As can be seen from the pictures most of the windows and roll shutter door have been removed.
When the TMS arrived at Crich the stone workshop had two floors. The ground floor was hardened earth and the first floor was wooden. To accomodate double deck trams, the wooden floor was ripped out and the doorway was raised. If you enlarge the third picture you can see the wooden lintels that were cut and a steel lintel at the present door height. You can also see the differences in the stonework.
When the TMS arrived at Crich the stone workshop had two floors. The ground floor was hardened earth and the first floor was wooden. To accomodate double deck trams, the wooden floor was ripped out and the doorway was raised. If you enlarge the third picture you can see the wooden lintels that were cut and a steel lintel at the present door height. You can also see the differences in the stonework.
Amsterdam charges it's members 75 Euro's, including accident insurance etc. However, given the economic problems how many members can and will support such a substantial increase? Another option might be to distinguish between members, i.e. those of us who are really active in one way or another, and supporters.
ReplyDeleteMost Dutch societies rely on 10-20% members (with voting rights), the rest being supporters (not active, only supporting financially, no voting rights). In this way, the block votes of the proxy's are substantially reduced. However, proxy's are needed, because not every member who wishes to come to the AGM can do so, e.g. because he or she is staffing the trams at that time. There should be a limit to the number of proxy's anyone can represent (including the Board). In Holland, this is usually set at 2-5 maximum.
I disagree with the idea that members are considered as being a nuisance by the Board. First of all the Board is elected from the active membership, i.e. from us. Second, they are elected to manage, and that is exactly what they are doing or at least trying to do. It doesn't help much if every move the Board makes is countered by a minefield of distrust or worse, a flak of criticism. Specially this blog (and I hold Richard fully responsible for that) is a platform where very personal and fully unjustified criticism was displayed, showing no respect to the Board or other members. In any democracy, truth is not necessarily the opinion of the majority and certainly not the opinion of a couple of loud criers. If we don't like the democratic structure of our society, we can change it. There are procedures for such a process. Chris Heuer is doing his best to move this discussion to a more civilised platform. It seems to me that a typical British attitude is electing a government and start criticising them the morning after. If you don't like a certain Board member, don't get him or her elected! And don't vote for people who are managerial disasters.