(John Sayer)
BERMUDA TRIANGLE
an evening of video & discussion at the reduced price of £2.00 where members trade info on their recent experiences & generally get to know each 0ther over a pint..!
Hi, Jack!
We agreed at the last AGM that non-guest-speaker evenings would be £1.00 entry. Is the above a typing error?
Cheers,
John
no john we did not agree on this ,the actual vote was for £2.00 , although we all noted how you personally objected very strongly. no worries, as i think £1.00 is fine for those who are unwaged ,but we are sticking with £2.00 for the rest
cheers
Jac
Hi, Jack!
You will see from the attached minutes from the AGM, which most people have received by now, that we did vote for £1.00 entry on non-speaker nights.
I did not "object very strongly" to this at all. Where does that come from? (The only thing I argued "strongly" for was having 50/50 guest speakers and discussion sessions. What I did "object" to was the chairman, or anyone else, helping themselves to the funds but this particular point was left out of the minutes as it was potentially embarrassing.)
I do hope I am not being misrepresented elsewhere!
Cheers,
John
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes on the Annual General Meeting of ANGLIAN EARTH MYSTERIES held at 8pm. on 18th. June 2001 at "The White Horse", Trowse
An informal discussion was held on various ideas put forward about the coming year concerning the group.
Money
The group has remained financially healthy, with a current balance of about £300.
Make up of meetings
It was agreed that it would be better to cut down on the number of "official" talks in favour of having more evenings for discussions, videos, informal talks, workshops etc. and the question was discussed of whether the informal meetings should form half or one third of the total throughout the year.
The vote among those attending was in favour of having informal sessions for 1 in 3 meetings but also that the overall opinion of the membership was important to take into account for future planning. (In the meantime our current programme of events for 2001 will continue as normal.) Everyone's views are invited through this letter.
It was further agreed that "entry fees" for the meetings should be £3.00 for a formal talk (although it would be the case at times that a particular speaker's expenses may require a little more from us) and £1.00 for other meetings.
The Earlham1 Festival
It was agreed that we would have a stall at the festival (4th. August, in Earlham Park). This would give us an opportunity to publicise AEM and talk to interested members of the public. We envisaged having a table with some of our library books and videos on display, flyers about the group, membership forms and a book to sign for people interested in receiving mailshots.
Volunteers are needed to help mind the stall for a time on a rota basis and a request is made for loans of suitable decorations for the gazebo and stall (inflatable aliens, UFOs etc.!). Also, does someone have a suitable stall-type table they could lend out - even a wallpaper-pasting table, perhaps?
Last requests
Please contact Jac about any of the above on 07905-230993.
- also,
if you are able to offer overnight accommodation to a visiting speaker;
can be one of a pool of people prepared to give a presentation at short notice in the event of cancellation by a formal speaker;
have something you wish to share with the group on the informal evenings (talk, video, workshop etc.).
(The meeting closed at 11.30pm.)
john please find below a text which i intend to distribute among the membership by email & by printed hard copy at the next meeting it deals in depth with your latest misgivings -
frankly ,these days i am getting tired of the entire issue of clubs, conflicts, money & all the shit that goes with it & i only ever seem to look forward to the day when i resign from this position & put it all behind me to make my life my own again....
there is simply no joy in this proccess anymore anyway ,in the short term , if you would be so kind as to get back to me as soon as you have read through itto ensure nothing in there "misrepresents" you
all the best
Jac
kkkkkkkkkkk TEXT kkkkkkkkkk
A serious difference of opinion has manifested concerning the fees payable for VIDEO nights It is my belief that a fee of £2.00 was agreed as a fair price at last Junes AGM I have contacted several of the other members who have confirmed this was also their understanding of the result for the vote taken on the night John Sayer believes the fee agreed was £1.00 & has written this figure into his AGM notes apparently these notes have since been circulated to the membership & I am sorry for any confusion this might have caused at the last meeting
I have offered john & all other unwaged members the option of paying the reduced fee of £1.00
unfortunately he still seems unhappy with this suggestion so I am obligated to make public his objections & feel compelled to clarify the issue of fees once & for all
I must make it clear from the start that ,irrespective of any belief to the contrary it is NOT possible to extend the £1.00 fee to the entire group & still successfully stage ANY form of AEM event - to argue otherwise is nothing more than wishful thinking
I cannot - & will not - promote events on such a limited budget
Even videos have to be located, test screened for both the quality & suitability of their material & then bought & paid for. this takes time & it takes money. the equipment has to be kept up to date & in good working order & someone has to take responsibility for arriving early ,setting it up & making sure it works on the night
in the period imediately proceeding my becoming chairman back in 1998 this club came dangerously close to vanishing point due to ill ñconceived video nights ñ these disasterous occasions had no advertising of any kind & featured poor quality TV & video equipment which provided inaudible sound-tracks buried beneath horrendous background humming & held lousy unsolicited material no one had proof-checked & we viewed this little shop of horrors in a stream of rolling pictures with lines through the screen
hardly suprising these occasions swiftly eroded the clubs credibility & shrunk its membership
the crisis created by this period of administrative indifference left a vacuum into which no one wished to step & become chairman which was how I ended up doing the job ,with the unenviable initial task of trying & save the club from breaking up completely
I doubt any of us would wish to see the thing go full circle so that we ended up back at exactly the point we were at then some 3 years ago ,but I get a shiver up my back as I now see the very real risk of this spectre raising its ugly head once more ñ ultimately this kind of loss of quality ,erosion of commitment & eventual scattering of those involved must always be the inevitable consequence of such penny pinching
We have managed to upgrade & update our TV & VIDEO equipment ,pay for slides ,video cassettes & generally keep the wheels turning ONLY because of the advertising & follow-up phone calls & emails which have ensured larger crowds,which in turn have consistently raised sufficient funding through asking reasonable fees & spending the extra time required to find those lecturers who work at reasonable fees & allow the club to stay firmly in the black
about one lecturer in every two invited to come here asks for far too much money ,forcing me to put in the extra hours required to start searching again ñ I have always wanted to get us past this point so we could afford more well known faces & raise the entire unit to a higher level of function & also to expand our options so that I would not need to spend such vast additional amounts of my own time searching for these people & negotiating deals which would entice them up here for much less than they would usually ask
an immense amount of work goes into every single AEM event ñ lecturers have to be located in large numbers at a rate of up to 30 per year .a large amount of long distance phone calls occur at this time & are then repeated closer to the event whilst making final arrangments -each lecturer has his or her own special requirements & fees have to be negotiated & travel arrangements made with directions and road maps etc mailed to all 30 of them
