Why is there a Clash between the Tutors and the AFC

Janhar wrote:

notabigjump wrote:Sadly we hear of more heavy handed ways towards remaining tutors and another one recently withdrew because they were told, that if they didn't participate in 'open week' they would not be offered further weeks at the college. This was a long standing tutor who felt blackmailed by those in charge.

That is appalling. Open week has never been a compulsory thing….surely not. I know PJ told some of last years open week NEW tutors that open week is a good way to get yourself noticed by course organisers….which seems reasonable enough but I never heard of there being any suggestion of them HAVING to do it. It was a tutor who hasn't worked there for a while who said this and she didn’t seem to have taken it as anything but good advice. I just don’t get it. Maybe the long standing ones are getting more pressure about doing Open Week.
I meant THIS year’s.

When I was a tutor at the AFC it was optional, but if you were free, they did like you to attend if you could. There was never any pressure to go on open week.

Welcome to SNU democracy

.Push out JA from VP position, which is what happened, who had the majority of the members vote, and then put your preferred candidate in position who had hardly any support from the membership. Cronyism in the highest order.

Our son Sam rang yesterday evening and we had an interesting chat with him about this, he has very current knowledge on Trustee duties because he studied it with care before he accepted a role as a Trustee for The Public Interest Law Centre https://www.pilc.org.uk/about/ anyone who wants to know why his views may be valid should read his Bio on the Trustee section of their web site, let us be honest he missed being dux of his law year by only 0.1%.

So, his views, which I solicited a while ago, were that Companies House would be a hard route because they are significantly under resourced, so a slip like not having electronic voting would be washed over, especially as it was ratified at the subsequent AGM.

He also though that the Charities Commission would be hard work, unless the actions of the President could be proved to be harmful to the achievement of the aims of the Charity. Therefore, legal actions against the President and the NEC may not be enough to get them to act, especially in employment matters, but he did agree that contractors, with a long term of services could be deemed as employees. However, he felt that this would not even be enough to force action by the Commissioners.

He clearly thought that a go funding campaign would not shake anything out of either the Charities or fund-raising commission.
However, the fact that so many employees and tutors had left may be an issue if it meant that it could be proved that the fault lay with the President and the NEC and it affected the Charities ability to meet its aims or created serious financial risk to its ongoing viability.

Action would be more likely to succeed if the complaint was made by a Trustee and as a minimum a member of the organisation. They would tend to ignore third parties.

More interestingly, he commented that, in a set up like the SNU, with a Company Limited by Guarantee and a Trust, it is not only the named Trustees but implicitly the NEC as Company Directors, who are regarded as Trustees. The Directors are subject to double Jeopardy under the Companies and Charities rules. Also that organisations like this are more likely to be scrutinised.

He did his homework on his risk and requirements in becoming a Trustee. As a Chartered Accountant he was able to access one of their courses, but they also worked with following excellent Charities Commission document.

I do hope that the President, VP’s and NEC members have studied this and also the Companies House Requirements for Directors. A lack of knowledge of legal requirements is no defence at all and they could become personally liable.

I also hope the Trustees also understand their duties, if they are aware of issues within the organisation, that could place it at risk they are bound to inform the commission. Once again inaction through a lack of legal understanding is no defence and they could become personally liable.

I personally believe the poor employment practice’s which are indicated by the number of tutor and other employees who are leaving, with no obvious intent from management to rectify matters, could already endanger the SNU. Add to that the unusual resignations of two elected VPs, both either at an AGM or within 10 days of it. However,  I doubt the Charities Commission would agree unless a current trustee raised it, In reality I have to think that some of these must be getting uneasy about events.

However, this would certainly change were more tutors to withdraw and further resignations received from employees, without apparent management action to arrest these departures. If this did happen it would become much easier to make an argument that the acts of the President, or their inaction in dealing with so many issues regarding employment, could be perceived to be harmful to the achievement of the charities aims.

It’s well worth looking at this publication. (This and the duties of Directors should be the bible of the President, Vice President, NEC Members and Trustees). As Company Secretary, as well as CFO, of a medium sized Family Business it was one of my key duties to ensure those on the Board were kept updated on legal issues.

