Why is there a Clash between the Tutors and the AFC

notabigjump wrote:

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.

Oh I was thinking the AGM had already happened - senior moment.     Then the amendments must be proposals which still have to be approved.... But the text does tell us the amendments have been made - am I getting confused? I'm at that certain age.....

The gate might creak on for some time then if not actually forever.... Selling assets to keep floundering businesses afloat is nothing unusual or new.  Those who do it seem able to live with any discomfort they may feel.

I had a boss who didn't care one jot what subordinates felt about what he did, didn't do, how he ran his kingdom or what the effect was on them.  As long as he got his way, and his superior was happy, so was he.  The returned president doesn't appear to have a superior so why would she care about any of the issues others care about?

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.

The proof of this particular pair of puddings will be in their eating..... It's easy to identify what's not liked but it may not be so easy to bring about change.

We'll see how many support the petition and what effect that has.

The bye laws are, by their very nature included in a document which includes the Articles of Association and the names of the eminent people who originally drew them up.

The key point given in item 3 is the objects of the Association

The objects ("the objects") for which the Union is established are-
To promote the advancement and diffusion internationally but particularly in the United
Kingdom of a knowledge of the religion and religious philosophy of Spiritualism and such other
charitable activities as the Trustees shall from time to time determine. Spiritualism is generally
understood to recognise, and for the purposes of these Articles shall be considered as
recognising, the following principles:-
1. The Fatherhood of God.
2. The Brotherhood of Man.
3. The Communion of Spirits and the Ministry of Angels.
4. The Continuous Existence of the Human Soul.
5. Personal Responsibility.
6. Compensation and Retribution Hereafter for all the Good and Evil Deeds done
on Earth.
7. Eternal Progress Open to every Human Soul.
and in these Articles the words "Spiritualism" and "Spiritualist" shall be construed accordingly.

No changes are acceptable to create new Aims these are the constitutional requirements

Has the current President bothered to read them because none of the actions we see would suggest she has

I have also been looking to try and establish the changes made in those Bye Laws

There are a whole list of the current Bye Laws after the articles of Association, unfortunately the only copy of the document I can find are after those bye laws had been changed to reflect the ones we can now all see.
  These fall into the area PART VI. STANDING ORDERS

The Articles of Association grant the right of the NEC to make these Bye Laws in section 62
63. Bye-Laws
(1) The National Executive Committee shall have power to make, and from time to time
amend or repeal, Bye-laws, rules or regulations providing for or prescribing any matter
required or permitted by these Articles to be provided for or prescribed in the Bye-laws,
and any other matter for which these Articles make no provision, provided that such Bye-
laws shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of these Articles or the Companies Acts.
(2) Any such Bye-laws, rules or regulations made, amended or repealed shall be deemed to
be effective as soon as they have been notified to Individual Members, affiliated bodies,
Pioneer Centres, associated bodies, Branches and District Councils.
(3) Any Bye-laws, rules or regulations in operation at the time of coming into force of this
Article shall remain in force until amended or replaced in accordance with the provision
of this Article.
(4) In case of any conflict between the provisions of the Bye-laws, rules or regulations and
the provisions of these Articles the latter shall prevail.
(5) Any such Bye-law, rule or regulation may be amended or repealed by special resolution
by members of the Union in general meeting.

So they can make Bye Laws that are immediately binding on the organisation, unless they run counter to the Articles of Association. By nominating that they are following the articles of association in the way the  Standing Orders are written, d it would take a very clever Constitutional Lawyer to strike down the revised standing orders as being in conflict with the Articles.

So these are the Articles of association and the new Bye Laws which are now in place . CLICK ON FOLLOIWING IMAGES TO SEE FULL DETAILS




Hmm all done legally, but I have nothing to compare the standing orders with, I need the old one's from the last election

What is clear is the phenomenal Powers granted to the SNU President when they run an AGM, include or exclude items and people before or during the meeting with no right of appeal. A magnificent achievement in anticipation of a win. Essentially, if you oppose the President it would seem that you are  unlikely to have your point heard or voted upon.

