Why is there a Clash between the Tutors and the AFC Part 2

Mac wrote
With respect what I'm seeing/reading actually does make you look like the keyboard warriors you say you're not and if you're not going to accept remaining an SNU member under the developing regime what do you have to lose by calling out the protagonists under your own name?  If you're banned by the current bods in charge then if/when the new ones take charge you'll be able to re-join - wouldn't you?  And if you're attempting to change things from inside the organisation you may need the support of those who don't know who you are or that you're doing anything anyway.....

It seems to me you're trapped between the Biblical rock and a hard place and from the little I'm hearing you're in no position to bring about any of the changes you want.  

This is very logical. The people who would eject you are not people that matter to you as you would not stay if they stayed. I do appreciate that it is very hard to lose hard won awards though. However, for those who are held back by that I say to you that your gift and your experience cannot be taken away. Your ability to work with that gift cannot be taken away either. However, did I not read something about  people having awards reinstated upon rejoining?

notabigjump wrote:

Janhar wrote:Can I just make the point here that you do not get taken to court for expressing an opinion (though you might get kicked out of the SNU). Providing your opinions are not worded in a way that could be construed as defamatory or untrue you have done nothing wrong.

Nobody is mentioning courts. What you state may be so, but others inside and outside of the membership have expressed their views and received threatening legal letters and private abuse. Their views are deemed as bringing the SNU in to disrepute. That's very stressful for many who are trying to speak their truth.

The same applies. Legal action need not be feared if you are careful how you say things. Now I am not setting myself up as a model of diplomacy because I have a very big gob (as we say up North) and therefore I might not be the best example. However, I do try not to be defamatory or to say anything untrue. Legal letters are just that. It only becomes a legal action if you have transgressed.
I do know what it is like to receive an accusing communication, and it is distressing. If I was abused verbally or online I would be devastated so I do understand the fear.

Hi, I would have no problem putting my real name to my comments. I have expressed them to JW before and was intending to keep my SNU and SNUi membership ongoing because I always thought that you need to stay in an organisation to fight for what is morally wrong but after the fiasco of the Tutors and the AGM, the voting, bye laws changed, Churches up for sale, having doubts if the actual membership numbers are true, a President with very little support in the grand scheme of things due to apathy in the membership, NEC who were not voted in, my thoughts were, do I really want to fight for this regime that is getting so far from the Spiritualist organisation that I joined and very few members are voicing their opinion so I let my membership lapse in October, 2024. I am so glad that I made the decision to walk away as now it looks like they are going to have kangaroo courts and who is going to police them? Members spying and reporting each other. People scrolling through facebook pages, sending, which I believe, threatening emails regarding their views, Hitler and Putin would be proud. We have to remember that you don't need to be a member of the SNU or SNUi to be a Spiritualist and if it's the teaching side of things that you think you will miss out on then there are numerous teaching facilities out there like 'The Psyche Centre' where you get taught mediumship, philosophy, speaking, healing etc and gain fully accredited awards, which are yours for life because you studied for them, you paid for them and they can't get taken away from you by a dictatorship regime if your face or views don't fit in with theirs. Plus you don't have to learn the history of the SNU which about 3/4 of their teaching is included for exams. Have a word with your Spirit and see where you are guided. What is actually best for YOU!!!!!

Janhar wrote:

Mac wrote
With respect what I'm seeing/reading actually does make you look like the keyboard warriors you say you're not and if you're not going to accept remaining an SNU member under the developing regime what do you have to lose by calling out the protagonists under your own name?  If you're banned by the current bods in charge then if/when the new ones take charge you'll be able to re-join - wouldn't you?  And if you're attempting to change things from inside the organisation you may need the support of those who don't know who you are or that you're doing anything anyway.....

It seems to me you're trapped between the Biblical rock and a hard place and from the little I'm hearing you're in no position to bring about any of the changes you want.  

This is very logical. The people who would eject you are not people that matter to you as you would not stay if they stayed. I do appreciate that it is very hard to lose hard won awards though. However, for those who are held back by that I say to you that your gift and your experience cannot be taken away. Your ability to work with that gift cannot be taken away either. However, did I not read something about  people having awards reinstated upon rejoining?

notabigjump wrote: by notabigjump on Tue 24 Dec 2024 - 12:47

   Janhar wrote:
   Can I just make the point here that you do not get taken to court for expressing an opinion (though you might get kicked out of the SNU). Providing your opinions are not worded in a way that could be construed as defamatory or untrue you have done nothing wrong.



