As a response to some of my more “passionate” posts, I was invited to visit RSC HQ in Cambridge, both to discuss the various issues faced by the younger members in my experience, and to get a better feel for how exactly things worked within the RSC. This meeting was held at the end of May, but I did not want to post a follow-up until I had firmed up the various outcomes from the meeting and given the relevant staff at the RSC a fair chance to look at, asses and respond to our concerns and proposed solutions. I will discuss our concerns as raised at the meeting in sequence, along with the suggested solutions and what progress has been made to date.

1. The feeling amongst Younger Members that the RSC was asking members to do more whilst not acknowledging their efforts.

The debate on this point centred on trying to quantify and identify exactly where we felt staff and the RSC generally we letting down the Younger Members. It was made clear that the levels of staffing, funding etc had remained the same over the past several years. I attempted to explain that simply maintaining the status quo in terms of YM activities is no longer acceptable to most of the YM volunteers. We want and expect to be able to put on larger and more significant events, to both add to our experiences and raise the profile of YM’s within the society. A stagnant, boring, repetitive YMN is of no benefit to anyone; we want a dynamic, active and exciting network.
 
This means that the members of the YMN must be aware of the procedures and process that the RSC has in place for various events, which differ depending on the size and nature of the event. This is a fair point, but this information is not all that easy to come by. Therefore, staff at the RSC agreed to look at putting a “volunteer resource area” on MyRSC by September. I did have a look for this area before posting the blog, but can’t find it. I do think this area would be a major step forward and should be implement as soon as possible.
 
Regarding the issue of recognition, we suggested that placing a “volunteer of the month” article in Chemistry World may be a good way to highlight some of the best work being carried out by RSC volunteers. Further, the monthly “winners” could make up a short-list of candidates for a new annual award. We felt this was a win-win situation for both the profile of the RSC and the volunteers. Staff are looking into this, but I would love to hear your comments or ideas on the issue of volunteer recognition.

2. Guidance and support for volunteers.

Following on from point 1, I highlighted some comments from colleagues in the YMN, including this gem:
 
“I am now the vice chair of our Local Section and have not heard a peep from HQ about what my role is or my duties. This also applies to our new Chair, we are both just as clueless as to what we are supposed to do!! Classic RSC! We’ll just keep plodding along until someone tells us off for doing something wrong!!”
 
Those I met with pointed out that such information was available on line and that handbooks are provided to all sections. I countered that I was sure that was the case, but obviously the information was not being properly disseminated. Hopefully this issue will be address by the “volunteer resource area”.
 
I then went a step further and asked that the RSC consider drawing up a code of conduct for its volunteers, including some record of training, CBR checks etc. This was to differentiate the duties, responsibilities and expectations of RSC members (code of conduct for practicing chemists), RSC staff (somewhere in their contracts) and volunteers (where there is no guidance). I suggested that volunteers perhaps commit to a certain number of events each year, in a similar way as to how the STEMNet Ambassador programme is run. The debate centred on whether such a contract would be considered too formal for our volunteers, and I’d love your opinions.
 
I also brought up here the idea that we record electronically all the acitivities carried out by volunteers each year. This would give the RSC a huge database of expertise and activities to draw upon as required, whilst providing the volunteer with evidence of his accomplishments and experience to present to prospective employers. Again this is borrowing from the STEMNet programme. Staff are looking into this, and the question is would you be interested in such a service? 

3. Some Younger Member Representatives find it difficult to secure financial support from their Local Sections.

Honestly, and I’m not being funny here, I don’t think the members of staff I spoke to really believed me when I told them this. They failed completely to grasp the levels of frustration and disappointment felt by the YM’s involved. It was made clear that staff were always on hand to help if asked, but it was made equally clear to me that they were asked and very little changed. Instead, a situation was allowed to develop where by the people closely involved felt the only way they could achieve their ambitions was to “take over” the local section completely. A process which requires a few years!!
 
I’m sure that the example that sparked this debate is one of the more serious examples, and I hope it is very rare. However, one incident like this is one too many. Not very many young people would have the tenacity and conviction to continue to work for change under these conditions. Most would simply walk away, feeling it was not worth the effort. As a society we cannot afford to alienate the younger members. We should be welcoming and open to their participation at all levels of the society, and give them the chance to shape it as they see fit.
 
We therefore proposed the possibility that the YMN be re-formed as an interest group or division, with their own budget, rather than having to rely on the passing whims and postcode lottery of the local sections. Again, being brutally honest, this idea went down like a lead balloon, and I do not have hopes of seeing it come to light in the near future. Or any future. But, what do you think?

4. The possibilty of formalising the Younger Member Forum as part of the RSC governance structure.

This followed on closely from point two above. If the YMN was to be re-formed as an interest group, who better to form the first committee than the members of the YMF? With a group of reliable volunteers supervising the network they “grew up” in, we felt rapid progress in the development of the YMN could be made. It would also make the YMF a genuine part of the RSC, rather than the nice little display case it often feels like. I’m a member of the YMF, but I have no power or influence in reality. I just talk. And hope somebody listens and agrees with me. That is, quite frankly, wrong. And I know I’m annoying some people, but I don’t care. If anyone out there can provide a sensible argument for why only the YMN is controlled (financially) by other groups (local sections) unlike any other structure (local sections, interest groups, divisions) in the RSC, I would LOVE to hear it. For now the RSC’s position remains quite clear: “At present the younger member network will continue to operate in the same way as it currently does.”

And there you have it. The "end" to what has been quiet frankly a rather exhausting saga. I believe I have made the psoition of the younger members on these issues quite clear. It is also clear that it is now up to the RSC to match our position, if possible, or explain clearly to the relevant volunteers why it is not possible/practical.

It is also clear that the series of blog posts leading up to this meeting have been succesful in generating the required attention to actually make some changes and progress. As plans for the next Younger Members Symposium are gathering pace, I can already see both the younger members and RSC staff have learnt the lessons from the previous YMS, and are endevoring to avoid the mistakes made. I have high hopes that this will continue in the future and that the Society as a whole will benefit from it.

I'd like to thank the other major contributors to this series of blogs, Adam, Ben and Claire (if I'm going down...), as well as the all the members of the YMF and YMN who commented on blogs, emails and documents. I'd also especially like to thank Neville, Gemma and Helen for their open-minded discussions and williness to listen.

Furture posts will focus on profiling the activities of the YMN and it's volunteers as well as hopefully some "pitchside" reports from various YMN events, starting with a whiskey tasting in Manchester next week.