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

by Admin Thu Sep 19, 2024 1:48 am

Just pondering and wondering thanks to Karl and Nuts and Bolts I found this which he has let me post on here. I will start a new thread soon, once I have the time and space to get into the subject and thought about who may have some connect to the issue (like Roy Stemman, not on date terms but through his editing of Psychic News and involvement in the battle to keep that out of the SNU's clutches). Now do the SNU really own the Building and Estate !

I thank Karl for his research but also the people who got the old newspapers onto a free on line Archive (Like Lis and I's friend Walter Meyer Zu Erp Master Archivist and President of the Survival Research Institute of Canada).

Why is there a Clash between the Tutors and the AFC - Page 25 Psychi10

Why is there a Clash between the Tutors and the AFC - Page 25 Psychi11

The Key element is from Karl's post
PSYCHIC NEWS, SEPTEMBER 24, 1966
SNU president, Dr. John Winning, has declared:
“I am fully aware that it was [Arthur] Findlay’s wish to have a centre where Spiritualists could meet in an atmosphere of peace and quiet to discuss their local, national and international problems. Stansted is such a place.

It was never his intention that the college should be used specifically by one band of Spiritualists as distinct from another.

Certainly he leaned away from any form of narrow Spiritualism. His reading and writings ranged over a wide field, as is shown in many of his books; and although he has left the control and the running of Stansted to the National Council of the SNU, I am sure that the Union would be wrong if it tried to corner the gift for itself. I want to see Stansted as a real, live national centre for all Spiritualists.

It distinctly looks like, somewhere between 1966 and what is going on now the New SNU is probably disrespecting his wishes

by Admin Thu Sep 19, 2024 1:55 am

Maybe a word from Arthur Findlay could help here. But if Scott materialised him in the dark you may guess which way the words would come out. I remain flabbergasted as to why he is anywhere near the AFC. You may run into debates with and about him (and his close association with David Thompson) scattered through the threads on Physical Mediumship on this forum. Did i hear somewhere of some problems with extra curricular activities or was that just about David, hard to remember now.

by Admin Thu Sep 19, 2024 2:43 am

I see one part of the contract has now been discussed. I noted that it also has many pages about appropriate behaviour, sexual misconduct and harassment. Indeed, so much it must raise some questions about how many problems the College has had in the past. Maybe it is just hammering a key point home.

Then there are 4 pages about Social Media, which anyone reading them would have to feel is overkill,

This agrees with the view that Free Speech allows you to use social media but you must consider " the Collegiate committee have ruled that they will call into question any tutor if their speech, including online postings, disrupts Residential establishment’s operations and or reputation, even if it is about other tutors". So it gives guidelines which "By accessing, creating or contributing to any blogs, wikis, podcasts or other social media, you agree to abide by"

They define Social Media as "User created content online designed in a collaborative environment where users share opinions, knowledge, and information with each other." This covers all posts wherever.

"The Collegiate Committee requires tutors with a personal online presence to be mindful of the information they post. Your online behaviour should reflect the same standards of honesty, respect, and consideration that you use face-to-face. Even if you delete that information, it still may be stored on Web servers for a longer period of time."
" You should ensure that content associated with you is consistent with your work at the College."

You must set your security so that the non intended recipients cannot reach it or share it

"Tutors are personally responsible for the content they publish online. Be mindful that what you publish will be public for a long time protect your privacy....Remember that social media is an extension of your physical workrooms. What is inappropriate in your workroom should be deemed inappropriate online."

" How you represent yourself online is an extension of yourself as a Residential establishment’s Tutor. Always a Residential establishment’s Tutor....... lines between public and private, personal and professional are blurred in the digital world, you will always be considered to be a Residential establishment’s Tutor. Whether it is clearly communicated or not, you will be identified as a tutor of the Residential establishments in all you react to, say and do online."

"Represent the Residential establishments and Union values. Express ideas and opinions in a respectful manner. All communications should be done in good taste. Build trust and responsibility in your relationships. Do not denigrate or insult others including students, staff, administrators, or other tutors. Any online contributions must be in accordance with policy, or other guidelines provided by the Union. Consider carefully what you post through comments and photos. A breach of these guidelines could be regarded as a form of professional misconduct and may result in action being taken against you."

