Of course it had no great wider significance - just one small part of adjusting to the cuts - in this case 25% of Bromley's Greenscene budget. But it was a properly conducted meeting, with something over 100 delegates there, with the main motion being that plot holders across from c. 50 sites would share the burden of paying the rent for those just four sites not owned by Bromley - this being an item identified by accountants as where savings could be made. This is not the place to go into details - a report will appear on http://www.balgf.org in due course - but what struck me was how the traditional way the meeting and the whole decision making process worked.
Of course the cuts had to be accepted, but by virtue of following well understood rules, including such formal elements of process as taking amendments submitted before voting on the main motion, by notices of the meeting being circulated, with due reference to Standing Orders and the constitution of the Federation http://www.balgf.org/index.php?option=c ... icle&id=16 we ended up with a decision that would be accepted, and some small contribution to building trust between the parties involved.
Of course it's not always like that - in the world of Bromley Allotments, I'm sometimes amused by all the levels where distrust and misunderstanding can occur - plotholders not trusting their site committees, site committees not trusting their representative organisation (BALGF), BALGF officers not trusting (some) Council officers, and maybe some distrust between Councillors and officers, although I'm not aware of this in this case. But by following rules, and from having proper constitutions required throughout the structure - e.g. http://www.balgf.org/index.php?option=c ... icle&id=16 - it can work, and on Monday evening it did. A senior council officer gave up his evening, and apart from minor lapses into Local Authority jargon, he was understood, and will have gone away feeling that it is worth "providing" for allotment plot holders, even if we don't give Bromley any financial return.
In various other postings on this Forum I have referred to formal elements of meetings, e.g. yesterday writing
http://forum.sydenham.org.uk/viewtopic. ... 728#p46728So like Lewisham People Before Profits, I would also like answers to their questions on financing and governance. I think the public has a right to know - otherwise these sort of consultation events risk disappointing the public who only see a fraction of the picture.
and in the context of the collapse last year of a local social enterprise
http://forum.sydenham.org.uk/viewtopic. ... 98&p=43913In the meantime, some respect please for the boring sorts of people who do the accounts, check the money, take minutes and file documents. They matter as much as the inspirational types, and really do empower community organisations.
This is the sort of thing I was getting at. Give people clear information, make sure their voices can be heard and votes counted, and you end up with a more effective, cohesive society. To this end, let's have more of the old-fashioned formality of meetings, whose practices will have evolved to meet the same sort of need for legitimacy as we still have today. But let's also have more use of this new-fangled web technology to allow us in the 21st century to check up on constitutions, minutes, accounts etc.
In yet another posting on this site I quoted one of my favourite journalists
Afterwards I thought that maybe the same applies to anything - not just science.Ben Goldacre wrote:If science has any authority, it derives from transparency: you can check the claims against the working.
http://forum.sydenham.org.uk/viewtopic. ... 18&p=44127