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

by mac Sun Sep 08, 2024 4:25 pm

Was this world ever significantly different, one might ask?

by Admin Mon Sep 09, 2024 3:31 am

Thanks for that summary notabigjump. and all the follow up posts from others.

It's been quite a journey on this thread from starting off just to raise the issue of the 20 tutors and the fact they had to withdraw their services to try and get their problems into arbitration.

In that area alone we have learned a lot more about how the President of the SNU and the new Course Convener of the AFC operate. What we have seen appears to lack much connection to the Principles of Spiritualism.

Almost immediately we saw their names replaced on courses and a new program established into 2025. This clearly suggested there was no intention of actually trying to settle the dispute. It is hard to see anything in that other than you are gone now you have withdrawn your services. It is also interesting that the redistribution of courses resulted in a large number being given to the President and course convenor.

Staying with the Tutors we know, because of Confidentiality non Disclosure Agreements, they are gagged and cannot share what actually happened and what actions took place.

Thanks to a leak we know that the original complaint was upheld in the tutors favour, but the finding was denied by the NEC and that committee disbanded.

However, then worse was to follow, having reallocated the courses, all the pictures of the tutors were taken down and only the pictures of those remaining reinstate with the President sitting proudly in the centre slightly higher than all the others.

The SNU has expressed the Presidents horror at this and reinstated the pictures blaming staff at the AFC. Given we know that a number of staff had already left because of pressures (and maybe seeking redress?) it does seem rather unlikely that any AFC staff member would dare to take such an action unless instructed to do so by the President (who is The AFC General Manager) or Paul Jacobs the Course Convenor.

Yes the pictures were reinstated but, immediately that happened, the 20 Tutors were banned from access to both the AFC and the Barbanell centre.

I am not sure that is all but it does appear that anyone the SNU thinks is aiding or leaking information is subject to desist or face legal action.

This despite the fact we now know that legal action cannot be taken without the permission of the Charities Commission. So the legal costs of those actions is actually recoverable from the individual members of the NEC. I shall return to this subject of costs the NEC may be liable for again, I do hope they have deep pockets and sufficient reserves to meet all the things they may have to pay for, if everything goes pear shape, as it might, it may even mean liquidating some assets.

I think I have summarised all the key issues and concerns regarding the tutor's issues, except for the fact that they must have suffered significant emotional, mental, financial and reputational damage from what could appear to be some pretty high handed treatment from the President, Vice Presidents, the rest of the NEC and by the nature of the positions those people hold within the SNU.

To be honest I have no idea if the situation is now recoverable. If the decision is revoked, the working relationship between the tutors with President, acting as GM of the AFC, and the Course Convenor Paul Jacobs, will need very careful management.

I believe it is costing an awful lot of bookings at this point in time. Additionally the 20 tutors, denied courses at the AFC are setting up their own range of what seem attractive options in direct Competition and the SNU have no right to deny them using their skills elsewhere.

by Anniemillo1 Mon Sep 09, 2024 4:54 am

Oh dear, what an absolute shambles. I have copied and posted all of the information gathered on this site and I am now backing Colin Bates to be the next President as he has been the representative for the tutors for a considerable time and has the respect of both tutors and members. So I hope that the members will take back the power that the NEC has been gradually taking from them and ask for a motion for JW to be removed as President of the SNU at the AGM. I really appreciate people having the opportunity to air their views on your site as it is very, very frustrating when the SNU just don't seem to acknowledge that there are problems (mainly of their own doing) and forge ahead with no respect for the members and if they keep going will the SNU continue be a viable proposition.

by Admin Mon Sep 09, 2024 6:26 am

However, in digging into the tutors problems we are suddenly presented with a whole range of other items that may appear highly questionable. Once again, like some actions against tutors and supporters, these may breach both the rules of Companies House (The SNU is a Company Limited By Guarantee) and the rules of the Charity Commission. Some of these things were also decided by the NEC some months before they chose to tell the members.

