Minutes 21st November 2011

Minutes of STaG board meeting
Monday, 21st November 2011.
In attendance: C. Felstead, D. Di Rollo, G. Bennett-Lurie, D. Keenan, E. Igelstrom, A. Rutherford, L. Monkman, C. Goldstone, S. Gregson, I. MacArthur.
Apologies: H. Bolwell, H. Allan, W. Foote, T. Pennock, L. Taylor
1. STaG Nights post mortem
The board agreed that STaG Nights was brilliant, and congratulated everyone.
There were some issues with room bookings, where a few directors were approached directly about changing bookings to accommodate mainstage requirements, without L. Monkman’s approval. When several shows are going on, those that have already booked rehearsal times should be prioritised. A publicity interview was scheduled by a cast member without L. Monkman’s or I. MacArthur’s awareness.
One play was highly underprepared at the tech and dress rehearsal, causing stress for L. Monkman and A. Rutherford, and the response when this was brought up at the time was felt to be unsatisfactory. It was agreed that the relevant member(s) should be contacted with feedback. C. Felstead will send them an email explaining the board’s concerns, after sending it to the board for approval.
The scheduling of plays during the semester has been an issue. The close proximity of shows, primarily Closer and STaG Nights, caused problems with commitment and room bookings, as well as a very high workload for A. Rutherford. The studio slot should be moved earlier in the future. The scheduling of each year should not just be up to the new board; the outgoing board should make a provisional schedule for the following year. It was suggested that the Technical Manager position should be held by two people, to make the workload more manageable.
General problems with budget meetings were brought up. It is difficult for directors to say how much money they need, without knowing the budgets of previous shows, or the present state of STaG’s finances. The way these meetings are held might need revising.
The SRC grant application was never submitted. It needs to be made more clear who is responsible for applying for grants (such as the Financial Secretary, or the General Secretary). This should be discussed at a future meeting. Because cheques are cumbersome, it should be looked into whether there are other banks that could offer other services (e.g. debit cards). C. Felstead or T. Pennock will look into this.
L. Monkman and A. Rutherford were disappointed with board involvement in the STaG Nights committee. STaG Nights should perhaps be included on the Freshers’ Week flyers.
Both The Flying Duck and The Old Hairdressers (where a fundraiser was held) were excellent venues, inexpensive and keen to collaborate with STaG. L. Monkman encouraged continuing to develop our relationship with these and other similar venues. The van man was also brilliant.
C. Felstead will organise the writing of a stage manager pack. Since this role varies greatly from production to production, it may be difficult to condense into a pack, but there should at least be an outline of the different kinds of tasks that might be expected.
Due to issues with commitment, the board discussed whether there should be a rule about how many productions members should be involved with at the same time. It was decided that there should not be a rule, but directors should be conscious of the problem when casting. Audition forms should possibly ask what other plays actors are involved in. C. Felstead will amend the directors pack.
STaG Nights made around £400.
A few actors were not memberised, due to communication issues. In the future, E. Igelstrom will attend read-throughs for memberisation earlier in the process.
The board discussed whether there should be a separate board rep for STaG Nights. L. Monkman and A. Rutherford felt that adding another person might only make communication more complicated, rather than solve any problems. However, night reps should be more involved. It was decided that the board rep question will be up to future VP STaG Nights, but that L. Monkman should mention the possibility in the STaG Nights pack.
There should be no informal waiting lists or reservations for cancelled tickets on the night. Rather, they should be given to people who show up on a first-come-first-served basis. Limited capacity should be kept in mind when publicising, and directors should be encouraged to advise their cast to book tickets in advance. L. Monkman will include this in the STaG Nights pack.
2. Much Ado
There have been issues with communication among the production team, and delegation has not worked smoothly. However, production issues aside, things are going very well from an acting and social point of view.
A. Rutherford is very concerned about the production’s progression. Some set needs to be rebuilt, there is a massive props list, and there have been uncertainties about the completion of the music. Paul will rebuild the set. There may also be issues with the budget.
I. MacArthur has posters and flyers, and will organise publicising and delegate tasks to the board. The cast will not be asked to flyers, as they have enough to do. The poster will be sent out to the mailing list.
The fundraiser is being organised by a cast member. Refreshments will be acquired.
3. Social
The November social is taking place at The Stand. Board members were reminded to book tickets.
4. New Works
L. Taylor has emailed out a draft proposal form and a list of judges being contacted.
The ticket money from A Stone’s Throw at the Fringe has been received. In total, the show made a loss of about £1600 pounds.
5. Board excursion
Ice skating at George Square will occur at 7pm, followed by dinner at Stereo at 8. G. Bennett-Lurie will send out an email.