CHARITY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND AND WALES
GUIDANCE - The essential trustee: what you need to know, what you need to do
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66290919b0ace32985a7e6c3/CC3_feb24.pdf

Extract

Your legal duty                                                        
• Act in your charity’s best interests Manage your charity’s resources responsibly
• Act with reasonable care and skill It’s vital that you Deal with conflicts of interest
• Implement appropriate financial controls
• Manage risks Take appropriate advice when you need to, for example when buying or selling land, or investing (in some cases this is a legal requirement)

Trustees who act in breach of their legal duties can be held responsible for consequences that flow from such a breach and for any loss the charity incurs as a result. When the Commission looks into cases of potential breach of trust or duty or other misconduct or mismanagement, it may take account of evidence that trustees have exposed the charity, its assets or its beneficiaries to harm or undue risk by not following good practice.


Good stuff there if you are on the NEC get reading and seek the Companies House publication on the Duties of Directors.

Then remember that, if your President or the common mentality of a committee drives you down pathways that are outside these rules, everything you own is put on the line if, by mischance, it goes pear shaped. If you think its going wrong, you have a duty to sort it out.

Its also worth remembering that resigning or even being sacked does not exclude you from liability, unless you could prove that you had spoken out and detailed your issues with the situation. Politely worded departures leave you hanging in the air.

JNR wrote:Welcome to SNU democracy

.Push out JA from VP position, which is what happened, who had the majority of the members vote, and then put your preferred candidate in position who had hardly any support from the membership. Cronyism in the highest order.

Thanks JNR, no surprises, except this one was a much quicker replacement than the one that gave up at the 2023 AGM.

We don’t yet know what the original 20 tutor complaint was and whether there have been other formal complaints or whether any of these complaints have gone beyond investigation and are now going further. We just have to wait a while longer.

Janhar wrote:We don’t yet know what the original 20 tutor complaint was and whether there have been other formal complaints or whether any of these complaints have gone beyond investigation and are now going further. We just have to wait a while longer.

Janhar we have so much information, it is not about waiting, it is about whether anything can be done on the basis of what we know. You may never know the basis of those complaints, but they are real and we know the complaints committee accepted them and were dismissed, rejected by the NEC and the committee dismissed. The head of that committee, the President of a DC , felt compelled to resign and many are distressed by his departure.

I can see little good happening now, stand up everyone, find your cojones. Spiritualism is dying and the SNU has to stop the year's of self destruction to become, as per Arthur Findlay's book , The Torchbearers, promoting, proving life after death and speaking intelligently and coherently as he did. The college is named in his stead.

Do not steal his legacy, prove you are worthy of it and you are competent to do so.

Maybe it is only those at the AFC who can stop her. The people who work there and the remaining Tutors must be really stressed and aware of what is going on. Yes some are staunch JW supporters but if the balance, or a large part, withdrew, then it could cause a crisis that forces the Charities Commission to act. Alternatively it may force the President to re think where they are going.

Really this year Jackie Wright only won 31.2 % of the possible votes, over 53% refused to vote... Under what mandate is this chaos being allowed to happen. David Bruton please accept he was a cause not a solution.

Admin wrote:Maybe it is only those at the AFC who can stop her. The people who work there and the remaining Tutors must be really stressed and aware of what is going on. Yes some are staunch JW supporters but if the balance, or a large part, withdrew, then it could cause a crisis that forcing the Charities Commission to act. Alternatively it may force the President to re think where they are going.

As you know, from what I wrote a little while back, I agree it is in the hands of the entire SNU hierarchy and the remaining tutors. The SNU churches are happy so they will not back this.

Janhar wrote:

Admin wrote:Maybe it is only those at the AFC who can stop her. The people who work there and the remaining Tutors must be really stressed and aware of what is going on. Yes some are staunch JW supporters but if the balance, or a large part, withdrew, then it could cause a crisis that forcing the Charities Commission to act. Alternatively it may force the President to re think where they are going.

As you know, from what I wrote a little while back, I agree it is in the hands of the entire SNU hierarchy and the remaining tutors. The SNU churches are happy so they will not back this.