accomodation has to be found , sometimes fees have to be advanced ,letters & cheques written , then there are the weekly newspaper adverts ,calls etc The Posters ,phone calls , text messages , emails ,& my personal time & Labour DO have to be paid for , venues have to be secured & again this sometimes means lengthy negotiations ñ in short a large number of people have to be kept happy in a variety of different ways ñ all sorts of extra things crop up through out the year which can both individually & collectively lead to the sacrifice of vast amounts of additional time & nervous energy -believe me - it only takes ONE glitch ñ like a dodgy lecturer ,a misprint ,wobbly video or the presence of a single awkward character ,even at just one meeting, to create a hell of a lot of stressÖ..the lesson has been driven home again & again how any chain is only ever as strong as its weakest link
every single Date on our program takes at least 10 hours of my life away from me - & thatís not counting the actual night of the event when I have to be present for the introductions etc
there are about 28 events each year ñ not counting skywatches
the old days of an 8 man ìNUFOSî committee are long gone & I am forced to take care of all of these criteria entirely alone ñthe amount of time ,energy & comittment is really quite uncomfortable almost to the point of being oppressive & rips great chunks out of my personal projects & down-time
I am not in the best of health by any means - my energy levels fall far short of any healthy man & I can ill afford to squander my energies,so doing all this alone for 3 years really has been hard for me
For the last 6 months I have also had to try & find even more time to keep up the new website
to compensate me for being the solitary ìworkhorseî ,those present at the 2001 AGM agreed that I be paid a fee of £10 on ìgood nightsî ñ translated ,that means if we have a ìbadî night or the club barely break even,then I get absolutely nothing
the shadows of the past meant that I was personally very opposed to introducing VIDEO nights at all , but I bowed to the louder voices of democracy & agreed to them because I saw an opportunity to help stabilise the clubs finances & give everyone a chance to socialise etc
£2.00 is the absolute minimum fee to make these evenings financially viable from my point of view
in the event that the proposed lower fees ARE ever introduced, neither , sharon or myself will be prepared to offer our support to the VIDEO evenings & the club will need to find someone else amidst their ranks prepared to make the nessessary sacrifices of time & effort required to take responsibility for organising these events which occur at the frequency of one meeting in every 3
if any members have any reasonable objection to those items outlined above I would like them to voice them as soon as possible so some other arrangment can be made for the running of the club -
one option would be to disband the group in its current form & perhaps restart it at a later date on a more business-like basis where the efforts required to keep the mechanism oiled & rotating might finally provide a more satisfactory ratio of effort / reward
alternatively a few volunteers spreading the workload out would be warmly welcomed
the other option you should seriously consider is to leave things as they are & find a new chairman
I have now been running this club for over 3 years ñ so perhaps the recent criticisms are justified & maybe I have indeed been at the helm for too long
it has been a fantastic adventure which has allowed me to meet face-on with some of the worlds most intriguing characters, but it has also been a journey which has been anything but easy , especially of late & I freely admit I am becoming decidedly weary of the stresses , strains & conflicts inherent when organising such large numbers of people on a fortnightly basis , so if there are any among you who feel you could do a better job ,or just fancy taking on the role ,then I would be perfectly happy to step down in favour of a suitable successor
Ok members - its your move - what happens next is entirely up to you
Hope to see you all when KING ARTHUR arrives on FEB 18th
Blessings & best wishes
Jack
Hi, Jack!
Thank you for your response to my e-mail of last week.
I've heard of "making a mountain out of a molehill", but what you're doing now is akin to making an entire galaxy out of an asteroid!
You write, with reference to your proposed mass e-mail:
"it deals in depth with your latest misgivings", which implies that I have been voicing misgivings already. What are they? All I contacted you about was the fact that we had agreed a fee of £1.00 and you had sent me an e-mail which mentioned a fee of £2.00. That is not a "misgiving", but a reminder of what we agreed at the AGM. Where's the problem?
You have asked me to get back to you to make sure that nothing "misrepresents" me in your proposed message.
I'm afraid that the entire e-mail misrepresents me very seriously - and should you disseminate it's contents in any form whatsoever I would have no choice but to sue you for defamation. I'm serious. That's not a threat, but a fact. In the past I have let people slander and/or libel me and get away with it because I have heeded well-meant advice to avoid "negative energy". I have found, however, that this is counterproductive. As trivial as it may appear to some, I have a good name and standing in the fields of crop circle research and ufology, especially as publisher of "The Cereologist" and comments and implications such as those contained within your e-mail are very damaging to my good reputation, which I will defend vigorously. This is not a game.
The minutes of the 2001 AGM were distributed at two subsequent meetings and sent out via e-mail to all those on the list you gave me. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON has commented in the following six months or so that I had made a mistake in the minutes regarding the fee to be paid on "non-speaker" nights. The whole point of minutes of meetings is to keep an accurate record of proceedings - since memories cannot be relied upon. IF anyone thinks we agreed a £2.00 fee, their memories are mistaken.
You write in your proposed public message:
"John Sayer believes the fee agreed was £1.00 & has written this figure into his AGM notes"
This implies that I made it up, which is not the case, and is seriously defamatory. You then write:
"I have offered john & all other unwaged members the option of paying the reduced fee of £1.00 unfortunately he still seems unhappy with this suggestion so I am obligated to make public his objections & feel compelled to clarify the issue of fees once & for all"
Firstly, you are not "required" to make ANY of this dialogue public. The whole point of me discussing it with you one-on-one is to avoid any potential embarrassment, as I have mentioned already. Secondly, I have made no comment whatsoever to you - or anyone else - concerning the "offer" of reduced fees to the unwaged. This is another negative misrepresentation of me.
There is something else which is not an accurate reference to last year's AGM:
"to compensate me for being the solitary ìworkhorseî ,those present at the 2001 AGM agreed that I be paid a fee of £10 on ìgood nightsî ñ translated ,that means if we have a ìbadî night or the club barely break even,then I get absolutely nothing"
We did not agree that you should be paid £10.00 on "good nights" - it was agreed that "the Chairman" (the wording was specific, so that it did not appear to apply to only one particular individual) should be allowed a bit of money now and again. THIS was the motion I objected to (for reasons which I went into at the time) and I was absolutely clear to the meeting about it. I was outvoted on that and accepted it as such. But we did NOT agree that you should "...be paid a fee of £10 on ìgood nightsî..."
The rest of your e-mail implies quite clearly that you are pissed off with being chairman while people like myself (the only one you name) are "rocking the boat". This is seriously misrepresentative as well, and I will not be used as an excuse.
(On a constructive note, by the way, I am more than happy to run the "video" nights, supplying the material and chairing the discussions. I did it for over a year for the Norfolk Branch of the Centre for Crop Circle Studies and have plenty of material, as you know.)
In the meantime, I suggest that if you want to open up a serious and public discussion about the running of AEM, we do so at an appropriate time and place - say, at the end of next week's meeting. Your comments relating to me in your proposed e-mail would be a serious mistake at this moment in time and would not go unchallenged.
