For greater accessibility by members, text of Peal Secretary Theresa Rice's "Report regarding disallowed peals"

As a result of the issue surrounding the request made at the AGM to have the President or the members attending to overturn the decision to dis-allow 2 peals as being for the NAGCR, Madeleine Cheesman has requested that I provide an account of what went into the decision. I am breaking the response into 2 parts: what happens in general, and what specifically happened with the 2 peals at issue.

To save everyone having to dig out the annual report, I’m including what the Constitution and By-Laws have to say about Guild peals:

Constitution

11. Peals

A peal shall be credited to the Guild only if:

11.1 all members of the band are Guild Members, and at least half are Resident Members;

By-Laws

8. Duties of Officers

8.5 The Peal Secretary shall:

- decide on the eligibility of peals rung for the Guild;

The implication is that, ideally, membership is supposed to be current at the time the peal is rung; second best is that membership is current by the time the peal is submitted – this allows for long-practiced tradition of newly-electing members at the time a peal is rung. And as is published in The Clapper, “It is the conductor’s responsibility to confirm membership status of ringers before submitting the peal”. Once upon a time, both peal and any dues would be popped in the mail, and would be delivered more-or-less at the same time and all would be right. Changes in communication has meant that submitting a peal has become a shorter process than submitting payment. These same changes also made it easier for me to reply confirming receipt, a process I began to standardize in 2009. I paid particular attention to replying to submissions that did not initially appear to meet membership requirements. I also tried to allow for human error and if remedial action needs to be taken, establish limits. After discussion with several people, including the then Exec, a period of 10 days after a peal has been submitted was settled on. Most of you will never have seen that reply – I seldom need to send it, so I’m including a copy of the template:

Subject: <original subject text> – failure to meet qualifications

This is to acknowledge receipt of your report of a peal for the North American Guild of Change Ringers rung on <date> of <changes> <method> at <tower dedication>, <city>, <state>.

The peal was claimed as being for the North American Guild of Change Ringers, unfortunately it does not meet the qualifications for the following reason(s):

· <ringer’s> membership in NAGCR expired as of <mm/yyyy>

· <ringer> is not a member of NAGCR

· Less than half the band are resident members

If this matter has already been addressed or can be addressed within the next 10 days, please let me know.

<Peal Secretary>

NAGCR Peal Secretary

Over the past 3 years, I have sent this out 15 times. I do look for a response, making sure that the problem is known and being addressed; none have claimed that it was insufficient time. In fact the usual response was ‘the check is already in the mail!’

Which brings us to the peals under dispute.

On 11 March, a peal of Stedman Cinques was conducted by Ed Futcher.

• On 12 March, I received from Ed an email with the composition; at this time Ed referred to the need to renew the membership of one of the band – i.e. Ed knew before I did that there was a problem.
• On 16 March, the peal of Stedman Cinques was submitted.
• On 17 March, I replied to this submission, noting that I could not confirm it as a Guild peal due to the lapsed membership, but noted that the previous email (of 12 March) indicated that the issue was already being addressed. The 10-day clock started.
• On 18 March, the lapsed member applied to the Membership Secretary for a membership form, which was sent to him by email the same day.
• On 27 March, the 10-day clock runs out. It is 16 days after the peal was rung. Nothing further was heard from the lapsed member

On 16 March, a peal of Kent TB Royal was conducted by Ed Futcher.

On 17 March, a peal of Kent TB Major was conducted by Elaine Hansen.

• On 19 March, the both peals were submitted.
• On 20 March, I replied separately to each submission, noting that I could not confirm either as Guild due to lapsed membership for ringers in both peals. The 10-day clock started.
• On 21 March, Ed Futcher replies that both lapsed ringers have been notified.
• On 27 March, dues were received from one of the lapsed members; Kent TB Royal was confirmed as a Guild peal.
• On 31 March, the 10-day clock runs out. Nothing further was heard from the remaining lapsed member.

On 1 April, I consulted with the rest of the Exec – I had previously never needed to dis-allow a peal, and was loath to do so without confirming that I had provided reasonable opportunity to make good the error. It was agreed that

• The rules regarding eligibility for NAGCR peals have been published in the Constitution and By-Laws for well over a decade, and were available and should be known by anyone conducting a Guild peal.
• The responsibly for meeting these rules lies with the conductor, as has been published in The Clapper for over a decade and should likewise be know by anyone conducting a Guild peal.
• The 10-day grace period, offered at the discretion of the Peal Secretary, had expired without use.

Both conductors were notified by email on 5 April that the respective peals were not accepted as Guild. The affiliation would be set to Non-Association unless the conductor specified something else. In the event either conductor felt that there was mitigating information not given due consideration, Madeleine agreed to hear any appeals. If she agreed that the information was relevant and not considered in the original decision, she would present that information to me and ask for a reconsideration. After 15 April, if there was no successful appeal, I would notify The Ringing World of the change of affiliation due to failing to meet Guild requirements. When the 15 April deadline passed, Madeleine reported that no such information had been received.

COMMENT FROM THE PRESIDENT

Based on the details and timelines as noted above, and that no addition information was received at the time, nor after the discussion at the AGM at Smith College, I support the Peal Secretary’s decision to disallow both the Stedman Cinques and the Kent TB Major peals. It is most unfortunate that any peal must be disallowed, as they are significant performances in and of themselves. That said, the by-laws are clear and all conductors and ringers should be fully conversant with them. I do hope that this situation does not recur.