Minutes: AGM, 20th April 2013

Minutes of STaG Annual General Meeting, 20th April 2013

The STaG Room, 62 Oakfield Avenue, 1-3.40pm

In attendance were A. Cameron, J. Cameron, A. Ciupka, N. Donald, W. Foote, M. Godden,  C. Goldstone, S. Gow, D. Hahn, A. McCallum, A. Rutherford, R. Tildesley, Z. Williams

Apologies from H. Allan, S. Linsley

Agenda

1. Summary
2. Financial Report
3. Guideline Doc
4. BRep Role
5. BRep Definition
6. FS
7. Archive
8. OrdBoard
9. GUU
10. Logo
11. Campus
12. External
13. AOB

1.  Summary

1. We started on a massive high after the success of WHBIT (first profitable Fringe).  The role of the BRep was the only main issue.  Then NTN in the same format as previous years, which would be encouraged next year.  Perhaps it is not good consistently having two directors, however - one is always an option.  No major issues with SN, it was very good.  The venue and President involvement were more major issues in HB.  NW went smoothly.  Taming also had venue issues.  No NMS had any particular issues but missing directors and fainting (and venue).
2. A. Rutherford briefly ran through the agenda.

2.  Financial Report

1. Only 3 shows made losses this year - our attempt at NSDF, InterUni (which was a non-profit event), and Taming.  In terms of shows we made a definite profit, even given additional costs.  (Our financial year includes the Fringe, starting at the turnover.)  We did make a fair bit of money this year, but should bear in mind that the S.P.A.C.E. fee for NW still is to come out, as well as the Ball and the Fringe.  However, after these, there is still £4000 more than the start of the year.
2. We made £700 profit at the Fringe.  Since then it has been continual profit, with socials making £200-plus, and the SRC grant.  
3. Numbers from last year for comparison - started at £4000 (2011) and ended at almost the same (about £400 up).  How much did a Stone’s Throw lose?  £1400 loss, but made that up later.  The bank account figure is still an estimate - there could be another several hundred pounds' drop from uncashed cheques, etc..   
4. At the Fringe budget meeting it was estimated to lose £2000.  Audience capacity is lower, and ticket price is lower.  Last year was projected to lose £1200.  The fundraiser was successful this year, however - last year £600 in total was made for the Fringe.  The target again is £800-1000 this year.  

3.  Guideline Document

1. We stripped the Constitution to the bare minimum last year.  However there are a few details and advice to pass on to the next Board which are not included.  Another document alongside the Constitution is proposed - with information on the archive, the role of Reps, website details - and the Board is to vote on any changes if necessary.  It would be like a Board Pack.  
2. The Constitution contains rules - these are guidelines, not binding, but practical tasks vital to running the society.  As an appendix it would be more flexible, and can be changed too, unlike the Constitution.  The Board voted to add this appendix to the Constitution.
3. The discussion today may be incorporated into it.
4. The Constitution should include that it exists, and a unanimous vote is needed to change it.

