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

by mac Wed Sep 04, 2024 5:56 pm

Is anybody there......?

by Anniemillo1 Wed Sep 04, 2024 6:16 pm

Yes, patiently waiting on Tutors response. Got blocked from site today when I copied and pasted the statement about the CC upholding the tutors complaint,

by mac Wed Sep 04, 2024 8:18 pm

Anniemillo1 wrote:Yes, patiently waiting on Tutors response. Got blocked from site today when I copied and pasted the statement about the CC upholding the tutors complaint,

Which website were you blocked from? Why not present here whatever you have?

by Anniemillo1 Wed Sep 04, 2024 9:59 pm

HI
i,
Apologies for being bit vague. It was a post I copied from this site.

by Admin Thu Sep 05, 2024 12:36 am

Anniemillo1 wrote:HI
i,
Apologies for being bit vague. It was a post I copied from this site.

Ah sorry Anniemillo 1 the leakage from committees (but not from Keith Parsons) gave me that piece of information. I am absolutely certain no NEC member (Oh maybe there may be one or two decent people as exceptions) wanted to have that piece of news on view. It suggest that the IM Facebook Page, set up around the time Minister Jackie Wright became President may also be censored.

by Admin Thu Sep 05, 2024 12:39 am

mac wrote: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?"

Fascinating Mac yet they do not want people to know a complaints committee found in favour of the Tutors may be to much of a hot potato.

by Admin Thu Sep 05, 2024 12:43 am

Hmm went onto Facebook today and a memory popped up, which I reckon my North American Indigenous Guide arranged, it might seem very apt in this situation albeit the voters thought they were getting something Different.

Why is there a Clash between the Tutors and the AFC - Page 13 Never_10

by Admin Thu Sep 05, 2024 12:53 am

Well straight back onto topic the 27-29% approved leader is moving right along.

On top of the changes to the Bye Laws granting supreme Power for her at the AGM we have the release of the AGM papers with motions to grant her a 4 year term as President. Unbridled power for 4 year will lead to an SNU which is likely to be totally different to any we have seen before.

You can download the AGM papers here, https://www.snu.org.uk/2024-agm-documents I do not have time to really Analise the accounts but it appears the $ membership receipts do not back up her stated 20% growth in numbers.

It is the Notice Agenda & Reports pack that carries this beauty.

4
Motions
Below is given the text of all notices of motions received for inclusion on the agenda of the 2024 SNU Annual General Meeting, together with a Note of Explanation where appropriate. It is possible that further amendments to the text of the motions or the Notes of Explanation may be necessary for the AGM Notice and Agenda booklet, but the wording given below is the form in which these are most likely to appear in the AGM agenda. The motions starred with an asterisk (*) are presently awaiting further clarification.
1. Special Resolution requiring two-thirds majority
That Article 37, paragraph (2), sub-paragraph (b), be re-lettered as sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) and be amended to read as follows:-
(b) The President shall be elected from among Individual Members who are full members of affiliated bodies and shall be elected every four years. The election shall be by postal or electronic vote of eligible Church Representatives, Individual Members, Kindred Body Representatives and Pioneer Centre Representatives.
(c) The Vice-Presidents shall be elected from among Individual Members who are full members of affiliated bodies. They shall be elected in alternate years, one Vice-President in one year, the other Vice-President in the alternate year, each serving fora term of two years. The election shall be by postal or electronic vote of eligible ChurchRepresentatives, Individual Members, Kindred Body Representatives and Pioneer Centre Representativesand that the succeeding sub-paragraphs be re-lettered accordingly.
Petitioner Matthew Mold
NOTE OF EXPLANATION: The SNU is a large multi-million pound charity, with approximately300 affiliated churches worldwide. Effecting change in such a large organisation takes time; members cannot properly judge the changes an incoming President wishes to make within two years, as many of them may not have taken effect. Similarly, a President will not be able to fully implement their agenda in such a short space of time.
1a. Amendment to Motion no. 1 requiring a simple majority
That the motion be amended by the deletion in sub-paragraph (b) of the word 'four' and the substitution for it of the word 'three'.
Petitioner Andrea Dunn OSNU
NOTE OF EXPLANATION: The role of President of the Spiritualists' National Union
(SNU) is clearly very important and carries with it much responsibility for the smooth running and future development of the Union. As such, it is vital that each President that comes into this important role is given appropriate resource and support. Past Presidents have served the Union well and, with ongoing support, have enhanced the work of the Union and the services it provides.
However, whilst many good suggestions and ideas are tabled and put into progress, it is often the case that the proposals are not sufficiently supported beyond the two-year tenure of the outgoing President and ultimately fail to come to fruition.
This situation could be addressed adequately by increasing the tenure from two to three years, giving each President sufficient time to develop, implement and complete projects within their tenure.
Page: 3 Page: 4
2. Special Resolution requiring two-thirds majority(to be put only if Motion no. 1 is defeated)
That Article 37, paragraph (2), sub-paragraph (b), be amended to read as follows:-
(b) The President and Vice-Presidents shall be elected from among Individual Memberswho are full members of affiliated bodies. They shall be elected in alternate years, the President and one Vice-President in one year, the other Vice-President in the alternate year, each serving for a term of two years. The election shall be by postal or electronic vote of eligible Church Representatives, Individual Members, Kindred Body Representatives and Pioneer Centre Representatives.
Proposer - National Executive Committee
NOTE OF EXPLANATION: If Motion no. 1 is defeated, then the important amendment within its sub-paragraphs to bring the Article into alignment with the new provisions in Bye-laws A for nominating and voting by electronic means will be lost; accordingly the above motion is required to bring this amendment into effect. The amendment referred to is the insertion of the words 'or electronic' after the word 'postal'.

