well... central. National initiatives like Dove, the Belfry Upkeep website, and innumerous others are out there in the wild being provided by the CC and are well-used by ringers globally. But implementing things locally takes things a bit beyond that, both in terms of remit and manpower. Some might accuse the CC of interfering...

As for the original "is it democratic?" it all depends on your definition of democracy. The key to modern democracies is that the people have the power to boot out the administration if they don't like what it is doing (or, more often, just feel it is time for a change). The people do NOT actually vote on individual decisions (other than, in many democracies, changes to the constitution). So CC pretty much fits this definition of a democracy, and recent changes have made it more able to get things done.

As several have said, the current challenges are more getting through to and appearing relevant to ringers generally. In this respect it has gone from dreadful not not very good - a significant improvement but a long way to go, and no easy solution. I'd give a B+ "trying hard, a lot of improvement achieved but more needed."

Being central is compounded by being one layer removed. Starting from scratch we would have a (inter)national body, with a regional structure of suitable granularity to operate locally. That would enable it to 'do' things through its local structure, which would be its visible face. But for historical reasons we don't have that. The Council is loose federation of independent societies, so what it can 'do' is limited, and so is its visibility.
If you read the Council's history that wasn't the original intention. The plan was for a national ringing society but its proponents (a committee) didn't promote the idea very well. They assumed it would be a pushover but the existing ringing societies were against it. The resultant weak structure was Haywood's compromise to get them onside.
One of CRAG's recommendations was to consider converting the Council to a direct member organisation. Despite the merits of the end state, the difficulty is making the transition from the status quo. When the old Admin Committee considered it in 2014 it got kicked into the long grass. More recently the Executive considered it (as the Council's rules require it to do every few years) but decided it was currantly too difficult to do it in a way that would command enough support.
Advocates of direct membership will criticise the Executive for being too timid, but if its assessment is correct then it's a criticism of the ringing community clinging to its Victorian structures.
Returning to the original topic, direct membership properly implemented would almost certainly feel more democratic the the grass roots member.

the ringing community clinging to its Victorian structures — John Harrison

This, in spades, is the problem. When I started ringing I was genuinely astonished when I heard about all the geographical "associations" and "guilds". Currently ringing has the hierarchical overhead that resulted from Victorian reforms but with neither the numbers nor the vigour of that period, and the CCCBR has the resulting sorry mess hung round its neck.

Many years ago I worked for what had been one of the behemoths of an industry, but was in its dying days. One wag compared working there to visiting a grand old hotel that had fallen on hard times - "The signs of past glories are all around, but the carpet is frayed, most of the lightbulbs are missing and the lifts don't work". Much as I love ringing as an activity, the current organisational structures feel very much like that.

My view is that what makes an organisation democratic is "Can an individual's voice be heard?". So from what Simon says - yes, it is less democratic in that individuals get fewer chances to make their voices heard. Personally I don't mind, but if I were a council member then I probably would mind because I would get less chance to shape policy directly..

The thing is, I don't think having more democracy means much if it prevents anything from being done. I for one would be willing to forgoe theoretical direct democracy without impact in favour of impactful indirect democracy.

Well yes, one might reasonably think that. But then suppose one has an idea, goes to the relevant committee, is unable to get them interested, idea is stymied. What does one do then? If there is some measure of direct democracy then one has at some point a chance to stand up and impart one's idea to the whole group directly. To me that freedom is essential.

it is less democratic in that individuals get fewer chances to make their voices heard. — Barbara Le Gallez

I think you've misunderstood how the Council does and did work. Under the old regime the only requirement for officers or committees to report to members was at the annual meeting, and apart from electing committee members there wasn't much more voting than now. Under the new regime the officers are empowered to do more, but they have to report on their decisions monthly, and members can 'call in' any decision if required.

Thanks John, that's good to know. So suppose a CC rep has an idea, but can't get the relevant committee interested in it. Can they stand up at the annual meeting and say "I think we should do xyz"? That would be my test for democracy.

that's not the most obvious test of democracy, but of course it is possible, as indeed it was before the reform.
The premise of your example was 'if they can't get the relevant committee interested', which implies a degree of engagement already and a desire to escalate the matter to the next level. Each workgroup has an Executive sponsor to whom the workgroup lead is responsible, so he/she would be the person with whom to raise the question, and there's no need to wait until the annual meeting. Of course if you also disagreed with the Executive then you could raise it at the annual meeting, and seek the support of other members.

Thanks John, that's democratic as far as I am concerned :).
It's just a general problem I see with the subcommittee/workgroup structure - if the six or so people on the subcommittee don't like your idea then they have an effective veto. They probably will tend to agree with each other; otherwise they wouldn't be able to work with each other and would have fallen out before now. That makes for rather more of an oligarchy to my way of thinking.
Whereas, if you have a flat structure, so everyone votes on everything, you have a larger pool of people with more diverse views, so probably some will agree with you.

Thanks John, that's good to know. So suppose a CC rep has an idea, but can't get the relevant committee interested in it. Can they stand up at the annual meeting and say "I think we should do xyz"? That would be my test for democracy. — Barbara Le Gallez

If you have the time, there is also the opportunity to join a workgroup, en-masse even. Most are short of numbers, and a project is more likely to go ahead if there are people ready and waiting to put the legroom. The advent of Teams and Zoom has really helped with the accessibility of the workgroups to people like me who don't have the time/money to travel all the time to get to meetings.