That is if they changed significantly from the last ones, or did David Bruton start down this path in the last AGM, only to lose. Someone find me a copy of the old standing orders, please.

In some respects, to evaluate some of the changes you need to compare with what the proposed changes are to replace.

Paragraph 30 does however give enormous power to the Chairperson to permit or not permit non-members to speak – but at an AGM normally only members would be present other than perhaps journalists.

At the upcoming AGM there might well be journalists wanting to be present given the very public discord at present between the SNU/AFC and the tutors.

30 ((1)(a) would allow the chairperson to allow journalists (and in theory non-members who were previously members) to attend, but 30(1)(b)(i) and (ii) would allow the chairperson (JW):

* to exclude members and non-members of the grounds of disorder, refusal to obey orders or rulings of the chairperson, with no right of appeal

* to exclude one or more non-members at any time from part or all of the meeting if the chairperson considers that publicity would be prejudicial to the union’s interest by reason of confidential nature of the business with no right of appeal

30(1)(c)(d)(e) and (f) again gives enormous control to the chairperson to stop the meeting or restrain discussion as irrelevant, offensive, or prolonged and to determine what matters can or will be allowed to be discussed at the AGM.

The main problem with these proposed amendments would appear to be the unfettered nature of the power that they give to the chairperson (JW) and without the right of any member or non-member to appeal the decision of the chairperson.

Now in the hands of a wise and impartial chairperson (which is who should preside over an AGM) these amendments might only be very judiciously used and little harm would result. However, based on what is currently happening, to give such over-arching power to the chairperson (JW) would seem potentially very dangerous indeed.

I am relieved to learn that I hadn't misunderstood what I'd read earlier concerning the changes to the SNU's working 'rules' etc.

It actually had appeared to me that many powers had been assumed and implemented but naiively I thought such changes MUST have been approved and I (wrongly) assumed that would have taken place at the AGM. Isn't that, after all, one of the purposes of Annual General Meetings in all kinds of organisations? Seemingly not the situation for the Spiritualists' National Union....

Hi,
The 20 tutor's photographs have be put back on the wall today. Tutor's rep sataes JW knew nothing about them being taken down. I have to ask, who would have the audacity to do such a thing without her consent. Members of the NEC? College Staff? Will we ever be given the name of who authorised it?

Anniemillo1 wrote:Will we ever be given the name of who authorised it?

Don't hold your breath while waiting for that name.....

Hi
SNU have posted a statement regarding their position with the tutors and the uprising of the students. Now eagerly awaiting a statement from our Tutors now that the SNU have done so. Hopefully we will get to the bottom of it.

Anniemillo1 wrote:Hi
SNU have posted a statement regarding their position with the tutors and the uprising of the students.    Now eagerly awaiting a statement from our Tutors now that the SNU have done so.   Hopefully we will get to the bottom of it.  

WHERE has the SNU posted the statement?

600 signatures on the petition as at 5 o'clock Tuesday September 3, 2024 - it looks like folk do care after all.....

It's onhttps://www.snu.org.uk/news/an-important-update-from-the-spiritualists-national-union-tuesday-3rd-september-2024?fbclid=IwY2xjawFEBfJleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHQadLQDmU55hjxunJUP28-0Ln9-OwSCvAj-7j9i_oe65E6obqNnmJsTUQg_aem_xBWrsQnwckuSPHOgX3fMlQ

An important update from the Spiritualists' National Union - Tuesday 3rd September 2024

SNU statement and update on the AFC tutor dispute and associated commentary, including abuse of staff and SNU officials - Tuesday 3rd September 2024.

Over the past few weeks and months, there has been considerable speculation and input, particularly across social media, regarding the tutor dispute at the Arthur Findlay College.

