Ringing Forums

You theoretically could but there are probably better systems to enable votes on multiple topics to be anonymous even though each person should only be allowed to vote once on each topic.
With the MemberMojo store the administrator would see who ‘bought’ each vote so you would have to trust this person to keep it confidential.

A Google form could be sent out using MemberMojo to email only members and can stop the same email address being used twice and is easy for most people to use on phone or computer web browsers with anonymous results but I don’t know whether it can stop people forwarding the link to an alternative email address to gain more voters.

There is much to be said for people being present to hear the debate before deciding how to vote.

On-line voting is not a solution to member engagement; perhaps even quite the opposite.

I agree 100% with . We have local experience of this and I would not recommend it.

Engagement is about more than voting. As others have said, if the ability to vote is divorced from engaging with the debate it can undermine the process.
Detached voting works for things like elections, where there’s not normally debate, and can be better if accompanied by position statements.
Where there is debate the logical way to increase engagement would be a hybrid meeting. Where travel is an issue, which it can be for larger societies, then it could increase engagement. But if engagement is already weak it could decrease in person attendance, with people taking the easy option.
It might be better to start by asking why member engagement is low in the first place.

To improve engagement you really need to step back and consider how your organisation is structured and what it is there to do. In my experience ringing organisations tend to be run along the top-down model, rather than designed to serve from the bottom up. Votes are important in the top-down model, but far less important in the bottom-up model. People will become engaged when things that matter to them are discussed, and they are consulted in a way where each person’s voice is valued. There are lots of ways to do this.

My own District is probably typical of many. We have an ageing population of tower captains who do everything in their towers, and who have been in post for decades. They are not grooming their successors, and no-one dares to disagree or stand against them. Consequently, when they are no longer able to ring, the band collapses, resulting in little or no regular ringing. Since before Covid this has happened with four local bands covering six of the thirty-three towers in our District. I can see a similar number of others on the danger list. In the space of around ten years about a third of our towers could have gone silent.

Fortunately, we have an enthusiastic group of new ringers who have learnt since Covid. We have run a lot of regular training sessions, and they have got to know each other very well. However, there is a disconnect with many of the long-term ringers in the District. Whilst several decades ago the older ones would have come and participated in the ringing before the District meeting, and afterwards, and even gone down the pub once ringing had finished, they now just turn up for the tea, cake and chat, and go home immediately afterwards. The newer ringers do not benefit from ringing with a strong band, and rather than being engaged, are turned off by the ritual of electing new members, minutes, badges, certificates, annual reports and raising money for the BRF etc.

The new ringers are engaged as active members of our SPOND App which we use to book training sessions. There is also a vibrant What’sApp group where they share experiences and photos etc. The new ringers are keen to progress, and our training sessions are often over-subscribed. The attendance on our Improvers group outings is better than the typical quarterly District meeting, although with a substantially different clientele.

The new ringers have ambitious plans to establish a training centre, similar to those in Norwich and Cambridge. We’ve consulted all towers by conducting a baseline survey of the state of ringing in our District, and conducted a well-attended consultation evening, where there was constructive discussion and everyone put their suggestions down on post-it notes. This project is being driven from the bottom up, where there is a lot of enthusiasm, and expertise brought in from other walks of life. However, my worry is the disconnect, and that votes at a District meeting would not produce the same results.

The abuse of anonymous online voting by an officer who is the sole holder of the member database for an association to which I belong, and who has no experience of ringing custom & practice and protocol, has caused serious acrimony within both the committee and the rank-and-file membership, to an extent that disbandment of that association is now a serious consideration.
As stated by Simon Meyer, online voting is not the way ahead.

“We’ve consulted all towers by conducting a baseline survey of the state of ringing in our District, and conducted a well-attended consultation evening, where there was constructive discussion and everyone put their suggestions down on post-it notes.”

I think this specific kind of consultation has a better chance of engagement than the general meeting which often has a running order of going through the motions and little to be discussed.
I agree that you have more chance of engaging members if you can provide information about what you want to discuss, the issue to be addressed, and then people will come to talk about it.

Lynne and Barry from St Clements Cambridge came to talk to the Essex Course a couple of weeks ago and I think that was a really good way to get enthusiastic ringers, new or more experienced, talking about how a ringing centre could help to develop ringers all year round.

I think this specific kind of consultation has a better chance of engagement than the general meeting which often has a running order of going through the motions and little to be discussed. — Lucy Chandhial

I agree. Sticking to the general running order is probably one of the main reasons why there is a lack of engagement by members and why many ringing organisations are finding difficulties filling vacant positions. Whilst it’s a source of comfort for some to have the consistency of doing the same thing decade after decade, it’s not going to set others alight.

We’ve been running three-day ringing courses for the last 50+ years, but what Lynn and Barry are doing in Cambridge, and what others are doing elsewhere, is a source of inspiration. One of our newer ringers attended two three-day courses last year and was concerned about the lack of 'rope time' they received. Two or three touches for their benefit each morning and afternoon did not result in them mastering what they came to learn.

Three-day courses teaching around 60 students at a time are not going to make a significant impact on delivering 10,000 new ringers over the next few years. Regular weekly sessions at a local level like those at St Clements are far easier to organise, less expensive to attend, and could engage a lot of new people But that is not what we always do, so is less likely to be considered at the typical general meeting.

Thanks all for your viewpoints, much appreciated. We are very actively trying other ways to engage and have found that offering different levels of contact choices on membermojo has yielded results. We are very aware that the 'doing things because we have always done them' attitude is not the way forward.