"Respect the privacy and the feelings of others. Under no circumstance should offensive comments be made about students or colleagues (including staff) nor the Union or Residential establishments in general. Negative comments about people may amount to cyber-bullying and could be deemed a disciplinary offence. "

At that point I will leave it, there are two more pages, these people have been deemed tutors as self employed contractors, not employees. Tutors have been asked to prepare and submit courses, which the College takes Copyright over and you can use these elsewhere only with their permission . Indeed they can also remove you from that course you wrote and give it to someone else.

Then there are the multiple ways they act against you over the use of social media; if the Collegiate Committee decides you have been inappropriate.

I find it hard to understand anyone signing this contract

Oh and of course there is an action the committee should use, the Current Course Convenor, Paul Jacobs, said about the lovely Heartfelt Video Helen DaVita put up in support of the 20 tutors (that is now gone; was a gag involved?)

Back on P6 you can see the video is gone but Paul Jacob's comments calling it Hate Speech and a Nasty Video, with a picture of Helen, remains hanging, suspended in the electronic world. This is a clear breach of the Collegiate Committees Guidelines.

I suspect it is this that may have driven the young brave poster to stop their's to safeguard their position. Stay members but go silent, it will be the safest way to navigate the next few months if the regulators fail to act. Unless you find a suitable way, incognito, to let people know what is happening and that the management are being monitored.

by Admin Thu Sep 19, 2024 2:56 am

mac wrote:
notabigjump wrote:

I agree with you completely. My concern with the AGM is whether enough members and church representatives are reading this forum, or have the full picture and magnitude of this terrible and unjust dispute. I am sure if they are, those will vote as you have previously suggested.

I very much doubt enough interested/involved individuals to make a difference have been reading what we've been discussing. I very much hope I'm proven wrong.

It is one of my concerns, I have heard of Churches cancelling bookings for those who have spoken out against JW, so it is a major concern. It seems to be the new way of the World but one may have looked for something better from Spiritualists.

by MoMer Thu Sep 19, 2024 3:43 am

The social media “rules” are extremely hypocritical, given some of the reactionary posts and comments that JW has put on Facebook in the past. In fact, her and PJ (with his hate speech comments) are the only two tutors that I have looked at their posts and/or comments and shaken my head, oh apart from a certain minister (who is still teaching at the college), who shared racist posts recently but then deleted them. I’m guessing after someone had a word with them, when people expressed their disgust. I’m guessing it’s ok for the collegiate committee to break their own rules though, seeing as they appear to be answerable to no one but themselves.
As for the part about the tutors creating the courses and them becoming the property of the college and not being able to teach them elsewhere without permission is laughable. The more I’m hearing of this contract, the more I can see the extent of the control she is trying to take, I’m not going to lie, that scares me for the future of the AFC and the SNU. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve always known that she was the wrong person for the job, so much so that I considered cancelling my membership when she first got in. All this stuff that is now coming to “light” on a bigger scale has just confirmed that my intuition was right (even though that knowledge brings me no pleasure, it ought to be considering how much I have spent at the college ha ha) and highlighted how very wrong she is. If I was reading these comments about myself and I realised that so many people didn’t trust me, I would be absolutely mortified and devastated, I would certainly be questioning myself but, no, not JW, she appears to just brazen it out and take more and more control for herself and away from the members. We hear on the news of others with the same M.O. I guess we’re just in a waiting game now, until the AGM to see what happens there, unless by some stroke of luck, something happens as a result of the complaints/reports etc and, she is gone before then, with only nine days to go though, it is looking less likely.

by Janhar Thu Sep 19, 2024 8:27 am

Admin wrote:Just pondering and wondering thanks to Karl and Nuts and Bolts I found this which he has let me post on here. I will start a new thread soon, once I have the time and space to get into the subject and thought about who may have some connect to the issue (like Roy Stemman, not on date terms but through his editing of Psychic News and involvement in the battle to keep that out of the SNU's clutches). Now do the SNU really own the Building and Estate !

This is just the first section of an interesting posting I just read from admin which should be read in full……I singled these lines out for comment as, for no apparent reason, this exact thought popped into my head last night….and here it is this morning in the posting. I don’t think I have a telepathic link with Jim

so I am a bit intrigued by that.
It is something the family could answer, if prepared to, which I am sure they will not be, but I don’t doubt for a minute it is under complete control of the SNU though whether or not it is as a trust or complete ownership I have absolutely no idea. Arthur Findlay’s nephew gave another property to an SNU church in Scotland years back which was used for many courses but then sold a few years on. Like many of you, I know who could answer this question in full, but she would not reveal anything that could be used to cause further harm to the SNU or to the college. She is the soul of discretion. Obviously the officials will not speak and we would not find this out unless it is on public record somewhere. However, if it is entirely owned by the SNU, and they get a whiff of this speculation, they will possibly verify it.

