I have offered to participate in a re-vitalised AFFS which you nicely
acknowledged, and since then you have been rude to me, even appearing to
question my right to post to this mailing list.
Perhaps because I have not provided the information you wanted, but
rather nicely suggested (having had personal experience with more than
one lapsing organization) that you won't get any answers because there
aren't any, you seem to think you can be rude and expect me to shut up
and go away. This is the message that your attitude communicates.
As far as I see it having read all of the posts, there are no officers,
their election having lapsed and you are (probably) the only member, in
which case it may have been down to you in the last few years to hold
elections and post meeting notices, but possibly (for valid personal
reasons too, no doubt) you were paying about as much attention as
everyone else seems to have been. It has been suggested that if you are
the only member that there is even no association.
If you don't want "not members" (which is probably almost everyone
except you) and "never members" to join in the conversation, then -
having placed your notice - hold the discussion in private.
As you are holding a public discussion I'm trying to be helpful; and
state some things that I thought you would have known but appear not to:
Volunteers often over estimate their ability in an underestimated
capacity. In other words they are helpful and hopeful and often the
other members leave them to get on with it and members often don't even
bother to make themselves aware of how well the volunteer is managing
under the new burden. Perhaps you fall under this category of member,
and if so, no doubt you have your reasons just as everyone else will.
You seem to have believe that you have a better understanding of the
responsibilities and liabilities of these officers (and perhaps you do)
but if you do, how can you be surprised if these officers fail to
understand these responsibilities as well as you do, and fail to meet
your demands? Even now they are acting as volunteers in answering your
questions.
And when I see what appears to be veiled legal threats and accusations
of non-members eyeing up the funds; I just have to ask: Can't you see
that it's not working? Whatever you are trying to do and find out is not
working - you need the co-operation of these old members and officers,
and you aren't getting that. Many people reply and tell you WHY you
aren't, but you don't try another approach.
I do not see how the AFFS can be resurrected - as the main instigator
has both practically declared it to be a legal impossibility as well as
alienating everyone who could help!
Who can answer your questions now after threats of being made to answer?
Will the answer be used in evidence? You adversarial posturing makes one
question the wisdom in telling you anything at all about the facts - it
may be safer to not try to recall a faulty memory and just let the money
go to the crown.
My reading is this:
If we can't tell how many members there are, then we can't suppose that
the association has ceased to exist, only that it has failed to keep
some of it's rules. If this much can't be agreed then there isn't enough
agreement to re-start anyway - if you want to resurrect, then keep it
that way, have a few new people pay their dues and elect new officers.
(I don't think I want to be one, the burden seems too great now).
Sam
John¹ wrote:
On Monday 02 March 2009 21:56:48 Adam Bower wrote:
Please elaborate on this, I am very interested to hear who you think
would have any power to compel me to answer to them and for what
reasons.
Go to a library, find a book on the law of meetings, when AFFS was set up,
and its rules were being adapted from a set of model rules, I think the
title of the book that I and others borrowed had the title, "The Law of
Meetings", due to Sedition, Riot, public order and the American War of
Independence, a huge body of law, civil and criminal has evolved around
meetings, their conduct, and the bodies that hold them. Look up the
section that covers the conduct of the business of an association, the
members access to minutes, membership, expulsion, and most importantly who
it is that carries the responsibility when things go wrong. It is the
members of the Committee, or whatever title the decision making body has!
That is why bigger associations indemnify the members of their committee,
against loss if they make the wrong decision, as the members can recover
any losses from them, separately and severally, i.e. if the members need
£1,000,000.00 repaid to them because the committee didn't spend it in a
proper way, then if one member has more money than the others, the money
can be recovered unevenly, taking everything from the poorer members, and
the balance from the one who was a multi millionaire, or of course the
other way round, taking all the money from the multi millionaire, as the
others have no assets.
As I remember it the most common cases arise around the misuse of the
associations funds, and expulsion, (Young v The Imperial Ladies Club?), a
matter concerning what the Committee had the right to do, which seems to
be applicable here, and it revolved around a lack of notice being given to
someone who had had their membership revoked. The precedent should be easy
enough to find.
In the case of the AFFS, we are looking at a matter which seems to
escalated quite quickly over a weekend with those who were involved,
getting quite heated because they are being asked to explain their past
actions or neglect, when I set out to find out what had happened in order
to make sure that any new rules made the workings of any revived body
easier.
For most of the small associations that exist there are no problems, and
the committee members do not realise that they have such onerous
responsibilities, However when things do go wrong, as in this case, in
particular with your making remarks such as " you have only acted in a
manner that would suggest you wish to carry out a witch hunt", "you can
ask these questions until the heat death of the universe", "It's because
you have no interest in doing anything with what is left of AFFS right
now", " anything else will be ignored if coming from John Seago", it does
tend make a bad situation worse. But as I have pointed matters escalate
quite quickly, even when no conflict existed in the first place. However
you should be aware that failing to adhere to the Constitution, or even
simply making mistakes, leaves all the Committee, (and as I understand
even those who were not present when the mistake was made, responsible,
and liable).
Now I am not saying that matters will come to that point, but others have
been making statements to this list concerning the 'legal' position of the
AFFS, its members, their membership, the loss of their membership, etc.,
etc., and from what I remember of the case that I was involved in it
included all the members of the Committee at the time of the action, even
those who had not been at the meeting that took the action, (see the
exchange of messages between myself an Jason Clifford).
If you are concerned, I will give you the same advice I gave him, see a
solicitor, because the committee in question included you, and as it is
not clear what it did when and why, you are included. But again as I said
don't take my advice on this matter, I was only ever involved in one case,
on the winning side, go and see a solicitor, as I am not one, and even if
I was my opinion would not be free.
I think that I have been quite 'elaborate' enough above
_______________________________________________
Fsfe-uk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