4.  Board Rep Role

1. There have been communication issues - to sort this, it was suggested that the BRep could act more like a producer.  Liaise more, increase communication between the correct members of the Board and the Director/SM.  Clarify what is being done, chase up people, take some of the stress off directors, remind people to get things done and check that everything is the right way that the director wants it.  This would make the Rep know what they’re doing, which is currently hard.  
2. There was concern about making it that broad, as each member has already got their own job - but the producer of a MS is a big task.  In some cases it is important that the Rep knows what to do and reign in a director, for example, but sometimes a Rep is not even necessary.  Some shows run fine without this person.  
3. In some cases there maybe should be a boss - a CEO, more a boss you never see.  Perhaps just a new title would vest in them some more authority, so it would be clearer what the role actually involves.  A two-tiered system for MSs was also suggested.
   * J. Cameron joined the meeting.
4. A MS is a bigger job, so perhaps OrdBoards should maybe do it as they have a lessser board role.  
5. Another option for MSs is inviting directors to Board meetings, being expected to come at least every 2 weeks and have an input.  If a director was getting stressed or struggling with responsibilities, would this help?  In most cases if there are problems it tends to be related to the fact that the cast/crew feel distanced from the Board, and the BRep causes a 'chinese whisper' issue.  It has been noticeable, with the festivals, eg., that when directors are on the Board themselves there are fewer problems, and the directors also observe that the Board must balance a lot and all projects need due attention.
6. The options then would be to invite directors to meetings; there being 2 Reps; the Rep acting more as a producer; 2 tiers; or OrdBoard roles.  What does a Rep still need to do if directors attend meetings?  They are still objective, talk to cast, report back, and talk to directors.  Would visiting directors be for MS only?  Optional for NMS, and directors only come to talk on their agenda point.  As the festival directors are already on the board as VPs, MS directors should come along as this responsibility is just as big.  
7. In the directors’ pack, there should be a segment saying that they have the chance to come to meetings if they want to make any feelings vocal and see that we have other issues to manage.  MS directors should receive more time.  Another possibility is that the Rep had the option to decide on how much support the director needed?  However, the Rep might not be confident in adequately making that decision, although in reporting back it is visible how much input the Rep is having.  This would be a good compromise.  If the director is also too headstrong, there are 14 of us and it is the role on a Board that the President and Vices keep the committee controlled and the meeting running smoothly.
8. A final vote confirmed that NMS directors are told by the Rep that there is the possibility to attend meetings; MS directors have to come relatively regularly.

5.  Board Rep Definition

1. The role varies with different people and productions.  Some have had a lot of interest in their show and really gone to town, but this can be a lot of work.  It is not fair to push such a ‘producer’ role on to someone.  We should construct a list of what is necessary to do, and Reps can go over and above this if they want to.
2. The Rep must have a relationship with the cast and director, so all know who he/she is and feel able to talk to them.  Therefore the Rep must go to a rehearsal every week and cast socials, above all to make his/her presence known and be approachable.
3. Should the Rep sit in on the audition panel?  Certainly sit outside, not on the panel (may have no idea what a panel is looking for) but on the door.  Not always on the desk, though, because this can last two days - however on the rota they can be put in as often as possible, and at least show his/her face at each of the auditions.  At Arnie it worked fine that the Rep just popped in at end (however this was a small production).  Instead/on top of being there, however, it is perhaps more essential to go to the first Read-Through, for the first meeting.
4. The Rep then talks to the other board members - liaison within the Board on behalf of the cast/crew.  
5. The Rep must be neutral.
6. The Rep cannot become too involved in the production; however if there is a problem and someone else has to step in, the Rep or Board members are those people.  This may be unavoidable.  The volunteer for a Rep should be sure they are not wanting to be involved in the show; however if S. Gow had not been the Taming Rep, some problems would have been much less easily solved.  At the crucial point of 3 weeks before production week, W. Foote had to step in as an actor but effectively was still acting as Rep.  The new (now third) Rep did not know what to do, or understand the politics and system by this point.  Therefore it is not necessarily bad if the Rep does get involved, by that point, as everyone is so passionate that nobody is neutral; although W. Foote did have a simple, abstract role in the play, so this worked well.  There is not always a board member in the cast, but in this case J. Cameron was also asked about board issues, still being a representative.  The issue with Arnie was lack of director, and at a certain point the Rep was compelled to go in and do the warm-ups etc. - in such a situation, the Rep is someone who can take this on.  Therefore the Rep can take on a more involved role if something really needs to be done.
   * Z. Williams leaves meeting to release boyfriend from back garden.
7. Further to the above, regarding cast roles, the Rep should not have a lead role in the cast, and tech is completely scored out (similar situation caused problems in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest).  However, as in Taming, the Rep is not to start with a cast role, however they may take a small one up if stepping in for an emergency.
8. The Rep duty is very malleable - it all depends on the show.
9. Change of role name - ideas were put in the hat, and the name will be finalised in the AOB.
10. The Rep does not need to go to the production meeting - they do not really know what is happening and both Board members and the directors are present.
11. The main endeavour of the role is to be perceptive about all aspects of the production.

