BA/4/08
Meeting held at 1.30 pm on 23 April 2008 at St Dunstan's, 12-14 Harcourt Street, London.
1. Rollcall: John Savage, Jim McCafferty, David Boden, Iain Millard, Stephen Phippen, Jane Sellers, Bill Poole, Richard West, Sarah Home, Alison Roberts, Sheila Armstrong, Marion Ripley, Hans Cohn, Peter Osborne, Sarah Morley-Wilkins (visitor).
Apologies: Michael Townsend, Fred Jakeman, Maggy Grubb, Ann Donnelly, Ann Marsh, David McKerral, Gareth Davies.
2. Bill Poole welcomed people to this special BAUK meeting, called to deal with important items not completed in the previous scheduled meeting on 26 March 2008. He proposed the following agenda:
1. Rollcall
2. Approval of agenda
3. Merger issues:
(a) Objects and powers
(b) Definition of membership
(c) Board
(d) Structure
(e) Timetable
4. ICEB General Assembly
(a) Report
(b) Procedures for ratifying the braille code for IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet)
(c) WBC (World Braille Council)
5. UEB consultation
6. Any other business
This was agreed.
Hans Cohn asked if there would be an ICEB General Assembly report at the AGM, to which Bill Poole replied that there should be (but not at this meeting).
3. Merger issues.
(The documents referred to under the following headings were circulated to members prior to the meeting.)
(a) Objects and powers.
Sarah Morley-Wilkins said that all three organisations have participated in discussing items, and she found it encouraging that all are thinking along the same lines. After a visit to the solicitor some of the documents have since been amended. Bill Poole emphasised that the documents were not finished, and if anyone had doubts or concerns, etc., they should raise them at this meeting (though there will be an opportunity at the AGM).
Bill Poole commented that the item dealing with legislating for braille should say "braille for public use": BAUK doesn't legislate for private usages. Sarah Morley-Wilkins agreed that this qualification can be put back in. Hans Cohn pointed out that the inclusion of this item anticipates that BAUK will be part of UKAAF (UK Association for Accessible Formats - the proposed name for the new organisation), otherwise it would have to come out. Richard West said that he had raised this issue with the solicitor: there would need to be changes if all three organisations didn't join. Sarah Morley-Wilkins pointed out that such a situation would be expensive: people should make their concerns known now. It was agreed that we should invite members not present at the meeting to send any comments they have about the proposed merger to the Secretary by 2nd May.
Hans Cohn said he was concerned about the term "social inclusion" used in item 2: people may not want to be "socially included" but just want to be able to read. It was pointed out that this has been considered with the solicitor, and alternative wording along the lines of "to assist people's further integration in society" is being worked on.
(b) Definition of membership.
Sarah Morley-Wilkins said that this document will form part of the constitution, and does not exist in its own right. The Advisory Group are end users with an interest, but do not have voting rights.
Hans Cohn was concerned that some small organisations would not be able to provide three members to cover the three areas of interest of the new organisation (i.e. those of BAUK, COTIS and UKABP). Could a single member cover all three areas? Bill Poole replied that separate organisations would not exist in the new organisation: existing walls will be broken down. There will be subgroups ("subject areas" and "task groups") dealing with specific matters. However, Hans was still not convinced how the extra work could be squeezed into a shorter time.
Stephen Phippen asked if there was anything stated about meetings of the ordinary membership, e.g. in BAUK we have three meetings a year at which all members could discuss and decide upon substantial issues. Richard West replied that there was not, but he would expect there to be an annual general meeting. Sarah Morley-Wilkins added that she would like to see the AGM include reports, events and other activities. John Savage asked how it was expected that money would be raised for the new organisation, to which Sarah Morley-Wilkins replied that each organisation would bring money, plus there would be subscriptions, and RNIB has provided backup for the legal fees for the merger. Stephen Phippen asked what incentive would there then be for organisations to join if there was only one meeting a year; people could be on task groups for specific areas of interest to them without being a member. Sarah Morley-Wilkins replied that they would get a newsletter, and the opportunity to communicate with others in the organisation, etc. Richard West added that members would be able to initiate task groups (not just be a member of one). The new organisation would be a single body which people could contact with issues. Members would be able to get involved in policy which they had not been able to before, e.g. the teaching of braille.
David Boden said that the question of the Chair not paying a subscription fee had been discussed; but what about the Secretary, etc? Bill Poole replied that the reason for the Chair being treated differently is that the Chair is deterritorialised; Richard West added that the Chair must be seen as being independent.
(c) Board.
Bill Poole explained that membership would be divided into officers (6 people) and ordinary members. The board would consist of the 6 officers plus 6 ordinary members.
Iain Millard asked if there would be one or more Treasurers. Bill Poole replied that there would be one, but Richard West added that the document was silent on whether there would be any assistants to the Secretary or Treasurer. Sarah Morley-Wilkins further added that an assessment is currently being made as to the expected workload, e.g. the work of three secretaries is being joined into one post.
