Update from SG3, in Nov 24

VP role to be three years, continuing to focus on Awards, and invited to help with External Honours. (details in meeting minutes for SG3)

Previous text

This section sets out thoughts about the VP role, and how it might evolve.

I have contacted Clare Watt, Steve Eales, Matt Middleton and Andrew Curtis. I have heard back from Matt, Andrew and Steve.

Steve's feedback (summarised)

The only definition of the VP job is that the VP runs the awards procedure. There is no real connection to the the role of President at all. Its nebulous nature is a disadvantage, because it puts people of applying for it and it is often uncontested.

The role does not line up with the name. Also, it's only for two years, so after the term a person have less knowledge of the RAS than a regular Council member.

Steve would have welcomed a role that "allowed me some connection with the executive/president, which would have taken some time admittedly. However, the Secretary roles have a more executive role, and I think works OK"

Matt's feedback (summarised)

Matt does feel that the role is well defined. He doesn't think that the role lines up with what its name might suggest: "Not really. I think overseeing awards is important (and time consuming) but there is no real 'deputising' of President's business and should they need to be absent, little chance of any of the VPs having sufficient sight of matters to perform as stand-in.

On expanding the role:

The time issue is the problem. Unless you're retired, have a teaching and management-free position, this is about as much as I could handle on top of the rest. I would suggest some sort of interaction between the exec, president and VPs occasionally so that they were able to assist should the need arise.

Andrew's feedback

My feeling is that the role is well defined in the sense that so far I have done exactly what I expected: (a) contribute as a Trustee, (b) contribute to and then run the Awards committee, and (c) represent the President when needed (has never happened, but it could!) The role description was consistent with this.

I personally could not do a lot more in the role, and of course I took the role on the understanding that it would be roughly as described above. If it had had a clear description of a much more involved role then I probably could not have applied/stood as a candidate for it.

However, that is not to say that the role could not be expanded, and the obvious way would be for us to have a predefined area of Council business for which we are responsible, and for which we report at each Council meeting. Since the role is for 2 years, it would make sense, for example, that on consecutive years the Geophysics VP should be in solid Earth and space geophysics, and then each VP is responsible for their respective area. I think this would be an improvement: it would not leave to chance that we might for some years have two solid Earth or two space VP(G)'s, which I think would be quite misrepresentative of the Geophysics community.

My comment on the feedback -

Point noted about the time/workload constraints.

Obviously, if the role changes, any future recruitment process will have to be clear about what's involved.

Interesting that Andrew says "that is not to say that the role could not be expanded" - although he suggests linking to the science areas which I think are already picked up the Secretaries.

Steve's point about how the role "appears" versus "how it actually is" leads to an interesting diversity point - question for you all: is there a risk that people are not applying for this role because it appears to need a heavyweight who has been part of the establishment for some time? Could you get more people applying, from a wider range of your membership, if it was clear that the role wasn't really anything to do with the President's role?