6.  Found Spaces Slot

1. Introduced 3 years ago.  However tends not to be 'found' anymore.  *Z. Williams resumes her seat triumphant.
2. Last year we decided a certain number of FS, SS, and either/or.  A problem is always finding a venue, and FS was to counter that, however it is really hard to get it to happen.  This year we had no studio slot, instead performing in Offshore.  However Arnie was technically still a FS, as the cafe situation of Offshore was deliberate.  The Investigations was supposed to be a FS, but for venue availability ended up in the Flying Duck.
3. FS is about finding a space and performing something site-specific.  A studio is a black box, etc., suitable to be performed anywhere.  Making theatre outside, for example, is hard to engineer though.
4. It is still a good opportunity, but perhaps the current membership is not up for it at the moment.  Directors can still do this if they want at any time; the previous uses of a flat and outside were just after the idea first came up, so had been directly inspired.  
5. This year nobody seemed to be that aware of it, more than anything else, or sure about what it involved.  It is the role of Venues to talk to the director about the possibilities. 
6. It is not to be a separate slot, however the idea of a 'found' venue shall be hyped.

7.  Archive

1. Introduced by Sarah McDonald 3 years ago.  It covers the history of STaG - for example, we do not even know when it started - and keeps a record of shows, cast list, programmes, etc.  Current issues are making sure that it’s implemented, and how to go ahead.  At the moment it consists of a box with scripts and programmes, etc. and a mention on the website.  
2. To kick it off again, would Sarah be happy to do a session?  With the new Board, at the changeover, to get someone up to date.
3. Perhaps it should be a Rep job, to keep a poster and a programme for the show.  Then a MemSec duty, as they have the membership list.  
4. It could be opened outwith the Board, with someone on the Board to take care of it, and another member onboard.  There's not enough (to do or enough interest) for a committee.  The bare minimum should be a requirement, but at the moment there's also a necessity to contact alumni.
5. The previous Archives person did not really care, whereas it really needs someone interested to get involved.
6. It was agreed that continuing the archive is a good idea.
7. In the future, will storage be an issue?  All digitised - a Tumblr/blog would solve this.  The idea is to have more than a poster and cast list, but also contact people and ask them about their concept of STaG, famous people involved, what they enjoyed.
8. Make it available to STaG membership and incorporate it into the MemSec role.  
9. D. Hahn will contact S. MacDonald to come in once the new Board is up and running.

* 15-minute break.  M. Godden joins the meeting.

8.  OrdBoard Roles

1. These should alleviate pressure on other members and fill gaps for non-assigned duties.  Should this concept continue?  Yes.  A list of jobs is needed: assisting tech, publicity, festivals, venues... better defining the role.
2. Publicity should be one, but bigger than just collecting posters.  Depending on Publicity's decision, it could be social media (or something more concrete).
3. Tech depends on how much there is to know and on the production - there are a lot of techies around.  Allocate roles around ability, playing to strengths.  Mention what roles are available are at the start, but not specific roles as in 'Pub OrdBoard'.  Discuss strengths and focus at the first meeting.
4. Publicity will want a different themselves perhaps to their predecessor, preferring social media to posters eg..  The OrdBoard could handle Twitter statuses.  At this stage it is not worth defining.  
5. Website - there is no point giving it to someone who doesn’t know.  A Board member can always teach the rest how to use it.  Someone should always be there who knows enough to keep it maintained, though.  
6. Festival help - SN didn’t need it really.  Festivals have committees.  
7. Venues help would be useful.
8. Social help - food/drink runs, getting cups.
9. Tech help - always useful.