( looked this up since first posting and is incorrect, the Scotland property was given to a spiritual charitable trust but one with links to people running an SNU church)

by mac Thu Sep 19, 2024 8:27 am

It appears some details of the tutors contracts have now been disclosed. They are unfair and onerous but are they illegal/unlawful?

Not long now before the AGM and the crucial voting that will determine the future of our sad and sorry Union.

by mac Thu Sep 19, 2024 10:12 am

As I've pointed out several times already, possession is nine tenths the law.

The bods in power hold the aces and it's pretty clear by now that the President is ignoring member reactions and simply toughing it out - there appears no mechanism for effective protest or resistance. We've seen politicians and dictators deploying much the same principle.

To me it appears that rejection of the recent and proposed changes might be effective only if the law is also brought into the situation and that is far from certain even though certain procedures do appear to be breaking it.

by mac Thu Sep 19, 2024 10:34 am

MoMer wrote:The social media “rules” are extremely hypocritical, given some of the reactionary posts and comments that JW has put on Facebook in the past. In fact, her and PJ (with his hate speech comments) are the only two tutors that I have looked at their posts and/or comments and shaken my head, oh apart from a certain minister (who is still teaching at the college), who shared racist posts recently but then deleted them.

We should hardly be surprised that such behaviours appear hypocritical given everything this thread's been discussing since late July.... Indeed by now we'd be pretty daft if we were to expect anything different.

I’m guessing after someone had a word with them, when people expressed their disgust. I’m guessing it’s ok for the collegiate committee to break their own rules though, seeing as they appear to be answerable to no one but themselves.

Of course THEY haven't signed up for anything the way the tutors were being expected to do. And the non-disclosure agreement was one the tutors also had to sign just to get their complaint heard, even though it was never going to go any further than being heard. To me these are simply modern business practices in a world where this stuff is routinely deployed no matter how unspiritual and unfair the SNU approach appears to folk like ourselves.

by MoMer Thu Sep 19, 2024 12:55 pm

. [/quote]
Of course THEY haven't signed up for anything the way the tutors were being expected to do. And the non-disclosure agreement was one the tutors also had to sign just to get their complaint heard, even though it was never going to go any further than being heard. To me these are simply modern business practices in a world where this stuff is routinely deployed no matter how unspiritual and unfair the SNU approach appears to folk like ourselves.[/quote]

Even if they had signed the same contract, they still wouldn’t hold themselves to it, simply because they don’t have to. I too believe that they never had any intention to have the complaint go anywhere beyond the complaints committee, with nothing being done regardless of the outcome of the findings.

Yes, it is a business, we can’t deny or change that but, when the “top bods” of that business, which is also a religion, are morally and spiritually bankrupt, I think it’s time to walk away. I joined the union because I believe in the philosophy of the seven principles, when the hierarchy show such a disregard for those principles it speaks volumes. They need to remember that no one needs to be an SNU Spiritualist to be of service to Spirit and humanity, or to use its principles as your moral compass. I am loathe to walk away and let JW “win” but I am at the point where I am more loathe to stay and watch her further ruin the SNU and the AFC. I can only hope that if enough people walk away she will have nothing left to lead but her minions. Hopefully too, questions will be asked about where the membership has gone. Yes she has support from the churches but, most church members aren’t individual members of the SNU, they are simply members of the churches they attend. If the AFC goes because she has driven everyone away, the SNU face major difficulties. I wish I had the answers, as I’m sure we all do, I’m afraid that the “captain” may just go down with this sinking ship!

by MoMer Thu Sep 19, 2024 12:57 pm

. [/quote]
Of course THEY haven't signed up for anything the way the tutors were being expected to do. And the non-disclosure agreement was one the tutors also had to sign just to get their complaint heard, even though it was never going to go any further than being heard. To me these are simply modern business practices in a world where this stuff is routinely deployed no matter how unspiritual and unfair the SNU approach appears to folk like ourselves.[/quote]

Even if they had signed the same contract, they still wouldn’t hold themselves to it, simply because they don’t have to. I too believe that they never had any intention to have the complaint go anywhere beyond the complaints committee, with nothing being done regardless of the outcome of the findings.