Nobody is mentioning courts. What you state may be so, but others inside and outside of the membership have expressed their views and received threatening legal letters and private abuse. Their views are deemed as bringing the SNU in to disrepute. That's very stressful for many who are trying to speak their truth.

I do wish people would not dive in with their views on peoples rights to anonymity & then obfuscate, by confusing legal rules and wording which may prevent legal action if they speak out, with the blunt actions the SNU, or its NEC have taken towards individuals who have spoken out. The Admin's on here are happy with Anonymity so Mac is Mac and Janhar is Janhar. That's the rules unless they change their forum names by choice.

I also point out that, with the exception of those individual tutors who are directly involved in recent events, no one has spoken against the other tutors who signed the contract and remained. So Janhar's implication that this thread has done this very thing, is incorrect. I have to specify this because I am also aware that some of those remaining Tutors have sympathies with the 21 Tutors who have departed.

Those involved are of course JW, SW and PJ although we have questioned what role SJ and BR are playing. I would not want someone, who appears to have more support to the position of the SNU and JW, to be able to be convinced that our issue is with the other tutors who stayed, some of whom are friends of mine.

Admin (both Lis and I) are happy with posters working anonymously, let us be honest the two, suggesting that people should stop doing so, are both posting using anonymous names, even though, from the tone of their posts, they will never be in trouble with either the SNU or from legal issues. They are also, by definition, the keyboard warriors Mac has suggested people on here are, with no direct personal knowledge of events.

When I am posting it is sometimes only my thoughts, mey experience and legal knowledge, which may, technically make me a keyboard warrior to.  However, on many occasions it is from something I know from others, worded to reflect the legal niceties of fair comment and a right for people to know what is happening. In contrast to these posts we know that many of the other, anonymous posters, have practical and direct knowledge, of events, ex NEC, ex tutors, current tutors or NEC members, people who have been acted against, etc. etc., for all we know. Many have all to lose if their real name is found out , especially with the new Bye Laws, . I respect their right to anonymity.

Please leave this alone. We would also like any comments about the newcomers who join this forum never posting, to cease. At least they have joined, Lis and I welcome their presence. For every joiner we have about 100 guests frequently visiting this site because this is not a members only forum, but a place where any seeker can find information.

To get back on track with something posted that was very important. The New Bye Laws

Neither Mac, or Janhar have made any comment about the very draconian bye laws now in place, moving instead to challenge people posting anonymously. These rules are controlling and effectively cancel the rights of members, Tutors, Healers indeed all award holders. They have, in effect, removed any place for a complaints system once interviewed and reported to the NEC, action can occur with silence guaranteed

These new bye laws must not be brushed under the carpet and forgotten; we know that people who have been vocal have been silenced.

Powers of Collegiate Committee
Bye-laws A
In Schedule 2, paragraph (1), add a new sub-paragraph (f) to read as follows:-
(f) To interview any AFC Teacher, Course Organiser or Tutor whose competence or
conduct has given rise to concern and submit its report and recommendations to the
National Executive Committee.
Purpose: This amendment empowers the Collegiate Committee to interview, and report
on, any AFC Teacher, Course Organiser or Tutor whose competence or conduct
gives rise to concern.

Powers of Education & Exponents Committee
Bye-laws A
In Schedule 2, paragraph (3), insert a new sub-paragraph (n) to read as follows:-
(n) To interview any holder of a non-healing award (with the exception of a Service
award) or accreditation whose competence or conduct has given rise to concern and
submit its report and recommendations to the National Executive Committee.
and re-letter the succeeding sub-paragraph accordingly.
Purpose: This amendment empowers the Education & Exponents Committee to interview,
and report on, any holder of a non-healing award (except a Service award) or
accreditation whose competence or conduct gives rise to concern.

