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

by Admin Thu Sep 05, 2024 12:18 pm

Bit bored here everyone somehow the focus has turned upon something that I made clear was privately sent to me.

The real focus should be on the revelation that the Pesidential election was quite probably invalid, with a detailed explanation of why. What is going on is this SNU obfuscation.

Probably not but what I have found is the first significantly provable flaw in the recent actions of the President and NEC. It could lead to more than people expect and disobeying Company rules should lead to consequences. Syreky as Spititualists we should expect Morals and ethics.

by mac Thu Sep 05, 2024 1:23 pm

Admin wrote:
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.

Of course and I totally acknowledge your withholding and respecting the source when information is given in confidence. It was simply that Anniemillo had referred to it as coming from this conversation and I couldn't remember it here and also I couldn't find it.

A major problem numbskulls like me face when trying to be objective and unemotional about what they're 'hearing' is that there's a dearth of public fact and a surfeit of emotion evident in the conversation. I don't doubt that certain anonymous new members know at least some of the facts but I have to view them as hearsay until they've been authenticated.

I'm not (totally) dumb and I can read between the lines so I think I'm seeing much the same as others but if anything positive is to happen to restore sanity then facts are what's needed now.

by mac Thu Sep 05, 2024 2:04 pm

Admin wrote:Bit bored here everyone somehow the focus has turned upon something that I made clear was privately sent to me.

I don't know what you've been sent privately but below is an extract from your Admin. posting July 27.....

quote: "At the end of February 2024, we filed an official complaint with the SNU, outlining the full extent of our grievances. As such, the Union has known since February 2024 what the full extent of our grievances are.

Unfortunately, it is a mandatory requirement for complainants to sign a confidentiality agreement or NDA on submitting a formal complaint to the SNU, and at this juncture we are of the understanding that we are still bound by that agreement. We can confirm that due to the seriousness of the allegations within our complaint, the SNU opted to establish a Commission of Enquiry, as set out in its bylaws, to independently adjudicate on this matter, and requested that the Complaints Committee ceased their investigation into the complaint, which was already ongoing." end quote

Given that statement one might reasonably assume the Complaints Committee's findings - though incomplete - would nonetheless lead to their investigation being discontinued. To learn now, then, that it had upheld the complaint(s) of the tutors appears to be something new, something we hadn't heard before. Little wonder - surely? - that members' focus might now have been pulled towards this matter?

The real focus should be on the revelation that the Pesidential election was quite probably invalid, with a detailed explanation of why. What is going on is this SNU obfuscation.

certainly arguable

Probably not but what I have found is the first significantly provable flaw in the recent actions of the President and NEC. It could lead to more than people expect and disobeying Company rules should lead to consequences. Syreky as Spititualists we should expect Morals and ethics.

Well it's not a company as I understand the situation and an expectation of morals and ethics is probably not likely to be met in the current circumstances. I do not disagree that when individuals knowingly do something wrong there should be appropriate consequences but I won't be holding my breath waiting to see them.

by Admin Fri Sep 06, 2024 12:10 am

Actually Mac it is a company subject to the rules of all companies, the NEC are essentially its directors and subject to the same laws as all directors on company matters, maybe even tighter ones as custodians of a charity.

Every member of the NEC will be treated as if they know and understand the law, a failure to know it is no defence in a company matter.

I often think they get on the NEC for status and maybe to create change, without realising the personal penalties involved if they get something wrong.

It they act ultra vires, or beyond their power, they cannot use NEC funds for lawyers to defend their case or SNU funds to pay their fines its a personal cost.

Should they get caught in such an act they would also be, almost certainly, unable to stand for office again in any company or charity(or for quite some while), The VP's and President are part of that group.

by mac Fri Sep 06, 2024 6:55 am

Thank you for explaining all that, Jim.

As one of the new members had said he'd referred the fund-raising activities of the returned President of the SNU to The Charities Commission I was under the impression the SNU was a charity.