Yes, it is a business, we can’t deny or change that but, when the “top bods” of that business, which is also a religion, are morally and spiritually bankrupt, I think it’s time to walk away. I joined the union because I believe in the philosophy of the seven principles, when the hierarchy show such a disregard for those principles it speaks volumes. They need to remember that no one needs to be an SNU Spiritualist to be of service to Spirit and humanity, or to use its principles as your moral compass. I am loathe to walk away and let JW “win” but I am at the point where I am more loathe to stay and watch her further ruin the SNU and the AFC. I can only hope that if enough people walk away she will have nothing left to lead but her minions. Hopefully too, questions will be asked about where the membership has gone. Yes she has support from the churches but, most church members aren’t individual members of the SNU, they are simply members of the churches they attend. If the AFC goes because she has driven everyone away and the IM’s walk away, the SNU face major difficulties. I wish I had the answers, as I’m sure we all do, I’m afraid that the “captain” may just go down with this sinking ship!

by mac Thu Sep 19, 2024 4:16 pm

MoMer wrote:

Even if they had signed the same contract, they still wouldn’t hold themselves to it, simply because they don’t have to. I too believe that they never had any intention to have the complaint go anywhere beyond the complaints committee, with nothing being done regardless of the outcome of the findings.

We can't, of course, be sure what they'd intended or might have done but I do take the point.

Yes, it is a business, we can’t deny or change that but, when the “top bods” of that business, which is also a religion, are morally and spiritually bankrupt, I think it’s time to walk away.

That's my own conclusion but, then, I have never needed either church or SNU but for those who have I'm sure it would be an awful step to take.

I joined the union because I believe in the philosophy of the seven principles, when the hierarchy show such a disregard for those principles it speaks volumes. They need to remember that no one needs to be an SNU Spiritualist to be of service to Spirit and humanity, or to use its principles as your moral compass.

Yes I could not agree more and I'm a 40 year Spiritualist who quickly realised church and Union were not for me.

If the bods in power cared about the things you've mentioned they wouldn't behave as they're doing now. And even if - even THOUGH - the SNU and the Findlay College need a root-and-branch reorganisation there are correct ways to do it.

I am loathe to walk away and let JW “win”

It won't matter what you do or don't do, I'm afraid.

but I am at the point where I am more loathe to stay and watch her further ruin the SNU and the AFC. I can only hope that if enough people walk away she will have nothing left to lead but her minions. Hopefully too, questions will be asked about where the membership has gone. Yes she has support from the churches but, most church members aren’t individual members of the SNU, they are simply members of the churches they attend. If the AFC goes because she has driven everyone away and the IM’s walk away, the SNU face major difficulties. I wish I had the answers, as I’m sure we all do, I’m afraid that the “captain” may just go down with this sinking ship!

There are three distinct situations. Church members aren't members of the SNU and they may have as much interest in the Union as I have. I don't know what Independent Members feel about the SNU because I haven't heard from any. I.M. annual subscriptions must be helpful but probably don't bring in much cash. I've read here that the Findlay College provides valuable revenue so I would expect its tuition services will be heavily promoted to bring in as many fee-payers as possible. How potential students will react is moot - we'll have to wait and see.

As for the SNU captain going down with the ship well that may be more wishful thinking than likelihood. Wink

by mac Thu Sep 19, 2024 4:38 pm

Admin wrote:
PSYCHIC NEWS, SEPTEMBER 24, 1966
SNU president, Dr. John Winning, has declared:
“I am fully aware that it was [Arthur] Findlay’s wish to have a centre where Spiritualists could meet in an atmosphere of peace and quiet to discuss their local, national and international problems. Stansted is such a place.

It was never his intention that the college should be used specifically by one band of Spiritualists as distinct from another.

Certainly he leaned away from any form of narrow Spiritualism. His reading and writings ranged over a wide field, as is shown in many of his books; and although he has left the control and the running of Stansted to the National Council of the SNU, I am sure that the Union would be wrong if it tried to corner the gift for itself. I want to see Stansted as a real, live national centre for all Spiritualists.