9.  GUU

1. Obviously there was an issue recently in moving the Taming fundraiser, after we boycotted the GUU for the misogynistic behaviour at the Ancients Debate.  What to do now?  The investigation and final judgement does not appear to be on the horizon.
2. This is a diplomatic issue - we signed a public letter stating our intentions, we knew the consequences of this, and we can not now turn around upon finding the GUU useful.
3. However, it is not the staff to blame, and they are the ones who ultimately suffer.  The case is now in the hands of the Senate.
4. The GUU has had elections, and have a new board.
5. It is a good space, and it seems we would be shooting ourselves in the foot to not use it for the Ball.
6. We need to release a statement to say what we’re doing.  Ask them what they plan to do, and if the new Board mean to deal with these issues then we will use it for the Ball as planned.
7. The new Board is to decide whether they will reaffiliate with the GUU.
8. We use rooms attended to by staff, but the union is run by students - the relationship between STaG and the GUU is the representation of a concept.
9. We will release a statement, meeting with the GUU and if we get a satisfactory quote statement from them we will say that we will do Ball.  This is to be within the next week.  
10. A valid point made on this issue previously is that if you want to change a culture then you are part of it - go make it what you are about.  An angle for re-affiliation is that it is our union, and less about annexing from what we dislike.

10.  Logo

1. Only brand/image changing can be done at the start of the year.
2. Another design?  The current one is viewed by some as illegible, weird, unrepresentative, messy; there is the simple logo, then the image with antlered people and hand-written words.  Most do not mind the antlers, but dislike the lettering especially.  In the past it evolved from previous logos, so perhaps we should not change too much.
3. We should come up with hypotheticals - if we are to change it, we should at least make it good.  Over the summer, we could ask people to design it, asking in the newsletter.  Winner receives free tickets.  You can vote for the old logo too, however - it is important, if evolving, to have an input if the old one is still wanted.

11.  Relationship on Campus

1. We do not seem to have much of a relationship with other societies on campus.  Next year we should foster these again.  
2. There are many other creative societies, there is such a large wealth of talent and we’re not participating to the extent we could.  There are also many new theatre societies, which focus all on different things - Encore, TNTS, Cecilians - we all offer different things, but this is something we should be able to foster.  The G12 is to be back up and running soon, and we should do more joint socials.  STaG Nights perhaps has much more opportunity for inter-society projects.
3. At this stage, perhaps this is more of an issue for the new board to keep in mind.

