Why is there a Clash between the Tutors and the AFC

Anyone visiting who is actually interested in discussing Spiritualism and/or related spiritual issues might want to check out the thread I opened recently: https://www.spiritualismlink.com/t2491-ndes-and-modern-spiritualism

mac wrote:Anyone visiting who is actually interested in discussing Spiritualism and/or related spiritual issues might want to check out the thread I opened recently:  https://www.spiritualismlink.com/t2491-ndes-and-modern-spiritualism

Your post is well worth visiting and starting discussion I have just posted a new topic on the one, very dusty thread we have about these things https://www.spiritualismlink.com/t2492-exploring-consciousness-and-ndes-with-scott-taylor#21695

There's been a marked paucity of responses to my suggestion, Jim.....

mac wrote:What WOULD be helpful would be to hear from the tutors, anonymously using a nom de plume as most of us do.  They can't write anonymously on Facebook but they could let us regular contributors know the deal......

From understanding the statements they have publicly made, they had to sign a non disclosure agreement in order to make a complaint. I can only imagine that significant details would compromise the agreement. It's frustrating and I hope for a swift resolution and their being able to speak freely soon.

It is enough at this stage to be concerned that 20 of them and many with decades of experience have needed to take action.

I won't be casting my vote in the upcoming elections, the only way I can protest about all the shenanigans. I don't suppose anyone will care though.....

notabigjump wrote:

mac wrote:What WOULD be helpful would be to hear from the tutors, anonymously using a nom de plume as most of us do.  They can't write anonymously on Facebook but they could let us regular contributors know the deal......

From understanding the statements they have publicly made, they had to sign a non disclosure agreement in order to make a complaint. I can only imagine that significant details would compromise the agreement. It's frustrating and I hope for a swift resolution and their being able to speak freely soon.

It is enough at this stage to be concerned that 20 of them and many with decades of experience have needed to take action.

Quite clever gag them until the election is over then forget them.

Admin wrote:

notabigjump wrote:

mac wrote:What WOULD be helpful would be to hear from the tutors, anonymously using a nom de plume as most of us do.  They can't write anonymously on Facebook but they could let us regular contributors know the deal......

From understanding the statements they have publicly made, they had to sign a non disclosure agreement in order to make a complaint. I can only imagine that significant details would compromise the agreement. It's frustrating and I hope for a swift resolution and their being able to speak freely soon.

It is enough at this stage to be concerned that 20 of them and many with decades of experience have needed to take action.

Quite clever gag them until the election is over then forget them.

There could be much more to this and something is definitely off with this election. I have been sent a number of screenshots about the SNU and their companies house filings. Their statement is overdue and beyond the 14 day grace period for late filing. This can result in them being struck off and fined £5000.

None of this will go well with the charities commission of course, but there is worse. A crowd funder which the President has alluded to as a great achievement, may not be legitimate.  A previous filing confirms that such activities are counter to how they conduct their business (bullet point 3).


From the perspective of the late statement filing it is easily found on the companies house website - so I will not fill the server with another image as it is free to view.

What does this tell us? The charity is not behaving as it should financially? The statement which could risk the entire SNU, It is marked 'overdue' and the trumpet blowing fund raising was against the charity commision rules.

Surely, this election must be stopped and relevant authorities investigate? The members along with the Tutors are not being treated well.

The largest organisation for Spiritualism is being put at risk through reckless mismanagement.

Maybe Jim - or someone else looking on - knows the correct way to report overall concerns and apparent breaches of charity regulations? If folk are confident about the details they have, what's stopping them?

quote: "None of this will go well with the charities commission of course, but there is worse. A crowd funder which the President has alluded to as a great achievement, may not be legitimate. A previous filing confirms that such activities are counter to how they conduct their business (bullet point 3)." Does any of the above contravene any rules, regulations or laws? If so then why not report it to the appropriate body or bodies?

quote, SNU"Fundraising

This charity raises funds from the public but does not work with professional fundraisers or commercial participators.

Trading

This charity does not have any trading subsidiaries.

Trustee payments

One or more trustees receive payments or benefits from the charity for another benefit."

Have I been looking at the wrong documents? A link to the correct one(s) would be greatly appreciated....

mac wrote:quote, SNU"Fundraising

This charity raises funds from the public but does not work with professional fundraisers or commercial participators.

Trading

This charity does not have any trading subsidiaries.

Trustee payments

One or more trustees receive payments or benefits from the charity for another benefit."

Have I been looking at the wrong documents?  A link to the correct one(s) would be greatly appreciated....

Bullet point 3 is crucial, considering there was a significant crowd funding campaign recently for the college building repairs which did not go through the charity itself.

It is from their last company account submission, which are for public viewing on the Companies House website. Its on page 37. I tried to post a link but it filled the page here, so had to take it off.

I'm struggling. I can find the Full Accounts section but page 37 of the downloaded PDF document shows plans for 2023/2024. Am I in the right/wrong document?

mac wrote:I'm struggling.  I can find the Full Accounts section but page 37 of the downloaded PDF document shows plans for 2023/2024.  Am I in the right/wrong document?

It's dated 15th September 2023 and Full accounts to Dec 2022. It says it is 88 pages.

notabigjump wrote:

mac wrote:I'm struggling.  I can find the Full Accounts section but page 37 of the downloaded PDF document shows plans for 2023/2024.  Am I in the right/wrong document?

It might be in the 2022 one.

