Ringing Forums

Isn't the title misleading as its not about funding ringing its about funding the central council. Given that the vast majority of ringers and towers have little or no affinity with the Central Council should the title not be clearer. Most towers and ringing in local areas is driven by a small number of individuals and would carry on if the CC didn't exist.

Robin sums up the reality of the situation very succinctly.

Well said, Rober

Please see my comments under cashflow-forecast-spend-for-2025-24000-overstated. What the CCCBR is currently for is agreed by its members, its affiliated societies. Those societies democratically representing individual member ringers. That's the governance model we have. If ringers don't like it then they need to take action within the societies they are members of. The CCCBR seems to be being criticized for trying to do what its members have mandated it to do. That it could be done better is not in dispute. That's what Ringing 2030 and associated funding consultations are all about.

It's a chicken and egg issue. If you don't provide the CCCBR with the resources it needs to do its job, then it you risk it not being fit for purpose. If it's not fit for purpose, then why provide resources. There can be no guaranteed success, only guaranteed failure if resources are not provided.

There are two points missing from what youre saying. The first one is that a large portion of ringers who pay Guild and Association fees are not aware that part of that funds the central council , so basically, a stealth tax. Using the Union model and political levy, this is a practice which is now unlawful. Albeit organisationally slightly different, I feel the principal is the same. Secondly and linked to the first point the majority of Guild and Association membership have no interest or even knowledge of what the central council do. If individuals wish to fund and support the Central Council then that's fine but it should be by informed choice and not via an antiquated system which is far from transparent and the CC should look at a revised funding model where those that want to subscribe do so and those that don't are not forced to. The reality is those who run the Central Council know that would be challenging, the proposal for a direct subscription model was on the table at one stage but allowed to drift out of consideration.

The final issue is the need for the CC to reorganise, given all the talk this has never happened as I said Turkeys and Christmas, there is my opinion massive savings to be made but no indication that this is or will ever happen.

Having been a member of the CC I've seen it's bad side and it's worst side. It's outdated and out of touch.

Is it not you that is out of touch with the Council, @Robert Brown? When I read last year's AGM report and attended the AGM, I was really impressed with the level of activity by all the workgroups, with volunteers committing substantial time and effort on things that do benefit the ringing exercise on a tiny budget (a few pence per ringer per year). There was also an encouraging sign that Associations are starting to appoint younger members as CC reps, and this was a key argument that caused a motion to reduce the number of representatives to be lost.

I frequently see the comment "What does it do to help Fred or Freda at our tower?" or "How does it improve the standard of ringing in our area?". These questions miss the point that the CC should and does focus on those things that can't easily or economically be done at a local level, or by a local Association. While the Council is right to have a focus on the importance of recruitment and retention, which is immensely challenging, it can only do this at a strategic level, providing leadership, guidance and resources to support local endeavours. It is also just one of many services it provides.

The final issue is the need for the CC to reorganise, given all the talk this has never happened — Robert Brown

That's an interesting comment, givenm the fact that it did undergo significant change a few years ago. I assume you do not feel the changes were enough, or in the right direction. You mention the question of Direct Membership, but what are the other reforms you feel are needed?

These questions miss the point that the CC should and does focus on those things that can't easily or economically be done at a local level, or by a local Association. — Graham John

Recent discussions on here suggest that many associations are in a dire state, it didn't sound like they were going to be able to address the issues.

Recent discussions on here suggest that many associations are in a dire state — John de Overa

If you mean that ringing in those associations is in a dire state, then the CC is focussing strategically on how that can be improved through its support for member Associations. If you mean that the Association itself is in a dire state and has become dysfunctional, then the CC could provide support in how to restructure or reinvent itself probably based upon the things that more successful associations have done. It could even recommend setting up a new association. However, at the end of the day, a local association needs local people and all CC representatives and workgroup members are likely already involved with their own local associations, so you can hardly expect them to move to a new area to reboot ringing in that area.

I mean both of them. And clearly I don't expect CC reps from different regions to move into failing ones, that would be ridiculous.

Struggling associations should already have CC members, so I have to ask what are they achieving that's of any value if their associations are moribund? I think a significant number of associations have become hollow shells, at best they are ineffectively trying to do the same things they were doing 30 years ago, whilst still encumbering themselves with the same pointless busywork. Best they are just left to quietly expire.