It distinctly looks like, somewhere between 1966 and what is going on now the New SNU is probably disrespecting his wishes

I'm sorry but I don't follow what is meant by "....by one band of Spiritualists as distinct from another." Who would be in the make up of one band as opposed to another? Christian Spiritualists as opposed to 'Seven Principles' SNU Spiritualists? Spiritualists of independent Spiritualist churches as opposed to SNU affiliated churches?

or what?

by Janhar Thu Sep 19, 2024 7:18 pm

I don’t think the ship is going down yet, it will one day but not yet .it’s going to get some storm damage. If J W gets things up and running again with new tutors that people like and the membership picks up and the College thrives again she will go down in history as a great president who stood her ground and removed the dissenters. . On the other hand, if students fall away, membership drops, and the college becomes precarious she will discover she is in charge of nothing at all and she will be told by the NEC what has to be done. This could happen sooner than we expect or it might take 4 years. I cannot imagine any of the 20 tutors coming back with her still in charge even if they could. I would be very surprised if they did.

by mac Thu Sep 19, 2024 7:29 pm

Janhar wrote:I don’t think the ship is going down yet, it will one day but not yet .it’s going to get some storm damage. If J W gets things up and running again with new tutors that people like and the membership picks up and the College thrives again she will go down in history as a great president who stood her ground and removed the dissenters. . On the other hand, if students fall away, membership drops, and the college becomes precarious she will discover she is in charge of nothing at all and she will be told by the NEC what has to be done. This could happen sooner than we expect or it might take 4 years. I cannot imagine any of the 20 tutors coming back with her still in charge even if they could. I would be very surprised if they did.

Yup agree with all that - playing for high stakes, winner takes all....

by notabigjump Thu Sep 19, 2024 7:36 pm

Janhar wrote:I don’t think the ship is going down yet, it will one day but not yet .it’s going to get some storm damage. If J W gets things up and running again with new tutors that people like and the membership picks up and the College thrives again she will go down in history as a great president who stood her ground and removed the dissenters. . On the other hand, if students fall away, membership drops, and the college becomes precarious she will discover she is in charge of nothing at all and she will be told by the NEC what has to be done. This could happen sooner than we expect or it might take 4 years. I cannot imagine any of the 20 tutors coming back with her still in charge even if they could. I would be very surprised if they did.

The Charities Commission are already on to her. Some who have reported the charity and JW are being interviewed by them now. It appears they have a few to get through from a source there.

What this will show is how weak all the members of the NEC are, in allowing this to get this far. They are just as culpable and will end up having to pay dearly for the carnage. They need to get a backbone and tell her to go, before they all drown in her sinking ship.

by mac Thu Sep 19, 2024 8:16 pm

notabigjump wrote:

The Charities Commission are already on to her. Some who have reported the charity and JW are being interviewed by them now. It appears they have a few to get through from a source there.

What this will show is how weak all the members of the NEC are, in allowing this to get this far. They are just as culpable and will end up having to pay dearly for the carnage. They need to get a backbone and tell her to go, before they all drown in her sinking ship.

I know only what's been reported here. I don't know the members of the NEC or any facts about what (it's alleged) they have done or have failed to do. If misdeeds are proven then the individuals responsible deserve to be held to account for them. But being weak doesn't necessarily make someone bad or culpable if a dominant character has been calling the tune - if that's how it was. It's hard to stand up to certain types of characters.....

by notabigjump Thu Sep 19, 2024 8:34 pm

mac wrote:
notabigjump wrote:

The Charities Commission are already on to her. Some who have reported the charity and JW are being interviewed by them now. It appears they have a few to get through from a source there.

What this will show is how weak all the members of the NEC are, in allowing this to get this far. They are just as culpable and will end up having to pay dearly for the carnage. They need to get a backbone and tell her to go, before they all drown in her sinking ship.

I know only what's been reported here. I don't know the members of the NEC or any facts about what (it's alleged) they have done or have failed to do. If misdeeds are proven then the individuals responsible deserve to be held to account for them. But being weak doesn't necessarily make someone bad or culpable if a dominant character has been calling the tune - if that's how it was. It's hard to stand up to certain types of characters.....

It can be hard but there are plenty of them. There's strength in numbers.

by mac Thu Sep 19, 2024 9:36 pm

notabigjump wrote:

It can be hard but there are plenty of them. There's strength in numbers.