The weird thing is that all her efforts are now in the AFC Janhar, she seems to have little interest in the churches, at this point in time. Once she has, if she can, tame the AFC, then brought it under her total control, why do the churches believe that they are exempt from changes that bring them under the same level of control. I think it's time they paid more attention to the underlying  possibilities of what could occur.

She has to focus on the AFC because that is where most of the unions money came from. For years it was leakng money until Duncan Gasgoyne steadied the ship and made it a very profitable place. But costly repairs, the pandemic and now lack of tutors have cost it dearly.

"Whether such injustice arises by intent, merely by omission due to inherent bias or discrimination, or solely by way of overzealous or negligent enforcement, I feel it is important to hold government and public bodies to account for it and thus hopefully to effect positive change."

Seem very relevant words when looking at what has been going on at the SNU.

Janhar wrote:
The SNU churches are happy so they will not back this.

This disturbs me because the AFC has been the cash cow for the SNU. Churches have benefitted. It is not good to hear of such a fractured organisation. As mentioned before, the two branches can be separated in administration, but the finances affect everyone. It reminds me of the "I'm alright Jack" mentality and so that's ok?!?

It's a shame if that is the attitude of churches. Many AFC tutors have done fundraisers for struggling churches and care very much for them.

notabigjump wrote:

Janhar wrote:
The SNU churches are happy so they will not back this.

This disturbs me because the AFC has been the cash cow for the SNU. Churches have benefitted. It is not good to hear of such a fractured organisation. As mentioned before, the two branches can be separated in administration, but the finances affect everyone. It reminds me of the "I'm alright Jack" mentality and so that's ok?!?

It's a shame if that is the attitude of churches. Many AFC tutors have done fundraisers for struggling churches and care very much for them.

I think the chuches on the whole do appreciate the College and many of the church members go regularly to the AFC.
When I say they will not back this, I mean they will not back an action against J W because she supports the churches and they like her for it.

Janhar wrote:I think the churches on the whole do appreciate the College and many of the church members go regularly to the AFC.
When I say they will not back this, I mean they will not back an action against J W because she supports the churches and they like her for it.

I see this quite a lot but wonder what it means in practice. Yes she did do road trips and yes her perfectly polished PR machine keeps rolling those lines out. However, it appears she is a little obsessed with the AFC and spends an inordinate amount of time on it. If we add the fact  that all educational issues have been rolled back from the DC's to a central education committee it may appear that this support is not all it is played out to be.

JBodolski wrote:She has to focus on the AFC because that is where most of the unions money came from. For years it was leakng money until Duncan Gasgoyne steadied the ship and made it a very profitable place. But costly repairs, the pandemic and now lack of tutors have cost it dearly.

Good to see Duncan Gasgoyne get a mention, probably one of the last decent Presidents, also interested on Philosophy and History.

Of course that is right she has to get the AFC right but it plays against what she says; so turn the PR campaign up a notch and make the churches feel good. There is also a madness in the Financial Reporting at AGM's which always suggests, prima facie, that the education side of the SNU loses money hand over fist. Now this is my very specialist area but a church seeing that must feel the SNU is pouring money down the drain with the AFC and attempts to do the education.

Now I have already said, on this topic, the issue is that the entire cost of running the SNU is spread over the basis of revenue earned and as the Education side has the vast majority if the revenue it carries nearly the full cost of the SNU. Take the AFC out and the SNU would have to run, to use an old term, on the smell of an oily rag. Almost everything would have to be cut right back and the Churches would have to kick in a lot more. (I will not make my usual rant about Accountants apportioning costs although I know many companies who have died as a result of this idiocy but then my clients call me the Occult Accountant).

A sensible person, who wanted to remind the whole SNU how dependent it was on the AFC, would stop this practice. Hmm, that would create new issues, when the Churches and Members realised just how much the SNU cost to run and they could easily see the individual cost of legals, PR, HR, Admin etc.. I think a few dour Yorkshire and Scottish Bods (Ok apologies for the stereotypes, i suspect that wish would be echoed throughout the country) would look to have the purse strings tightened.