Some may be innocuous, later ones become a core issue, which if welded together with what happened to the tutors could well draw down the ire of both Companies House and the Charities Commission.

The first I raise could be at the heart of the tutor issue. Immediately Minister Jackie Wright became President she recalled Paul Jacobs to the AFC despite the apparent strength of the evidence that had him exiled.

We saw early on, that there were rumours of a high court writ against the President and NEC. Past precedence indicated it was normal for people on the NEC to stand down while the issue was dealt with. However, that did not happen even as, if my information is correct, more actions may be in the pipeline, even from ex-employees.

It was noticed from cross checking between Minister Jackie Wright's personal Facebook page (acknowledged as run on her behalf) the AFC page, the SNU page and their bog, and even in Paul Jacobs page, there was a tight line held on presentation and style which can also be seen in the President's address in both the 2023/24 and 2022/23 Annual Report. It is acknowledged they now employed someone on staff. This certainly gave Minister Wright a considerable advantage for promotion in the election.

It also allows the AGM President's report to be homogeneous so it glosses over much.

This is also highlighted in areas around spending on the AFC, where her words always stress only she is spending, whereas past NEC members have pointed out spending was ongoing.

This blew up because of the words used by her when promoting her Crowdfunding to raise money for the AFC. Quite possibly this breached Charities Commission Rules and is potentially being investigated from what we have heard on the rumour mill.

In passing, the 2023/24 Annual Report shows a large increase in legal fees at about $122,000 a very high figure for a charity. It also shows an increase of wage cost of around 20%. The accounts show a huge loss, in both years on educational activity, but only because a huge amount of the essential cost incurred in running the SNU are allocated to it. Without this it would contribute strongly to the overall costs of the organisation. Revenue earned is a very poor way to allocate fixed operating costs to a revenue earner.

Later we had the announcement that Minister Wright had won the election by a stunning 70%
1,171 votes to Bruton's 470 votes 1641 votes in total.

Well the 2023/24 memberships are in - over 30 churches down at 285
still 14 DC's
Individual Members up a little at 2,190

So Churches with 5 votes each 1475
DC's 5 votes each 90
Individual members 1 vote each 2190
Total Votes 3755

Jackie got 1171 31.1% of votes available
Bruton 470 12.5%
Total % 43.6%

so 56.4% of the total possible votes were not cast showing, it would seem, that neither candidate was popular.

Now what was never mentioned is that Electronic Voting was used for the first time but is this is not allowable under the current Articles of Association, the Governing Rules of this Company Limited By Guarantee.

The NEC were clearly aware of this but it was never mentioned to the Members.

This becomes clear in the despairing request to, if the attempts to increase the Presidents terms fail, for members to approve the change in Articles to allow electronic voting. It does not actually matter, even if the vote at the AGM approves electronic voting, because the election that has taken place is invalid by having used electronic voting prior to such a change being approved at an AGM. However, it seems clear they hoped that this would not be spotted, rather than it being an innocent mistake.

I will deal with the issue of the extended term out of sequence, surely this is something of such import that the members should have been made aware of even part of the Presidents Report in the AGM papers. But it just arrives in the notices an AGM that only requires a quorum of 20 something that if passed would see Jackie Wright in for 4 years, proposed as already suggested by the rumour mill, a supporter of hers or so is said.

Passing this, or the desperate last ditch motion to allow future electronic voting, would clearly see them carrying on as if the election had been constitutionally valid. This is a really bad one and could, of itself bring the President, Vice Presidents and NEC down. Especially linked with the other items I have been working my way through.

My next one is nearly my final one, in May the NEC had the standing orders for the running of a general meeting (special or annual ) changed by bye law. I have looked at them and they are not outside of the powers in the Articles of Association (whereas electronic voting is) but they are not within the Spirit one would expect from a Spiritual Union and totally at odds with the recommended standing orders from the Charity Council (Graham Hewitt kindly posted these on the SNU's Facebook Page where I picked them up). These also provide for an Independent Chairman not the organisation's President.