I don't know if you are right and I can't speak from personal experience of their situation. But it's not unknown for even a group to be controlled by individuals with dominating characters. You have only to take a look at the news most days to see such examples.

by notabigjump Thu Sep 19, 2024 9:42 pm

mac wrote:
notabigjump wrote:

It can be hard but there are plenty of them. There's strength in numbers.
I don't know if you are right and I can't speak from personal experience of their situation. But it's not unknown for even a group to be controlled by individuals with dominating characters. You have only to take a look at the news most days to see such examples.

I do agree Mac. The turnover of the NEC directors and committees has shown that far too many have found their presence and contributions futile. Yes they may well be beaten in to submission - I get that. However, if as many suggest this forum is being read by them, I hope they will find enough motivation to help them find a voice, before it's too late.

by mac Fri Sep 20, 2024 7:05 am

notabigjump wrote:

I do agree Mac. The turnover of the NEC directors and committees has shown that far too many have found their presence and contributions futile. Yes they may well be beaten in to submission - I get that. However, if as many suggest this forum is being read by them, I hope they will find enough motivation to help them find a voice, before it's too late.

Yes I expect individuals in difficult positions may well be following this conversation and on your final point I totally agree. If anyone is going to speak out they need to do it soon.

Jim has pointed out how Directors' are personally at risk if they fail in their official responsibilities and accountabilities - I had no idea. It's to be hoped any unheard 'lurkers' in such positions will do something if it's only to try to protect their personal interests.

by notabigjump Fri Sep 20, 2024 7:59 am

mac wrote:
notabigjump wrote:

I do agree Mac. The turnover of the NEC directors and committees has shown that far too many have found their presence and contributions futile. Yes they may well be beaten in to submission - I get that. However, if as many suggest this forum is being read by them, I hope they will find enough motivation to help them find a voice, before it's too late.
Yes I expect individuals in difficult positions may well be following this conversation and on your final point I totally agree. If anyone is going to speak out they need to do it soon.

Jim has pointed out how Directors' are personally at risk if they fail in their official responsibilities and accountabilities - I had no idea. It's to be hoped any unheard 'lurkers' in such positions will do something if it's only to try to protect their personal interests.

I agree Mac. I can't imagine anyone - no matter where you stand on this dispute, would wish the potential loss of a home, personal and professional reputation.

by mac Fri Sep 20, 2024 10:22 am

notabigjump wrote:

I agree Mac. I can't imagine anyone - no matter where you stand on this dispute, would wish the potential loss of a home, personal and professional reputation.

And I wouldn't want any well-meaning individual to find themselves in any such at-risk situation because of another person's misdeeds, omissions or controlling influence. Folk might end up getting tarred by the same brush.

As I wrote earlier, I really do hope any unheard 'lurkers' here have checked that they've been doing what they're supposed to have been doing and maybe pass that message on to any others who might want to check their own positions.

I would take no pleasure from seeing good folk go down the crapper. Sad

by Admin Sat Sep 21, 2024 5:30 am

mac wrote:
notabigjump wrote:

I agree Mac. I can't imagine anyone - no matter where you stand on this dispute, would wish the potential loss of a home, personal and professional reputation.
And I wouldn't want any well-meaning individual to find themselves in any such at-risk situation because of another person's misdeeds, omissions or controlling influence. Folk might end up getting tarred by the same brush.

As I wrote earlier, I really do hope any unheard 'lurkers' here have checked that they've been doing what they're supposed to have been doing and maybe pass that message on to any others who might want to check their own positions.

I would take no pleasure from seeing good folk go down the crapper.

It looks like everyone is beginning to hold their breath over this with the AGM so close, just how far is Madam President prepared to push her very controlling powers at the AGM. Of course as a Private Company Limited by guarantee only the nominated members may attend unless invited by the Chairperson. So we will need feedback from an attendee who gets to stay for the whole session.

by Admin Sat Sep 21, 2024 6:14 am

I never asked this question; how did a tutor expelled from the AFC by due process under the last President one, even I in Australia have heard has caused emotional harm to students ( I have several who never complained, but would back me on this if needed), suddenly get immediately reinstated by this President and is now Course Convenor and effectively untouchable unless the President falls. It does appear to me that the 20 tutor issue has some aspects of pay back from people carrying a grudge. Any thoughts? The amazing thing is if this had been left until September and the election had been postal and in person only this President could have had a free run of 4 years. Timing is all and legend has it, if this was a partial cause, which we could neither prove nor say was the cause, revenge is a dish better eaten cold.

by Sponsored content