In Support Of The Amendment - Why This Is An Opportunity Not To Be Missed

For those who don’t know me, I’m a 28-year-old, English-born, and English-trained ringer at Trinity Wall Street. I came back to ringing two years ago after a 10-year hiatus, so I’ve been a NAGCR member for the past two years.

I support the amendment and ask my fellow NAGCR members to please vote for it.

As we can all agree, change ringing in North America is a very different animal from its British counterpart. This week I have returned to my home town in the West Midlands for a family gathering, and I have been browsing the annual pamphlet supplied to members of the Lichfield & Walsall Archdeaconries Society of Change Ringers. My parents, who are both in their sixties, are members, as was I a few years ago. In places the pamphlet makes quite a sad read – too many tales of aging bands finding it a struggle to recruit new blood, and towers falling silent as a result.

In North America things are quite different: in recent years, we have been fortunate to receive a number of new and good tower installations. The new towers have sparked a great deal of interest and have brought out of the woodwork lapsed ringers such as myself, as well as new devotees to the exercise. Change ringing, however, remains something that is still very unknown to North Americans at large.

To safeguard ringing in a culture where it is not well known, we need to ensure that all towers are well supplied with ringers for years to come. To support this, the NAGCR should be casting its net as far and wide as possible when trying to attract and retain ringers, and should also be helping towers enthusiastically advertise ringing locally to as wide an audience as possible, so as to garner interest from ringers and non-ringers alike.

Why “non-ringers”? Because every “non-ringer” is a potential future ringer.

The NAGCR as an organization provides many useful services to ringers in North America, but perhaps its most important function is (or at least should be) as a recruitment tool. As Don Trumpler noted, the increase in the number of towers in North American has not been significantly influenced by the actions of the NAGCR, and I don’t really see this changing if this amendment is adopted (unless we start a marketing campaign targeting Wall Street bankers with a million or two to spare!). However, the NAGCR could become more influential in helping local towers grow organically, and by going out of its way to be open to and inclusive of all potential ringers, the NAGCR can help to keep ringing in the mind of those who were once interested, or give that extra nudge of support to those who are just getting started. Being full members of the NAGCR (rather than _just_ associate members) is an excellent way for us to show that we are open and inclusive, and that it is worthwhile making the significant commitment that is undoubtedly required in order to become skilled at our art. From the inside this may be obvious, but to an outsider it can undoubtedly appear that we are cliquey and clubby – not attractive qualities! Sincerely accepting everyone from the get-go is an active demonstration of openness.

What if an interested potential ringer joins and then loses interest, or moves away, and never actually rings? This is indeed the main problem with learner retention that we have in New York, and I suspect it is universal. By continuing to stay in touch with such people, and importantly by treating them on an equal footing as everyone else, we stand a much better chance of eventually drawing them back, or of making them aware if a new tower is installed closer to their new homes.

Some who oppose the amendment have suggested that by fully including non-ringers we ‘dilute’ the organization. Skirting around the pejorative interpretation of this statement, let me remind you that in the ringing world we already have two worldwide organizations that require demonstrable ringing excellence for entry. These organizations serve purposes that the NAGCR does not and need not try to replicate.

I do not suggest, nor does anyone else who has publicly supported this amendment, that North American ringing is going to immediately decline if we do not adopt it. Interestingly, however, I would guess that the recent increase in membership is due more to the newer installations that we have been lucky to receive and the re-emergence of bands at towers like Smith College, rather than to organic growth at already active towers. Perhaps Tom could let us know whether these recent tower additions and the flurry of new members that they brought with them are masking stagnations or slight declines elsewhere. It may be that decline at active towers is something we should be taking more seriously.

For those who oppose the amendment, I ask: What does the NAGCR currently have (or do) that we need fear losing (or not doing) if some “non-ringers” were to become full, voting members? In my experience, although the NAGCR might be said to “advance” ringing in North America, it does not currently “direct” ringing here. Today at the local level, the NAGCR does not have any say in day-to-day activities at individual towers. Nor does the NAGCR provide financial support for creating new rings. Nor indeed does it have any great financial wealth generally that we need to worry about securing.

What the NAGCR does do well is permit easy communication between towers in North America, organize area meetings, provide a very useful book service, and help support the tower or towers that host the AGM. I submit that these important functions would not be affected at all if we were to include as full members all who wish to support change ringing, regardless of whether they themselves ring.

If this amendment allows us to increase the exposure that we have in the hobbies-and-past-times marketplace even slightly, without damaging in any way the NAGCR’s major functions, then why would we not adopt it?

After spending much time thinking about it, I do see the potential benefits of adopting this amendment, and realize that there is no real reason to be afraid. I am entering the debate now to share these thoughts with you, and I respectfully ask that you vote to make this amendment pass.

Duncan Large, Trinity Wall Street