That's the date shown for the accounts document I downloaded. I've now just downloaded the Companies House, Spiritualists' National Union, 'Full accounts....' document for the previous year but again page 37 is not what's showing above.

notabigjump wrote:

mac wrote:I'm struggling.  I can find the Full Accounts section but page 37 of the downloaded PDF document shows plans for 2023/2024.  Am I in the right/wrong document?

It's dated 15th September 2023 and Full accounts to Dec 2022. It says it is 88 pages.

Yep that's what I downloaded first off, 88 pages in PDF format. It is page 37 I'm looking for - right????

Ok my programme says page 37, but the document page is actually page 34 of the report.

Found it! Using Adobe Acrobat this time I searched for page 37 and the paragraph concerned was on page 34 - go figure! Still not clear why there's an issue though.....

notabigjump wrote:Ok my programme says page 37, but the document page is actually page 34 of the report.

I've just seen your response after I'd posted my own above....

".....professional fundraisers or commercial partners"  etc  - Is this the area of concern?  Does crowdfunding drop into either category?

Or is the concern?: "We do not petition or make direct approaches....." etc

mac wrote:".....professional fundraisers or commercial partners"  etc  - Is this the area of concern?  Does crowdfunding drop into either category?

It was the third item: 'We do not petition or make direct approaches for fundraising purposes'

notabigjump wrote:

mac wrote:".....professional fundraisers or commercial partners"  etc  - Is this the area of concern?  Does crowdfunding drop into either category?

It was the third item: 'We do not petition or make direct approaches for fundraising purposes'

My question remains the same.....

https://www.vwv.co.uk/news-and-events/blog/charity-law-brief/crowdfunding-campaigns-compliance-charity

https://www.vwv.co.uk/news-and-events/blog/charity-law-brief/crowdfunding-campaigns-compliance-charity

PJ was removed from his position at the college several years ago, because he was responsible for tutor training, without any particular experience or training in the role. He would decide tutors fates on whether he liked them or not, and if the latter, make it his mission that they would not work there. He was backed up by some of the tutors who knew just what he was doing, yet they said nothing to secure their own futures. He was found out and removed from post.
Under the current dictatorship, who have scratched each other's backs for several years he was reinstated, and look where we are.

mac wrote:

notabigjump wrote:

mac wrote:".....professional fundraisers or commercial partners"  etc  - Is this the area of concern?  Does crowdfunding drop into either category?

It was the third item: 'We do not petition or make direct approaches for fundraising purposes'

My question remains the same.....

I am not sure that matters there are two Companies the SNU and the SNU Trust.

The SNU is a  Private company limited by guarantee without share capital Incorporated on 22 October 1901

  The SNU Trust is a Private Limited Company by guarantee without share capital use of 'Limited' exemption Incorporated on  25 May 2018

Interesting split to move the trust possibly?? the membership of directors is very different one doesn't know why.

I think that Mac is right the Charities Commission are being liberal with the ideas around go fund me so I doubt the Arthur Findlay Fund Raising would bother them to much

The late reporting would be early compared to last year. There is a natural tardiness for Companies House to impose any punishment, especially on not for profits with charitable status; indeed with the recently lodged changes it is possible they have already asked for a delay or have in place a special arrangement which may still flag as overdue.

I think working on these areas is unlikely to have a major impact. Unless, of course someone has the time and energy to weave them into the other problems in a presentation to the notoriously slow to act Charities Commission to wake them up.

It is, unfortunately beyond my skill in Trusts and Charities. Psychic Press (Psychic News) vs the SNU was a much more simple tale of the SNU trying to claim it owned the assets of the Company being put into liquidation.As a result it was seeking an advantage over the creditors. My opinion on that was it was this was a much more actionable wrong doing ans somehow the SNU escaped what should have been a belting.

This is really evolving into issues around the 20 tutors and the misuse of SNU people and funds to channel a stronger platform for the existing President. It also raises an issue as to how a person ejected from the AFC for ill conduct can become the key person in the AFC on merely a change of President. Transparency of the organisation is highly questionable and the apparent ability of the President to have unfettered power

I have asked some questions elsewhere and wait for some more thoughts. As you can expect I have seen the contract anonymity does wonders and with odd email addresses and user names I have no idea who gave it to me. I wouldn't sign it and I am sure it fails the Aussie Pub Test (would the guy down the pub think it fair). Depends though whether the apparent status as non employee was specifically in the old arrangements or could they have been silent leaving that the Tutors were actually casual employees, which given their long term roles as vital parts of the organisation, created some emplomyemt safeguards which are being overruled in the new agreement.

Then we have the high court writ, depending upon the case and its content does place the NEC at risk, if they have operated outside the law when that old chestnut Ultra Vires could hit them. Risks are many even refunding legal fees personally if they acted outside of their powers. It possibly should be causing both Presidential candidates and the VP's and whole NEC to pull back and think.

But, we are a bit outside of my pay-grade and a knowledge of what the Constitution says is the aims of the organisation. If the new aims outlined by the NEC, do not match these there could be a problem just from that change of purpose, without a match in the Constitution.

Still lots to ponder, a wise NEC may well suspend the election, but, does the constitution allow for that. If it does not then it may be wiser for the two parties to agree to stand down and a neutral party allowed to become President with a mandate to resolve all the issues, indeed that may be the best solution to prevent more of the current punishment or reward, from the next incumbent..

quote: "....If it does not then it may be wiser for the two parties to agree to stand down and a neutral party allowed to become President with a mandate to resolve all the issues......"

It seems to me that the individuals involved are unlikely to be concerned and will just press ahead given the complexity of the situation and the unlikelihood that anybody will take them to task over any potential wrongdoings.......

It looks to me like they hold all the aces.