12.  External Presence

1. InterUni, NSDF, Fringe: all external events.  How should we select the plays?  This year we picked something from SN or NW due to tight deadlines.  We could introduce a standing proposal, or there should be a system in place; however we need to avoid creating the impression that the 'second prize' to the Fringe is InterUni, and the SN 'winner' is NSDF.  In retrospect it must have seemed like that, even though the Board did look at all the possible shows and chose the most suitable and feasible to fit into these festivals.  We could do the same as for going to the Fringe but on a smaller scale.
2. InterUni and NSDF are two very different things.  InterUni is a given, NSDF is not.
3. New festival?  These events needed plays of a certain length, and SN plays were ideal.  We can just say that this is what is decided.  Or put a date in the calendar for proposals?
4. An issue at the GH post-mortem was that perhaps STaG just has too much happening.
5. With these festivals, we would probably not do as many studio slots.
6. We are sending the play to represent Glasgow and us: should the membership vote from all the plays?  This would be harsh.  SN is a good way to test out theatre.
7. Aimed at different directors, teams - unfair for first-time directors, fewer opportunities to do things.
8. It is a concern that SN would become a competition; once it is finished then we could invite directors to propose.  
9. InterUni doesn’t have to be on beforehand, and it could be anything, it does not have to be the best we can pull together, not being competitive.  NSDF requires an individual pre-showing.  It is hard to market and it lost money.  NSDF would need a new structure, and perhaps it is just not within our remit.
10. Some plays submitted to NW were also submitted for NMS, and this can encourage writing; you could re-propose for a festival.
11. Could we invite NSDF to MS1, our biggest play?  No time pressure involved.  But the entire MS cast must be available in the Spring, and we must pay at great expense for each person to go down.  The impression was that the same group of people tends to do it every year.  
12. It could be seen as a choice between NSDF and the Fringe.  NSDF created a big hit in the budget and there is always the possibility of failing; furthermore it is not so much good for lots of people, on the scale of the Fringe.
13. Conclusion: NSDF is not a focus in future. 
14. Other events - InterUni.  It is a nice thing to do, people can go with them to see the plays.  It should be a good show.  We should make InterUni culture more of a thing; it gets bigger each year too, and at some point we will have to host, if we keep attending.
15. InterUni could be a competition, as a studio slot, with a proposals deadline.
16. Bristol had a stage - a FS could be in Offshore, then suited to the stage?  In Bristol the kind of level was that of ones probably going to the Fringe.  50-minute pieces of new writing.  In proposing for InterUni, directors/writers should cater for a larger space.  However we could always get a venue to suit this scale for a studio slot.
17. We could make the slot the one that will get feedback, then go to InterUni.  It would have to be in Semester 1.  If SS encourages new directors/writers, they probably are not eager to go straight to a festival, however Semester 2 is probably better for them anyway, if they've already had a semester learning the ropes.
18. We could perform more of a production for the membership, and not so much a public show for Glasgow then for another festival.  However the STaG audience tends to be membership and a few parents anyway.  We could do feedback forms for any show.
19. The slot would have to be tailored towards InterUni, performed as a work in progress, with feedback from people, or a dress rehearsal where people come along.  If a rehearsal performance, we would not have to make posters or publicity.
20. How many people proposed for SS though - is the volume of submissions itself a potential issue?  It may also take the focus off STaG Nights; therefore it would be advertised afterwards.
21. The 'After Eight' practise run, was just Catherine inviting folk on Facebook.
22. There being no costs incurred in publicity, a larger space can be hired for one night to perform.
23. There are 3 NMS, and one would be InterUni or add another one?  A concern would then be rehearsal space.
24. Dom and Daryl couldn’t find space to rehearse.  InterUni however is late February, after SN but before NW, so not a peak time.  If using the idea of feedback forms it will also take time for the feedback to come through, and at this time other things are rehearsing.  It would have a 3 week rehearsal period, the showcase plus time afterwards.
25. Conclusion: replace first NMS with InterUni.  Then we know about that production and can plan it accordingly.
26. Rules at InterUni?  You just go, there are no specific guidelines (unless they change the rules next year).  Our involvement in InterUni should be amplified.

13.  AOB

1. ‘Production Liaison’?  Sure.
2. Should Venues be two people?  It is a hard enough role to deserve as such.  The idea of using a Google doc for bookings?  We could assign certain things to each Venues member - MS1, NMS sem 2, Festival sem 2 to one, and vice-versa.  However everything is booked long beforehand, or should be, and in dealing with venues you build up relationships.  A while back a precautionary hierarchy for shows was also mentioned, as was the issue generally of STAG Room bookings.  Both of these topics should probably be left to be decided on by the next Board.
3. Studio Slot - it was suggested to make the STaG Room black - but this would create a horrible space, with walls dripping with sweat.  Perhaps a black box constructed in the room would be better.  It's a nice thought to keep in mind though that we could paint it if necessary.  With a mural?  No.  It could probably do with another coat of white paint, however.  Paint the floor? Nah.
4. We would like to take this opportunity to thank the MSA for their patience and endurance throughout this afternoon of us pretending to be loud and interesting.  Whether a 3-hour sedate discussion about board policy, finances and production liaison is indeed a good time for the oldies to be jealous of, certainly it will probably now result in heading down the road for the drinking and shrieking part!

The next Board meeting will be at 5.30pm as usual in the STaG Room on Monday 22nd April.

Meeting adjourned.