Julian Sternberg took notes during the meeting. These are his notes.
SPECIAL GENERAL MEETING OF STROUD CHORAL SOCIETY
7 October 2019, Marling School, 8.30pm
These notes or minutes are an account of the SGM which had been called by a group of 20 members of the choir (signatories). A handout given in advance to all participants contained the names of the signatories, the agenda items, and copies of nine slides. The notes should be read in conjunction with the slides to which they correspond. The meeting was to be impartially chaired by Rod Marlow (RM), as had been agreed at a pre-meeting a few days earlier with Keith Stannard, John Downer, Sarah Athey, Sam Tolley as well as RM himself and Kay Sandells. The meeting accepted RM as chair by a show of hands.
Apologies for absence: Timothy Brain, Gill Dickinson, Veronica Pride.
Participants: all other signatories, most other choir members (names recorded on an attendance sheet).
1. INTRODUCTION
RM gave an introduction, saying that although the SGM had been legitimately called in line with the 2013 constitution, and although he personally recognised the concerns expressed, the manner in which this process had taken place had the potential for causing tension. Such a background, if picked up by the applicants for Musical Director, might be harmful to the appointment process. The committee itself also accepts many of the concerns raised, though perhaps not to the same degree. RM recalled that the pre-meeting had already proposed to set up one or more working groups (WGs) to address the concerns, and he hoped therefore to be able to keep the SGM short. He repeatedly referred to the 20 signatories as “requisitionists”, despite objections to the effect that they were just “choir members”.
2. CONCERNS OF THE 20 MEMBERS
Catherine Kendall summarised the reasons for reluctantly having called this SGM. See also slide 2. In particular she rhetorically asked “Do we want to be an auditioned choir?”, which led to a few “No” voices from the floor. She also made a point of thanking the present treasurer – see the later presentation below by John Cooper for clarification of where the financial concerns are. She looks to the WGs as the way forward for all the concerns summarised in slide 2.
Gail Girling gave a personal and emotional account of the importance of the choir to her and of her disappointment with what has been changing. In particular she drew attention to thealmost threatening welcome page on our website, which among other things expresses prominently the requirements for voice tests and attendance; she no longer feels welcome in a choir which discourages potential new members to this extent. She had previously raised corresponding concerns with the committee but had been told that the matter was closed. The same applied to the upcoming appointment of a Musical Director – it seemed to her that no consultation with the choir at large had taken or would take place.
Andrew Mitchell outlined the scope of the three envisioned WGs and their purpose (slide 4). He added that he is keen to join the committee, but it was “full”, however meanwhile he has been co-opted as from their October 21st meeting. It is not clear whether the co-option will be reviewed after the upcoming AGM. He would like the WGs (and committee) to take more account of what has or has not worked well in the past and change strategy where appropriate.
Sarah Athey and Sam Tolley expanded on slide 5 – survey and establish what sort of choir we want to be, to be examined by WG1. They urged the committee to carry out such a survey, as had been promised at 2 recent AGMs.
Ann Cooper elaborated on slide 6 – WG2. She thought there had been a tremendous musical improvement in recent years but that the “governance” had not kept pace. She recalled the recent confusion about different versions of our constitution, and she expressed dismay at the committee’s idea that any constitution could be “adapted to actual practice”, implying that we have been deviating from it. The constitution endorsed in 2013 is the one that we should have been following. In particular, it is strongly worded as concerns the rotation and rejuvenation of the committee; members are expected to make way at the end of their period of office unless there are exceptional circumstances. Ann also mentioned the importance of keeping compliance with the rules of the Charities Commission. None of this precludes the addition of new guidelines or procedures in a separate handbook, which could be managed in an more informal way, as long as that handbook is not in conflict with the constitution itself.
