Edited Text
THE NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY - A LOOK AT OURSELVES by Sue Stephenson
Recently I received two pieces of mail regarding the Natural History
Society. One was the draft of a comprehensive member survey prepared by Dan
McAskill and the other was a thought provoking paper entitled "The Natural
History Society of P.E.I. - A Discussion Paper" prepared by Wendell MacKay.
Their timely arrival - just when I was thinking about the role and the future
of the Society - prompted me to write this article to put a few more ideas
across for contemplation. Both papers obviously had a lot of thought put into
them and I think it is encouraging to see questions put forward in regard to
the role of the Society. I am just going to put a slightly different slant on
things.
The survey and discussion paper dealt mainly with the ways the Society
could better serve the public and its members and better meet its mandate. I
think, instead, the questions that should be asked by each and every member are
"What can I contribute to the Society to help keep it running?" and "What are
the reasons I joined in the first place and am I helping the Society to fill
these goals?"
The Natural History Society only exists because of the level of interest
of its members. it is not an entity in and of itself. It has been abandoned in
the past when interest flagged and was started again when interest increased.
Once we get past the idea that this Society must exist and it must fill its
mandate, we can take a look at whether the Society itself (i.e. the members)
want the Society to exist and what part of the mandate they may want to
concentrate on.
This is not as easy as saying "Of course the Natural History Society
should continue". I view this Society much like a cooperative. Buying a
membership does not automatically entitle you to have your needs "served", to
be entertained once a month, and to passively receive your newsletter in your
mailbox every couple of months. Instead, these things are services offered and,
if there is enough interest shown and time committed by the members themselves,
you will have the bonus of having a meeting organized or getting a newsletter.
It is easy to forget that the Society does not have a staff of people to see to
booking rooms, getting newsletters from the printers, or whatever else needs
doing. It is we members that do it all.
Everyone should be able to look back on their year of membership to this
cooperative club and see that theycontributed in some way - perhaps brought
cookies to a meeting, written an article for the newsletter, found a speaker
for a meeting, or stuffed envelopes. If people find they do not have enough
time to contribute they are choosing, at some level, to not receive all the
things they have come to expect from the Society.
I would hope that before the fall meeting when the "Discussion Paper" will
be discussed and the members surveyed, all of us will take a look at the
reasons we joined the Society and what we are willing to contribute. And we
should be honest. If the answers to these questions add up to little time
commitment to the goals of the Society but rather a monthly evenings
entertainment and a newsletter bi-monthly - fair enough. Given enough volunteer
time, perhaps the Society should concentrate on its speakers and newsletter -
which have been excellent to date.
If, on the other hand, large numbers come forward wanting to contribute to
the Society, we could then look at the areas of collective interest and
concentrate on those of interest. I feel we should be looking at what we want
to be as a Natural History Society and how we can all achieve this together
rather than a few volunteers working towards serving the remaining members.
. as
Recently I received two pieces of mail regarding the Natural History
Society. One was the draft of a comprehensive member survey prepared by Dan
McAskill and the other was a thought provoking paper entitled "The Natural
History Society of P.E.I. - A Discussion Paper" prepared by Wendell MacKay.
Their timely arrival - just when I was thinking about the role and the future
of the Society - prompted me to write this article to put a few more ideas
across for contemplation. Both papers obviously had a lot of thought put into
them and I think it is encouraging to see questions put forward in regard to
the role of the Society. I am just going to put a slightly different slant on
things.
The survey and discussion paper dealt mainly with the ways the Society
could better serve the public and its members and better meet its mandate. I
think, instead, the questions that should be asked by each and every member are
"What can I contribute to the Society to help keep it running?" and "What are
the reasons I joined in the first place and am I helping the Society to fill
these goals?"
The Natural History Society only exists because of the level of interest
of its members. it is not an entity in and of itself. It has been abandoned in
the past when interest flagged and was started again when interest increased.
Once we get past the idea that this Society must exist and it must fill its
mandate, we can take a look at whether the Society itself (i.e. the members)
want the Society to exist and what part of the mandate they may want to
concentrate on.
This is not as easy as saying "Of course the Natural History Society
should continue". I view this Society much like a cooperative. Buying a
membership does not automatically entitle you to have your needs "served", to
be entertained once a month, and to passively receive your newsletter in your
mailbox every couple of months. Instead, these things are services offered and,
if there is enough interest shown and time committed by the members themselves,
you will have the bonus of having a meeting organized or getting a newsletter.
It is easy to forget that the Society does not have a staff of people to see to
booking rooms, getting newsletters from the printers, or whatever else needs
doing. It is we members that do it all.
Everyone should be able to look back on their year of membership to this
cooperative club and see that theycontributed in some way - perhaps brought
cookies to a meeting, written an article for the newsletter, found a speaker
for a meeting, or stuffed envelopes. If people find they do not have enough
time to contribute they are choosing, at some level, to not receive all the
things they have come to expect from the Society.
I would hope that before the fall meeting when the "Discussion Paper" will
be discussed and the members surveyed, all of us will take a look at the
reasons we joined the Society and what we are willing to contribute. And we
should be honest. If the answers to these questions add up to little time
commitment to the goals of the Society but rather a monthly evenings
entertainment and a newsletter bi-monthly - fair enough. Given enough volunteer
time, perhaps the Society should concentrate on its speakers and newsletter -
which have been excellent to date.
If, on the other hand, large numbers come forward wanting to contribute to
the Society, we could then look at the areas of collective interest and
concentrate on those of interest. I feel we should be looking at what we want
to be as a Natural History Society and how we can all achieve this together
rather than a few volunteers working towards serving the remaining members.
. as