These standing orders are draconian and allows Minister Wright to eject or refuse entry to the AGM at any time and without appeal. It also allows her to reject or accept whatever business she chooses without explanation or appeal. So as you go to the AGM this time you may find yourself debarred and your votes excluded. Such seems to be the ways of the new Jackie Wright improved SNU.

by Anniemillo1 Mon Sep 09, 2024 7:06 am

Hi,

It was a tutor in the AFC that had to cease tutoring prior to a court case being heard. Not a member of the NEC. It was the NEC who terminated his position.

Now that we have all been notified of the new course organisers it looks like it is the JW and PJ show and although they were adamant that they had competant tutors to fill the roles of the 20 tutors that they are refusing to sit down and talk with they seem to be the ones trying to fill their shoes. Is the role of President now becoming part time and if so, is the salary being adjusted.

by mac Mon Sep 09, 2024 7:36 am

The summaries of the current situation are comprehensive and illuminating leaving little to say other than ask a question - "What can members now do to try to get things back on an even keel?"

I don't know if the regulatory bodies would be more likely to step in to take action if members raised their concerns en masse but it couldn't do any harm. What is now needed is a way to make effective representation to the right people about the legal issues identified. A proforma letter to each of the regulating authorities that members could sign individually and send would be helpful.

A few hundred of them would show our concerns and the sooner the better because the AGM is imminent.

by Admin Mon Sep 09, 2024 8:24 am

mac wrote:The summaries of the current situation are comprehensive and illuminating leaving little to say other than ask a question - "What can members now do to try to get things back on an even keel?"

I don't know if the regulatory bodies would be more likely to step in to take action if members raised their concerns en masse but it couldn't do any harm. What is now needed is a way to make effective representation to the right people about the legal issues identified. A proforma letter to each of the regulating authorities that members could sign individually and send would be helpful.

A few hundred of them would show our concerns and the sooner the better because the AGM is imminent.

Very true Mac; as long as the Chairperson does not turn her opponents, and their votes, away at the door per her new standing orders.

by Admin Mon Sep 09, 2024 9:08 am

I forgot two things in my summary. Both are very wild cards, or looked it on Day 1.

The message about Jackie Wright wanting to turn it into Scientology and Tithing.

Madness, I wonder, so many things have happened which were not envisaged when people elected Minister Wright President. Its noticeable members are only finding out what she intends after the event.

Should she get a 4 year term there is plenty of time to change bye laws and with the powers granted her under standing orders at meetings she can take virtually full control of the SNU.

Make it necessary for all church committees to be full SNU members tick

Introduce tithing for full members remember at the best is 10% of your income Tick.

Membership droppd to 200 income rises from $52,000 to $900,000 tick.

Close the churches that fail the committee rules tick.

Sell 200 churches Tick trust funds rise by 12,000,000 tick

You now have an elitist very wealthy operation Tick

Imagination is a great thing am I dreaming

by mac Mon Sep 09, 2024 9:28 am

Admin wrote:
mac wrote:The summaries of the current situation are comprehensive and illuminating leaving little to say other than ask a question - "What can members now do to try to get things back on an even keel?"

I don't know if the regulatory bodies would be more likely to step in to take action if members raised their concerns en masse but it couldn't do any harm. What is now needed is a way to make effective representation to the right people about the legal issues identified. A proforma letter to each of the regulating authorities that members could sign individually and send would be helpful.

A few hundred of them would show our concerns and the sooner the better because the AGM is imminent.

Very true Mac; as long as the Chairperson does not turn her opponents, and their votes, away at the door per her new standing orders.

I'm getting the impression you're implying it's a done-deal and she's got everything sewn up and in place to prevent a protest vote?