Now its a simple voting system, just of the votes counted not those that are not made if voting follow that in her Presidential Election she is easly ther and President for 4 years.
Its up to you in the SNU Churches, the DC's and IM's Seeing what has happened and the planning behind it all do you want to find out what she has already laid out for your future, but not shared with you, given 4 years to implement it

by Admin Thu Sep 05, 2024 1:04 am

Of course getting back to the Tutors that SNU statement from two days ago never mentioned the arbitration or that contract. Surely the SNU could let all of us see its contents. Not sharing it leads to conjecture that they feel it would not be sympathetically received by a large number of us. Its none signature will always give them a reason to keep those 20 out of the AFC and the Barbanell centre.

It's a bit like the change in Bye Laws to allow the President to control every step of the AGM. The contracts may be legal but miss the Spirit of an organisation that the SNU should live up to being. I have seen it, would not sign it and as I have already said it would not pass the Aussie Pub Test of fairness.

by Admin Thu Sep 05, 2024 2:20 am

Having talked this Through with Lis something struck us.

Bye Laws are only valid when they are not contradicted by the Articles of Association.

One of the above motions specifies this (in red below)

2. Special Resolution requiring two-thirds majority(to be put only if Motion no. 1 is defeated)
That Article 37, paragraph (2), sub-paragraph (b), be amended to read as follows:-
(b) The President and Vice-Presidents shall be elected from among Individual Memberswho are full members of affiliated bodies. They shall be elected in alternate years, the President and one Vice-President in one year, the other Vice-President in the alternate year, each serving for a term of two years. The election shall be by postal or electronic vote of eligible Church Representatives, Individual Members, Kindred Body Representatives and Pioneer Centre Representatives.

Proposer - National Executive Committee

It is explained by this reason for passing it
NOTE OF EXPLANATION:
If Motion no. 1 is defeated, then the important amendment within its sub-paragraphs to bring the Article into alignment with the new provisions in Bye-laws A for nominating and voting by electronic means will be lost; accordingly the above motion is required to bring this amendment into effect. The amendment referred to is the insertion of the words 'or electronic' after the word 'postal'.

Now they have already taken electronic votes for the election and this is not allowable under the articles of association.

My Knowledge of Company law suggests you cannot make a retrospective change like this to validate an act done at a time when the Articles disallowed it.

Surely this means that the recent election in which the incumbent President was apparently re-elected by a process that included electronic voting is therefore invalid.

Indeed if all these motions are defeated than there is no way that anyone can claim the Presidential Elections were valid, electronic voting is not allowed in the Articles, so there is no elected person to take over as President next year.

Indeed the NEC will have acted beyond their powers by using on Bye Law that they created which is overruled by the Articles of Association.

It also would mean Jackie was ineligible to chair the AGM

Quite striking get this out widely anywhere you can. Maybe someone could get it onto the IM Facebook Group. I am not a lawyer but the Articles are very specific that they take precedence over Bye Laws.

