Ringing Forums

I dont disagree that there are things that need to be done centrally , my biggest issue is how its done . I.e if you take the cost of sending multiple reps to a meeting which could be done on line and used that money differently you could fund a lot more grass roots activity.

In addition and I can only speak from example in Devon organised events are becoming less well supported and recruitment remains a challenge , a lot of time and effort was spent on Ring for the King with little long term impact from what I can see, and certinely locally that was the case.

Has the CCCBR looked at the retention of ringers from that initative and lessons learned. A similar question that could be thrown at ART

I think there are a number of crisis approaching at 67 im often the youngest in the bands I ring peals with, there are going to be mass closures of churches many with fine peals of bells , we are seeing this already locally and church attendance in many areas will become non existent in the next 10 years linked to inevitable closures.

As I said im not saying there shouldnt be a central body just that from experience the CCCBR failed to reform into something a lot more leaner and be able to show positive and quantifed outcomes.

The other problem is that given that most ringers have little interest in the CCCBR there is little in the way of challenge or feedback on performance.

@Robert Brown - “if you take the cost of sending multiple reps to a meeting which could be done on line and used that money differently you could fund a lot more grass roots activity.”

I think that generally in ringing money is not the issue and what prevents more activity being offered (at any level, grass roots or centrally) is people’s willingness to invest time.
I like that people can now choose to be part of a workgroup and therefore aim to make some impact without needing to also be an elected rep for their Association or Guild but I do also see that this leaves some reps ‘only’ turning up once a year to represent and not actively contributing or questioning what’s being done.
We see that in many areas the enthusiasm of new ringers is being funnelled into activity which helps to grow ringing opportunities for everyone and this is definitely a good model which can support re-vitalisation of ringing but it does depend (usually) on good support and encouragement from more experienced ringers.
I think the big challenge with the demographic change in ringers across the years is the availability of free time and the willingness to invest time in organising ringing opportunities, including supporting less experienced ringers.

There are other threads in ringing forums which have discussed how to create more opportunities, what we learnt from Ring for the King as a big recruitment campaign with insufficient teachers available and much much more but I don’t think the cost of getting to the Central Council weekend is a significant factor in ringing opportunities for local ringers development around the branches and districts of associations and guilds which are affiliated.

a lot of time and effort was spent on Ring for the King with little long term impact from what I can see, — Robert Brown

The research I reported in The Ringing World a while ago suggests thatbig recruitment drives do not have a lasting effect. If you didn't see it there's a copy at: https://jaharrison.me.uk/New/Articles/RecruitmentDrives.pdf

people can now choose to be part of a workgroup ... this leaves some reps ‘only’ turning up once a year to represent and not actively contributing or questioning what’s being done — Lucy Chandhial

There have always been Council members who 'only turn up once a year'. Even when Council committees were staffed entirely by Council members around 60% did not serve on a committee.
When members were only fed information once a year they could be forgiven for focusing their contribution on the meeting weekend, but now that the Executive has to report every month as well as annually, there are more opportunities to ask questions and if necessary take action. That oversight role is now more important with the Council run by a more powerful Executive.
That role doesn't need 200 people and I suspect being part of such a large group dilutes the feeling of individual responsibility. A smaller meeting would also cost less, and the dynamic of a 'meeting room' would be different from that of a 'lecture theatre'.