Cheers,
John
the Hostile nature & general tone of your last two emails reflects a furtherence of exactly the same attitude you have shown toward me throughout this entire past year & once again betrays an unmistakable undercurrent of personal anymosity
this has not gone un noticed by the others ,who talk quite openly about your antagonism toward me - John ,in this past 12 months ,I have felt as if you have become my personal nemesis - & now here you are digging your heels in once again
the very SUGGESTION of freebie or £1.00 fees is an INSULT to the work I have done to build up the club & an insult to me personally - sorry john but my time & my efforts & the well-being of the clubs future are all worth far more than that & I expect a far greater degree of personal respect & appreciation from thosearound me ñ & that includes you
Why waste all this energy in a crusade designed to undermine the groups financial well being & alienate the one man who sustains its existence, when a far better idea would be to channel such fiery energy into doing something POSITIVE to help build up the group & its funding ?
Have you forgotten that we were paying £2.00 for videos nights back in 1997 in the days when the group was poorly organised ,had no advertising & viewed unsolicited videos with very poor quality sound tracks on piss-poor TV/VIDEO rigs ? Ö..as a direct consequence our membership evaporated & it was the closest we ever came to reaching vanishing point until the membership asked me to take over & do whatever I could to try & retrieve the situation
For the last 3 years It has been my mission in life to make sure we never end up in that state again
these kind of miserly ,penny pinching ideas you are suggesting would swiftly take us right back to the days of shoody gear ,austerity & faultering membership if they were ever allowed to be introduced
this is NOT the Dark ages or the 3rd world & in this day & age ordinary people can easily afford £2.00 for an evenings entertainment ,which is why no one other than you complains about the fees
frankly, anyone expecting ANY kind of event at this club for less than £2.00 (which translates into sharon & myself working for nothing) ought to be thoroughly bloody ashamed of themselves for asking & such a proposal/vote/idea/something-written-on-someones-notes / etc shows total contempt for all the hard work & comittment that has gone into my building up the clubin these past years
there is no such thing as ìsomething for nothingî john , nor next-to-nothing-because someone, somewhere ALWAYS pays with their sweat for someone elses cheap ride . it is called ìexploitationî & it is a phenomenon that is most certainly not going to start showing itself here
but you are right ,there ARE plenty of issues such as the clubs general future ,direction & fair financing , fees ,the chairmanships future role etc which all desperately need to be addressed & you are also very right in as much these issues will not wait any longer , so i am calling a
MID-TERM AGM for the MONDAY after the NEXT MEETING
i really would prefer to meet sooner but we need the next meeting for the announcement
on all of these issues there needs to be some serious Hard talk between you & me & perhaps then we can decide once & for all if it will remain possible for you & i to continue working together within the same group - lets face it we dont agree on much these days ,do we john ?
i hope we are able to get to the bottom of this & sort something out but in the unhappy event that a suitable agreement cannot be reached which is satisfactory to ALL parties concerned then sharon & I intend to begin a process of withdrawal which will include the complete dismantling of the club in its present form as i remove from it everything that is rightfully my own , including sharon & myself
I will take the name & website which are both copywrited to me ,along with all the advertising & contact logistics I have developed over the past 3 years & eventually start again from scratch at a later date using a financial system which provides fairer & more reasonable rewards in relation to the sacrifices of time & effort expended
I just need to get on & do things my own way without any of these needless conflicts
Needless to say my views stated here will NOT be publicised ANYWHERE until I verbalise them before you & the others at the meeting mentioned above & then you will have the chance to publicly explain your reasoning to all of us present & we will take a thoroughly democratic series of votes about the groups future ñ if it has one- based on an awareness of all the facts which is FULLY understood by everyone present , especially those facts I have just listed above
Jack
Hi, Jack!
My response to your latest e-mail, which I will reply to in detail:
>the Hostile nature & general tone of your last two
>emails reflects a furtherence of exactly the same
>attitude you have shown toward me throughout this
>entire past year & once again betrays an unmistakable
>undercurrent of personal anymosity
There is nothing "hostile" about my last two e-mails to you and I don't bear any "personal animosity" towards you. This may be your own subjective interpretation, but expressed either verbally or in writing to anyone else, it becomes slander/libel, as it is - quite simply - a lie.
>this has not gone un noticed by the others ,who talk
>quite openly about your antagonism toward me - John
>,in this past 12 months ,I have felt as if you have
>become my personal nemesis - & now here you are
>digging your heels in once again
I am not aware of "the others" talking openly about my "personal animosity" towards you (which doesn't exist in the first place anyway) - but if anyone is doing such a thing, give me their names and I'll put them straight. I don't know what I'm supposed to be "digging my heels in" about, unless it's the £1.00 fee business you're referring to. All I have done is remind you what we voted for at our last AGM. There's nothing peculiar or sinister about that. It's a very simple matter, and if anyone is "digging their heels in" about it, it's yourself. We voted to pay £1.00, yet here you are - despite having been reminded of the fact - still campaigning to double the fee despite the decision of the meeting.
>the very SUGGESTION of freebie or £1.00 fees is an
>INSULT to the work I have done to build up the club &
>an insult to me personally - sorry john but my time &
>my efforts & the well-being of the clubs future are
>all worth far more than that & I expect a far greater
>degree of personal respect & appreciation from those
>around me ñ & that includes you
I, for one, have never suggested "freebies", so why do you mention it? Nor was I the ONLY person in favour of a £1.00 entry fee on non-speaker nights - which was why the vote was cast, by majority decision. And decisions about AEM are not made on the basis of whether or not they are "insulting" to you or anyone else. And if you expect "a far greater degree of personal respect & appreciation" from me, you're not going to get it by your current behaviour.
>Why waste all this energy in a crusade designed to
>undermine the groups financial well being & alienate
>the one man who sustains its existence, when a far
>better idea would be to channel such fiery energy
>into doing something POSITIVE to help build up the
>group & its funding ?
You are accusing me of conducting a "crusade designed to undermine the group's financial well being & alienate the one man who sustains its existence". That is a very serious accusation - which is also false. In plain language, it's a lie. I am not conducting any kind of "crusade"; I am not doing anything designed to "undermine the group's financial well being" nor am I "crusading" to "undermine...the one man who sustains its existence." (Is that how you see yourself, then?) Furthermore, with reference to your suggestion of "doing something POSITIVE to help build up the group & its funding" - I have already (in my previous e-mail) offered to take over the video/discussion nights, supplying the material for free, and NOT charging money for efforts - so why talk of "a far better idea" when I have already made that very suggestion?
>Have you forgotten that we were paying £2.00 for
>videos nights back in 1997 in the days when the group
>was poorly organised ,had no advertising & viewed
>unsolicited videos with very poor quality sound tracks
>on piss-poor TV/VIDEO rigs ? Ö..as a direct
>consequence our membership evaporated & it was the
>closest we ever came to reaching vanishing point
>until the membership asked me to take over & do
>whatever I could to try & retrieve the situation
My recollection of the "old days" is that we paid £1.00 on "video nights". (Perhaps I misremember. I will ask past members about it.) And as far as "poor quality" is concerned, that particular problem hasn't yet been resolved anyway. I wasn't present on the occasion of you taking over as Chairman, but from what I understand, this was a request from the previous Chairman, whose bad health was making it too difficult for him to carry on. I was not aware that "the membership" turned to you to "retrieve" any situation - but, again, I'll ask past members about that.
