Re: Why is there a Clash between the Tutors and the AFC

by mac Wed Aug 21, 2024 11:13 am

Admin wrote:This is the basic problem it appears that when an SNU President is appointed they gain ultimate power. That should never be.

Might is right? Seems that way, Jim, or at least might will stomp on anyone who dares to question anything....

It looks like the SNU's constitution could be the problem here but how do you get a change in that? It's turkey voting for Christmas time again to expect those in power to step in but if they won't, can it happen at all, one wonders?

by mac Wed Aug 21, 2024 11:15 am

I wonder who the remainder of the SNU membership are, what they're thinking and/or saying and where - if anywhere???????

It might appear that my interest and comments about HOW this mess is going means I'm actually interested in the SNU, the AFC or whatever. I'm not sure I truly am but I still have more to say than some.... Rolling Eyes

by Jbodoski Wed Aug 21, 2024 3:47 pm

Knowing both candidates well, I doubt either will stand down. Their egos are too big to even think they are wrong. Both smile to your face, but never should you turn round.

by notabigjump Wed Aug 21, 2024 3:54 pm

What I perceive as a huge conflict of interest is that the chairman of the college, the president of the union, a specific tutor and course organiser are all the same person. The potential for representing the other tutors is conflicted. The powerbase is too strong with no opposition. These committees are too top heavy with the NEC. The key to effective management is often found in good and respected delegation. It baffles me why the college committee is not elected by the college tutors and staff on a democratic basis.

How can this be resolved when one person holds all the cards?

by mac Wed Aug 21, 2024 4:50 pm

Jbodoski wrote:Knowing both candidates well, I doubt either will stand down. Their egos are too big to even think they are wrong. Both smile to your face, but never should you turn round.

I don't know these individuals as persons or anything about their characters other than what I've learned this past few days, but based on that it's what I'd expect from any or all of 'em....

I doubt any of 'em would be concerned about being wrong and they may genuinely BELIEVE they are not wrong and that they're doing the right thing.

As for backing or standing down that would be wishful thinking. Wink

by mac Wed Aug 21, 2024 4:55 pm

I made a couple of remarks on the Independent Member Facebook page earlier today. Wonder what reactions my thoughts will generate?

by Admin Thu Aug 22, 2024 12:09 am

notabigjump wrote:What I perceive as a huge conflict of interest is that the chairman of the college, the president of the union, a specific tutor and course organiser are all the same person. The potential for representing the other tutors is conflicted. The powerbase is too strong with no opposition. These committees are too top heavy with the NEC. The key to effective management is often found in good and respected delegation. It baffles me why the college committee is not elected by the college tutors and staff on a democratic basis.

How can this be resolved when one person holds all the cards?

Very very true as you pointed out the AFC is the income earner of the SNU (or it was we will have ro see what happens after the loss of 20 tutors), not a bad part to have total Control of. I take it that, although she is paid by the SNU Jackie Wright also gets a fee for working as a Tutor; I note some of the tutors seek fees to do a divine service (well Matthew Smith wanted $300 for one if he came to Aus way back in 2005), would Jackie get one for working a Sunday. I know it used to be just expenses (a tube fare for Lis) but learned a while ago that the more succesful churches paid fees to get the better mediums ( in Oz no expenses and they generally donate to the churches).

Still do not know why they picked the fight with the tutors when they did, although back in February they may have thought they had plenty of time to present another win to the annual meeting.

by notabigjump Thu Aug 22, 2024 7:55 am

mac wrote:Given the apparent refusal to enter a process of mediation after having signed a non-disclosure agreement before notionally accepting a formal complaint from each of the tutors in question, what sanctions would they face anyway if they were to disclose what the new AFC contracts are expecting of them to continue working in the college?

By the look of things relationships have soured to the point the tutors may anyway never work in the AFC again.... Always assuming the college and its organising body survive much into the future.

This is an interesting question which was part of a discussion last night. As the law states, any confidentiality clauses are null and void if the information to be revealed is in the public interest.

