Peal requirements

At the recent AGM in Northampton, the issue was raised of two peals rung earlier this year which could not, the peal secretary had ruled, be credited to the NAG because not all ringers' guild membership was up-to-date. Unfortunately, we didn't really have the chance to discuss the matter properly at the time; and it will be a long time until the next opportunity at the 2013 AGM. So perhaps it's a good idea to have an online discussion now.

I wasn't involved in either peal and don't really know the details, so I can't comment on the actual cases. I have a natural curiosity to hear more about them, of course; but without any real knowledge I'll limit my comments to more general principles.

1. As is stated in our constitution, a peal can be credited to the NAG only if "all members of the band are Guild Members, and at least half are Resident Members; [and] complete details of the peal, including the composition, have been received by the Peal Secretary." And as is often stated, it is the responsibility of the conductor to ensure compliance with these rules. Finally, it is obvious that part of membership is payment of dues. I believe that all these points are clear and uncontroversial.

2. The question is what should happen when the Peal Secretary uncovers a problem in a submitted peal — a typo in the composition, say, or a ringer whose membership has lapsed. Should she simply disqualify the peal; or contact the conductor and give him or her a chance to address the situation?

I realize that there may be some people who would advocate the former — because it is simple and clear and avoids all this 'messy' discussion; but I believe that most people will agree with me in favoring some flexibility. Ringing is just a hobby and we do it for FUN; we are all friends and want to support one another; we're intelligent people who can think for ourselves and not just follow rules blindly.

Furthermore, it's my understanding that, simply as a matter of fact, it has always been the NAG's practice in the past to give conductors a chance to solve problems; and to my personal knowledge the present Peal Secretary does sometimes allow leeway. (A peal I rang in this summer was initially challenged and then later approved once a problem was resolved.)

So, as I say, I think the NAG custom has been and will continue to be that some leeway is given. And where lapsed membership is concerned, it's obvious that the only remedy possible would be to send in a dues check applying retroactively to the start of the quarter when the peal was rung — I think that goes without saying. So the question up for discussion now is just how much leeway we can give.

3. One possible answer, which I heard suggested at the AGM, is that a conductor has until the end of the calendar quarter to resolve all problems. This has a certain logic to it: it might be thought that dues somehow can't be 'backdated' more than one quarter, or that problems need to be settled in time to meet the Clapper's deadline (so the peal can be published promptly if accepted).

But on reflection, there's a major flaw with this protocol: a January 2nd peal with a problem would have nearly three months to addess it, but a December 30th peal would only have two days — there would be no remedy possible, really. That's neither rational, generous, nor fair.

And really: why can't dues be backdated more than a quarter? And what would be wrong in putting a proposed peal 'on ice' for three months, for publication in the subsequent Clapper (if accepted)?

4. So another, more symmetric, alternative would be a simple deadline of a certain number of days — counted (if we want to be fair) not from the peal itself but from the Peal Secretary's email notifying the conductor of any deficiencies. The only argument I can urge against this would be that it's unnecessarily legalistic: this is just a fun hobby, after all! And of course sometimes people are sick; or traveling overseas; or just don't check their emails as regularly as some of us. A strict deadline might tie our hands unnecessarily.

5. My preferred alternative, then, would be a bit vaguer: as long as you make a good-faith effort to fix the problem, once it's been brought to your attention, we'll cut you some slack. (And what's good faith? Well, we'll take you at your word.) That's how reasonable people — intelligent people — friendly people — constructive people behave. When presented with a problem, we work together cooperatively to fix it. I hope we trust ourselves enough to do that.

6. I don't know how all this applies to the two 2012 peals in question. What deadline (if any) was given? How many days actually elapsed before problems were solved? Was a 'good faith' effort made? I do not know. But presumably at least some of the ideas I have discussed above are relevant to the situation.

7. It may be said: "Who cares? Isn't the point of a peal the ringing, not the reporting? If a peal is worth ringing for the NAG surely it's also worth ringing as a non-association one?" There is undoubtly much truth in that. But, ultimately, if the participants are asking to attribute their peal to the guild, then evidently they must want to do so — guild attribution must mean something to them: and so why should we put obstacles in their way? Again: this is a hobby; this is something we do for fun; and, for whatever reasons of their own, most people who ring peals do so for some guild or other. What harm is there in helping them out? Or in adopting a cooperative, problem-solving attitude rather than a legalistic one?

These are my thoughts on the matter. I'm sorry they're so long-winded; I hope any discussion they spark is charactarized more by light than by heat.