>For the last 3 years It has been my mission in life to
>make sure we never end up in that state again
>
>these kind of miserly ,penny pinching ideas you are
>suggesting would swiftly take us right back to the
>days of shoody gear ,austerity & faultering
>membership if they were ever allowed to be introduced
I am not "suggesting" any "miserly, penny-pinching ideas". I repeat - all I have done is remind you of a decision taken at our last AGM. (And again I remind you - it was not my SOLE suggestion, as you imply; others also suggested it and it was agreed, after discussion, by the majority of those present.) I don't quite follow the reasoning behind claiming (as you seem to be doing) that paying a £1.00 fee on non-speaker nights would lead to "shoddy gear, austerity and faltering membership". We seem to have an average attendance of around 20 people, so on "video" nights we are taking in (at £1.00 a head) about £20.00, out of which we do not have to pay a speaker. No overheads. Pure profit. That's EXTRA money, so how does that lead to the "shoddy gear, austerity and faltering membership" you mention?
>this is NOT the Dark ages or the 3rd world & in this
>day & age ordinary people can easily afford £2.00 for
>an evenings entertainment ,which is why no one other
>than you complains about the fees
As far as I'm concerned people can pay as much as they like (especially those in employment) at AEM. But what NO ONE can do is demand twice the fee agreed at the Annual General Meeting. If people don't mind paying extra, that's up to them. It's a free country. And when have I "complained about the fees"? I've simply pointed out to you that we agreed the fee at the AGM, and that it is £1.00. It's a very simple issue, and one has to wonder why you're trying to turn it into a major event.
>frankly, anyone expecting ANY kind of event at this
>club for less than £2.00 (which translates into sharon
>& myself working for nothing) ought to be thoroughly
>bloody ashamed of themselves for asking & such a
>proposal/vote/idea/something-written-on-someones-notes
>/ etc shows total contempt for all the hard work &
>comittment that has gone into my building up the club
>in these past years
So you're telling me that I - "expecting" to pay less than £2.00 for a video night - "ought to be thoroughly bloody ashamed" of myself? No way, my friend. And if "such a proposal/vote/idea/something-written-on-someones-notes / etc shows total contempt for all the hard work & comittment that has gone into" your "building up the club in these past years", then tell that to all the OTHERS who attended the AGM. Why single me out? (Actually, I'll come back to that point later.) It's very interesting that you claim that an entry fee of less than £2.00 means you and Sharon would be "working for nothing". ANYONE "running" AEM should be doing so voluntarily - for no financial reward. No one agreed to EMPLOY you (or anyone else) to do a "job" for AEM. There are plenty of people who would take over the reins for nothing. You are not indispensible - and clearly, from what you have revealed in these latest e-mails, you are too expensive. But that's another issue to be dealt with.
>there is no such thing as ìsomething for nothingî
>john , nor next-to-nothing-because someone, somewhere
>ALWAYS pays with their sweat for someone elses cheap
>ride . it is called ìexploitationî & it is a
>phenomenon that is most certainly not going to start
>showing itself here
What? You feel you are being "exploited"? It's very simple, Jack. If you feel unable to continue being Chairman of AEM without being PAID for it, I suggest you find proper employment somewhere. It is not a salaried position!
>but you are right ,there ARE plenty of issues such as
>the clubs general future ,direction & fair financing ,
>fees ,the chairmanships future role etc which all
>desperately need to be addressed & you are also very
>right in as much these issues will not wait any longer
>, so i am calling a
>
>MID-TERM AGM for the MONDAY after the NEXT MEETING
What do you mean, I am "right" about issues which "desperately need to be addressed"? I have made no such suggestion! And what do you mean by "you are also very right in as much these issues will not wait any longer"? Again, I have made no such suggestion. Why are you trying to put words in the mouth of the very person you are addressing?
>i really would prefer to meet sooner but we need the
>next meeting for the announcement
If you really "would prefer to meet sooner" (to deal with issues which "desperately" need to be addressed, as you put it), it can be arranged very easily - in the normal way so far: by e-mail, phone call and text message prior to the meeting. It's only Thursday today. There is nothing special about the audience we'll have on Monday for "King Arthur", so why should they be the only ones to be told about an extra AGM? You should be telling everyone, shouldn't you? There is plenty of time before Monday to let people know you want to discuss the future of AEM. Personally, I think this has clearly reached the point where it DOES have to be addressed properly by the membership, as a matter of some urgency in the light of what you are proposing to do with AEM property (and funds, presumably), so I suggest you arrange for a discussion for this coming Monday night, before someone else does.
>on all of these issues there needs to be some serious
>Hard talk between you & me & perhaps then we can
>decide once & for all if it will remain possible for
>you & i to continue working together within the same
>group - lets face it we dont agree on much these days
>,do we john ?
There won't be any "hard talk" between you and me on this subject except in the context of a proper public meeting. This is not a private issue between you and me, even if, as it seems, you want to present it as such. Nor is there any issue of you and I "working together within the same group". I am not on any kind of committeee; we do not have "jobs" within AEM; we are not "colleagues". We can both attend the same meetings (whether AEM or elsewhere) without any contact with one another at all, if that's what you want. And I don't know what you mean by "lets face it we dont agree on much these days,do we john ?", except on the issue of whether or not we decided at the last AGM to have a fee of £1.00 on non-speaker nights.
>i hope we are able to get to the bottom of this & sort
>something out but in the unhappy event that a suitable
>agreement cannot be reached which is satisfactory to
>ALL parties concerned then sharon & I intend to
>begin a process of withdrawal which will include the
>complete dismantling of the club in its present form
>as i remove from it everything that is rightfully my
>own , including sharon & myself
Who are the "parties" you refer to? What is it, exactly, you think needs "sorting out"? What is there to "get to the bottom of"? You've lost me, I'm afraid. As far as I'm concerned, the whole "issue" is that you don't like the decision of the AGM to charge £1.00 on non-speaker nights. And by the way, you cannot "dismantle the club". It isn't your property or creation. If you want to leave, that's up to you, but the "club" consists of those who attend - and attend we will continue to do, with or without your presence or involvement.
"...as i remove from it everything that is rightfully my own":
clearly, the time has come for this to be resolved. You will need to supply details to the membership of what, exactly, you consider to be "your own". Are you referring to books, videos, equipment - money? Do you have a list of property which belongs to NUFOS/AEM as opposed to yourself as an individual? Can this be supported by written financial accounts, which is what will be required?