We are now in a position to share further information.

In February 2024, a complaint was filed, requesting the removal of the President of the Spiritualists’ National Union, including the removal of her awards and Ministership. This was in addition to refusals to sign a proposed updated tutor agreement, which the Union was seeking to establish clear expectations for behaviour and conduct, as well as to clarify tutors’ employment status when working at the Arthur Findlay College. This legal work was long overdue, and was progressed by the current NEC, under advisement.

It is noted that this agreement was accepted by a significant number of AFC tutors, at the time.

In the hopes of resolving the situation, under further advisement, an independent ‘commission of inquiry’ was established (which the SNU agreed to pay for), made up of an external panel of experts in industrial disputes and employment law, to hear and oversee the complaint.

Prior to this, the complainants had been given three separate opportunities to meet with members of the NEC to discuss their concerns around the tutor agreement.

On 22nd July 2024, whilst the work of this independent commission was still underway, twenty tutors issued an online statement, citing their unwillingness to work at the college under the “current leadership of the SNU, or the direction of the current Collegiate Committee.” This coincided with the start of the SNU elections, including for the very role the tutors had requested the removal of at the outset of the dispute. During this period, the SNU were advised to refrain from public comment, except for two agreed statements.

The tutors issued additional demands, including their removal from the AFC website within 24 hours, in addition to all write-ups, courses etc. within 48 hours, to stop students from booking on courses that would not be taking place. Naturally, this placed the charity and the college in a very difficult situation.

On 4th August 2024, the Sun newspaper published a damaging article, entitled: “MYSTIC MELTDOWN: Britain’s top school for wannabe Mystic Megs hit with sudden staff walkout.” The article went on to make a series of embarrassing comments about our religion in a tone that was perceived by many within the membership to be derisory and mocking. The SNU were advised to not comment at that time.

On 24th August, the tutors who had withdrawn their services received a letter which stated the SNU have had no choice but to remove them from courses in 2025 and to create alternative programmes for students to book onto. This is because courses and the college programme are booked far in advance, in order to give students necessary time to make travel arrangements.

This stipulation is for 2025 only, off of the back of the tutor’s own expressed intent to withdraw their services, and whilst the work of the commission is still ongoing.

As of today, the Arthur Findlay College is continuing to move forward. The complainants indicated they would withdraw their services from the College, as of 24th August. This is regrettable, but we respect the decision and the autonomy of the tutors. However, given that the tutors took this decision of their own accord, it is neither factual nor fair to claim that these tutors were ‘sacked’. As a charity and employer, the Union and college have of course had to consult contracts and agreements that were in place, and assess whether the tutors’ actions were in breach of any of these things. We await the outcome of the commission before we are able to comment any further on this.

Staff across the college and Union have taken (and will continue to take) steps to safeguard the College’s reputation and to minimise disruption for our students, some of whom travel great distances to attend. We are pleased that cancellations have been few, and courses are continuing to run. Additional amendments to the programme have been made to ensure that students will still receive the high quality of tutoring we expect at the AFC.

In recent days, we have been made aware of the removal of certain portraits on the AFC tutor wall. This was an action and decision taken in-house by staff at the AFC after some of the tutors involved had specifically requested for their photographs to be removed. This was not in any way requested or instructed by anyone on the NEC or Collegiate, and it is disappointing to see wholly unfounded comments and posts being shared suggesting this to be the case. It is our understanding that these tutors' portraits have since been returned to the wall.

Whilst we fully appreciate the extent to which members, students and visitors have been invested in and concerned by the ongoing situation, this simply does not excuse some of the conduct that has been experienced in recent weeks. Staff, officers and volunteers who have a right to undertake their jobs and work in a safe and respectful environment, and who are trying to help navigate a path through a difficult situation, have been subject to personal attacks, ridicule and harassment. This has been documented and shall be dealt with accordingly in due course, as the Union has a legal duty to protect its staff and workers.

