From the evidence presented thus far it seems that the LFS is divided into two factions.
One faction seems to be operating as if the following standard applies. That is, when ‘members’ pay their annual subscription for an annual program of films they have abdicated from all decision making from that point onward.
Under this model and understanding [Model 1] those members who bother to vote for ‘representatives’ at an AGM leave their abdication until after that meeting. Here ALL authority automatically passes to ‘The Committee’ who then work on the “TRUST US PRINCIPLE” – safe in the assumption that members do.
The flow on from this being a committee that is self-regulating, self-assessing and self-assured – possibly self-serving.
If the outcome is a program of films that the membership, in general, is content with, then everything is, as they say, “honky dory”. However, if ‘The Committee’ starts making decisions that seem to be at odds with a group of members’ expectations the TRUST US principle unwinds, and typically exponentially, to the dismay of these members and ‘The Committee’– who can no longer claim that they have the trust of the members.
The second faction [Model 2] seems to be operating on the understanding that as members they share both the benefits and losses of their memberships – albeit that decision making might be devolved to ‘The Committee’. Therefore they welcome being engaged with the decision-making that delivers the kind of program they have signed up for. In this model there is head space for ongoing consultation.
After all we could all abdicate and rely totally upon what ‘The Cinema’, the business not the building, decides it will present to an audience and for its own reasons – mostly business reasons made somewhere else and very little else.
If under Model 2 the outcome is a program of films that the membership, in general, is content with, again everything is “honky dory”. If ‘The Committee’ starts making decisions that are at odds with members’ expectations the TRUST US understanding is immediately redundant, and typically issues can be resolved by consultation – even if it may not be to the satisfaction of a minority.
The majority prevails but as Winston Churchill said “democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”
So it seems that members have two choices:
• The "Trust’em Camp"
• The “We Want To Be Involved Camp”
even if this is over simplifying things a little – but not by a lot really.
In the end it is all about accountability, to whom "The Committee" is accountable, to what extent and when.
Posts
4 comments:
I know that cinemas are dark places but I forgot that the funny smell recently is all about me being a mushroom and it being fertilizer time. I’ll watch out for the gumboots in future and then I’ll be prepared.
All I really want is more and more fertilizer and no responsibility
what is wrong with you clipboard people
Mae hopes that some of those 'Clipboarders' read this question from Anonymous and reply.
I heard somewhere once that approximately 10% of people in society have serious personality issues that significantly interfere with their interpersonal skills and functioning. It would then only take a small, but vocal minority (i.e. this 10%) to wreak havoc when the majority are content. Absolutely, have your say and opinion. However, ensure it remains respectful to your fellow human being, unlike so much of the propaganda written on this blog site - some of which may be considered slanderous, gossip and hysteria akin to the trashiest British tabloids. Lift your game, otherwise you will not get my vote. In the interest of "democracy" as has been so apparentyl been pointed out on the site, i hope this gets published by the blog author, who clearly has an agenda.
Post a Comment