Your votes are valuable, so make sure you vote in anyway you can. Either attend the AGM or if unable sort out your proxy vote. Proxies are allowable. Get the news out it, may create a constitutional crisis.

by Admin Thu Sep 05, 2024 2:33 am

There is one other motion, proposed by Davis Bruton, which should, however, be passed. It removes the right of the NEC to refuse to eject an NEC member who has had a successful complaint confirmed by the complaints committee.

3. Special Resolution requiring three-quarters majority
That Article 62 be amended by the insertion of a new paragraph (3) to read as follows:-
(3) If the Complaints Committee receives a complaint that it deems to be valid under the Bye-laws against a member of the National Executive Committee it, in consultation with the chief administrative officer of the Union, shall appoint a Commission of Inquiry to investigate the complaint and report its findings and recommendations thereon to the National Executive Committee. The Commission of Inquiry shall comply with the procedures set out in the appropriate Bye-laws. The members of the Commission of Inquiry shall be drawn from independent Individual Members of the Union who are deemed to have a thorough knowledge of the Union's constitution. If the Commission of Inquiry makes a recommendation to remove a member or members of the National Executive Committee, a general meeting of the Union shall be convened in accordance with the Act to vote on the removal. The motion for removal shall be a simple majority motion with not less than twenty-eight days' notice. The complainants and the person or persons proposed to be removed shall have the right to send written testimony before the meeting, to give written and verbal testimony at the meeting and to have witnesses give testimony at the meeting, and that the succeeding paragraph be renumbered accordingly.

Proposer Minister David Bruton

NOTE OF EXPLANATION:
Currently there is no provision within the Bye-laws to remove a member of the National Executive Committee for misconduct or failing to hold up the principles of their office and their fiduciary duties. We have excellent and robust processes in place to manage complaints against Individual Members, Branches, sub-committees and affiliated bodies of the Union and members of such, designed to ensure procedural fairness free from bias. The Union has natural justice enshrined in its governance structure and we feel it is wrong that the National Executive Committee could potentially be judge and jury within its own court. Every member of the Union should be accountable for their actions and conduct regardless of their status or position; this has to be the basis of building a stronger democratic and transparent organisation for the future.

I note that the NEC have lodged a motion of amendment to this, which removes the teeth from the Commission of Inquiry

by Admin Thu Sep 05, 2024 6:10 am

To put it simply the NEC decided to create a bye law allowing Electronic Voting and voted it into place

However in the SNU rules, the Articles of Association do not allow electronic voting and therefore electronic voting is not allowed until a change is made to that article at either an AGM, or Special General Meeting.

Despite this the NEC created Electronic Voting for the Presidential Election, which has just been completed and the results have been announced.

In very simple terms that election is invalid because the Articles, under which the election was run, do not allow Electronic Voting

Its very simple the election needs to be re run under the old system.

At the time of the election nothing had been said about 4 year terms, 3 year terms or indeed having to change the articles to make electronic voting valid.

You can only run with the rules you are bound by, not those you hope to get approved at the next AGM. Even if you win those changes, they would not be effective retrospectively, so it would need to bluff it out and hope no one spotted anything, or claim you had legal advice, if they failed to get any of those motions through then the SNU would be in a Constitutional Crisis, with an invalidly elected President, forget the 29.2% of all the membership that voted for her, her 70% majority, that is the law and it would not be impressed.

Minister Jackie Wright has no legal standing to attend the AGM as the new President, without a legal re run of the election, one which she may win.

I guess clever expensive lawyers will find a way to wiggle through this, but if someone in the UK alerted the Charities Commission I think they may now take an interest. The reality does suggest someone got a little ahead in their thinking.

Could be more fun, seeking legal advice to check my facts are correct, then letting it all run through, including the AGM and then hitting the detonate button. Still fairer for the SNU to create a note of warning for the current NEC.

by mac Thu Sep 05, 2024 6:26 am

As I pointed out earlier, comparatively few Spiritualists are entitled to vote at the Spiritualists National Union's Annual General Meeting where major and minor changes can be approved and authorised. One might wonder how votes would turn out were ALL church and centre members entitled to vote.

This time I will instruct a proxy to vote on my behalf whereas last time I voted directly in the presidential election, although the result of that is potentially discredited as Jim explains above.

