Memo to the EMS Committee

To: EMS Committee (+ Dr McBride + Dr Meldrum + Professor Wallace)
From: J Martin
Re: Organisation of BMC
Date: 22 March 1989

I enclose a copy of a memo from Dr D R Woodall which is calling a special meeting of last year's BMC Committee on Tuesday 4 April, before the AGM on Wednesday 5 April. The object is to discuss his proposals for changes in the organisation with a view to getting some decision at the AGM.

See this memo at THIS LINK

You will recall that the last EMS Committee took no strong opinion on his earlier proposals but asked to be consulted before any major changes were made. This was explained to Dr Woodall, although the statement seems to have lost a little emphasis as transferred to his document. The LMS Council apparently did not produce a terribly strong opinion either, although Dr Mulvey, in particular, seems to be strongly in favour of the status quo. He views the calling of this meeting as an attempt to rush through a decision and he talked about mounting a campaign to have proposals rejected by the AGM. Woodall and Mulvey seem to hold opposing opinions on the VAT question (Woodall's item 1); Mulvey thinks that an ongoing body is not necessary and could make things worse. I am unable to comment except to recall that Dr McBride and Professor Wallace also felt the original proposals to be rather more elaborate than necessary.

The EMS will be represented at these meetings by Dr J Meldrum and Dr R Steiner. At present they are instructed only to say that the EMS should be consulted before changes are made (although they know "the story so far"). If you have any further views regarding the EMS attitude, please would you let me have them as soon as possible. I don't think the EMS can actually demand to be consulted before changes are made since our formal position is merely as guarantor with consequent right to membership of the Committee and auditing of accounts. There are now some very specific proposals on the table and we may be able to reach a clearer opinion.

Decisions may soon have to be taken on the following questions. I would be grateful to have the opinions of Committee members.

  1. If it appears that a decision is to made without consultation of EMS, how should our representatives vote on the proposal as attached?

  2. Should I write to Woodall restating the EMS position about consultation?

  3. If the LMS mount a campaign against the proposals should I allow the EMS to be linked to it in any way?

By default I will take the answer to be no to (ii) and (iii), but I don't know about (i).