Ringing Forums

I dont disagree that there are things that need to be done centrally , my biggest issue is how its done . I.e if you take the cost of sending multiple reps to a meeting which could be done on line and used that money differently you could fund a lot more grass roots activity.

In addition and I can only speak from example in Devon organised events are becoming less well supported and recruitment remains a challenge , a lot of time and effort was spent on Ring for the King with little long term impact from what I can see, and certinely locally that was the case.

Has the CCCBR looked at the retention of ringers from that initative and lessons learned. A similar question that could be thrown at ART

I think there are a number of crisis approaching at 67 im often the youngest in the bands I ring peals with, there are going to be mass closures of churches many with fine peals of bells , we are seeing this already locally and church attendance in many areas will become non existent in the next 10 years linked to inevitable closures.

As I said im not saying there shouldnt be a central body just that from experience the CCCBR failed to reform into something a lot more leaner and be able to show positive and quantifed outcomes.

The other problem is that given that most ringers have little interest in the CCCBR there is little in the way of challenge or feedback on performance.

@Robert Brown - “if you take the cost of sending multiple reps to a meeting which could be done on line and used that money differently you could fund a lot more grass roots activity.”

I think that generally in ringing money is not the issue and what prevents more activity being offered (at any level, grass roots or centrally) is people’s willingness to invest time.
I like that people can now choose to be part of a workgroup and therefore aim to make some impact without needing to also be an elected rep for their Association or Guild but I do also see that this leaves some reps ‘only’ turning up once a year to represent and not actively contributing or questioning what’s being done.
We see that in many areas the enthusiasm of new ringers is being funnelled into activity which helps to grow ringing opportunities for everyone and this is definitely a good model which can support re-vitalisation of ringing but it does depend (usually) on good support and encouragement from more experienced ringers.
I think the big challenge with the demographic change in ringers across the years is the availability of free time and the willingness to invest time in organising ringing opportunities, including supporting less experienced ringers.

There are other threads in ringing forums which have discussed how to create more opportunities, what we learnt from Ring for the King as a big recruitment campaign with insufficient teachers available and much much more but I don’t think the cost of getting to the Central Council weekend is a significant factor in ringing opportunities for local ringers development around the branches and districts of associations and guilds which are affiliated.

a lot of time and effort was spent on Ring for the King with little long term impact from what I can see, — Robert Brown

The research I reported in The Ringing World a while ago suggests thatbig recruitment drives do not have a lasting effect. If you didn't see it there's a copy at: https://jaharrison.me.uk/New/Articles/RecruitmentDrives.pdf

people can now choose to be part of a workgroup ... this leaves some reps ‘only’ turning up once a year to represent and not actively contributing or questioning what’s being done — Lucy Chandhial

There have always been Council members who 'only turn up once a year'. Even when Council committees were staffed entirely by Council members around 60% did not serve on a committee.
When members were only fed information once a year they could be forgiven for focusing their contribution on the meeting weekend, but now that the Executive has to report every month as well as annually, there are more opportunities to ask questions and if necessary take action. That oversight role is now more important with the Council run by a more powerful Executive.
That role doesn't need 200 people and I suspect being part of such a large group dilutes the feeling of individual responsibility. A smaller meeting would also cost less, and the dynamic of a 'meeting room' would be different from that of a 'lecture theatre'.

Areas I would like to see addressed by the CCCBR is, and given the governace structure , why do Guild etc send multiple reps, — Robert Brown

A jolly for a couple hundred members doesnt do that — Robert Brown

This is a recurring theme on here and elsewhere the Council members don't really do anything, they don't report back and the whole thing is just a jolly.

Given that CCCBR reps are appointed by the guilds and associations, I wonder why people choose to continue to send reps if they do not believe that they are doing a good job.

In my Association over the past decade we have given consideration to what we want to achieve from CCCBR representation and then sought out the people to do it. I believe that we have had significant positive influence on the Council, including helping to lead the CRAG work.

We are entitled to send two reps. If we send two then we incur the costs of sending two, of course. There have been periods when we sent two, and times when we only send one. We decide whether we think it is necessary to send two (we don't consider sending two purely for the purposes of registering two votes to generally be a good use of resources). Again, it is a conscious decision about what we want to achieve. At present we send two reps.

I dont disagree that there are things that need to be done centrally , my biggest issue is how its done . I.e if you take the cost of sending multiple reps to a meeting which could be done on line and used that money differently you could fund a lot more grass roots activity. — Robert Brown

I don't see it as an either/or, do both.

@Graham John has provided an excellent list of a great number of things that the CCCBR does.

The fact that there are many ringers who don't know that it is the CCCBR that does them doesn't mean that they aren't valuable.

They can still deliver value to people even though they are unaware who is doing them, or even that they are being done at all. The things that happen quietly in the background are often not acknowledged because they work so well that people don't even know they are happening.

I suspect that most ringers are entirely unaware of the technical mechanism by which their Apps, Ringing Room or Bell Board magically have a list of every known method. But as Graham lists as his first item, that is a service that works like clockwork provided by the CCCBR. And ringers do value that, even if they don't know where it comes from or who provides it.

I agree that smaller groups tend to take more active responsibility in making decisions than big groups.
Roger talked about having workshops on a topic instead of business meetings (at Guild level) and this would also, probably, be more productive as a use of face to face time when people have travelled especially.

The CC has used workshop format meetings.
Under the old regimme, most years there was an Open Meeting the day before the Council meeting when a hot topic would be debated at length. As the name suggests they were open to anyone to take part. Sometimes they were stand alone (eg in 2000 I ran one on what we had learnt from the Millennium recruitment drive) and at other times they expllored a topic that was on the eganda for the meeting, for example in 2016 over Council reform. Generally they worked well and were useful.
The nearest there has been under the new regime is short sessions before the main meeting where workgroup activity can be discussed but in practice they were more 'presentation + questions than debate. There have also been sessions on the morning after, which were less rushed but still not really a debate.
The Council is responding (perhaps over reacting) to criticism that meetings were too long, and to the desire to offer something else. Inevitable adding a mini roadshow and/orlocal training events into the same total time squeezes the business, especially if you reatain the traditional tower grab.

I echo several of the points raised by Nick Cronin. Here in the Cleveland & North Yorkshire Branch of the YACR, distance is a significant limiting factor. The branch covers a geographical area similar to Kent, South London and the eastern half of Surrey. When I chaired the branch several decades ago (and petrol was 4s.10d per gallon - about 4p/litre) it was not uncommon to make a 100-140 mile round trip to chair a monthly ringing meeting. However, those meetings on the same Saturday afternoon each month, were predictable and followed a regular pattern. Despite the distances, attendances were consistently around 25-30+ and ringers at all levels were generally confident that any support they might need as they developed their ringing, would be available.
Perhaps one ofthe answers to the question of involvement is to have regular meetings on a predictable schedule and to ensure that there is sufficient support for developing ringers.

we too used to get attendances of 30+ for monthly Branch practices 40 years ago, and they were predictable- 6-9pm on the 3rd Saturday. But predictable time or not we wouldn’t get that many now. Other things have changed since then. And distance isn’t an issue, all our towers are within 8 miles of me. However, most practices are just ringing with no meeting, so the boringness or otherwise isn’t an issue either. The lack of engagement of about half our members seems to be driven by something else.