Powers of Healing Committee
Bye-laws A
In Schedule 2, paragraph (6), amend sub-paragraph (m) to read as follows:-
(m) To prepare students for upgrading and awards.
Insert a new sub-paragraph (o) to read as follows:-
(o) To interview any holder of a healing award or accreditation whose competence or
conduct has given rise to concern and submit its report and recommendations to the
National Executive Committee.
and re-letter the succeeding sub-paragraph accordingly.
Purpose: This amendment rectifies the reference to District Council upgrading and
awards, which are now dealt with nationally, and empowers the Healing
Committee to interview, and report on, any holder of a healing award or
accreditation whose competence or conduct gives rise to concern.

Powers of Ministry Development Committee
Bye-laws A
In Schedule 2, paragraph (7), insert new sub-paragraphs (k) and (l) to read as follows:-
(k) To conduct a periodical review of all Ministers, Officiants and Approved Celebrants
and submit recommendations to the National Executive Committee.
(l) To interview any Minister, Officiant or Approved Celebrant whose competence or
conduct has given rise to concern and submit its report and recommendations to the
National Executive Committee.
and re-letter the succeeding sub-paragraphs accordingly.
Purpose: These amendments require the Ministry Development Committee to conduct a
periodical review of members of the Ministry and empower it to interview, and
report on, any member of the Ministry whose competence or conduct gives rise
to concern.

I will leave this post at that, to discuss the severity of this action by the NEC. Anonymously if people wish that to be the case. I am determined that there be no more debate upon posting or joining anonymously

I am also re posting this important one lest it be forgotten in the debate about anonymity; such posts which will now be deleted if they return or posts including these things with valid comments edited to remove them

notabigjump wrote:I can confirm that the Head of Governance has officially resigned and finished her notice period last week. She has been added to the growing list.

Here is a roll call of honour of the growing list of people and roles who are believed to have resigned or had to withdraw their services or awards, since Jackie Wright became President. The list is growing and amongst some, are employment tribunals which are either ongoing or have been won in the complainants favour. I have removed surnames :

20 AFC Tutors plus Minister Matthew (withdrawn services)

Resigned or pushed from committees or paid employment:
Christine
Alv
Ann
Danny
Pat
Jane
Anne-Marie
Adam
Richard
Rachel (SNU)
Julia  (Resigned as elected Vice President)
Alessandro (AFC )
Dean (AFC)
Tanya AFC (AFC)
Kelly (AFC )
Will (AFC)
Minister Libby
Keith
Graham
Simone (SNUI)
Colin
Lyn
Lisa (SNU)

Current Legal Proceedings Against The SNU

Employment Tribunals x 2
Civil Proceedings x 1
Legal proceedings due x 20

SNU Centres and Churches For Sale

The Barbanell Centre
Walthamstow
Hounslow (Under offer)
Sheffield
Darlington
Runcorn
Stafford

To be continued….

I am also revisiting this very important point raised by a new poster, which was lost sight of in that anonymity debate, if others like Anniemillo1 feel their point was missed I will be happy to have them requote the post

minerva12 wrote:One area of discussion that is missed here that many may at least find hopeful, is looking at things from a District and Church level! There are many Churches, were JW simply isnt welcome and others such as PJ aren't invited.

One only has to look at were their main "wins" are and one can tell that they push heavily a very small clique of churches were JW has managed to insert or promote her own followers, and even there, there are whispers of discontent.

With first hand experience, I have spoken with many Church Presidents and District Council Committee members who express a real dissastisfaction with the attitude of the President... during one off the Yorkshire districts session, her behaviour was said to be so intolerable as to turn many off the Committee against her in one meeting and it is only due to the President off the district having "ambitions" that the council didnt essentially turf her out. In one District she is not welcome at all due to major procedural issues during their AGM which she and M/M personally oversaw.... the district was placed into special measures, without JW or M/M informing the proper authorities at head office, and it was only when the President of that District contacted head office themselves, did it become known the action she had taken single-handely.

It may not sound a hopeful point, but when one speaks with the grassroots/volunteers, their is a deeper dissastisfaction than many perhaps in the online community are unaware off.......we put a heavy focus on AFC and the goings on their in the various committees and such, but we perhaps should consider further down the ladder, amongst those who could not give a hoot about the College, there is a real mood of displeasure and MANY who believe she needs to be removed. Even in the Northern districts, with her own district, you notice she attends a VERY limited number of churches, and that is within her very own district.

