Croquet Club dormancy debated
Clubs and Societies Board decision leads to question of legitimacy
A Clubs and Societies Board (CSB) meeting on 27 February 2012 resulted in a decision to close the dormant Croquet Club along with 6 other clubs. According to Deputy President of Clubs and Societies (DPCS) Monya Zard’s “Clubs to Close” paper, the decision was on the grounds that the club had less than 20 members (3 members in fact) and had not completed the relevant documentation or training.
The Croquet Club had been made dormant on 8 December 2011 following a RCC (Recreational Clubs Committee) dormancy review, as typically happens to the club each year. The club’s members argue that croquet is ostensibly a summer sport. Furthermore the club leads open training every summer run by active Life members such as ex-DPFS Christian Carter.
Croquet Club treasurer, Eugene Chang, claims he was not informed of the potential closure prior to the meeting. Moreover Chang is adamant that the closure is “illegitmate” thus seeking to appeal the decision preferably through Court rather than the CSB. Both Chang and the club’s chair, Joseph Rumer, who tendered his resignation on 29 February 2012, denied being warned of the threat of closure and claimed the closure “ultra-vires” based on a Clubs and Societies Policy available online.
It would appear there are two key refuting claims.
Firstly DPCS Zard did email the club’s chair, Rumer, on 31 January 2011 clearly voicing her concerns about the club and asking him to contact her or the RCC Chair “to discuss how to reach the targets you’ve been set, or how to adjust the targets so that they are achievable. Please treat this as urgent.” Zard went on in no uncertain terms, “taking no action will mean that your club will suffer during budgeting, and could ultimately lead… to the club being closed down”. It’s not clear whether this message hit home and RCC Chair Dominic Andradi-Brown can confirm that no monthly dormancy reports were being filed as required by Clubs and Societies Policy. Remarkably, RCC Chair Andradi-Brown seems to accept some of the blame; “I must say that I did not remind them at the point they were made dormant that they should be doing [the monthly reports] so some of the fault for not doing them is probably on me.” Andradi-Brown discussed the club informally with Rumer in early February receiving the following impression “He did not attempt to defend the continuing existence of the club that he was Chair of or offer any suggestion that he would be getting the club going in the summer.”
Put together, all the signs indicated non-compliance with rules and no sign of life; Croquet Club was no longer a functioning club and now warranted not just dormancy but closure. If Croquet Club’s committee members were set on reactivating the club in the summer as they have done in some recent years, it begs the question as to why they did not comply with CSB’s policy and why Rumer did not respond to the concerns when they were voiced. Phrases such as “dysfunctional committee” have been used in reference to the dispute.
Apparently documentation and training was lacking from Croquet Club Secretary Scott Heath. Constitutionally Scott Heath is not required to do so and the online Activities System which flags up outstanding forms did not pick this up. However there is no excuse for the incomplete Financial Responsibility form. It is also apparent that no one took responsibility to maintain the club. Other summer clubs manage to comply fully with CSB’s requirements, e.g. Cricket Club. In fact the Activies System show a spate of incomplete tasks across clubs and societies but it is not until a club fails to meet its minimum membership that the CSB takes action.
Secondly, as to CSB’s power to close clubs, the current version of the Clubs and Societies Policy available online indicates that the CSB have appropriately followed club suspension procedure. Chang’s “ultra-vires” claim was based on an outdated version of the Clubs and Societies Policy. There may be areas for improvement in the CSB’s handling of communications on the matter but Zard gave the club reasonable opportunity to remedy the situation earlier on.
In this ongoing dispute Croquet Club Treasurer Chang and Secretary Scott Heath (also Union President) are the only remaining committee members following Chair Rumer’s resignation. Chang is “interested in submitting an appeal” and says “The Union in my opinion, have been inconsiderate and demonstrated a lack of understanding of a club that has a past history of being a summer club, has reached 20 members in the last 3 academic years and has only been dormant for 2 months.” The result of the appeals process will not only shape the future of Croquet Club but also demonstrate the calibre of the CSB.