I had not appreciated it was also registered at Companies House in the UK and I've now seen which staff are listed as directors. You know about director responsibilities and I expect you have identified areas where listed directors may be at risk of failing in their duties. interesting stuff!

by mac Fri Sep 06, 2024 7:13 am

It won't be long to wait until Individual Members' concerns can be put to the President after her Zoom address October 8 titled "Where do we go from here?"

I am looking forward to it.

by mac Fri Sep 06, 2024 7:31 am

To this ignoramus it sounds improbable that any director of the SNU will deliberately have done, or failed to do, anything that exposes them to penalties for failing in their duties. They might, of course, unwittingly have done something but as Jim points out in law that would not excuse them.

Let's assume, though, that something HAS occurred that appears to contravene the Union's rules or appears to have broken business law. How can such a situation be brought to the attention of the appropriate regulatory body?

Maybe that's what the new members are currently looking at? If so I do hope they'll return to tell us what they find.....

by notabigjump Fri Sep 06, 2024 7:37 am

Admin wrote:Actually Mac it is a company subject to the rules of all companies, the NEC are essentially its directors and subject to the same laws as all directors on company matters, maybe even tighter ones as custodians of a charity.

Every member of the NEC will be treated as if they know and understand the law, a failure to know it is no defence in a company matter.

I often think they get on the NEC for status and maybe to create change, without realising the personal penalties involved if they get something wrong.

It they act ultra vires, or beyond their power, they cannot use NEC funds for lawyers to defend their case or SNU funds to pay their fines its a personal cost.

Should they get caught in such an act they would also be, almost certainly, unable to stand for office again in any company or charity(or for quite some while), The VP's and President are part of that group.

Absolutely Jim. The SNU are breaking the law by taking out any legal proceedings which are funded by the charity's funds, without require specific authorisation by the commission by an order under section 115(2) of the Act.

So unless the directors are personally funding any legal notices, anyone receiving a legal threat must have been approved by the charities commission. If not, they acting illegally. An unlikely path the SNU would go down, as it would expose any poor behaviour on their part.

It does appear as if the original statement warning of legal actions has since been toned down now. Someone must have finally uncovered this.

by notabigjump Fri Sep 06, 2024 8:08 am

mac wrote:To this ignoramus it sounds improbable that any director of the SNU will deliberately have done, or failed to do, anything that exposes them to penalties for failing in their duties. They might, of course, unwittingly have done something but as Jim points out in law that would not excuse them.

Let's assume, though, that something HAS occurred that appears to contravene the Union's rules or appears to have broken business law. How can such a situation be brought to the attention of the appropriate regulatory body?

Maybe that's what the new members are currently looking at? If so I do hope they'll return to tell us what they find.....

It would have to be reported to the charities commission directly. I believe a number of people have already done so.

by mac Fri Sep 06, 2024 8:35 am

Yes we've spoken earlier about the aspect of raising funds in a way that appears to contravene fundraising regulations and how The Charities Commission has been told about that. But Jim has explained how the recent election results may be void because a non-approved digital voting method was used which is slated for submission at the upcoming AGM.

There may be other issues as yet undefined so how can the known-about voting along with anything else be reported and to whom?

by Admin Fri Sep 06, 2024 10:32 am

mac wrote:Yes we've spoken earlier about the aspect of raising funds in a way that appears to contravene fundraising regulations and how The Charities Commission has been told about that. But Jim has explained how the recent election results may be void because a non-approved digital voting method was used which is slated for submission at the upcoming AGM.

There may be other issues as yet undefined so how can the known-about voting along with anything else be reported and to whom?