It is a bleak picture, but scratch a little below the surface and she is not in as comfortable a position as it appears....with no real credible alternative at the last election, it seems more people voted with the idea in mind of "who else" or perhaps "give her a little time" rather than some form off love affair.

This is a very important point and I believe it valid, sadly church members do not get a vote Churches do so Church Committees can disavow their views. I also wonder, as church members are not SNU members, how church members can be excluded from the churches they attend by the action of the NEC, if the Church Committee refuse to act upon their instructions. I suppose by ordering the Church to close.

Thank you for your comments Admin. Having followed the SNU and Tutors issues from the beginning I have no problem with people hiding their real names. It great to know we may have tutors and some of those in the NEC or ex NEC. I am also pleased to know that there may be pro president people here as well. this seems to be the only place where people can speak out against what is happening, and for those pro president to read and know there are others out there who can see what is really going on.

I'm not a SNU member and haven't been for a while. Like Anniemillo1, the president herself knows the reason I dropped my membership because I told her. I've had the pleasure of what the NEC and the president can do to a person, unfortunately I cannot speak about it because of the usual NDA, I have kept all the emails, letters from some very high up members and former members of the SNU. One day they might be of use to someone.
It's a very sad time for the SNU and the religion of Spiritualism. I'm Shocked that others have allowed and in some way encouraged this new path the SNU is sliding down.
Are these changes actually legal, isn't a registered charity supposed to be open and transparent? As others have already mentioned it looks to me like the SNU is crawling ever closer to a cult, with McCarthyism and the Stasi holding the reins. Surely the Charities Commission should be made aware of this new step towards a darkness that it may never recover from.

ADMIN (LIS) NOTICE: FORUM ETTIQUETTE

All Forum Members please be advised that a fundamental rule in the Forum’s Code of Conduct is that it is never acceptable for a member to use, refer to, quote in full or in part, any private message, text or email, received from any other member or any other person who is not a member of the forum, without the express foreknowledge and agreement of that person.

The Right to Privacy includes the right to be able to control who can see or use information about you. This includes written or spoken remarks made by you which was not information about you, or written or verbal remarks made by you with the intent that the information, or written or verbal remarks will be made public, or made the subject of public discussion, criticism or evaluation.

In other words, it is unacceptable to post private communications on the forum as a means of criticising or attacking another member of the forum because of perceived grievances.

If any forum member has entered into private communication with another forum member, or any forum member has received a private communication from another forum member, that in their opinion they believe is inappropriate, or has caused offence, in the first instance they should attempt to resolve that concern or grievance with the other member by further private correspondence.

It is not acceptable to take what is a private grievance onto the forum threads to publicly attack another forum member, no matter how aggrieved a member feels. It is especially unacceptable to issue challenges to another forum member, whatever their forum status may be, that implies, for example, that removal of a post would indicate unfair censorship and denial of the right to free speech.

Personal grievances do not belong on any thread on this forum. Such posts detract and distract the forum members from the topic of the thread. As such they are disruptive and destructive of the purpose of the forum. As a matter of policy, the administrators of this forum will always, regardless of whom may be the poster, act to curtail or remove posts that breach the forum’s code of conduct in this manner.

ADMIN (LIS)

Anniemillo1 wrote:having doubts if the actual membership numbers are true,

Please give an update of what you fear?

Admin wrote:

20 AFC Tutors plus Minister Matthew (withdrawn services)

Please give the initials or firstnames, as I am not 100 % sure I've got them all.
Thank you

PS: are civil court files public domain in the UK, like in the US, please?

Rumour has it that the membership is less than what was announced at the AGM. That's all I know but usually the rumours that I hear become a reality.

High5 wrote:

Admin wrote:

20 AFC Tutors plus Minister Matthew (withdrawn services)

Please give the initials or firstnames, as I am not 100 % sure I've got them all.
Thank you

PS: are civil court files public domain in the UK, like in the US, please?

I will add them soon but as you know this all takes time and work.