I fear my vote this time will be as consequential as it was the last and it might be the last time I vote anyway. If things continue the way they've been going this year I won't be renewing my I.M. membership.

by mac Thu Sep 05, 2024 6:32 am

quote: "You can only run with the rules you are bound by, not those you hope to get approved at the next AGM. Even if you win those changes, they would not be effective retrospectively, so it would need to bluff it out and hope no one spotted anything, or claim you had legal advice, if they failed to get any of those motions through then the SNU would be in a Constitutional Crisis, with an invalidly elected President, forget the 29.2% of all the membership that voted for her, her 70% majority, that is the law and it would not be impressed."

As I've said a couple of times now, there may be an intention just to drive though whatever changes suit individuals and then just tough it out. If there's no effective way to challenge what's happening that approach will likely succeed. Once done there's unlikely to be any going back.

by mac Thu Sep 05, 2024 6:37 am

Whether the Charities Commission will have interest or resources sufficient to investigate any potential breach of the rules/laws time will tell.

We can only hope it will be able to investigate and follow up if necessary. But so many bodies and organisations in our tiny, under-resourced, over-populated, impoverished country are starved of financial and human resources. Much is not done that ought to be done.

by Slatewriter Thu Sep 05, 2024 7:53 am

Anniemillo1 wrote:statement about the CC upholding the tutors complaint

Hi,
Is this very recent? And is it private or available to read please?

by notabigjump Thu Sep 05, 2024 9:36 am

Slatewriter wrote:
Anniemillo1 wrote:statement about the CC upholding the tutors complaint

Hi,
Is this very recent? And is it private or available to read please?

I believe this refers to the SNU complaints committee, who were disbanded after finding the tutors had a legitimate cause for complaint. Please correct me if wrong.

by mac Thu Sep 05, 2024 11:02 am

Beds1970 wrote:This appears to answer many wuestions:

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

I had already posted that piece two days ago.......

by Anniemillo1 Thu Sep 05, 2024 11:08 am

I don't believe it answers any questions until the Tutors release a statement as we are only getting one side of the story. Then we had the fiasco of the photographs and at the end of this statement 'thank the departing tutors for their work'. If this is the case, why did they put the photographs back on the wall? Doesn't make any sense to me.

by Admin Thu Sep 05, 2024 11:34 am

notabigjump wrote:
Slatewriter wrote:
Anniemillo1 wrote:statement about the CC upholding the tutors complaint

Hi,
Is this very recent? And is it private or available to read please?

I believe this refers to the SNU complaints committee, who were disbanded after finding the tutors had a legitimate cause for complacint. Please correct me if wrong.

Quite correct notabigjump

by Admin Thu Sep 05, 2024 11:40 am

[quote="mac"]

Beds1970 wrote:This appears to answer many wuestions:

I had already posted that piece two days ago.......

Sorry Beds1970 removed your post it's already on here and discussed catch up on the threads please

by Beds1970 Thu Sep 05, 2024 11:43 am

mac wrote:
Beds1970 wrote:This appears to answer many wuestions:

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

I had already posted that piece two days ago.......

Apologies, I'd missed that.

by mac Thu Sep 05, 2024 11:43 am

Admin wrote:
notabigjump wrote:
Slatewriter wrote:
Anniemillo1 wrote:statement about the CC upholding the tutors complaint

Hi,
Is this very recent? And is it private or available to read please?

I believe this refers to the SNU complaints committee, who were disbanded after finding the tutors had a legitimate cause for complacint. Please correct me if wrong.

Quite correct notabigjump

Might we have sight again of the piece, Jim?

by Admin Thu Sep 05, 2024 12:02 pm

mac wrote:
Beds1970 wrote:This appears to answer many wuestions:

I had already posted that piece two days ago.......
Sorry Beds1970 removed your post it's already on here and discussed catch up on the threads please

by Admin Thu Sep 05, 2024 12:09 pm

Slatewriter wrote:
Anniemillo1 wrote:statement about the CC upholding the tutors complaint

Hi,
Is this vervy recent? And is it private or available to read please?

Slatewriter and Mac no chance it's anonymous from not just one source. However, given what else we know I accept it why would someone leap out and reveal themselves when everyone else is incognito. In a maelstrom of reward and punishment in the SNU you would be mad.

by Sponsored content