David Boden suggested that the phrase "financial audit" be changed to "financial review": the term "audit" has perhaps unwanted implications.
Hans Cohn pointed out that most organisations have a publication, such as a magazine or newsletter. Richard West answered that this was not a constitutional item, but it was intended that there would be a newsletter.
Stephen Phippen asked how much power would the board have compared to the general membership? For instance, taking the coming issue of UEB as an example, the board (with a membership of just 12, perhaps with just 4 braille users) could vote by 7 to 5 to implement UEB in the UK, and this would then be the policy of UKAAF. The general membership wouldn't have any say in this, and could actually be against it. Richard West replied that in such a case an extra meeting of the full membership should be called - he thought it should be in the constitution that the membership could call such a meeting to challenge a board decision, especially if it is going against one of the specialist sections. Peter Osborne added that it was important that the Chair was always aware of such situations: this underlined the importance of the deterritorial nature of the Chair.
(d) Structure.
Richard West reported that the solicitor had said that the structure was not really a constitutional matter, so this information may not appear in the constitution document. The structure was meant to be as flexible as possible, and designed to get jobs done efficiently without burdening people with tasks they don't want. Peter Osborne commented that this was an important part of the package, even if not in the constitution.
(e) Timetable.
Bill Poole reported that the solicitor's questionnaire had not been completed yet, but himself, Richard West and Stephen Phippen would see that it was. Copies of the annual accounts also needed to be sent to the solicitor; Iain Millard will send these to Richard for forwarding.
Sarah Morley-Wilkins outlined the proposed timetable: The AGMs of each organisation will be presented with a set of identical documents. There will be a vote on the new organisation's constitution, and a vote on dissolving the existing organisation. A kick off date for the new organisation will be proposed, e.g. 1st January 2009, and the dissolution of the existing organisations could happen at the same time.
Bill Poole spoke about the transitional arrangements. All existing members would be entitled to transfer to the new organisation. Sarah Morley-Wilkins said that people have already had the chance to comment, and hoped people will already have expressed their concerns, or joined in if they wanted to. Richard West said that after July no subscriptions to the existing organisations would be charged, and Sarah Morley-Wilkins added that there may be a grace period for the first year in the new organisation - the first AGM can set the fees. If people wanted to join either COTIS, UKABP or BAUK before January, they could do so without paying a subscription, and could then decide if they wanted to join UKAAF, like anyone else, from the date of inauguration.
Bill Poole said that it was being asked if any BAUK members would like to be considered to be members of the provisional board (until the first AGM). The following replied positively (if interested in an officer post this is noted after their name): Bill Poole (Vice Chair), Alison Roberts, Jim McCafferty, Jane Sellers (Secretary), Hans Cohn, Peter Osborne (Chair), Marion Ripley, Lisa Jones (Chair User Advisory Group), Richard West, Iain Millard (Treasurer), Sarah Home.
Sarah Morley-Wilkins commented that COTIS has come up with a list containing a mixture of people; if you are not on the board there are plenty of other ways you can contribute. Richard West pointed out that you could be a section leader without being a board member. Marion Ripley said that it would be useful if people coming forward could be multi-skilled, and Sarah Morley-Wilkins added that the board also needed to be balanced, not top-heavy in one particular area. She thought that people on the merger group would be good to have as they are already deeply entrenched in the process. The list should be sent to Wendy Davies, who will collate it with the lists from the other organisations (there are likely to be overlaps).
Sarah Morley-Wilkins said that she wanted testimonials from people saying why membership of the new organisation will be good, as well as testimonials from customers. These would be used for the newsletter and web page. She also needed a list of the main work being done in the existing organisations which needed to be carried over to the new organisation, e.g. the UEB consultation.
Peter Osborne commended the merger working group for the work they had put into this matter.
4. ICEB General Assembly.
(a) Report. Bill Poole said that he would write a report on this, to be circulated for the AGM.
(b) Ratifying IPA.
Bill Poole reported that the Linguistics Committee of ICEB (International Council on English Braille) had agreed a revised braille code for IPA (International Phonetics Alphabet), and this was launched at the ICEB General Assembly. This code is separate from UEB, and is based on the current UK code. The print IPA had been significantly revised in 1989, so the UK braille code certainly needed updating. The question is, do we want to adopt it for use in the UK (replacing our code), and what group should we call together to consider this? We could create an ad hoc group (rather than use an existing one such as the full Literary Code Committee). Peter Osborne agreed, and suggested Stephen Phippen, Bill Poole, Alison Markham (from RNIB) and himself. This group could then make a recommendation to BAUK (e.g. for BAUK to ratify the code, or some other action to take). This was agreed.
5. UEB consultation.
Lisa Jones has forwarded a work plan. The booklet (including the samples and questionnaire) to be sent out will need updating. We have a costing for production and distribution of the booklet, but this can be dealt with outside the meeting.
The meeting closed.