I have updated the roll call with the tutors names and there is another name on the general list. My sources tell me to expect more. What an utter disgrace on the part of the SNU and no signs of remorse from the President. I know there are more names but until I am sent them and they are confirmed, I cannot add them yet.

Here is a roll call of honour of the growing list of people and roles who are believed to have resigned, refused to renew membership, or had to temporarily withdraw their services from the AFC, since Jackie Wright became President.
The list is growing and amongst some, are employment tribunals which are either ongoing or have been won in the complainants favour.
I have removed surnames, except for the tutors, as they have already made their full names public in their letters on social media (the contents of which are already accessible via the forum) :

20 AFC Tutors plus Minister Matthew (withdrawn AFC services)

Ministers: Bill Thomson, Colin Bates, Libby Clark, Simone Key

Officiants: Angie Morris, John Johnson, Kitty Woud,

Diploma Holders: Anne-Marie Bond, David Schiesser, Pauline Silver, Shelley Youell

Certificate Holders: Andrew Manship, Andy Byng, Chris Drew, Lillian Steiner, Lynn Probert, Mia Ottosson, Sandie Baker, Sharon Harvey, Tony Stockwell.

Plus: Minister Mathew Smith

Resigned, refused to renew subs, ‘pushed’ from committees or paid employment:

Christine
Alv
Ann
Danny
Pat
Jane
Anne-Marie
Adam
Richard
Patricia
Helen
Rachel (SNU)
Julia  (Resigned as elected Vice President)
Alessandro (AFC )
Dean (AFC)
Tanya AFC (AFC)
Kelly (AFC )
Will (AFC)
Fiona
Libby
Keith
Graham
Simone (SNUI)
Colin
Lyn
Lisa (SNU)
Chrissie
Patricia
Jason
Matthew
Robert
Karl


Current or resolved Legal Proceedings against The SNU during this presidency.

Employment Tribunals x 2
Civil Proceedings x 4
Legal proceedings x 20

SNU Centres and Churches For Sale

The Barbanell Centre
Walthamstow
Hounslow (Under offer)
Sheffield
Darlington
Runcorn
Stafford

To be continued….

As someone who experienced being "let go" by my employer, and having observed it happening to others elsewhere, it looks to me that thinning of the numbers in the SNU/AFC looks very similar.  Perhaps everybody here has already realised it....??

Some employers overdo things but where they get things right it's a remarkably efficient - albeit very brutal - technique.

With respect, I suppose it's human nature to compare to your own experience and project that onto this situation.

But it has nothing to do with thinning of the numbers, some of the finest exponents of Spiritualism, teaching, administration and maintenance have left. That shows a very poor management and lack of people and business skills.
How can you thin down 2 x Head of Governance and the manager of the general administrators at head office in a very short time as well as AFC general managers. Those positions in themselves should ring alarm bells for any intellectual person's.

mac wrote:As someone who experienced being "let go"
by my employer, and having observed it happening to others elsewhere, it looks to me that thinning of the numbers in the SNU/AFC looks very similar.  Perhaps everybody here has already realised it....??

Some employers overdo things but where they get things right it's a remarkably efficient - albeit very brutal - technique.

mac wrote:As someone who experienced being "let go" by my employer, and having observed it happening to others elsewhere, it looks to me that thinning of the numbers in the SNU/AFC looks very similar.  Perhaps everybody here has already realised it....??

Some employers overdo things but where they get things right it's a remarkably efficient - albeit very brutal - technique.

Mac since as far back as 1981 I have been on management committees, boards and in advisory capacity. My postgraduate thesis was about Organisational Change and Industrial Psychology. I have turned a company right around, by one day of savage cuts (first to go the MD and Manufacturing manager, the cheers in the factory told me that the changes were going to work) and from that day everyone in the company knew what was happening and bought into the changes which also involved them). Sometimes I have managed to get companies that had poor cultures to change completely to their betterment.

My experience is that businesses that operate with this type of culture and chaos are those that are in the deep s... This is not a thinning of the ranks, it seems to be a chaotic clear out, as every post on here shouts out, indeed from what we have on this thread, it does appear that purely pay back comes in to some changes..