>I will take the name & website which are both
>copywrited to me ,along with all the advertising &
>contact logistics I have developed over the past 3
>years & eventually start again from scratch at a later
>date using a financial system which provides fairer &
>more reasonable rewards in relation to the sacrifices
>of time & effort expended
If you decide to leave, and you want to keep the name "Anglian Earth Mysteries" as your own property, I'm sure the rest of us can come up with a suitable alternative name for ourselves. We already had a page on the "Global Circles" web site anyway, which existed long before the "AEM" one. We have more than enough contacts among us to continue without your input. And if you want to "start again from scratch at a later date using a financial system which provides fairer & more reasonable rewards in relation to the sacrifices of time & effort expended" - i.e. run a commercial enterprise without any "opposition" (which is what this seems to be all about) - go ahead, and good luck.
>I just need to get on & do things my own way without
>any of these needless conflicts
Again, this points to what this is really all about: you clearly want to be totally autocratic where things are concerned, without the "nuisance" of someone reminding you of what WE, the membership, want and decide. (On that subject, we also decided at the AGM that WE, the membership, would discuss this year's programme of events, but you have gone ahead and booked it yourself, without any reference to the rest of us - and we didn't want just "video" nights, we wanted "more evenings for discussions, videos, informal talks, workshops etc." - but that's another issue.) There are no "conflicts", except those of your own creation. There is no conflict regarding the fee to be charged on a non-speaker night. We decided £1.00 and £1.00 it is (whether or not people don't mind voluntarily paying more). YOU are the one creating a conflict, by flying in the face of a decision made by the membership at an Annual General Meeting! Which brings me to a pertinent point: why are you laying all this at MY door? As I've reminded you, the issue of how much we pay on a non-speaker night is not one of MY invention; I was not the ONLY member who agreed it should be £1.00; I am not the ONLY one who voted in favour. I am not aware that you are having this argument with anyone else. Why are you addressing ME in particular?
>Needless to say my views stated here will NOT be
>publicised ANYWHERE until I verbalise them before you
>& the others at the meeting mentioned above & then you
>will have the chance to publicly explain your
>reasoning to all of us present & we will take a
>thoroughly democratic series of votes about the groups
>future ñ if it has one- based on an awareness of all
>the facts which is FULLY understood by everyone
>present , especially those facts I have just listed
>above
As far as I'm concerned, providing you do not slander or libel anyone in the process, you are free to express your views to anyone you like, before, during or after the next AEM meeting. You've already verbalised them to me, so, as I've mentioned above, I won't be discussing them with you further except at a public meeting, where, as you say, I will " have the chance to publicly explain" my "reasoning to all...present".
But what "reasoning" do you have in mind? I have only one point to make: that we agreed at the last AGM that we would have a fee on non-speaker nights of £1.00. If you think that this requires having a public discussion, fine. If you want to open up the discussion, as clearly you want to, into all sorts of other areas and issues regarding the running of AEM generally, fine. But I'll tell you what you are NOT going to be able to do, Jack. You are not going to use ME as a scapegoat for whatever it is you are planning - which, having worked out for myself some time back and why I officially distanced myself from having any legal responsibility for AEM, hence my relinquishing the role of Secretary (a role which I was VOTED into, remember) - you have now made abundantly clear in these last two long e-mails to me. So I will address what you're really on about now. Let's get down to the nitty-gritty, shall we?
You clearly, as you have stated explicitly in this e-mail, see me as your "nemesis". Hey - that's your problem. I am not out to "get" you, "undermine" you, or otherwise "have a go at" you. You are simply not that important to me or my life, I'm afraid to say! If you've got a "personal" problem with me, that's your business, for you to deal with yourself, but it's got nothing to do with AEM business. All I have done is remind you of a decision made by the membership at an Annual General Meeting. How simple and harmless is that? But you have chosen to turn this into some major, dramatic issue which, you are obviously trying to engineer, would justify your threatened actions of abandoning AEM and taking along with you unspecified "property" belonging to the membership.
I'm not so naive as to believe that you have not been discussing this with other people already (from what you write, you have obviously discussed it with Sharon, for example), and I have no problem, in the light of this latest communication from you, with this entire exchange of e-mails now being circulated publicly or being made the subject of discussion with AEM members, or, indeed, going up on the "Global Circles" web site. If you want to have a public discussion, arrange for it this coming Monday (18th. February).
Otherwise, back off now, respect what the membership agreed at the last AGM and leave it at that - and get off my back once and for all.
Like I say, Jack, you are not going to use ME as a scapegoat or excuse for what you are planning. I don't know what your REAL problem is, nor do I particularly care now, but you're not dumping it on ME, in any shape or form. Never forget that the money in AEM's coffers is OUR money - it belongs to the membership, the people who put the money there in the first place: no one else, and no individual.
Drop it, or be prepared to discuss it properly on Monday.
Regards,
John
john -here is the draft i propose to send out in the next couple of days by all possible media so we can get the thing finished with by next time without it hanging over us any longer
please get back to me ref the acceptability of its wording & content etc ASAP & pray god i can get this current nightmare behind me once & for all
Jack
---------------------------------------------------------------
AGM MID-TERM GENERAL CRISIS MEETING
All those members & previous members who have been involved in the club formerly known as NUFOS & now known as
ANGLIA EARTH MYSTERIES
are invited to attend a meeting on MONDAY MARCH 04 at the White Horse Public House ,Trowse ,Norwich
to facilitate this , the next scheduled public meeting featuring Andrew Ellis lecture on the ìUFOs of NASAî ,will be wound down at the slightly earlier time of 22.00 & The mid term meeting will occur Imediately afterward
those who wish to attend only the later meeting will NOT be charged if they arrive at 22.00
doubtless you will all recognise me as the same man who became the last ever chairman of NUFOS & who then oversaw the groups transition into the new format known as ANGLIA EARTH MYSTERIES (AEM)
the changes within the group in these past years have gone far beyond that of the name. it has become harder & harder to recruit anyone from among the membership to take an active role in the Day-to-Day / fortnightly running & management of the groups affairs
occasionally others have offered help (or been persuaded to give it ) but these have been very isolated bursts of energy which have never lasted for long & eventually these same helpers either leave the group or remain within our ranks but quietly withdraw from the service of the group to leave me once more straining alone under the ongoing Burden
effectively the group has ceased to be a club & has progressively become the sole responsibility of my own commitment - a ìone man showî
the burden for one man working alone is absolutelyhorrendous
I am responsible for locating & securing the services of every lecturer & contributor to the club as well as finding every video .(note;Each video must be proofed for viewing quality & the suitability of its content) . the TV & Video equipment must be set-up to working order prior to each meeting as well as maintained & checked in between times . i am also responsible for ensuring we have a suitable venue & for all negotiations between the group & the venues management ñ in the event of ANY kind of a problem it is me who has to sort it out .I personally chair every meeting & handle all correspondences for the club ,including all the fortnightly phone calls ,emails & text messages which are never missed
countless hours of work go into the setting up of every single event
even excluding the work I did prior to becoming chairman ,I have given the group 3 years & 3 months of my life but have now arrived at a stage in my life where I am no longer willing or able to carry such a burden unrewarded ñ I am simply no longer prepared to sacrifice so much time & effort only to hand over the nights revenue to someone else