Given the furore this situation has created and the interest of the students (paying public customers - many who are now not getting what they paid for) there is a case for it being in the public interest. Employment tribunals frown upon NDA's from employers and this would be in the favour of the tutors, if they spoke openly. The SNU is a registered charity subject to scrutiny and the AFC is a part of it - therefore, it is in the public interest.

The tutors would do well to have this confirmed by someone with employment law experience for reassurance, but it looks as if they may be free to speak after all!

by Jbodoski Thu Aug 22, 2024 8:01 am

Without the AFC. there is not enough money coming in to the SNU to pay the huge salaries they tend to pay out. At one time they wanted to give a staff member an 18% rise on the grounds she had been a loyal worker. They get the church money each year, a percentage of which is ploughed back to the DCs. The college is the only large income apart from a few rentals that comes in. The president is the only payed officer but the last and current both work or worked at the college, get paid for that and expenses paid for meetings etc. The last president had a loan from SNUT to buy a new car at 1% interest, yet churches find it difficult to borrow. They are advised to put their money into SNUT but if SNUT failed the churches money is not protected. The whole company is not run by professionals just enthusiastic amateurs. It is ridiculous that someone with no business experience can try to run such a big charity.

by mac Thu Aug 22, 2024 8:29 am

I wonder if any/many other than the officials will ever know why they took the action they did?

The longer the present situation persists the less chance of it being resolved by mediation (already rejected anyway) and new arrangements will eventually take over. That's what happens when toughing-it-out is the policy.

There's nothing new in that policy and even when trades unions have faced off employers by organising strikes the outcome has often been that the employer has won the dispute. It's sad that the present AFC dispute may well go that way.

As the college is so dependent on course fees the next 12 months should see how new arrangements work out.

Voting for officers will shortly close and the outcome of that will soon be known but already it seems predictable.

by mac Thu Aug 22, 2024 8:34 am

Jbodoski wrote:Without the AFC. there is not enough money coming in to the SNU to pay the huge salaries they tend to pay out. At one time they wanted to give a staff member an 18% rise on the grounds she had been a loyal worker. They get the church money each year, a percentage of which is ploughed back to the DCs. The college is the only large income apart from a few rentals that comes in. The president is the only payed officer but the last and current both work or worked at the college, get paid for that and expenses paid for meetings etc. The last president had a loan from SNUT to buy a new car at 1% interest, yet churches find it difficult to borrow. They are advised to put their money into SNUT but if SNUT failed the churches money is not protected. The whole company is not run by professionals just enthusiastic amateurs. It is ridiculous that someone with no business experience can try to run such a big charity.

You've nailed the problems well but is there a solution to all - or any - of them?

by Jbodoski Thu Aug 22, 2024 8:47 am

The best people for the role have been ousted by one method or another, never to be allowed back, specially under the current regime. As soon as you become a threat, like Churchill prior to WWII, you live in the wilderness.

by mac Thu Aug 22, 2024 8:57 am

mac wrote:Given the apparent refusal to enter a process of mediation after having signed a non-disclosure agreement before notionally accepting a formal complaint from each of the tutors in question, what sanctions would they face anyway if they were to disclose what the new AFC contracts are expecting of them to continue working in the college?

By the look of things relationships have soured to the point the tutors may anyway never work in the AFC again.... Always assuming the college and its organising body survive much into the future.

This is an interesting question which was part of a discussion last night. As the law states, any confidentiality clauses are null and void if the information to be revealed is in the public interest. Given the furore this situation has created and the interest of the students (paying public customers - many who are now not getting what they paid for) there is a case for it being in the public interest.

But would it be in the public interest? That may be wishful thinking. Other than us 'spooks weirdos' who knows the AFC or the SNU even exist?

Employment tribunals frown upon NDA's from employers and this would be in the favour of the tutors, if they spoke openly. The SNU is a registered charity subject to scrutiny and the AFC is a part of it - therefore, it is in the public interest.

That theory remains to be tested and we don't know if either the SNU or the AFC actually were employers - or perhaps you do? Beyond that issue, though, only The Charities Commission can decide whether what's happening might be impacting charity law. I doubt there's any significant public interest in what's going on, though.