John Cooper expanded on slides 7 and 8 – WG3. Based on his experience with another choir, he sees our overall finances as going in a negative direction. There is no concern with the annual accounts performed by the present treasurer, rather the concern is about what will happen if recent trends continue. We ought to ask members for their ideas and assistance for new fund-raising activities. It should also be borne in mind that the choice of concert venues has a big impact on our finances. RM intervened, agreeing that there are indeed financial issues, but the course of action really depends on the level of ambition of the choir; we should be “rational” and deal with this through the WGs.
3. RESPONSE OF THE COMMITTEE
Kay Sandells (KS) responded on behalf of the committee. Broadly speaking, she had no problem with the idea of exploring changes via WGs, but this could have been achieved without an SGM more easily if the signatories had instead directly approached the committee. (Some gasps around the room suggested that some choir members thought otherwise.) She was saddened by the emergence of conflict and aggression and felt that her personal integrity and honesty had been challenged. She felt hindered by the (alleged) refusal of some people to supply documents relevant to the problems. She also recalled that her committee had inherited a £4000 deficit incurred through a tour by the choir.
KS did not have a personal view about voice assessments but she did accept that Huw Williams thought they were needed. She stated: “No, we are not an auditioned choir”, but apparently “audition” in her view requires a sight-reading test (which is not the understanding of some other participants). In this context KS deplored one particular email from an unnamed choir member who claimed to know more about running choirs than Huw.
KS would prefer just one WG for all topics, but the choir members felt this was not manageable, given the range of subjects to cover and the desirability of quick progress. The number of WGs was left open.
The committee is well advanced with the process of selecting a Musical Director with support from Adrian Partington (of Gloucester). KS stated that the committee will indeed seek the views of any members following the trial rehearsals to be taken by the three candidates - via written opinions and/or votes placed into a ballot box.
Concerning the constitution, KS stated that the 2012 version had not been written by her – only amended. She apologised for not knowing of the existence of the 2013 version nor of the SGM which had endorsed it. Ralph Pidsley asked whether there existed signed minutes for that SGM. RM accepted, in any case, that the 2013 version is the valid one, and we should “leave it at that” and ask the relevant WG to sort this out.
KS accepted that the committee made mistakes but also tried to do “a lot of good things” and worked hard, so the present criticism is hurtful. Keith Stannard and another member of the committee both spoke in support of KS – working hard for the good of the choir, egalitarian, very approachable.
4. DISCUSSION
RM led the discussion, beginning by advocating a survey concerning voice assessments, while also saying that the Musical Director should have some “residual power” over this – discuss further in the appropriate WG. It emerged that the committee has already agreed a moratorium on voice assessments for two years, to reflect advice by Adrian Partington, in which case a major change is needed to our web page for prospective members to remove the corresponding text. RM also supported the idea of a separate rule book or handbook as already mentioned above. It was pointed out that a members’ handbook can already be downloaded from our website, though it is not clear whether it can be equated to the handbook we talked of above - a complement to the constitution. Let the appropriate WG sort this out.
Jude Comber felt that the choir was no longer friendly/happy. Ruth Fraser felt on the other hand that the standard was high, one of the best choirs she had been in, and she regretted that others were “sniping” at the committee. Ralph Pidsley re-stated support for the establishment of the WGs, whose recommendations should be brought back to the choir as a whole.
There were some suggestions about the part that could be played by the new Musical Director, for example on the choice of concert venues. Some “wiggle room” for the Director to carry out voice tests at a later date and possible even some “weeding out” needs to be acknowledged, RM concluded; it is important not to alienate the new Director by denying these options to him or her.
Graham Ellis spoke in favour of broadening the choir’s musical repertoire – agreed by KS. Others made further statements about the survey and the WGs, already covered in these notes.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The proposal to convene Working Groups consisting of signatories and committee members (and input from others where appropriate) to address the issues identified by this SGM was unanimously agreed with no abstentions.
The afore-mentioned survey of choir members should be carried out and should feed into the WGs.
The postponed AGM should take place as soon as possible.
No timescales for any of these actions were talked about during the SGM.
The meeting was closed at 9:40pm.
