Why is there a Clash between the Tutors and the AFC

mac wrote:So many words that I think I've lost my way....  Is the following correct?

An SNU church counts as 5 votes.  (But who chooses to whom its vote goes?)

Usually the church committee - hopefully after consulting the church members

A member of a church who is also a member of the SNU gets a personal vote.

Yes.

An SNU member who is not a church member gets a personal vote.
Yes

Can anyone else vote?  What is the maximum number of votes overall that may be cast?

The District Council (I think it counts as 5)

5 x number of churches
5 x number of DC's (14 I think)
1 x number of individual SNU members

When you break it down Mac it is relatively simple:

317 SNU churches each with 5 votes = 1585 votes
14 SNU DCs each with 5 votes = 70 votes
2113 Individual members each with 1 vote = 2113

Total Votes available from churches, DCs and IMs = 3768

Jackie Wright received 1121 votes
David Bruton received 470 votes
Total votes received by them = 1591

Jackie Wright is claiming she received 70% of the vote. But it was only 70% of the 1591 votes cast - not 70% of the total votes available had everyone voted.

She, in fact received less than 30% of the total available votes.

Remaining unused votes = 2177

2177 votes were not cast.

Q: Why did so many churches, DCs and IMs not cast a vote?

It seems to me that what the newly re-elected president of the SNU should be declaring is the breakdown of the votes she received.

That is:
How many churches voted for her?
How many DCs gave their votes to her?
How many Individual Members voted for her?

Clearly not all of the churches voted for her as she did not even receive the potential 1585 votes that would come from the churches.
Did all the DCs vote for her?

Who in fact voted for her and who did not is actually an important point in deciding whether JW really could legitimately claim she had some kind of mandate to act as she is.

Lis

I should add that whoever in fact voted for her, surely those voters neither would give support to nor condone the act of removing the photos of the tutors  from the wall at the AFC.

I raise the issue of the breakdown of how many churches, DCs and IMs in fact voted for JW because it brings to the forefront another important point, especially when viewed in light of JWs action in removing the tutor photos.

Does JW, as the president, have the right to view who voted? Is JW able to see which churches voted against her, which DCs didn't vote for her, and can she access a list of the names of all the individual members who voted against her?

I ask, because, based on JW's actions in relation to the tutors, I fear for the potential treatment those churches and DCs, and perhaps some of the influential IMs who didn't vote for her will receive as a result.

I share your concern Lis. The removal of tutor photos in advance of an upcoming attempt at resolution, is vindictive to my mind. It would be concerning if she is privy to voter identification.

Even if JW was not given the names of the churches, DCs, IMs, knowing the breakdown would be a useful indicator of where her power base lay.

Informing the SNU membership (churches, DCs, and individual members) of the proportion of churches, DCs and IMs, that voted for the president would also be useful, and might help the membership know where the power sat in the SNU structure.

That might encourage more of the membership to get involved and work towards creating a more representative and open operation of the SNU.

Slatewriter Post of the thread I feel.

Love the idea of the AFC as Hogwort's,  indeed I read just that title used for it by one of the populist papers

Yes the point raised is so valid, are the ballots truly secret, or can a President so sure of her control, as it appears Minister Jackie Wright is, able to access the results.

After all it is clear that someone, who places her picture above all of the remaining tutors, leaving one poor soul alone on the end (is there a deeper meaning to that placement, if I was that tutor I may fret about that)  has to have a very high opinion of themselves. They may sense themselves to be untouchable and totally in command. I am sure its worth a psychologists profile of her..

To be safe I will post the judicious genufluction



Actually that looks symbolically like the new smaller picture of the tutor photographs, I do hope the pictures are not set up to bow...well Paul Jacobs would not allow it..would he?

It is truly scary that, at the moment, there are only 2113 independent members; effectively these control over 18 million pounds in assets, 317 churches (OK they get 5 votes each, so the churches could soon have control if they vote together) but most I would expect to be in the trust and virtually unable to leave it (unless as a body they got control), with 14 DC's who's membership must be, I would hope, full SNU members.

Each church has its own members, who do not become SNU members by default, only by application and acceptance, and SNUi members are non voting. Given some of the churches are fairly strong and vibrant I expect the total number of church members plus SNUi members exceed SNU members by a decent number. So who is actually looking after their interests?

Lis wrote:When you break it down Mac it is relatively simple:

thank you - Simple suits me....

317 SNU churches each with 5 votes = 1585 votes
14 SNU DCs each with 5 votes = 70 votes
2113 Individual members each with 1 vote = 2113

Total Votes available from churches, DCs and IMs = 3768

Jackie Wright received 1121 votes
David Bruton received 470 votes
Total votes received by them = 1591

Jackie Wright is claiming she received 70% of the vote. But it was only 70% of the 1591 votes cast - not 70% of the total votes available had everyone voted.

She, in fact received less than 30% of the total available votes.

An observer might respond that the successful candidate only needed a simple majority of votes cast; the total number of votes cast would not change the result.  Governments can be elected similarly.

Remaining unused votes = 2177

2177 votes were not cast.

Q: Why did so many churches, DCs and IMs not cast a vote?

answer - One would need to communicate with everyone concerned to discover their reasons. Disinclination would be one of them I expect.

As I wrote earlier there were three voting options.  The first was to vote for the incumbent president.  The second was to vote for the only other candidate.  The third was to abstain from voting.  Correctly it had already been predicted the outcome was all-but certain anyway hence voting or abstaining would have made no difference to the result.

notabigjump wrote:

mac wrote:So many words that I think I've lost my way....  Is the following correct?

