- This topic has 48 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 10 months, 4 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
It does seem desirable to recruit more young members to the BAA. Might it be possible to:
1. Establish a prize or set of prizes for specific younger age groups, asking local societies to nominate potential recipients. Something like ‘Young Astronomer of the Year’ or whatever.
2. Is the BAA competing with the SPA for younger members? Might a merger of the two organisations be beneficial?
AlanWe should indeed be making it more affordable for young people to join. In fact I wrote to the President at the time to suggestion a lower rate for young people, but it was many years before it came to pass. Which is why I proposed a motion at the 2023 SGM, seconded by Nick James, not to increase the young person’s membership rate (as reported in the current Journal).
I was present at 2023 SGM when we voted not to increase the young person’s membership rate and I thought that this was a good thing at the time. Now with the proposed changes to the by-laws we, as membership, will not be able to do this and it is something that also worries me. I know that often not many people turn up to vote at these SGMs but I am sure if a rate change was contentious enough people would attend.
As far as honorary memberships go it seem to me that it looks a bit like fiddling at the edges of a bigger problem to do with the future survival of the BAA. Unless it becomes a financial burden I don’t see that this should be changed out of hand just because it appears as low hanging fruit. Perhaps the BAA needs to face up to larger structural problems. What is the major issue at stake? Is it that it can’t survive longterm on the money it raises through membership? Is it that membership will eventually decline because of its age profile? Is it that it is becoming too large to manage all the things it currently does?
Returning to the young members issue: I do not have a solution, far from it, but I am a member of the Cambridge Astronomical Association.
The CAA has a very thriving and active membership, many of whom are youthful by the standards of other local societies, let alone the BAA. They appeal to primary schoolchildren as well as those a very few decades older.
One could do much worse than to contact the CAA committee to see how they manage it. Their website is at https://www.cambridgeastronomicalassociation.com/ and I could provide introductions to a few of their people on (off-forum) request.
To reply to Duncan, in respect of the 2023 vote on membership rates, the Trustees voted to increase the young person’s membership, but the Council voted to keep it at the same level (but their vote was only advisory on the Trustees). On the same day, the membership plus Council members present at the SGM also voted to keep it unchanged, so that became the binding decision. The proposal in the SGM came from Council members. In other words, under the By-laws change proposed, which gives the final decision to Council, the result would have been the same (but achieved more quickly). We’re dealing with very small numbers of votes here. There were only a handful of people at the SGM who were not also on the Council.
I don’t see this proposal particularly as a response to any ‘large structural problems’ the BAA may face (if indeed it does). As I wrote in the December Journal, this is part of a package of changes designed to to achieve:
-An administratively simpler subscriptions structure;
-Fairness across the various age groups;
-No reduction in the Association’s income;
-An easy and recognised route for those who wish to contribute more to do so.I still believe they do this.
The age profile of the BAA is a separate issue, and I wrote about this earlier on this thread, and on the thread about schools’ affiliation. Suffice it to say here that the SPA (mentioned in this thread by Alan Thomas) also now has a much older average age than it had in previous decades. I’m not sure that this means that either society is not sustainable in the long term. An older age profile than at a certain point in the past does not equal ‘dying out’.
For years we have had the problem that amateur astronomy appears to appeal only to youngsters and older people.
Given that 20-40 is around the age when people are (variously) partying, getting married, having kids and building careers, its hardly a surprise we don’t see many of them. Throw in the fact that mortgages knacker the disposable income and that many young people make the mistake of thinking youtube is the font of all wisdom and its amazing that we get any members in that age range at all.
I’m wondering, is there a chance the demographic time bomb may actually see a growth in our membership numbers? Obviously, a new series of Moon landings wouldn’t hurt 🙂
I’m wondering, is there a chance the demographic time bomb may actually see a growth in our membership numbers? Obviously, a new series of Moon landings wouldn’t hurt
Too true, I listened in on an inspiring interview last night with Jeremy Hansen and Victor Glover who are two of the astronauts with seats reserved for Artemis II. One of their memorable quotes was: “Space makes people look up!”
DavidI couldn’t get into London due to train engineering. Wondered what was the feeling/vote at SGM?
(Happy to accept whatever result after the full discussion as that’s how the association works.)Hi James. As you saw in the December 2023 edition of the BAA journal the intention was stated that “We will not create new Honorary Memberships after 2026”. I attended the meeting in London to make a request to the Trustees and the Committee not to scrap Honorary Memberships from 2026 and it is for them to decide and let us know. I proposed that even if we don’t offer free subscriptions for Honorary Members we keep the category and continue to recognise members who have 50 years continuous membership with the title of being Honorary Members, recognition in the BAA journal and some physical award like a certificate or badge. There was a vote regarding continuing to offer free subscriptions to Honorary Members and the majority voted not to continue this process. Hopefully there will be some formal announcement about whether this category of membership will continue or not.
James – The discussion was streamed as part of the SGM. The video is online here:
https://www.youtube.com/live/-ARFP-FBl98?si=4dGJXXjJV23UHccI&t=173
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.