The real aim of my question was to identify whether or not such a voting system would be safe. A couple of people have suggested it may not be, depending on the scruples of your administrator. As administrators can view activity logs on membermojo I think there is a degree of security/oversight but not perfect, potentially an administrator with enough IT knowledge might be able to override the activity logs in some way.

What I am looking for are mechanisms in which we can break free from our current situation of pretty much one meeting per year where any 'decisions' can be made - these are usually restricted due to the running order to electing (or re-electing more often than not) people into positions for which the have varying degrees of enthusiasm and drive.

We are working on a survey for all members at present. I have recently emailed approx 25% of the Guild personally to ask their opinion on the general state of play. Many of those who replied were people who do not attend 'guild events' but were very pleased to be given the opportunity to share their views. I've been very grateful for the input, but personal correspondence with 125+ people is not practical to maintain.

What I am looking for are mechanisms in which we can break free from our current situation of pretty much one meeting per year where any 'decisions' can be made - these are usually restricted due to the running order to electing (or re-electing more often than not) people into positions for which the have varying degrees of enthusiasm and drive. — Fran Watkins

I think that you are focussing too much on a voting system, when what you need to think about is a consultation and engagement strategy with your membership. In a bottom up organisation, voting is the end of the process, not the beginning.

Several Guilds and Associations have been conducting reviews of how they operate and it would be worth looking at what they have done. For example, the Bedfordshire Association undertook a review process starting in 2022, with various surveys and workshops to consult with their membership, and with regular monthly update newsletters to keep members informed, ending up with them voting in a substantial change in their structure and rules at their AGM in 2024.

If you do something like this, people will come along in person, express their opinions and vote. You're never going to achieve anything as radical as what the Bedfordshire Association achieved through electronic voting.

https://www.bacbr.org.uk/association/association-review-information/

Several Guilds and Associations have been conducting reviews of how they operate — Roger Booth

ODG also been doing this over the last year or so, with the result of the first stage to be voted on at the AGM in a couple of weeks. The change is more following the CC than Bedford though. Documents on ODG website: odg.org.uk if anyone is interested.

Is no-one dealing with the fundamental problem of how the rank-and-file perceive their relationship, (or lack of relationship), with CCCBR as a whole? I suspect that most see themselves as members of the local Association / Guild and the only 'contact' with CCCBR, if it can be called that, is what the Association / Guild witters on about at it's next AGM or what gets printed in the RW. Is there not a case for the CCCBR to evolve into a truly National association of ringers rather than merely being a talking-shop for delegates?

I suspect that most see themselves as members of the local Association / Guild — Mike Shelley

I suspect many don’t even do that, but just see themselves as members of a tower or maybe the local district. Half of the guild members in our district didn’t attend any of the 50 or so practices etc that we run during the year.

Is there not a case for the CCCBR to evolve into a truly National association of ringers — Mike Shelley

Yes, but it keeps getting kicked into the long grass because it’s difficult to work out how to get from where we are now to there. The topic has come up several times since the original proposal in the 1880s. When it came up in 2014 I produced this: https://jaharrison.me.uk/New/Articles/MemberOrgn.pdf It was also in the CRAG recommendation, but as noted above, no on has yet been able to make it happen.
Ideas on a postcard.

Are we not wandering into a completely different matter here?
The original question from Fran was regarding a Guild's engagement with its members. Nothing to do with the CCCBR, who have never been seen as directly approachable by rank-and-file guild members and are never likely to be seen as such by rank-and-file guild members.

Our situation in the Hereford Diocesan Guild involves members having to travel considerable distances to attend AGMs (100 to 150 miles round trips are far from unusual) and, especially with fuel prices as they are currently, members are simply not all that interested in travelling that far for something that, they perceive, is neither interesting nor important and could be done on-line.
Those of us that are members of a certain south western county association have had it brought sharply home to us how on-line voting can lead to absolutely disastrous results, within only a couple of years of it being introduced.
If members wish to influence the future direction of their guilds and associations, and expect the officers to carry out their wishes, the least that can be expected is for them to attend the AGM when the matter is being discussed and to hear both sides of the discussion taking place before voting to instruct the guild officers to take a course of action that they, personally, may well be unhappy with.
I am sorry if this offends, but giving votes to former ringing members who have not rung for years, (and whose subs have been paid by the tower to make it 'look better' than not having many, or even any, members [we all know several of them!]) is a recipe for disaster because they are, quite simply, out of touch with what is going on.
60 years ago, when I first became a member of my local associations, travel was nothing like as easy as it is today yet we had three or four times more members turn out for AGMs than we do now. I am not sure whether the yearning to stay at home and vote is a reflection on the fact that there was nothing better for members to do with their Saturday afternoons 60 years ago, that the membership was more enthusiastic in those days, that today's members are apathetic towards the future of their guild or maybe it is sheer laziness, but it is not healthy for any association to allow the policymakers (for that is what members voting from home are, in exactly the same way as those voting in the room) to determine its future from behind a cloak of invisibility (no other members even know if they were 'there' or if they voted, leave alone which way). Why not 'stand up and be counted'? Then every vote counted can count for something.

Are we not wandering into a completely different matter here? — Nick C Cronin

Yes. Apologies for doing so. I was replying to someone else’s comment. On an email list I would have changed the subject line but not sure how to do the equivalent on the forum.