You are absolutely correct here Mac except any issues in Company Law are with Companies House so the NEC as Directors have to thread there way through both regulatory bodies over the charitable fund and the Company registered by guarantee, a very old concept which may no longer be available to new registrants.

by mac Fri Sep 06, 2024 12:52 pm

Admin wrote:
mac wrote:Yes we've spoken earlier about the aspect of raising funds in a way that appears to contravene fundraising regulations and how The Charities Commission has been told about that. But Jim has explained how the recent election results may be void because a non-approved digital voting method was used which is slated for submission at the upcoming AGM.

There may be other issues as yet undefined so how can the known-about voting along with anything else be reported and to whom?

You are absolutely correct here Mac except any issues in Company Law are with Companies House so the NEC as Directors have to thread there way through both regulatory bodies over the charitable fund and the Company registered by guarantee, a very old concept which may no longer be available to new registrants.

Thank you for clarifying that, Jim. It's what I expected to be the situation - fundraising has to be compliant with Charity Commission's rules and business aspects are regulated by company law based on what you've already explained.

We've already heard that the SNU's recent fundraising activities have been referred to The Charity Commission for investigation and now I'm assuming a referral about the recent election will also need to be made to whatever branch of Companies House would investigate claims of non-compliance with the Union's rules and principles. (for want of the correct words)

Am I correct?

edit: Exactly who can make complaints and how?

by mac Fri Sep 06, 2024 12:59 pm

notabigjump wrote:

It does appear as if the original statement warning of legal actions has since been toned down now. Someone must have finally uncovered this.

A realisation - perhaps by following this conversation from afar? - that the SNU's officers/directors are not entitled to start legal actions using the SNU's money???

Or perhaps they could start legal proceedings but face being personally liable for the costs of all involved if their action was not successful?

by Anniemillo1 Fri Sep 06, 2024 1:02 pm

Maybe someone has realised that if they don't get their way or someone doesn't agree with them can't keep threatening to take legal action against them. I am sure there are a few people still waiting on legal action being taken against them following the threat.

by mac Fri Sep 06, 2024 1:08 pm

notabigjump wrote:

Absolutely Jim. The SNU are breaking the law by taking out any legal proceedings which are funded by the charity's funds, without require specific authorisation by the commission by an order under section 115(2) of the Act.

So unless the directors are personally funding any legal notices, anyone receiving a legal threat must have been approved by the charities commission. If not, they acting illegally. An unlikely path the SNU would go down, as it would expose any poor behaviour on their part.

It does appear as if the original statement warning of legal actions has since been toned down now. Someone must have finally uncovered this.

Is it the THREAT of taking legal action that would need prior authorisation or the actual action of so doing?

Was it not the case that the warning was actually issued hence was potentially without authorisation? Does "toning it down" now negate any earlier warnings?

by mac Fri Sep 06, 2024 1:14 pm

Anniemillo1 wrote:Maybe someone has realised that if they don't get their way or someone doesn't agree with them can't keep threatening to take legal action against them. I am sure there are a few people still waiting on legal action being taken against them following the threat.

It would be illuminating to learn who was and/or is under threat of legal action being taken...... As I understand what's been said, there is no Non Disclosure Agreement in force on these individuals in respect of any threat to take legal action against them.

If an officer or officers of the SNU has/have issued threats it does seem those staff may themselves face legal action if they have not complied with their duties as directors. If so they may be skating on thin ice.

by mac Fri Sep 06, 2024 1:26 pm

I've been considering how I will instruct my proxy to vote on my behalf at the AGM soon to take place virtually.

In light of the points made recently in this conversation I'm left wondering not only how to vote but also whether anyone's votes will be valid if the AGM is not correctly constituted following an election where it has been suggested the outcome may also not be valid.

For now I suppose I have to assume votes cast in the AGM will count. What are others doing?

by Admin Sun Sep 08, 2024 1:14 am

mac wrote:I've been considering how I will instruct my proxy to vote on my behalf at the AGM soon to take place virtually.

In light of the points made recently in this conversation I'm left wondering not only how to vote but also whether anyone's votes will be valid if the AGM is not correctly constituted following an election where it has been suggested the outcome may also not be valid.