I therefore propose to formally end the groups status as a ìclubî in favour of an entirely new orientation in which the unit will continue as a privately run group with whatever funds remain after the lecturers fees & expenses have been paid contributing to my own personal livelyhood rather than pooling it into a public fund
NOTE; it is the principle of the thing which has become important to me & I have no illusions as to becoming rich doing this as the group only ever makes a profit on busy nights & much more often either breaks even or takes a loss
I have spoken to the regular members currently attending the group at this time & they seem overwhelmingly in favour of my proposal ,but I aknowledge it may be entirely possible that we see a late groundswell of support emerge from a body of people who may prefer to try & find a new chairman in an attempt to continue the current unit as some kind of a club
We need people to come forward & vote on this issue
PROPOSAL A = Jack continues the group as a private concern
PROPOSAL B = Jack resigns & leaves the group ,allowing the remaining members to select a new chairman & run the group however they see fit
If proposal B carries the vote ,my involvement with this club will consequently be at an end & the issue of funds will not be relevent
If proposal ìAî implements the new format ñ as seems most likely at the time of writing ñ then a second vote will be required ,thus;
PROPOSAL C = allows jack to use the existing funds to assist in the implementation of the new unit ñ including use of such assets as the TV & Video
PROPOSAL D = the redistribution of the current funds into a tiny sum of money payable to anyone with physical proof of membership who felt they remained entitled to a share
NOTE 01 at the time of my becoming chairman the funds were £23.00
NOTE 02 during the last 3 years my personal efforts have pushed this figure up to the level of approx £ 250.00 At the time of writing
NOTE 03 such a vote would mean past members withdrawing a share of funds aquired by myself & others since their departure ,often several years previously
NOTE 04 the sum total of all previous members from mid 1995 up to the present day (vote scheduled March 2002) would number several hundred people & were they to insist on a redistribution of old funds they would each get well under £1.00 & probably receive only a few pennies each
An unknown amount of additional funds were aquired at the ìARTHUR PENDRAGONî lecture on Mon Feb 18th but certain elements of the group have demanded these be impounded by a neutral party until after the proposed vote leads to a satisfactory resolution of soveriegnty
if you are currently a member of this group or have ever been in the past & have any strong feelings one way or the other on the issues outlined here , I urge you to make every possible effort to attend this meeting & cast your vote
if it is decided that the membership wishes to continue as a club retaining a collective kitty etc ,then I shall of course be resigning as chairman ñ in which case may my successor & the new look group have all the very best of luck
regards - Jack
Jack,
With all this interconnected detail, it's difficult to see how a meaningful agenda for a meeting can be drawn up.
The issue of who is/is not a "member" is also very unclear at the moment. One of the main problems with this is the issue of whether potential members have actually been given an application form to fill out at any time. (If you recall, when I gave the crop circle talk last year, I pointed out to those attending that although we had about 80 telephone numbers and 50-odd e-mail addresses, we had only 14 postal addresses - on the forms you picked up today).
The NUFOS constitution, unless it was superceded (constitutionally, of course) by an amendment at some point, would still apply to the affairs of "the club" (by whatever name it is referred to at present), so that has to be the starting point for any proposed Extraordinary General Meeting. You will need to check it out. To begin with, no individual, as far as I recall, can simply decide to "end the group's staus as a club", nor unilaterally decide what is a "membership application that he regards as being of a suspicious nature". There are proper procedures to be followed - otherwise you run the risk of litigation.
There wouldn't be any problem with "distributing funds and assets", since in the "Proposal B" scenario, the group would continue to function anyway, albeit with a new management committee.
I hope this is of some use.
John
AGM MID-TERM GENERAL MEETING
All ìANGLIA EARTH MYSTERIESî members are hereby notified of an additional meeting of the group at 7.45PM on MONDAY MARCH 11 which falls on the interim Monday directly between the 2 previously scheduled meetings on March 04 & March 18th
This meeting has been arranged for the sole purpose of holding a vote crucial to the clubs future & will take place in our usual venue ,at the White Horse ,Trowse ,Norwich
REASONS FOR THE VOTE
the changes within the group in these past years have gone far beyond that of the name. it has become harder & harder to recruit anyone from among the membership to take an active role in the Day-to-Day running & management of the groups affairs
occasionally others have either offered help or been persuaded to give it , but these have been very isolated bursts of energy which have never lasted for long & eventually these same helpers either quit or remain within our ranks but quietly withdraw from the service of the group to leave me once more straining alone under the ongoing Burden
the group has effectively ceased to be a club & has progressively become the sole responsibility of my own commitment
the burden for one man working alone is absolutely horrendous
I am responsible for locating & securing the services of every lecturer & contributor to the club as well as finding every video .(note;Each video must be proofed for viewing quality & the suitability of its content) . the TV & Video equipment must be set-up to working order prior to each meeting as well as maintained & checked in between times . i am also responsible for ensuring we have a suitable venue & for all negotiations between the group & the venues management ñ in the event of ANY kind of a problem it is me who has to sort it out .I personally chair every meeting & handle all correspondences for the club ,including all the fortnightly phone calls ,emails & text messages which are never missed
As you can see ,countless hours of work go into the setting up of every single event
even excluding the work I did prior to becoming chairman ,I have given the group 3 years & 3 months of my life but have now arrived at a stage where I am no longer willing or able to carry such a burden unrewarded ñ I simply cannot bring myself to sacrifice so much time & effort if continually expected to hand over the nights revenue to someone else
OBJECTIVE
I therefore propose to formally end the groups status as a ìclubî in favour of an entirely new orientation in which the unit will continue as a privately run group
Any funds which remain after we have paid off printing fees ,phone bills ,advertising & lecturers fees , expenses & accomodation, will then contribute toward my own personal livelyhood & will no longer be pooled into a collective fund
the group only makes a small profit on exceptionally busy nights & more frequently struggles to break even or takes a small loss ,so I have no illusions as to becoming ìrichî doing this, but have come to feel very strongly that the principle of the thing really does now need to be observed
I have spoken to the regular members currently attending the group at this time & they seem overwhelmingly in favour of my proposal ,but I aknowledge it remains possible that we could still see a late rally from those who might prefer to try & find a new chairman in an attempt to continue the current unit as some kind of a club
PROPOSAL A = the current chairman continues the group as a private organisation
PROPOSAL B = the current chairman resigns & leaves the group ,allowing the remaining members to select a new chairman & run the group however they may see fit
If proposal B carries the vote ,my involvement with this club will consequently be at an end & the issue of funds will not be relevent
If proposal ìAî implements the new format ñ as seems most likely at the time of writing ñ then a second vote will be required , thus;
PROPOSAL C = releases our existing funds to the current chairman to assist in the implementation of the new unit ñ including use of such assets as the TV & Video
PROPOSAL D = the redistribution of the current funds into a tiny sum of money payable to anyone with physical proof of membership who felt they remained entitled to a share
Without these funds made available to me I cannot contInue to serve the club in ANY capacity
At the time of my becoming chairman the total funds were £23.00
during the last 3 years my efforts have pushed this figure up to the level of £ 394.50 At the time of writing
An unknown amount of additional funds were acquired at the ìARTHUR PENDRAGONî lecture on Mon Feb 18th but these have been entrusted to the care of a neutral party until after the proposed vote resolves the issue of their rightful soveriegnty
WHY NOT INVOLVE PAST MEMBERS ?