Of course the Churches are the backbone of the movement one of the first places a seeker is likely to meet our movement so they need help, encouragement and promotion. They also need to help so that they can offer basic healing and development classes at all centres, these are the initial stepping stones for new mediums. The AFC is the cherry on the top a place for wannabe mediums, or psychics, I would suggest that, these days, there is a bigger proportion who are  uninterested in Spiritualism but in putting their shingle up and getting a return on the investment they have made taking those courses.

I'm unsure whether it's been mentioned previously but can anyone explain to me why some of the admin of the SNU is not allowed to divulge the email addresses of members to other members yet SNU wishes the officers of the churches to have their name, email address and telephone number on the foot of the church's official letters. I would have thought that issuing a name, phone number and email address on this paperwork could lead to any unstable Tom Dick or Harry stalking the officers of the church.

They cannot make them do it, it is personal data which in the public domain would be uncontrollable.

Anniemillo1 wrote:I'm unsure whether it's been mentioned previously but can anyone explain to me why some of the admin of the SNU is not allowed to divulge the email addresses of members to other members yet SNU wishes the officers of the churches to have their name, email address and telephone number on the  foot of the church's official letters.   I would have thought that issuing a name, phone number and email address on this paperwork could lead to any unstable Tom Dick or Harry stalking the officers of the church.

Jbodski wrote:They cannot make them do it, it is personal data which in the public domain would be uncontrollable.

I agree that no one can be made to provide personal details and quite rightly. However, a church needs contact points, Lis and I know that with 26 years and rising running a centre which reaches its centenary next year.

We try to deal with that by having a hosted website with email addresses for leader etc and having a mobile phone for the centre. But people know are names but our personal phone numbers still get out and yes we get nutters, including one who stalked our home. I am also first line to the ones who ask me very strange questions.

And here it is !

Legal processes take time and many claimed the threat of a court action against the SNU/AFC, was purely malicious gossip. In fact, a source of the NEC called it out as malicious gossip.

The President will likely have known about this and kept the NEC and its officers in the dark for as long as possible. Considering the Directors believed it was merely gossip, suggests they had no inkling.

I would be running for the hills if I was on either committee and distancing myself from the current toxic working environment.

Yet we have the proof. The first pre-trial hearing take place at Chelmsford County court today.

Here is the court listing and the case is against the SNU and the AFC:

I for one am not suprised. I often warned people about her real nature due to the vile things she said about me, and did to me. Not only to my face but also behind my back, against which I had to defend myself. Many are now seeing the truth.

Jbodoski wrote:I for one am not suprised. I often warned people about her real nature due to the vile things she said about me, and did to me. Not only to my face but also behind my back, against which I had to defend myself. Many are now seeing the truth.

That sounds awful. It is no way to promote Spiritualism by bringing others down. We need to be raising each other up, but to do that there is a current battle on several fronts. Such a shame and so many good people lost to the SNU and the college now.

notabigjump wrote:
Here is the court listing and the case is against the SNU and the AFC:

Pinca v SNU/AFC
So who is Pinca?

Thanks notabigjump this is fascinating and as you say should make the whole NEC , President, Vice Presidents, Finance Director and the ordinary directors think hard. No way back now you have, even if you did not know what was going on, been a part of what has happened, liable. Good luck if it goes wrong because the charities commission will not allow the SNU to cover your legal costs and penalties. Time to seek advice for your own good. This is going so wrong and damaging the reputation of the organisation.

Slatewriter wrote:

notabigjump wrote:
Here is the court listing and the case is against the SNU and the AFC:

Pinca v SNU/AFC
So who is Pinca?

We will find out soon, I am sure.

Admin wrote:Thanks notabigjump this is fascinating and as you say should make the whole NEC , President, Vice Presidents, Finance Director and the ordinary directors think hard. No way back now you have, even if you did not know what was going on, been a part of what has happened, liable. Good luck if it goes wrong because the charities commission will not allow the SNU to cover your legal costs and penalties. Time to seek advice for your own good. This is going so wrong and damaging the reputation of the organisation.

This is interesting. The SNU is bound by law to inform and involve the Charities Commission if there are any legal proceedings against them. They cannot simply pay someone off with an NDA out of their own funds.