An SNU church counts as 5 votes.  (But who chooses to whom its vote goes?)

Usually the church committee - hopefully after consulting the church members

A member of a church who is also a member of the SNU gets a personal vote.

Yes.

An SNU member who is not a church member gets a personal vote.
Yes

Can anyone else vote?  What is the maximum number of votes overall that may be cast?

The District Council (I think it counts as 5)

5 x number of churches
5 x number of DC's (14 I think)
1 x number of individual SNU members

thank you - It's perhaps a pity members of churches don't get individual votes rather than the block-vote decided by just a few individuals.

It seems to me that what the newly re-elected president of the SNU should be declaring is the breakdown of the votes she received.

I expect she would disagree....

Who in fact voted for her and who did not is actually an important point in deciding whether JW really could legitimately claim she had some kind of mandate to act as she is.

I expect she would disagree.....

notabigjump wrote: The removal of tutor photos in advance of an upcoming attempt at resolution, is vindictive to my mind. It would be concerning  if she is privy to voter identification.

Removal of the photos could be considered feeny but it's hardly surprising given what's been reported in this thread.....

Is voter identification possible?  I did declare myself but I would think nobody else is known about unless they did similarly.....  

I thought voting was secret???

Admin wrote:Slatewriter Post of the thread I feel.

Love the idea of the AFC as Hogwort's,  indeed I read just that title used for it by one of the populist papers

Yes, lots of AFC students who are familiar with the Harry Potter books and films refer to Stanstead Hall as Hogwarts.
Someone on another forum made the connection between what's going on at the AFC at the moment and a genuine storyline from the 7th Harry Potter film/book. So I used my own photo of Stanstead Hall and created the image.
In the film/book, that character, who is working secretly for an evil force, becomes head of the wizard school and begins to asserts her dominance and actually instructs a minion to remove paintings of past icons.
Her next move is to introduce lots of new and restrictive rules over the school, continually spreading fear in the students and other tutors alike. None dare speak up.
Ultimately the school is decimated in a battle between good & evil.
I wonder how much further the similarity at Stanstead Hall will proceed? Can we look forward to new restrictive rules being introduced at the AFC?
Do current actions indicate what a dominant force the present leadership asserts? Should we be concerned how much further events will develop?
Will the AFC actually fall?

It is now so bad that students are taking action with a petition. I will add the link here if anyone would wish to see how serious the students are becoming about this clash. STUDENT PETITION

Thank you for this I have shared. Now going to read the new byelaws that are to be presented at the AGM.

notabigjump wrote:It is now so bad that students are taking action with a petition. I will add the link here if anyone would wish to see how serious the students are becoming about this clash. STUDENT PETITION

signed - It's students and also supporters, of course.....

Anniemillo1 wrote:Thank you for this I have shared.   Now going to read the new byelaws that are to be presented at the AGM.

me too

Slatewriter wrote:
Will the AFC actually fall?

Mediums aren't supposed to make predictions so do we have any psychics here who want to try?

mac wrote:

Slatewriter wrote:
Will the AFC actually fall?

Mediums aren't supposed to make predictions so do we have any psychics here who want to try?  

I will get my crystal ball out but my spidery senses already believe it will fall, if the current situation remains unresolved for much longer. Sad but it is losing student support now.

Am I right in assuming the 'Amendments to SNU Constitution' in the document I've downloaded were voted on and accepted at the Union's Annual General Meeting?

What will be the practical, day-to-day effect of the changes?

notabigjump wrote:

mac wrote:

Slatewriter wrote:
Will the AFC actually fall?

Mediums aren't supposed to make predictions so do we have any psychics here who want to try?  

I will get my crystal ball out but my spidery senses already believe it will fall, if the current situation remains unresolved for much longer. Sad but it is losing student support now.

Are you thinking it will have to close should support drain away to a level where it's inadequately financially supported?  If so, how long do you feel it will take - weeks, months, years? Or like the proverbial old gate will it creak on forever?

mac wrote:

notabigjump wrote:

mac wrote:

Slatewriter wrote:
Will the AFC actually fall?

Mediums aren't supposed to make predictions so do we have any psychics here who want to try?  

I will get my crystal ball out but my spidery senses already believe it will fall, if the current situation remains unresolved for much longer. Sad but it is losing student support now.

Are you thinking it will have to close should support drain away to a level where it's inadequately financially supported?  If so, how long do you feel it will take - weeks, months, years?  Or like the proverbial old gate will it creak on forever?

At the moment they do have reserves, but if what I am seeing is true, about so many cancelling, asking for refunds or just plain not going to book anymore is anything to go by, I'd be surprised if it lasted another year. Just a spidery hunch. However, they do have other places that could sell to keep it going longer. Hmm. I am sure the returned president would not want to have that on her record. The AGM is this month. I forget the date but I wouldn't want to be in her shoes this time facing the membership.

I hope it doesn't come to that. The thing is that we need to get a dictator out as obviously the majority of members do not agree with her treatment of the tutors which for me was a nail in the coffin and as a previous post suggested sell the Barnabell Centre and concentrate on upgrading AFC.

Does the following sound right to you?  "An Evidential Sitting – The Medium will link to the spirit world and bring information to you from those who know you and other family members/friends who have shared aspects of your life." To help, I'm thinking "try to" belongs in the first sentence.....