For now I suppose I have to assume votes cast in the AGM will count. What are others doing?

Hi Mac I am sure that the NEC has received my analysis, indeed I am sure they will be getting more about this matter as well. It appears not to have shaken them at all and they intend to push ahead and to, at least get the articles changed to allow electronic change. My thoughts are that they will then press on as if that validated the way the President was elected, assuming either no one will press Companies House. The thought that this vote will not at least allow electronic vote is far from the minds of the NEC and after the election they may feel they will get the bonus of a 4 year term.

I think they need a reality check, they have already, not specifying it to members during the election, driven through draconian powers for the President acting as chair at annual or special general meetings, they have got the 4 year term, without mentioning it as part of the platform pre election and are looking to try a retrospective approval (not legally allowed) by having electronic voting approved.

I think all of these motions need blocking at the AGM 3 year terms and electronic voting should be brought back to the next AGM but after due discussion.

I do think David Brutons motion on NEC complaints should be passed un modified but I reckon everything else pales into insignificance.

There is a need for a big turnout in this vote just to remind this Minister she does not control the SNU and tell it what to do. Look at all the things she has already done without telling the members. As far as I can see the annual report makes no mention of the 20 tutors issue, nor the bye law changes on standing orders for general meetings, nor the idea of an extendsd term what else has she ready to put in place, that she has kept under wraps.

However, be careful, read those standing orders she has untrammeled powers to stop debate, eject people, and bring others into the meeting (her choices). It will be tough but I think this is a time for silence just vote to stop her. If the voting goes against her then there are not even fabricated grounds to claim the Presidential Election was valid. At that point I think all bets are off on what happens in the future.

Personally the election should be re run now, but Bruton should stand aside for another candidate. I was looking at pictures the other day wondering who could heal the SNU and the only face I saw was Colin Bates. Now I know next to nothing about him but got the feeling someone should twist his arm to step forward. Its clean the person who wins will be a legally valid President, under the postal voting system and the AGM is not at risk of being compromised. It may be possible to addend a referendum agreeing to the draconian Bye Law changes on Standing Orders for General Meetngs, Electonic voting at elections and how that will be conducted and look and the members views on extended terms. Of course they will still have to either mean revising the Bye Laws or by passing at the AGM .

by Admin Sun Sep 08, 2024 1:20 am

Hmm a Facebook memory of mine popped up it seems relevant to what is going on wher the principles of Spiritualism seem not to be driving events.

Interesting Passage from Stainton Moses Guide Imperator. Sums up the issues of connecting with Spirit.
Barrier to Spirit Influence

"The busy world is ever averse from the things of spirit life.
Men become so absorbed in the material, that which they can see
and grasp, and hoard up, and they forget that there is a future
and spirit life. They become so earthly that they are impervious
to our influence; so material that we cannot come near them; so
full of earthly interests that there is no room for that which shall
endure when they have passed away. More than this, the constant
preoccupation leaves no time for contemplation, and the spirit
is wasted for lack of sustenance. The spiritual state is weak; the
body is worn and weary with weight of work and anxious care,
and the spirit is well-nigh inaccessible. The whole air, moreover,
is heavy with conflicting passions, with heart-burnings, and jealousies,
and contentions, and all that is inimical to us."
- Imperator
(through W. Stainton Moses)"

by notabigjump Sun Sep 08, 2024 11:27 am

I'm trying to get my head around so much at the moment forgive my repeating of info but I'm attempting to find some perspective amongst this mess.