What I had been thinking about, though, are proforma complaint letters that members and others could send to the right places/persons at both The Charities Commission and Companies House to try to draw attention to the legal issues you've identified. The returned president has no way to prevent those being sent.

by mac Mon Sep 09, 2024 9:42 am

Oh dear, what an absolute shambles. I have copied and posted all of the information gathered on this site and I am now backing Colin Bates to be the next President as he has been the representative for the tutors for a considerable time and has the respect of both tutors and members.

The reality is that for now the returned president will be in power for quite some time and Colin Bates can not even stand until another election is called for whatever reason.

So I hope that the members will take back the power that the NEC has been gradually taking from them and ask for a motion for JW to be removed as President of the SNU at the AGM.

As yet there is no mechanism for either.

I really appreciate people having the opportunity to air their views on your site as it is very, very frustrating when the SNU just don't seem to acknowledge that there are problems (mainly of their own doing) and forge ahead with no respect for the members and if they keep going will the SNU continue be a viable proposition.

Those with the greatest power DON'T CARE if members are unhappy and one must assume their actions have been carried out with the sole intention of bringing about the changes that look set to stay. At the moment chatting here hasn't achieved much more than identifying the issues and listing them. None has been moved forward as things stand.

Worse yet is that scarcely a handful of individuals have actually been contributing to this conversation. Perhaps most members don't care anyway about what's happening???

by mac Mon Sep 09, 2024 9:57 am

Admin wrote:

To be honest I have no idea if the situation is now recoverable. If the decision is revoked, the working relationship between the tutors with President, acting as GM of the AFC, and the Course Convenor Paul Jacobs, will need very careful management.

Careful management by whom, one might wonder....

Unless developments are stymied by regulators taking legal action against anyone who has operated outside of the legal frameworks governing the SNU's operations, then it does indeed look like the situation will NOT be recoverable.

I've often been a miserable curmudgeon predicting the disappearance of the movement and philosophy of Modern Spiritualism but I had expected it would be through lack of relevance to folk in this new millennium. It had not occurred to me that those in power would bring about its end.... Crying or Very sad

by mac Mon Sep 09, 2024 9:59 am

Admin wrote:I forgot two things in my summary. Both are very wild cards, or looked it on Day 1.

The message about Jackie Wright wanting to turn it into Scientology and Tithing.

Madness, I wonder, so many things have happened which were not envisaged when people elected Minister Wright President. Its noticeable members are only finding out what she intends after the event.

Should she get a 4 year term there is plenty of time to change bye laws and with the powers granted her under standing orders at meetings she can take virtually full control of the SNU.

Make it necessary for all church committees to be full SNU members tick

Introduce tithing for full members remember at the best is 10% of your income Tick.

Membership droppd to 200 income rises from $52,000 to $900,000 tick.

Close the churches that fail the committee rules tick.

Sell 200 churches Tick trust funds rise by 12,000,000 tick

You now have an elitist very wealthy operation Tick

Imagination is a great thing am I dreaming

Dreaming or psychic insight? Question

by Admin Mon Sep 09, 2024 10:18 am

mac wrote:
Admin wrote:
mac wrote:The summaries of the current situation are comprehensive and illuminating leaving little to say other than ask a question - "What can members now do to try to get things back on an even keel?"

I don't know if the regulatory bodies would be more likely to step in to take action if members raised their concerns en masse but it couldn't do any harm. What is now needed is a way to make effective representation to the right people about the legal issues identified. A proforma letter to each of the regulating authorities that members could sign individually and send would be helpful.

A few hundred of them would show our concerns and the sooner the better because the AGM is imminent.

Very true Mac; as long as the Chairperson does not turn her opponents, and their votes, away at the door per her new standing orders.

I'm getting the impression you're implying it's a done-deal and she's got everything sewn up and in place to prevent a protest vote?