Yes there are some tough decisions employers make, but the only ones that work are done quickly and effectively, lifting morale and changing the culture for the better. Zero signs of that here and the latest Bye Laws are another instance of causing more fear. One leading Public Company here in SA never managed that cultural change and is now dead and buried with no afterlife

These are amateurs playing at managing. Point to me one person on the NEC with the management experience to pull off such a massive re calibration successfully. They are also doing what seems, on the basis, of what we can prove via the AGM and bye laws, we have seen and heard on this thread, to be poorly planned dastardly deeds.

This is the pinnacle Spiritualist Organisation, if the NEC cannot manage business at a more moral and ethical level, that expresses the meaning of our 7 Principles, we should just close it and donate the funds to a more worthy charitable outcome.

It is also mainly about the AFC, which is a teaching institution, not expressing the full face of Spiritualism. That is where the Churches come in and I suspect the people losses and cuts will flow adversely through to them. If we are seeing cuts in costs how can those churches that are no longer self sustaining remain intact. Yes the whole organisation needs change but in a humane way reflecting our Principles and involving all parties in the process not just the 10 man NEC.

High 5 wrote:PS: are civil court files public domain in the UK, like in the US, please?

It depends upon the outcome. If a pre-judgement settlement is arrived at, the settlement terms and conditions will not be come a matter of public record. If the matter is decided by the court, the decision will become a public record.

The SNU will definitely want a settlement pre judgement, if they realise a loss is the likely outcome, or in pushing on, they think that they will receive severe criticism from the judge, in their findings.

In this thread we had a report that JW has said that there is no way they will allow the tutors back into the AFC, so I imagine they will have to table a large cash offer to stop any action. (The SNU President and the NEC should really consult their lawyers and take into consideration any advice they were given by them about the tutor contracts).

I hope the tutors will be able to refuse a settlement before judgement is made, albeit in civil cases there could be mandatory mediation. Settlement that way can include an NDA.

If there is a judgement then I am reliably informed that all the court documents go into the public domain; then any NDA is, effectively, made inoperable.

If it goes into court then I imagine people can attend the sittings and the daily proceedings could be reported upon. It appears there could be at least 20 concurrent cases. That may well raise a certain level of interest by the media.

Should the NEC lose then it is possible that the judge may find that the relationship between the SNU and Tutors is so broken that they can no longer expect to work together, but then there would quite likely be a substantial pay out on each legal claim. They may of course order reinstatement with damages for lost earnings (especially as it is clear the 20 have been endeavouring to work to minimise their losses).

Whatever, happens I expect the next quarter to bring many many more things to light.

Really the SNU needs to move on from all of this and find a President who can reinstate good will amongst all parties and bring about change by consensus. I reckon they have to be clear of any of the last many years of politics and the HQ/AFC hot house.

With respect, I suppose it's human nature to compare to your own experience and project that onto this situation.

But it has nothing to do with thinning of the numbers, some of the finest exponents of Spiritualism, teaching, administration and maintenance have left. That shows a very poor management and lack of people and business skills.
How can you thin down 2 x Head of Governance and the manager of the general administrators at head office in a very short time as well as AFC general managers. Those positions in themselves should ring alarm bells for any intellectual persons.

That's your opinion and you may be proven correct but as an observer I was simply commenting on what I saw and heard.

As for poor management or business skills as I wrote elsewhere: "Some employers overdo things....."  The recently returned President survived this summer's events and is continuing with her plans. But she may not be unduly concerned if they don't all come to fruition.  

Do anyone's plans work always out in their entirety? Mine certainly don't.....

Mac since as far back as 1981 I have been on management committees, boards and in advisory capacity. My postgraduate thesis was about Organisational Change and Industrial Psychology. I have turned a company right around, by one day of savage cuts (first to go the MD and Manufacturing manager, the cheers in the fact................................e in and I suspect the people losses and cuts will flow adversely through to them. If we are seeing cuts in costs how can those churches that are no longer self sustaining remain intact. Yes the whole organisation needs change but in a humane way reflecting our Principles and involving all parties in the process not just the 10 man NEC.

There's more than one way to skin a cat......  

Our recently-returned President is doing it HER way irrespective of whether anyone else considers it poor management.  It's brutal.  The outcome can't be certain but criticism of her abilities or approach are unlikely to deter her.  The SNU members' vote returned her to a further period of presidency despite all the debate, criticism and concerns aired.