Further, misinformation and unfounded claims, at times shared by individuals who have admitted to not being in full possession of the facts, have had a considerable impact upon the mental health and wellbeing of individuals who are earnestly trying to resolve the situation.

We would like to remind everyone who comments on the situation - both directly and externally - that you are fully entitled to your opinion, but that freedom of speech is not an absolute right. It must be balanced with the laws of defamation of character (libel and slander), harassment and intimidation, and regulations relating to online abuse.

The recent elections made it clear that the majority of members support the current NEC and President, with a decisive outcome and result. The democratic process underpins our Union, so now we call on all Spiritualists - members and beyond - to come together and join in a positive march forward. The divisive rhetoric and attacks of recent months, the mocking newspaper articles, the unfounded claims and misinformation - none of this shows our movement and religion in anything but a negative and damaging light. We can all collectively be better, and we humbly and earnestly ask that those participating in any negative online campaigning to please reconsider and allow the proper processes to be completed by those with full possession of the facts. We have strived to keep members and friends as up to date as possible, but given the circumstances this has had to continually be under advisement.

We shall be issuing updated guidance and policy on the likes of social media over the coming weeks and months (a process that began back in 2023) as above all, we must ensure those who work or volunteer for the charity are safeguarded and protected from harmful behaviour and content.

And finally, whilst we regret the outcome and the course that events have taken, we nevertheless thank all the departing tutors for their work.

Now we have read both sides of the disagreement.....

mac wrote:I am relieved to learn that I hadn't misunderstood what I'd read earlier concerning the changes to the SNU's working 'rules' etc.  

It actually had appeared to me that many powers had been assumed and implemented but naiively I thought such changes MUST have been approved and I (wrongly) assumed that would have taken place at the AGM.  Isn't that, after all, one of the purposes of Annual General Meetings in all kinds of organisations?  Seemingly not the situation for the Spiritualists' National Union....

I agree with you Mac but sadly I have had to learn much that removes my simpler beliefs over the last few weeks. I am sure that if you could afford a really good constitutional lawyer there may be something they could around the Spirit of the articles not being reflected in the Standing Rules but who has the money

I am delaying my comments about the SNU's response there are clearly gaps in the narrative, areas where the language obfuscates what happened and obligatory leans to the corporate position. However, if the NEC has lifted their gag, should not all the gags placed on others , by the SNU legal team, be lifted.

I will say one thing though; missing from this statement is an explanation of why, when the First Complaints Committee upheld the Tutors Complaint was its findings rejected and the committee disbanded and reconstituted with new people. I believe the chairman of that committee was Keith Parsons he was then President of East London DC but has resigned, especially over the "new" Bye Laws (I say new but they wer passed by the NEC in May and are already in all the latest SNU booklets).

I feel he made his feelings clear about his final position using words similar to this on social media.

"I as promised remained relatively quiet to respect the democratic process of the election, but of course all traditions after the closing date have been disrespected and ignored. Now those who have received the new bylaws, posted in time for the AGM, will realize that democracy has finally been buried in the Union and is now if it wasn't before a dictatorship. I won't list them here they are for once published if you can find them on the Union website.
Briefly
Do not have an opinion. Do not speak out
Do not disagree
Do not bring a motion forward to reject this.
If you do speak you will not have time to make your point. You will not be allowed AOB.
Also do not ,sneeze ,cough,pass wind, go to the loo or you will be forcibly rejected and or the meeting suspended.
Check them out you will see the final resting place for democracy."

There is one really bright spark in thai a young man who is bravely and coherently taking a stand. This is one post they made 3 days ago.

Yes I am not going to name them the current environment in the SNU is not, apparently, conducive to honest expressions of opinion. However, I honour their stand under their own name on social media.
 ·
A time for harmony?
Well we are four days in to our new term, and it’s refreshing to see how it’s going to go, what could have turned into a wonderful time of reconciliation, of magnanimity and peace, had shown itself already slightly different.
The door of understanding had been firmly closed and rather than extending a hand of diplomacy what we instead see is “hell having no fury!”