What I had been thinking about, though, are proforma complaint letters that members and others could send to the right places/persons at both The Charities Commission and Companies House to try to draw attention to the legal issues you've identified. The returned president has no way to prevent those being sent.

No Mac those Bye laws are to excessive, If anyone is denied entrance, thrown out for speaking, denied a vote then complain, shout out loud, to both the Charities Commission and the Companies House. I know I may have started some sort of overview, so NEC take note, and keep your leader in check. This is dangerous grounds, if you step outside of your constitutional powers; which you may well be on the verge of.

by Admin Mon Sep 09, 2024 10:19 am

Hmm I remember when the first liquidator, in the Psychic News issue, resigned, quoting the impacts of someone in Australia, swearing at them in a creditors meeting.

by mac Mon Sep 09, 2024 10:26 am

I've been taking a look at the way complaints have to be made online - predictably - and finding I personally do not have the details. I have also realised a proforma letter probably wouldn't work in this digital, online world anyway. I would, however, add my support by making a complaint online if I had the exact details others are using / have used when making their own complaints.

My two pennyworth might add little to the complaints procedure's overall effectiveness but I am prepared to do it anyway.

edit: I wrote this while Jim's earlier words were still in cyber space.

by mac Mon Sep 09, 2024 10:34 am

Admin wrote:
mac wrote:
Admin wrote:
mac wrote:The summaries of the current situation are comprehensive and illuminating leaving little to say other than ask a question - "What can members now do to try to get things back on an even keel?"

I don't know if the regulatory bodies would be more likely to step in to take action if members raised their concerns en masse but it couldn't do any harm. What is now needed is a way to make effective representation to the right people about the legal issues identified. A proforma letter to each of the regulating authorities that members could sign individually and send would be helpful.

A few hundred of them would show our concerns and the sooner the better because the AGM is imminent.

Very true Mac; as long as the Chairperson does not turn her opponents, and their votes, away at the door per her new standing orders.

I'm getting the impression you're implying it's a done-deal and she's got everything sewn up and in place to prevent a protest vote?

What I had been thinking about, though, are proforma complaint letters that members and others could send to the right places/persons at both The Charities Commission and Companies House to try to draw attention to the legal issues you've identified. The returned president has no way to prevent those being sent.

No Mac those Bye laws are to excessive, If anyone is denied entrance, thrown out for speaking, denied a vote then complain, shout out loud, to both the Charities Commission and the Companies House. I know I may have started some sort of overview, so NEC take note, and keep your leader in check. This is dangerous grounds, if you step outside of your constitutional powers; which you may well be on the verge of.

Rather than thinning out this multi-quote conversation I'm leaving everything in place in the hope that those carrying the responsibilities of SNU directors will be following the details and becoming increasingly unsettled by what they're reading. I'm also hoping there are many members reading and following the conversation even though they're not contributing to it.

by Admin Mon Sep 09, 2024 12:40 pm

Great idea Mac thanks. By the way we talk of the NEC but if you read the AGM reports all of the NEC are named as Directors ,which is what they are legally.

Oh I forgot one point in my summary when Paul Jacobs described Helen DaVita's beautiful and heartfelt video about the problems with the 20 Tutors as Hate Speech. Spiritual stuff from the new course convener of the AFC, no surprise the previous management exiled him.

Sadly the video is no longer available I trust it was not as a result of more NEC legal heavy handedness.

by mac Mon Sep 09, 2024 1:55 pm

Admin wrote:Great idea Mac thanks. By the way we talk of the NEC but if you read the AGM reports all of the NEC are named as Directors ,which is what they are legally.

Oh I forgot one point in my summary when Paul Jacobs described Helen DaVita's beautiful and heartfelt video about the problems with the 20 Tutors as Hate Speech. Spiritual stuff from the new course convener of the AFC, no surprise the previous management exiled him.

Sadly the video is no longer available I trust it was not as a result of more NEC legal heavy handedness.