Doubtless she has made mistakes and she may make more but she may also have calculated she can weather the storm.  In what form the SNU/AFC business will survive remains to be seen.  It will almost certainly look different.  

Perhaps the root-and-branch re-organisation I suggested was needed way back in this thread?

mac wrote:

Mac since as far back as 1981 ....not just the 10 man NEC.

There's more than one way to skin a cat......  

Our recently-returned President is doing it HER way irrespective of whether anyone else considers it poor management.  It's brutal.  The outcome can't be certain but criticism of her abilities or approach are unlikely to deter her.  The SNU members' vote returned her to a further period of presidency despite all the debate, criticism and concerns aired.

Doubtless she has made mistakes and she may make more but she may also have calculated she can weather the storm.  In what form the SNU/AFC business will survive remains to be seen.  It will almost certainly look different.  

Perhaps the root-and-branch re-organisation I suggested was needed way back in this thread?

Brutal is a very true analogy for her Presidency Mac. Definitely not Spiritual or approximating any adherence to Spiritualism's Principles (maybe its no wonder she has indicated her support for changing them).

However, we will see if the blatant disregard of the Spirit of the Constitution and the Principles, shown in both the latest Bye Laws and In the one about house rules on Chairing Special or Ordinary General Meetings will finally backfire as the legal cases pile up.

It will not be easy, she can just try to ride it out as Mac suggests, while appearing to pick off her vocal critics, it is clear that she will never resign voluntarily, as a result of either perceived or real misdeeds.

Only three ways then to go.

Persuade her NEC to act, pretty unlikely I would guess.

Force a Special General Meeting to remove her. Remember at the last AGM she followed convention by appointing an "independent chairman", but she does not have to, she can exercise the power to be the Chairman and to exercise the rights conferred in those new Bye Laws. These allow the Chair to decide what business is acceptable and who can be allowed in or be removed. It would make winning the vote extremely difficult against a hostile chairman.

How about using a petition again, like the one much earlier which had over 800 signatures supporting the Tutors. Probably best to wait until other things happen, as they will, to strengthen the case.

Manage to persuade the Charities Commision to act, or go through the UK Insolvency Service who have taken over the Companies House Duties of policing Companies (Remember the SNU is a Limited Company albeit Limited by Guarantee) to persuade them the new Bye Laws are in contravention with the Articles . They can act if How to complain about a limited company

"You can make a complaint if you have reasonable grounds to suspect a currently active company of:

causing significant harm to customers, suppliers, etc
breaking the law, eg fraud
serious misconduct, eg company assets not being used properly
having significant irregularity in its affairs"
https://www.gov.uk/complain-company
In both of those cases it would probably be great if a friendly and experienced lawyer assisted. Once again it should wait until other things happen, as they will, to strengthen the case.

In either case someone has to stand as President so who, Bruton's day is done. He could never gain the support of all the bystanders who have stayed silent, letting someone with only 31.2% of the SNU vote move on to create mayhem. Remember many may be unconvinced they have a problem. How many may be thinking OK, so some Tutors are getting a beating, so what, she has promised us to protect the churches, the Tutors problems have no relevance to either me or my church. They will need convincing that this is not just about the Tutors, but affects the future of the SNU.

I think this is what Mac is suggesting; its Brutal, but she reckons these people cannot be persuaded to act, so she can ride this out, especially with the new Bye Laws in place and the NEC the recipient of complaints (directly quite possibly with the other new Bye Law Change). The NEC is also the body charged to set up the AGM motion, for complaints about either themselves, or the President. Total Control!

Given to her by the members who failed to vote or, more importantly as they had only 2 choices, with Bruton so unpopular, they indicated their preference by not voting for either (bad, or badder). 52% of members did this, no shows at the election, inadvertently opening the way for JW to pursue her unseen agenda (one I doubt any of us know the full extent of, even now).

A petition somewhere around March may be a good way to go, when some more facts and legal results may spice things up, but in between times someone needs to collate an overall plan to achieve a change.

Or, people can continue to leave the SNU, accept the potential loss of their churches, and leave the formal movement (or (as mac says, however it then looks), to JW.