The tutors would do well to have this confirmed by someone with employment law experience for reassurance, but it looks as if they may be free to speak after all!

Whatever they decide to do about disclosure it may all be too late anyway. It looks unlikely to me that the tutors would ever agree to work again for AFC under the current (and probably the future) managers. It may be they will have an employment compensation claim about which employment law specialists can advise - for a price.

by mac Thu Aug 22, 2024 9:00 am

Jbodoski wrote:The best people for the role have been ousted by one method or another, never to be allowed back, specially under the current regime. As soon as you become a threat, like Churchill prior to WWII, you live in the wilderness.

So no? There is no solution to the current problems?

by mac Thu Aug 22, 2024 9:10 am

Jbodoski wrote:Without the AFC. there is not enough money coming in to the SNU to pay the huge salaries they tend to pay out.

Who decides whether anyone's salary is "huge" as you're suggesting? It might sound a petty grumble unless you can show there's a contravention of principles, rules or policies.

At one time they wanted to give a staff member an 18% rise on the grounds she had been a loyal worker.

so? What happened? Where are the details? I'm playing Devils Advocate.

They get the church money each year, a percentage of which is ploughed back to the DCs. The college is the only large income apart from a few rentals that comes in. The president is the only payed officer but the last and current both work or worked at the college, get paid for that and expenses paid for meetings etc.

Is any of that a problem?

The last president had a loan from SNUT to buy a new car at 1% interest, yet churches find it difficult to borrow.

and......?????

They are advised to put their money into SNUT but if SNUT failed the churches' money is not protected.

Plainly such a situation deserves attention.

The whole company is not run by professionals just enthusiastic amateurs. It is ridiculous that someone with no business experience can try to run such a big charity.

Agreed! Now what we gonna do about it?

by mac Thu Aug 22, 2024 9:26 am

Before folk start taking a pop at what I'm writing may I say I'm just trying to make sure that details are facts and also trying to move folk away from personal gripes and grumbles about named or unnamed individuals.

Any independent assessor of the situation would ask for facts and not opinions. However much folk hate what's gone on, however much they dislike the individuals concerned, discussions should not be about persons or personality.

by Jbodoski Thu Aug 22, 2024 10:11 am

Not going to take a pop, I believe in free speech, and to that end I accept others opinions. As for my statements being hear say, I know they are fact as I was there.

by Admin Fri Aug 23, 2024 1:07 am

Jbodoski wrote:Without the AFC. there is not enough money coming in to the SNU to pay the huge salaries they tend to pay out. At one time they wanted to give a staff member an 18% rise on the grounds she had been a loyal worker. They get the church money each year, a percentage of which is ploughed back to the DCs. The college is the only large income apart from a few rentals that comes in. The president is the only payed officer but the last and current both work or worked at the college, get paid for that and expenses paid for meetings etc. The last president had a loan from SNUT to buy a new car at 1% interest, yet churches find it difficult to borrow. They are advised to put their money into SNUT but if SNUT failed the churches money is not protected. The whole company is not run by professionals just enthusiastic amateurs. It is ridiculous that someone with no business experience can try to run such a big charity.

Very good points;Jbodski .

One thing the current Presidents should assess, is will an AFC without its previous manager Tanya, without those 20 tutors and a few other familiar faces an attractive place to visit for studenst, once those 20 get their act together, are joined by a few others and open up courses in one of the many centres in teh UK, in opposition. Will students want to go to courses run by Paul Jacobs and his mini-mes or Jackie Wright behave alikes. I think they may have shot their own golden goose.

Clearly once the money dries up the churches get hurt. As to the DC's can you tell me what they are about? they sound like Area Managers of some Supermarket Company stomping around checking up that the churches are following all the rules and keeping everything homogenised.

by Admin Fri Aug 23, 2024 1:21 am

mac wrote:Before folk start taking a pop at what I'm writing may I say I'm just trying to make sure that details are facts and also trying to move folk away from personal gripes and grumbles about named or unnamed individuals.