I do sincerely hope, Jim, that this long conversation with all the detailed material you and the new members have added to it, is being viewed by many more than just we few contributors.

I also sincerely hope the members of the NEC - I deliberately referred to them earlier as 'Directors' to remind them of their legal responsibilities - are at very least keeping an eye on this thread. Maybe then they'll make sure they're not doing - or failing to do - anything leading to justifiable criticism they could avoid by their "doing the right thing" all along.

Your explanation of how members of the SNU's NEC are responsible and accountable as Directors of the business certainly opened my eyes. One must hope those individuals realise it.

I did view Helen's lovely, moving and positive video before it was taken down after being described as hate speech. Gotta wonder what the values of some individuals must be, eh? Rolling Eyes

by mac Mon Sep 09, 2024 2:26 pm

On the SNU I.M. Facebook page are listed 558 members, all of 'em presumably Independent Members of The Spiritualists' National Union. The moderator had posted a piece relevant to our conversation on September 3 but there have been only 5 members responding since, four if you leave me out of it. Maybe the same few in this conversation....

Members can only respond to moderators' topics and other members' responses but they can not post new pieces of their own.

Not an encouraging picture.

by notabigjump Mon Sep 09, 2024 5:39 pm

Just a quick jump back to the tutor dispute... it would appear there was absolutely no desire to engage with the tutors who have fought for months to be heard fairly. Well they were found to have just cause for complaint. However the NEC did not like the outcome. It didn't suit their narrative apparently. So fired the complaints committee. Today we see all the courses for 2025 allocated to new tutors and the President teaching on 11 weeks herself. How can she possibly be president of the SNU and take 11 weeks out for teaching? What an utter disaster. The worst PR ever for the college and the SNU.

by Slatewriter Mon Sep 09, 2024 6:41 pm

notabigjump wrote:Today we see ... the President teaching on 11 weeks herself. How can she possibly be president of the SNU and take 11 weeks out for teaching?

Assuming she lasts that long

by Anniemillo1 Mon Sep 09, 2024 7:35 pm

How can we stop JW from taking the AGM as President if the voting wasn't legal. Surely it shouldn't be allowed but I am afraid I wouldn't know how to begin to deal with it so that she can be stopped in her tracks especially when we are bing curtailed in the questions etc that we can ask.

by mac Mon Sep 09, 2024 7:48 pm

Unless something changes quickly she'll be able to do in the coming months whatever she chooses, much as she has done since earlier this year when this whole, sorry business took off with the tutors' dispute.

Whether it will affect the fortunes of the College or of the Union itself is conjecture and it may be little more than wishful thinking that the President won't be able to do what she's planned. Most importantly if students continue to attend the Findlay College and are happy with what they get then the current rumblings of discontent will eventually have achieved nothing.

Based on what's been written in this thread only formal action by the appropriate regulating bodies looks likely to clip her wings. If that happens it's anyone's guess what the eventual outcome might be.

Let's not forget that we don't know what members feel about what's been going on or even if they are aware of most of it.

by mac Mon Sep 09, 2024 7:53 pm

Anniemillo1 wrote:How can we stop JW from taking the AGM as President if the voting wasn't legal. Surely it shouldn't be allowed but I am afraid I wouldn't know how to begin to deal with it so that she can be stopped in her tracks especially when we are being curtailed in the questions etc that we can ask.

It's looking like there's nothing anyone can do presently and legal formalities will take too long to prevent a de facto change in the running of the SNU and the College.

We can only hope the situation can be regularised later with a different NEC in charge of the operations.

by mac Mon Sep 09, 2024 8:06 pm

We've been told The Charities Commission has been informed of the shenanigans concerning fundraising and I'm guessing/hoping someone's informed Companies House in the correct way.

MAYBE that's all that will be needed for the complaint to be investigated by those bodies but if more complaints need to be made before the regulating bodies will take action then more members need to know how to go about it.

by Sponsored content