past members who were previously subscribed to the old NUFOS annual Tarrif system of membership are NOT elligible to vote as this system was specifically designed to terminate their involvement in the club if their membership elapsed without renewal
The last such memberships expired several years ago after the system was discontinued
ITS JUST NOT WORTH IT the sum total of all previous members from our inception in mid 1995 up to March 2002 would number several hundred people & were they all allowed to become involved in any redistribution of Our current funds they would probably receive only a few pennies each
ENSURING THE VOTE IS FAIR & INVOLVES THE RIGHT PEOPLE
The (current) AEM chairman reserves the right to unconditionally suspend until after the vote ANY membership application that he regards as being of a suspicious nature so as to ensure the vote will rest safely in the hands of only those individuals with a genuine ,heartfelt interest in the clubs future
With even the slightest prospect of give-away-money involved, this is an essential safety measure which temporarily pulls voting elligability out of reach from any ìopportunistsî attempting to quickly gain membership for the sole purpose of appearing on the night to try & exert a wrongful or partisan influence on the voting
once this vote has been taken & the present situation is satisfactorily resolved ,this suspension period will be lifted & any suitable new submissions will again be warmly & gratefully accepted
FINAL WORD
if things go against us & it is decided that the membership wishes to continue as a ìclubî, retaining a collective kitty etc ,then of course sharon & myself will both resign immediately as treasurer & chairman respectively
THE END IS ONLY EVER THE BEGINNINGÖ..
whatever happens , I sincerely thank you all for the truly wonderful journey we have shared together through these past few years ñ I have met some amazing characters on both sides of the lecture platform & I look forward to meeting with your souls once more in another time - another place , or perhaps in some new reality none of us can yet conceive
Jack 24 ñ 02 - 02
(e-mail #1)
the letters have gone out so they could meet the new deadline to satisfy whatever i have a few postal votes coming - if they turn up
all the people i spoke to are either in favour of the transition or they simply dont care one way or the other - there is not a single soul supporting the idea of a new chairman or committee (anyway - who would do it ???)quite a few of them didnt even realise there was a "club" as such & beleived all along that i was running the thing by myself
YOUR definition of a member was "anyone who had filled out a membership form" and you defined the others as -"just visitors to the club" so these are the only people i have written to....however phone calls will go to the rest nearer the time but are they allowed to vote ?....
as far as i am concerned NUFOS is long dead & buried....everyone regards the AEM group as an entirely new entity - either way the old tariff memberships definately terminated members involvement in the club after a year
in truth john there seems far less to talk about then you might think - everyone has pretty much made their minds up ,including the all former NUFOS members i spoke to -they are the ones who seem totally indifferent to the new club
by "suspicious" i meant anyone who was clearly part of another group which had arrived to disrupt our meeting or anyone trying to grab a few quid by just filluing in a form with a view to try and do some freeloading on the night...i am sure you know what i mean ?.....
i have talked it over with the others & we have decided it best we do not grant full membership to ANYONE who we have not seen present at the club before - we have to know them well or they get nothing until after the vote
anyway i am sick of all this internet stuff which has wasted FAR too much of my time already -lets sort it out on the night & then put it behind us
see ya there
Jack
-----------------
(e-mail #2)
this will be my last email on this subject -ever (excluding the usual bulk mails etc)
i feel there is zero likelyhood of a new commiittee emerging unless you & ali are thinking of creating something ? ..i have spoken to everyone else & they are 100 percent behind what i am saying .
but more to the point any such new unit would have to defeat me in a vote & that simply isnt going to happen as i enjoy widespread support within the club -they would much rather support me in a privately run group than even think of voting in some way of continuing this group as it was run 4 or 5 years back
i have never seen a "NUFOS constitution"....assuming such a thing even exists ,who would have a copy of it written down ? .....how could anything contained in such a document be implemented or enforced ....?.....if it does exist then a single vote by the new assembly could vote it into non existence in the space of a few seconds
the truth is john that such a pile of words has absolutely no relevence whatever to the new membership....
these are very different people who are only interested in keeping things running ahead smoothly by whatever means it takes & it brings forth echoes of the old labour governments of the 1960s & 1970s who seemed so popular in theory but failed totally in practise & consequently provoked the privatisation of literally EVERYTHING just so the wheels kept turning without the cart coming off the tracks
we have to live in the future john ,not the past
see you at the meeting
Jack
Jack,
From your e-mail to me of 14/2/02:
"Needless to say my views stated here will NOT be
publicised ANYWHERE until I verbalise them before you
& the others at the meeting mentioned above..."
From your e-mail to me of 19/2/02:
"I have spoken to the regular members currently
attending the group at this time & they seem
overwhelmingly in favour of my proposal..."
And from one of your e-mails to me of 26/2/02:
"all the people I spoke to are either in favour of the
transition or they simply dont care one way or the
other..."
and
"...everyone has pretty much made their
minds up ,including the all former NUFOS members i
spoke to..."
and
"...i have talked it over with the others & we have
decided it best we do not grant full membership to
ANYONE who we have not seen present at the club before..."
and in the other e-mail of 26/2/02:
"..i have spoken to everyone else & they
are 100 percent behind what i am saying..."
So you LIED to me on 14th. Feb.
It was also very apparent during the discussion after our meeting on Monday 18th. Feb. - from the snide comments directed at me by certain people present - that you had been slandering me over this issue in the meantime.
It is also apparent from your latest e-mails to me (of 26/2/02) that you intend continuing to present this whole situation in terms of some sort of "battle" between you and some phantom "take-over group" (which you have clearly insinuated involves myself in some capacity). This is simply not the case.
I make no secret of the fact that I do not think "AEM/NUFOS" should be privatised - by anyone. I am perfectly entitled to hold my views and express them, with my reasons (as I will do at the meeting). It has nothing to do with you personally. But you seem to be incapable of presenting the suggestion for open discussion without justifying it in terms of you being under attack by "a few dissenting voices", as one of the "members" put it on 18th. Feb.
The situation is very simple, and you have declared your intentions perfectly clearly through the letter you have sent out: you don't want to carry on being Chairman unless you get to keep all the profit for yourself. Fair enough, but you should simply state your case, and not try to justify it in terms of you being under attack by someone else (specifically, targetting me as the "dissenter").
Despite the conversation I had with you and Sharon on 14th. Feb., you have continued to defame me as part and parcel of your privatisation bid. This is inexcusable and, of course, I will defend myself publicly - especially at the meeting on 11th. March. I will also present our e-mail correspondence (including this communication) on the Internet, on my web site, for anyone interested in knowing the truth.