I am sure her opponents will keep stacking up more information against her, so we can hope that this helps destabilise her project naturally, but I would not rely on that.

Anniemillo1 wrote:Rumour has it that the membership is less than what was announced at the AGM.   That's all I know but usually the rumours that I hear become a reality.

Those numbers seem to be hard to pin down Ammiemillo1, one would think the IM numbers should be easy to establish. Church membership may be harder depending on the quality of reporting, but then this is not voting numbers, each church, regardless of membership size, seems to get 5 votes. Surely it would be better if a method could be found to make all church members as SNU members with an individual vote and remove the church votes.

Bruton vs. JW:
It was always a significant point of discussion among churches and IM that B, as president, received a fixed income of approx. £40,000 per year.

Does anyone know whether JW is offering her "services" free of charge?

High5 wrote:Bruton vs. JW:
It was always a significant point of discussion among churches and IM that B, as president, received a fixed income of approx. £40,000 per year.

Does anyone know whether JW is offering her "services" free of charge?

She receives a salary circa £50K for the Presidency. She has a second job as a Tutor and Course Organiser at the AFC for several weeks a year in which she claims she uses that salary to support a fund to help churches.

My issue is if she is being paid £50K to head the SNU - why is she moonlighting on their time to the AFC, whether she donates anything or not?

Basically, she is a part time President on £50K per year!

This is a very good point notabigjump.
The president is at AFC a lot too approx 10 weeks in 2024 ; approx 12 weeks booked for 2025.
Accepting 2 payments from SNU regardless of one of the payments going into a fund.
Who does the presidents job whilst she is a tutor and course organiser?
I remember my time as a student and it was long days 9am - 9pm if I remember right.
Plus wasn't there a fundraiser earlier in the year? Surely the money earned, if time justified, should support AFC and SNU not take away it as what seems to be happening now.
Plus I can imagine the president claims every mile at 45p and wherever she stays on her 'tours' it will all be claimed.
Quite a lucrative position compared to those in the past.

notabigjump wrote:

High5 wrote:Bruton vs. JW:
It was always a significant point of discussion among churches and IM that B, as president, received a fixed income of approx. £40,000 per year.

Does anyone know whether JW is offering her "services" free of charge?

She receives a salary circa £50K for the Presidency. She has a second job as a Tutor and Course Organiser at the AFC for several weeks a year in which she claims she uses that salary to support a fund to help churches.

My issue is if she is being paid £50K to head the SNU - why is she moonlighting on their time to the AFC, whether she donates anything or not?

Basically, she is a part time President on £50K per year!

Light-Nature-Truth wrote:This is a very good point notabigjump.
The president is at AFC a lot too approx 10 weeks in 2024 ; approx 12 weeks booked for 2025.
Accepting 2 payments from SNU regardless of one of the payments going into a fund.
Who does the presidents job whilst she is a tutor and course organiser?
I remember my time as a student and it was long days 9am - 9pm if I remember right.
Plus wasn't there a fundraiser earlier in the year? Surely the money earned, if time justified, should support AFC and SNU not take away it as what seems to be happening now.
Plus I can imagine the president claims every mile at 45p and wherever she stays on her 'tours' it will all be claimed.
Quite a lucrative position compared to those in the past.

notabigjump wrote:

High5 wrote:Bruton vs. JW:
It was always a significant point of discussion among churches and IM that B, as president, received a fixed income of approx. £40,000 per year.

Does anyone know whether JW is offering her "services" free of charge?

She receives a salary circa £50K for the Presidency. She has a second job as a Tutor and Course Organiser at the AFC for several weeks a year in which she claims she uses that salary to support a fund to help churches.

My issue is if she is being paid £50K to head the SNU - why is she moonlighting on their time to the AFC, whether she donates anything or not?

Basically, she is a part time President on £50K per year!

I forgot to mention that she also works abroad too. There is no mention of where those payments go on top of her SNU salary. It appears only her weeks at the College are donated.

Now if she works at the college for 10 - 12 weeks per year and a few overseas trips, has a holiday or two, it means her time dedicated to the SNU work is less than 3/4 of what it should be. This should be questioned by the members and the NEC who deserve a full time leader, for that kind of money.