And it started in the most petulant way, removing the photos of the twenty tutors from their place on the walls of AFC! It is unsurprising, I mean nothing about how childishly spiteful that is, surprises me!
It saddens me to think true trail blazers like Ann-Marie Bond, who rightfully earned her picture on the walls after making spiritualist history, or Mr Stockwell whose world renowned reputation has drawn people from across the globe, should see their images removed, but I am sure they care less than the person who removed them!

Then we learn the other sad truth….all twenty are barred from the grounds and college building off AFC and barred from the Barbanell Centre. Considering amongst there number is a Minister, something irks me deeply that a Minister off our “religion” can be barred from the head and heart off that same religion.

What happens next will be telling, the Unions protestations off “negotiation” clearly not true, an untruth as blatantly obvious as the claim our current President received 70% off the vote, they received 29% of the total eligible votes, and 70% off those votes cast. There mandate is hardly existent, but that tiny show of faith will let them run loose now, and it starts here.

They say the best way to see a persons character is to given them power and see what they do with it! But personally, I think what we needs to see is a leader, leading, with the ability to be graceful, to brook opposition, a leader capable of being magnanimous in victory and defeat, one who brings people together, not drives them apart.

There was an opportunity, there still is an opportunity to sow peace and let us move on!! But that time is very, very short, almost as short a time as being in power is! From the moment you win an election, your power begins ebbing away until the next, spend that power wisely.

Then today re the Bye Laws
The Day Democracy died;

I appreciate many here are writing exclusively about the “ongoing” situation surrounding the tutors of our esteemed college, I place the words ongoing in quotation marks, as it appears there is very little “ongoing”; events of recent days tell us exactly how the powers that be see that ending……but what about our Union at large? The Union as a whole.

Today's email showing the updated by-laws should give ALL sides off the recent divisions pause for thought!

I didn’t vote for our President-elect, yes I nominated her, but upon hearing about the dreadful goings on, in one district council and the ruling powers methods in dealing with that I felt I had no other choice but to come out on the total opposite side!

Now we see democracy destroyed within our Union in one fell swoop, no debate, no discussion, disagreement is out! They will brook no opposition, no challenge, the bylaws are altered and the chairs off the GM’s and AGM’s have been given all power and authority, to determine what is discussed, what can be said, if you disagree you will be silenced, if you speak and the chair finds your not being “relevant” you can be removed!
The chair gets to decide if a topic is picked for discussion at all and then decides how long it’s discussed for! More over chairs can adjourn meetings indefinitely.

The amendment that says, the chairperson may vacate the chair whilst taking part in controversial proceedings is utterly bizarre, one assumes we are not discussing rough handling people out off meetings!

If you voted for our President-elect I urge you, write to her office, write to the NEC, write to the college ask them, what on earth required these measures to be put through? What did they feel was so controversial, so disagreeable as to warrant such an iron handed response?

You may think that our President-elect is just what our Union needs, I accept that, I disagree but I accept it, they won!!! But does our Union really need this? Powers once taken are very rarely handed back! Are we, the thinking man’s religion, as our now President frequently reminds us, so lost as to not even want anyone to think?

If you believe in our Union and are a member, I urge you now….attend your General meetings, go to the district council, find out when it is, because the only thing you had within this Union was your voice, and they just took that away, silence may help spirit it doesn’t help democracy!

If you take these rule changes and apply them to our National AGM…..within our whole Union there will be many differing thoughts, that gives them total and sole power over who attends what sessions, who can speak when, if to eject them, If their topic is relevant, if they even willing to discuss it relevant or not! As for the “controversial” ruling, i hardly imagine it warrants the riot police! And what if she decided to adjourn the AGM, how long can that be legally adjourn for before it’s a legal requirement to reconvene it?

