CR014 - No Branchless Members

Suggestion:

Change systems and processes so that Members are assigned to an active Branch unless they have opted out.  No member should be 'branchless' unless they want to be.

Category on Map Diagram:
MEMBERSHIP

Instructions:
Please complete Add New Comment section fields as requested below:
 

FIELD REQUESTED INPUT
Your name:
WILL BE PUBLISHED		 With your name !
Email:
WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED		 With your email – this will not be made public
Homepage
WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED		 LEAVE BLANK
Subject
WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED		 LEAVE BLANK
Comment
WILL BE PUBLISHED		 Please type JUST ONE these three response options on the first line.AGREE
DISAGREE
REFER
REFER is to be used to either get more information, or if you like the principal, but have concerns about the implementation.
Then from the second line onwards please add any personal comments if you would like to.

Comments

AGREED

Submitted by Carol Long on

AGREED

What has changed? When? This always used to happen - new members were always associated with a branch on joining. What is relatively recent is allowing opt out of all branches.

AGREE. I always thought

Submitted by Christopher Jam... on

AGREE. I always thought people were automatically assigned to the branch nearest where they live. Following the demise of the Surrey branch, I am not sure this still happens in the Guildford area, for example.

AGREE

Submitted by John Rendall on

AGREE
There should be no "branchless" members (unless they opt out) - how else can the BCS serve it members?
However, someone at HQ should periodically review branchless members and confirm with them why they choose to be branchless, this may then help Branches be more helpful/useful in addressing why members feel the need to not engage?

DISAGREE

Submitted by Len Keighley on

DISAGREE

1) Originally, Branches had a catchment area of Post Codes and if your address was in one of those you were auto allocated to the Branch. With an option to choose differently provided for those members with a Post Code not in those areas.
2) The purpose of a Branch is mainly to be the "local" face to the BCS and therefore I don't see the point in auto assigning Branches to new members where they are not in the catchment area. My own Branch, Manchester, has a 75 mile round trip to get from one side to the other and therefore even in the catchment area the likelihood of making that journey for a BCS meeting is low. Place that member even further way only compounds the problem.
3) As Covid has shown the ability to meet up remotely across vast distances seems to suggest the need for a "local" presence is diminishing. That would also seem to suggest that members will join remotely to whatever MG that interests them and therefore BCS should promoted and facilitate that kind of member group rather than just auto assigning new members to a Branch.

DISAGREE

Submitted by Paul Rattray on

DISAGREE
Is there evidence of members without a primary branch electing a secondary branch? Norfolk/East Anglia haven't had a branch in years.
What constitutes "active"?
Where branches are small and geographically close, which branch wins?
How far do you think a member would travel to be associated with a branch?