1. The recent SNU election was invalid
2. New amendments were created to hide this fact
3. Complaints have been received by the elective auditor
4. A high court case has been lodged against the NEC by an individual
5. The tutor dispute is unresolved from the first complaint
6. A second tutor complaint has been made officially
7. The AFC have upset the students by removing tutors photos and after the outrage having to replace them
8. The fund raising regulator is investigating the college buildings fund
9. The SNU can't fund legal cases without Charities Commissioners being aware and approving
10. I'll leave this blank to give time to take in the above before the next issue.
11. Members and nonmembers alike are being threatened with legal action if they speak publicly. (refer to 9)
12. Oh yes, the 20 tutors were banned from setting foot on the grounds of the AFC or Barbanell Centre
14. A petition calling for this all to resolve and the invalid president to be accountable reached over 800 signature in two days.
13. A man from the NEC has allegedly been messaging people privately, to warn them they face severe legal consequences for speaking out and pretending to be helping them with forewarning.

I would not like to be an officer of the NEC right now. As company directors they are liable in law for a multi million pound charity. They could lose their houses over all that's on the table at the moment.

There is a Netflix series in all of this. Sadly, what was once a treasured organisation by many is now in tatters.
The invalid returning President kept saying "we can't go back" but how can any move forward through this mire. It needs a complete reset = root and branch.

Ok I'm done. Sorry for repetition of info but I had to write it out, to try to appreciate the magnitude of what's happening with the SNU and the AFC Tutors.

by Admin Sun Sep 08, 2024 12:00 pm

Great post notabigjump

by Anniemillo1 Sun Sep 08, 2024 12:05 pm

I agree, it makes it better reading for those who haven't really read through the full posts. I have copied and pasted to my page and I hope that it encourages all members and perhapps members of the public to complain to the Charity Commission and Company House otherwise it may, as normal, get swept under the carpet in the NEC Office.

My earlier post regarding threats of legal action, I could not put the names because it is not my place to do so but I do hope that this encourages individuals who have been threatened by a certain member of the NEC to now have a voice because they are not alone having this threat hurled at them.

by mac Sun Sep 08, 2024 3:53 pm

notabigjump wrote:I'm trying to get my head around so much at the moment forgive my repeating of info but I'm attempting to find some perspective amongst this mess.

1. The recent SNU election was invalid
2. New amendments were created to hide this fact
3. Complaints have been received by the elective auditor
4. A high court case has been lodged against the NEC by an individual
5. The tutor dispute is unresolved from the first complaint
6. A second tutor complaint has been made officially
7. The AFC have upset the students by removing tutors photos and after the outrage having to replace them
8. The fund raising regulator is investigating the college buildings fund
9. The SNU can't fund legal cases without Charities Commissioners being aware and approving
10. I'll leave this blank to give time to take in the above before the next issue.
11. Members and nonmembers alike are being threatened with legal action if they speak publicly. (refer to 9)
12. Oh yes, the 20 tutors were banned from setting foot on the grounds of the AFC or Barbanell Centre
14. A petition calling for this all to resolve and the invalid president to be accountable reached over 800 signature in two days.
13. A man from the NEC has allegedly been messaging people privately, to warn them they face severe legal consequences for speaking out and pretending to be helping them with forewarning.

I would not like to be an officer of the NEC right now. As company directors they are liable in law for a multi million pound charity. They could lose their houses over all that's on the table at the moment.

There is a Netflix series in all of this. Sadly, what was once a treasured organisation by many is now in tatters.
The invalid returning President kept saying "we can't go back" but how can any move forward through this mire. It needs a complete reset = root and branch.

Ok I'm done. Sorry for repetition of info but I had to write it out, to try to appreciate the magnitude of what's happening with the SNU and the AFC Tutors.

I've been juggling all those balls similarly and concluding the overall situation is a mess - no argument there I expect - but also potentially some unlawful actions have been taken by individuals representing the group who run the SNU's day-to-day business and plan its future. But trying to bring those responsible for deeds and misdeeds may need time and involvement of individuals who are not involved in the day-to-day business of the SNU - a poisoned chalice methinks.