Any independent assessor of the situation would ask for facts and not opinions. However much folk hate what's gone on, however much they dislike the individuals concerned, discussions should not be about persons or personality.

Mac playing devils advocate is important, but when a post is quoted and split apart replying line by line it gets very long, when that is requoted and a reply to that post requoted etc. It gets tough to remember where and what the discussion is about. It can also diminish the power of a topic. Somehow we need to find another way to do this.

Broadly speaking we can, given the detail being given, recognise that someone knows what they are talking about and has some inside knowledge. We also know that regardless of which of the last two Presidents you deal with, there will be heavy punishment and only possibly some reward. Therefore anonymity is quite sensible.

I also welcome all the new members, even if many have not posted. It does not matter to me that they only visit this thread while its active. I would hope though that they visit all the other wonderful material that is on this thread, some copied from other sources but much original and meticulously researched. My feeling is that, even if Spiritualism fails, its successor must study the experience of the last 176 years and learn. Studying the past is to often forgotten by humanity its why the same idiotic ideas keep coming back.

by Admin Fri Aug 23, 2024 8:28 am

JNR wrote:
There is an interview between JW and Sandra Champlain.

youtu.be/BN6kNoyGFko?si=eE2uC_2vjfXI0XS1

During the interview JW, at around the 24min 45 sec mark says ‘in the last decade it (The AFC) has had no money spent on it so it is crumbling so that's the other thing that I'm focused on is Raising enough money to get it repaired refurbished.’

I’ve asked around about JW’s background and from speaking to several people some of which have served on the Committee that is responsible for the running of the AFC, I have found out that JW has been on the committee for around 6-7 of the last 10 years.

Being a regular student of the AFC for the last 12 years and having attended the college at least twice a year for the last 12 years I know from what I’ve witnessed that there has been A LOT of money spent on the building over the last decade.

Over the last few weeks I’ve been making a lot of enquiries, and I’ve got it from very credible sources that there has been about £2m spent on the building in the past decade. You only have to go to the college to know the work rooms have been refurbished, bedrooms have, and there’s been a lot of structural improvements too.

So why is this important?

Well during the interview JW makes the claim that the AFC is crumbling, that no money has been spent on it over the last decade, and then goes on to appeal to the public on behalf of the AFC for donations for refurbishment work via its just giving page which has raised £29k so far

Looking at the evidence and the interview you could say that JW is telling porkie pies. Best case scenario she is making misleading statements to the public to raise money for the AFC.

Being on the committee for 6-7 years she would have known, planned, authorised and debated the work that has taken place.

There really isn’t any way she didn’t know about it all.

I’ve looked at the accounts that are published on the SNU website and there is £3m in their general reserves that could be used for any refurbishments the college needs so it seems a bit naughty to make out that they need to raise money to do this.

I’m sure those who donated because of the interview would be shocked to discover that JW wasn’t being completely truthful. How do you trust any charity if the details of their appeals aren’t accurate.

Apologies JNR in all the quoting and re posting this very important snippet seems yo have been overlooked.

As part of her Promotion to retain the Presidency the non expenditures on the AFC has been quoted and it was used to help persuade people to donate

An actual provable terminological inexactitude (if you like a porkie) that JW actually said in a recorded interview. How many more are there around, or being buried hurriedly. I admit it was Lis that spotted this ripper.

by JNR Fri Aug 23, 2024 9:47 pm

It actually gets worse because she was on the AFC Committee for the past 6-8 years and had full knowledge of the capital expenditure that was authorised.

She is fully aware that around £2m was spent.

So saying nothing has been spent on the building over the last decade could be seen as being knowingly misleading.

Also, remembering that the podcast was broadcast to the general public, many of whom have never attended the college, when you say the place is crumbling, what image does that conjure in the mind. A dilapidated, faulty tower-esque building.

Although the place is like faulty towers in more ways than one, the condition of the college cannot accurately be described as crumbling. Again misleading, especially when she is on the interview representing the SNU as its president.

You have to be careful with language, and unfortunately in this interview and lots of others I’ve seen out there JW is far far from careful to a point in my opinion of being unfit to hold the position.