Below is the photo off the first NEC at our first AGM….. Giants!

quote:  "In recent days, we have been made aware of the removal of certain portraits on the AFC tutor wall. This was an action and decision taken in-house by staff at the AFC after some of the tutors involved had specifically requested for their photographs to be removed. This was not in any way requested or instructed by anyone on the NEC or Collegiate, and it is disappointing to see wholly unfounded comments and posts being shared suggesting this to be the case. It is our understanding that these tutors' portraits have since been returned to the wall."

Any comments, reactions, observations re the bold text above......?  

I didn't know the staff could act autonomously, and surely, in such a delicate situation, someone would have given an instruction?

mac wrote:quote:  "In recent days, we have been made aware of the removal of certain portraits on the AFC tutor wall. This was an action and decision taken in-house by staff at the AFC after some of the tutors involved had specifically requested for their photographs to be removed. This was not in any way requested or instructed by anyone on the NEC or Collegiate, and it is disappointing to see wholly unfounded comments and posts being shared suggesting this to be the case. It is our understanding that these tutors' portraits have since been returned to the wall."

Any comments, reactions, observations re the bold text above......?  

It would seem that the SNU is suggesting in-house staff acted independently to remove ALL the portraits of the AFC tutors involved in the dispute after "some of the tutors" specifically requested their photographs be removed.

My Questions:

1. Why would all the photos of 20 tutors be removed by the in-house staff just because some tutors asked that their photographs be removed.

2. Equally puzzling, IF some tutors asked for their photographs to be removed, why now have their photographs been reinstated on the wall along with all the other photographs of tutors who did not ask for their images to be removed?

3. Why would the in-house staff remove any photographs from the wall at the request of "some tutors" without seeking authorisation and confirmation of the appropriateness to act, when the in-house staff (whomever they are alleged to be) are, without doubt, certainly aware of the ongoing conflict and dispute between the tutors and the AFC/SNU, and could not fail to be aware that such an act would arouse concern/confusion. anger, etc.

Conversation piece on SNU I.M. Facebook page, author's name removed:

  "This statement raises a number of issues. Not least the fact that it relates to only one item of discontent within the SNU when multiple people are expressing concern about other problematic situations.

It clearly attempts to suggest that the SNU and its management, at least with regard to the tutor dispute, is squeaky clean, which any sensible organisation would recognise is unlikely to be the case. Some of the content could also be interpreted as veiled threats particularly with regard to character defamation possibilities.

Some of the information provided to inform members is both new to the public arena and confidential in nature. In that case does the SNU, in order to ensure a level playing field, intend to remove the confidentiality restrictions that currently apply to the tutors. Thus giving them opportunity, should they wish, to respond more fully.

All of that said, what are the possible prejudicial effects on any of this information now made public, to the ongoing Commission of Inquiry?

It is possible to interpret figures to your best advantage (There are lies, damned lies and statistics!) The statement that the majority of the members support the NEC and president could be interpreted differently, and should perhaps say the majority of members ‘WHO VOTED.’ Currently the SNU website lists 314 churches and as far as I can ascertain there are approximately 2000 full paid up IMs, giving a possible voting strength of 3570 (314 x 5 + 2000). The President received 1121 votes which represents 31.4% of the members qualified to vote. Hardly a landslide victory! At the same time indicating the apathy amongst members within the organisation.

Regarding the removal of photographs at the AFC. This decision must surely have been taken by Senior Managers at AFC and not the grass roots paid staff. Why then, in view of the very public knowledge of the very serious ongoing Tutor/SNU dispute was this action sanctioned and implemented without first obtaining NEC agreement?

I fear any steps taken or intended to protect the reputation of the AFC will be too little too late. The damage is already done.

Finally the statement makes several references to the SNU being advised not to comment etc. Who provided this advice? In the spirit of openness wouldn’t it be helpful for the members to be given this information?"