But as the saying goes, possession is nine tenths the law and those involved are in place and in the driving seat. Getting one or all of 'em out may be hard and time-consuming. As I've said several times already it may be that the returning president and others of a like mind will simply tough it out.

by mac Sun Sep 08, 2024 4:01 pm

Anniemillo1 wrote:I agree, it makes it better reading for those who haven't really read through the full posts. I have copied and pasted to my page and I hope that it encourages all members and perhapps members of the public to complain to the Charity Commission and Company House otherwise it may, as normal, get swept under the carpet in the NEC Office.

My earlier post regarding threats of legal action, I could not put the names because it is not my place to do so but I do hope that this encourages individuals who have been threatened by a certain member of the NEC to now have a voice because they are not alone having this threat hurled at them.

I am hoping that although there are precious few contributing to this thread there may be some and perhaps many who are following it, individuals who may now feel moved about the topics under discussion and motivated to add their voice to those of the few who have protested and motivated to vote against the proposals being put to the AGM.

by mac Sun Sep 08, 2024 4:11 pm

Admin wrote:
mac wrote:I've been considering how I will instruct my proxy to vote on my behalf at the AGM soon to take place virtually.

In light of the points made recently in this conversation I'm left wondering not only how to vote but also whether anyone's votes will be valid if the AGM is not correctly constituted following an election where it has been suggested the outcome may also not be valid.

For now I suppose I have to assume votes cast in the AGM will count. What are others doing?

Hi Mac I am sure that the NEC has received my analysis, indeed I am sure they will be getting more about this matter as well. It appears not to have shaken them at all and they intend to push ahead and to, at least get the articles changed to allow electronic change. My thoughts are that they will then press on as if that validated the way the President was elected, assuming either no one will press Companies House. The thought that this vote will not at least allow electronic vote is far from the minds of the NEC and after the election they may feel they will get the bonus of a 4 year term.

Yup as I've said before there may be the intention just to tough it out expecting there will not be enough protesters to matter. It's either stupidity, myopia or brilliant tactics - we'll find out soon enough.....

I think they need a reality check, they have already, not specifying it to members during the election, driven through draconian powers for the President acting as chair at annual or special general meetings, they have got the 4 year term, without mentioning it as part of the platform pre election and are looking to try a retrospective approval (not legally allowed) by having electronic voting approved.

I think all of these motions need blocking at the AGM 3 year terms and electronic voting should be brought back to the next AGM but after due discussion.

Agreed

I do think David Brutons motion on NEC complaints should be passed un modified but I reckon everything else pales into insignificance.

Agreed

There is a need for a big turnout in this vote just to remind this Minister she does not control the SNU and tell it what to do. Look at all the things she has already done without telling the members. As far as I can see the annual report makes no mention of the 20 tutors issue, nor the bye law changes on standing orders for general meetings, nor the idea of an extended term what else has she ready to put in place, that she has kept under wraps.

Agreed

However, be careful, read those standing orders she has untrammeled powers to stop debate, eject people, and bring others into the meeting (her choices). It will be tough but I think this is a time for silence just vote to stop her. If the voting goes against her then there are not even fabricated grounds to claim the Presidential Election was valid. At that point I think all bets are off on what happens in the future.

Agreed - for now we can only use the vote at the AGM to signal our discontent.

Personally the election should be re run now, but Bruton should stand aside for another candidate. I was looking at pictures the other day wondering who could heal the SNU and the only face I saw was Colin Bates. Now I know next to nothing about him but got the feeling someone should twist his arm to step forward.

poor soul!

Its clear the person who wins will be a legally valid President, under the postal voting system and the AGM is not at risk of being compromised. It may be possible to addend a referendum agreeing to the draconian Bye Law changes on Standing Orders for General Meetngs, Electonic voting at elections and how that will be conducted and look and the members views on extended terms. Of course they will still have to either mean revising the Bye Laws or by passing at the AGM .

This is the poison in the chalice....

by Sponsored content