Where is SHARE?

In December 2003, the society correlator e-mailed the SHARE committee as follows: "I'm concerned about our membership. At the end of 2001 we had 26 members who did not renew. At the end of 2002 we had 31 dropouts. At this late date we are still waiting for sixty-five 2003 members to renew. We have only 34 signed up for 2004 and another 50 on board for the next 2-5 years, depending on far along their five-year memberships have evolved. That elusive plateau of 200-plus members seems to be getting further than ever from our reach. Personally I am tired of pretending that the society is healthy and prosperous. Did not our Chair say at the Lancaster Assembly that our 2003 finances were in the red? Frankly that surprised me, but certainly our membership is.

Perhaps it is time to face reality and think about shutting the society down. It's not in our constitution but I'm of the opinion that, if the society is shut down, we should refund all current members with any unused advance membership dues. (I would pay them back out of my own pocket if SHARE was really in the red!) Not a pretty picture, is it? The society is being appreciated by fewer and fewer paying supporters. More and more genealogists reject any reference to paying dues -- many have told me that anything to do with family trees should be freely accessible. SHARE has free access to its records at its web site, but because we mention membership for basically the quarterly Journal and the annual database CD, people refuse to share their research with the society. More and more new contacts do not return my response to theirs when I dare to mention SHARE membership to them."

In January 2005, the society Chair posted the following announcement: "Our genealogies, database and related correspondence has been shouldered by one volunteer. This key aspect of our society, however, proved so popular that it taxed him beyond his means. For too long we have heard his plea for help but nothing ever came of it..

"It is time for a major decision. I am hereby proposing that the Association be placed in "Cold Storage" or a state of hibernation. I want to emphasize, however, that SHARE is not over. With this announcement, I also invite you and others to be a team volunteer. Until we restructure, our genealogies and the database will remain accessible from this website, thanks to RootsWeb. To place the society in "hibernation" was not an easy decision to make but I believe at this time it is the right one. Hopefully you and others will take up the mantle and further develop what we offer here. Thank you for any support."

In May 2006, the founding chair wrote, "I was saddened to hear of the proposal to close down SHARE. I fully understand why one person was overwhelmed. But is SHARE not more than the correlation function?

(It should have been, but sadly the enterprise became more and more a one-man operation. The correlator was having elaborate one-way correspondence with family tree donors (meaning very few returned updates or even a thank you), keeping up the family tree files and the database, posting both and trying to keep them updated at RootsWeb, keeping up and expanding the web site, contributing material for the society journal, creating publicity material, advertising the society in genealogical publications, keeping up liaison with the membership secretary and the journal editor, going to the local post office almost daily, racking up operation expenses that could not be avoided, and many more small and endless details that had to be done because no one else was going to do them.)

Was the option considered just to leave the correlator job vacant, and continue SHARE as a network and forum for Hodgson families and friends?

(Yes. But when the correlator had to quit for personal reasons like his health, the web site soon became outdated and boring. Days became weeks which grew into months of nothing done. Almost three years later, that same correlator finally updated the web site with his current thinking. Time seems to have softened his approach to analysing SHARE's downfall, but nothing really has changed much, has it?)

Was the decision to close down SHARE made by the whole committee?

(The correlator was given the impression by the chair and the membership secretary that the society was closed down properly. The "intended temporary" cessation of activities was to restore the correlator's personal life, leaving the restoration of SHARE in the hands of "hopeful" volunteers awakened to the need.)

" I think that we should draw a distinction between the following decisions: (1) Putting SHARE into hibernation, and (2) Closing down or dissolving SHARE. The distinction is important because SHARE and its assets are the property of its members, not the committee, or any one individual. Taking option (2) without due process may face a legal challenge that the individuals involved in the decision took unwarranted action and could be charged with running off with the assets (however small) themselves. That is why Clause 9 of the constitution exists, which requires that the assets be donated to a charity.

(If the society has no funds remaining (so I'm lead to believe), why were the members not informed in advance via the society journal of impending losses? The correlator was being reimbursed many times over for his ongoing expenses on behalf of the society with no knowledge of its dangerously low and ever-decreasing balance. My hope is that a long-overdue finance report will set the record straight.))

My deep concern is the problem of trust amongst the membership and supporters. There may be some reluctance of new members to join, with the worry that it might suddenly "close down" again (without due observance of the constitution). How can these potential worries be alleviated? To rectify, first it is essential that the Finance Officer report on SHARE's assets and what has happened to them. Even then there is no guarantee that trust will be revived. Finally, I think that the present plan to revive SHARE is far too limited. It does not address wider problems of the organization as a whole."

(The Hodgson Clan web site initiated by Geoff has a seven-page "Report on the Suspension and Possible Renewal of SHARE" which more than adequately puts things into perspective as far as how SHARE got where it is today, and it tries to make fair and well-thought-out suggestions on the directions SHARE could or might take to be viable again. At least the report exists which is far better than nothing at all. I certainly want to express my heartfelt thanks to everyone who understood my dilemma and recognizing my past contributions. It's a little embarrassing to have my name mentioned so many times! But thanks everyone To quit was the right thing for me to do at that time. Coming back will depend on the society procedures or the system evolving into something self-sustaining and appealing to the majority. And please -- free, no membership dues!

23 November 2006 The correlator took time out from SHARE to regain his health and composure. Selling his house in Scaborough and moving to a smaller place in the country must have helped, because once settled in to his new abode, he strangely enough returned merely out of curiosity to the moribund SHARE web site. That was in October 2006. A month later and this web site shows signs of renewal, if nothing more than a new name to get around, in his thinking, possible constitutional wrangles. At this time the correlator (if he can still call himself that!) is carefully reviewing and dissecting Geoff's Report of 10 June 2006. Geoff's Clan web site appears to be the way to go forward as far as genealogy records are concerned (because contributors are responsible for their own submissions providing that they adhere to a word count.) The future of the SHARE web site, whether under the old name or a new one, might become, as suggested, a Hodgson and variants electronic newsletter -- which it is already showing signs of becoming. The correlator's e-mail address is always open for positive(?) feedback.

Back to top