I think all of this is really important given it was said to appeal to individuals to donate to the colleges just giving page

I think the point did get lost and so I thank you for highlighting it

by notabigjump Fri Aug 23, 2024 10:46 pm

It's a common theme of this president to present spurious information as facts. At 17:20 She quotes a figure of '80 and then 85% of mediums working in churches don’t know who they are working with.' She offers no evidence of these statistics and expects intelligent people to simply take her word for it.

Whilst not as serious as the fundraising porkies, here we have the most senior representative of SNU spiritualism, who promotes unsubstantiated information and untruths to the global community via the internet. The result - creating enough concern so that many donate their hard earned cash when unnecessary.

Come the time when the college really does need help, she may have cooked her goose now!

She has no credibility.

by Admin Sat Aug 24, 2024 1:10 am

Once again JNR, hidden within that video, there is a comment about to stopping tutors coming to the college and seeing it as a cash cow. Demeaning to the tutors who have worked hard to become accredited and must be being picked tor courses for a good reason. It's hard work and expensive to get to that level. Once there the SNU should never be able to take away that award, without a very serious reason and after due process. They should be free to use it whenever they teach and wherever they teach.

Indeed that comment about a cash cow is a back fire on both Jackie Wight and Paul, who seem to have grabbed more courses next year. I have no idea what the fees are but, even if they are not that high, its a nice earner for JW on top of her SNU Salary. Hm when and why did the SNU Presidents decide not to be based at the Head Office, preferring the AFC?

There is another point if JW wanted to help the churches it would be to help improve the supply of people to run good circles for them, local development workshops etc. Surely the tutors should be encouraged to work as outreach rather than in the AFC. They nave to be able to charge a fee for the workshops but it may help where centres' have no one with a level of competency for training.

The AFC used to be a finishing school not a first step. To hone and tune up the skills you learned in local circles.

First step forward is to make sure that when you enter an SNU building for a meeting, circle or divine service it is at a level that engages both hearts and minds, not send you away never to return.

by Admin Sat Aug 24, 2024 1:28 am

I also want to pick up on one of the propaganda leaflets on JW's professionally curated Facebook Page. One of the numerous notes of support saying how JW had encouraged churches to act for them selves, so they had set up activities like coffee mornings etc etc. Great if you have the people to do it but not the things that will rescue Spiritualism.

I would imagine many centres have a limited number of volunteers with so many people at work. I realise that the UK does have some great centres Bournemouth and the Pott's Brothers always comes to my mind. However, it also has one's that have to recover from Covid or are just dying as members age.

Without something drawing people into Spiritualism, practical support to improve the quality of meetings in the struggling centres then numbers will decline. I would expect that the number of centres will continue to decline, of course as many are in the Trust that will boost the funds from sales, which is probably a factor in the minds at the top. What I have seen is words suggesting what should be done by the churches not practical support offered, also money spent but on the AFC not the churches. I hope people have not been misled in their voting by the rhetoric.

I remember that Lis used to work what was known as the East London circuit of Churches. Surely a way forwards is to get tutors grouped to help run training in circuit not AFC. Whoops the AFC is (or was ) the SNU's cash cow so, why would they want workshops in centres (it could indeed benefit the incomes for tutors. Maybe that is a way forward for the 20 Tutors, or would JW block that path.

Just another bit of propaganda on the beautifully crated (hmm I would love to know the cost) facebook page. membership is up 20% in the years she has been President. What % was lost during Covid, if I ignore that drop and start at the bottom ours has gone up that much in the last 2 years, maybe more. The joys of statistics, I bet, in both cases, the numbers remain scarily low.

by Admin Sat Aug 24, 2024 1:32 am

Hmm in all this David Bruton is having an easy run, but then after all the black marks I had against him, he got some bonuses in dealing with te Uptons and with Paul at the AFC. I also feel that his first NEC with all the strong characters on it trying to get there own way had r=to be difficult. Although some of the give aways, like the independent Philosophy Committee, were sad and the Psychic News affair a disaster but that was over by 2012.

by Sponsored content