Why is there a Clash between the Tutors and the AFC

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).




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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

. [/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!

. [/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!

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.