Go ahead and get a movement together to disband the RCCC. What will you replace it with? New RCCC?

To me, the irony of this is, that this attitude of seeking someone to blame for the GM being cancelled is exactly the same attitude that caused it to be cancelled in the first place. Find someone to blame and punish them.

It appears that the Grand Match Committee, or sub-Committee as it is correctly known, were being a trifle economical with the truth when they blamed the inability to stage the Grand Match on the various Authorities that are required to make sure that we do nothing to harm ourselves.

They should/must have known, well in advance, that they did not have access to anyone that was in a position to vouch for the safety of the Ice and therefor to activate the Insurance Policy.

Why, on earth, have we gone through this whole charade when they could have told us, in September, that there was no likely-hood of a Grand Match being held. Or maybe they were desperately searching for such an individual and had not found one. Could they not have just said so.

The Police said that they were not able to make the necessary arrangements "in the time available". Had the Committee not met with them, in the autumn and made a plan that could be put into action should the right conditions become available?

The alternative sites. I do not know them, but it was common knowledge, on the East Coast where I grew up, that deep waters were the last to freeze and frequently never did, because of convection currents within the deeper water. Were they not aware of this?

I am sure that the Committee is made up of Honourable Men and Women, but in my mind and on this possibly unique occasion, they have failed us.

I'm afraid that this appears to reinforce the opinion that the RCCC is no longer acting for the Curlers that pay it's annual Membership Fee.

Wreckingball. We agree on point one.

Point two, I've seen little evidence that this committee has any work load at all. LoM was not on their active list of locations, much confusion over why this was the case, from safety issues to uncooperative landowners but no evidence that the committee ever dealt with any of these issues, which is why i assume a minimum workload.

Point three. Despite three weeks of minus temperatures, the alternative suitable sites, picked and planned for by the committee, remained unsuitable.

Would you employ them to find a suitable site in Scotland on which you wished hold a large gathering of around 2000 curlers??

Wreckingball, you suggested that there was no reason for them to"increase" their workload as  LoM was not on the list, and I agree. Before last week it seems they had no contact with anyone in connection to LoM and therefore no workload from that location. Where are you finding information that suggests that workload was being created from the only other two sites under consideration?

Point three..my point..they selected only two sites as suitable, i agree, they could have selected many many more, but there must have been something which made these two stand out as suitable, what was it?  And, as we did not have a G/M on either site, whatever it was that appeared to make them suitable, was incorrect.

Surely you all have the words of Won't get Fooled again by the Who floating about in your head...

But we are also right in the fact that the organisation has got a bit bloated.

So... Do we disband it?
Maybe not... There's some good stuff worth keeping...

Do we change the organisation, and make it more transparent and member accountable?
Surely it's supposed to be like that already? Have we seen how transparent the Scottish Parliament is in practise?
Would it work?

Or do we change the people, and keep the same rules and structures as now?
Maybe it's not the fault of years of stale policies building up and actually the fault of the people!
Hire a mob! Light the torches! Crack out the pitchforks!

Seriously, though? How effective is any of this?

One useful thing to think about is that University Student Unions, when not full of drunks and loud, 'thump thump' music that those kids listen to, is that they have a strict structure and control system. Presidents, Vice presidents, Exec committees, Sub Committees, even in our case, a couple of sub-organisations.
And the government requires a Governance Review of a student union every 3-5 years to make sure it's offering it's members the best possible service.

So at Strathclyde, we rewrote the constitution over the period of 12 months, and voted it in at the agm.
Jobs have been created, jobs have been lost, jobs have yet to be defined, but it's a whole new way of running the same organisation.

For those interested, here is the concept: Clicky!

Any student can go along to a "forum" and raise an issue related to the subject of that forum. If it's sensible and of relevance, it will be discussed by the "exec", and a policy is formed to be presented to the student body, who can then question it at question time. If it is good, it is passed on to policy council and passed... if it's crap, it's recycled and refined.
Once policy council are finished with it it has to be passed, either at an AGM or referendum.

Overseeing this whole process is a board of trustees, who have the power to veto anything that is daft, but only if they are called upon by the exec or policy council, and a financial oversight committee, who have the ability to look into "disappearing money" amongst other things.

I'm not saying it's the best model, or the way to go for the RCCC, but compared to our old, current, model where you have to join the student rep council and then some other committee if you want to raise an issue or think about policy, it's far easier for members to talk to people who know about what they are asking, and at all points people can be held responsible and accountable for bad decisions or mysterious activities.

Perhaps we should review, as people, how it runs and how we want it to run. Or maybe we should get them to do it for us?

Gouys intersting thoughts, I'm not going to give detailed post right now but remember RCCC is now (in theory) one member, one vote. Think about the consequences, if you can mobilise the vote.............?