At the meeting on 18th. Feb. you claimed that we "make about £5 a night" - which is why I asked how much we were paying "King Arthur", since we had clearly taken in the region of £120: 40-something people at £3 a head (although that doesn't take into account any "privileged" few who may have been let in for free or at a discount, of course). This means a profit of £80 - not £5.
You claim in the letter you have sent out that "...the group only makes a small profit on exceptionally busy nights & more frequently struggles to break even or takes a small loss..."
This is patently untrue, as the accounts show (yes, I made a copy) and as I will demonstrate to the meeting on 11th. March.
Had you simply put it to "the membership" that you wanted to keep all the money/assets and run "AEM/NUFOS" for yourself, there would have been no problem with me (other than democratically opposing the motion, of course), but you have consistently villified and defamed me throughout this process in order to curry sympathy and justification for yourself and your actions.
In one of your e-mails to me of 26/2/02 you write:
"...i feel there is zero likelyhood of a new commiittee
emerging unless you & ali are thinking of creating
something ? ..i have spoken to everyone else & they
are 100 percent behind what i am saying..."
This echoes what Sharon shouted across the room on 18th. Feb, accusing Ali and myself of "plotting this for some time". I simply do not believe that either you or Sharon genuinely believes that I, or anyone else, is trying to take over the club. Maybe you do - but I don't believe it simply because it isn't true and therefore there is no reason for anyone to even IMAGINE that it's true. You are just trying to sully my name (and others') to make yourself look better.
I told you that I would not allow that to happen.
It may surprise you to know (and I suspect it will, judging from the "political" comments in your second e-mail of 26/2/02) that I actually do believe in the democratic process. If it is the decision of those eligible to vote on such a matter that "AEM/NUFOS" be handed over to you - or anyone else - as a commercial enterprise, that creates no problem for me. I will accept the vote. But what I will NOT allow is for you to use ME as a scapegoat for your plans.
You've had your chance, Jack, but you have continued your crusade of defamation against me, and you have lied to the membership about money into the bargain (which, of course, I can prove).
You reap what you sow. See you on 11th. March.
John
i am NOT scapegoating you - i have made it quite clear to everyone i have spoken to that this is a financial proposal designed to help my personal situation
if you are asking me to make some sort of public announcement to this effect then i am quite happy to do so
you were given a copy of the letter 24 hours in advance of my posting it so that you would have every chance to voice any concerns or sensitivity about its wording prior to it being sent
i made it quite clear that the club made more profit on "very busy nights" & "Arthur" was by far our busiest night for a long time - i dont know how much we made because i have not seen the cash nor did we have a chance to count it
if we felt we had anything to hide ,be assured we would not have given you the books..!
when i speak of "profit" i am talking about an overall balance taken over a year & in my view i have managed to create a winning formulae where the group is now on the up because THIS YEAR i have managed to get lecturers fees down & that should slowly be bringing profits up if i can get enough people through the door....as yet i have not focussed much on how well we are doing
anyone who wants to see the books or your copies of them are welcome to do so either at a public meeting or in private ,althoughbut this will obviously no longer be relevent once the group is privately run
only you antagonise me in these issues whilst the others all seem very happy to let the thing slide into a new format smoothly & without any fuss - because of this you seem to feel "scapegoated" but i assure you this is not the case -it is simply that the ONLY clashes i am experiencing are with you & not with anyone else -in that sense it does make you rather stand out from the crowd because you stand alone ,but this need not be allowed to get out of hand -the vote is coming up soon & then hopefully all of this stuff will be resolved
in response to your extreme sensitivity about this "scapegoating" issue i have carefully avoided any previous reference to our differences in all our recent correspondences since the last meeting in the hope that this would encourage a spirit of non -personal objectivity
be assured there is NOTHING in that letter intended to scapegoat you or anyone else
i ask if you or ali intend offering any alternative simply because there are no other individuals present within the club who have any qualities of leadership & also because none of them have ever come forward to accept any commitee posts or suchlike
i beleive that none of the others would even DREAM of submitting themselves as a candidate for election against me & even if they did i think it unlikely such an opponent would pick up even a single vote
having spoken at length to most of those concerned they ARE strongly in favour of my proposals
there are often occasions when the club makes a loss...especially last year & as you correctly point out there are a good number of people who plead poverty & either get in for free or for very little & such things are not entered into the accounts
i said i would not cite you as the reason for my proposals & i have not done so -as far as i am aware no one would think this nor would they have any reason to think this
as i told you at Kathis , this is about MONEY ,not personalities - i simply want to get paid for what i do & NOT continually do everything & get nothing
i would view ANYONE displaying an anti-privatisation stance as being disrespectful to the efforts i have made over the period i have been chairman - surely after all this time i am now entitled to some measure of reward ?? - privately it is the opinion of the club that i AM & i fully expect this to be become a public fact of life after the vote
i suggest we bring a cassette recorder to the March 11th meeting to avoid any future ambiguity & then everyone will know exactly who said what & when
Jack,
A couple of comments the letter you have sent out regarding the meeting on 11th. March.
"...past members who were previously subscribed to the old NUFOS annual Tarrif system are NOT elligble to vote as this system was specifically designed to terminate their involvement in the club if their membership relapsed without renewal..."
Presumably you have the necessary documentation (the constitution?) regarding this, to present to the meeting.
"The last such memberships expired several years ago..."
I know that the last time I myself paid a membership subscription was much more recently than "several years ago". Do you have the records concerning subscription payments?
"The (current) AEM chairman reserves the right to unconditionally suspend until after the vote ANY membership application that he regards as being of a suspicious nature..."
I am not aware that any chairman (current or previous) has been given the right to vet membership applications. Is this also in the constitution?
There also remains the question of exactly who qualifies as a "member". What is YOUR definition, for instance? What is the definition being used for the purposes of the meeting on 11th. March?
You wrote in your e-mail, regarding those who have filled out membership forms: "...these are the only people i have written to....however phone calls will go to the rest nearer the time but are they allowed to vote ?..."
The answer is no, they are not allowed to vote. Nor are they allowed to even attend the meeting, so what is the purpose of phoning (which is a waste of the club's money)?
John
Jack,
In response to your latest e-mail:
>i am NOT scapegoating you - i have made it quite clear
>to everyone i have spoken to that this is a financial
>proposal designed to help my personal situation
>
>if you are asking me to make some sort of public
>announcement to this effect then i am quite happy to
>do so
It has been abundantly clear from the behaviour and reactions of other members that I have been repeatedly disparaged during your discussions with them of your plans to privatise AEM/NUFOS. In particular, this was witnessed by others at the meeting of Monday, 18th. February. It is not a figment of my imagination. If you hadn't been dragging my name into this, why would there be a need for you to offer to make some sort of announcement on the subject?
>if we felt we had anything to hide ,be assured we
>would not have given you the books..!
You didn't "give" me the current accounts book. Sharon threw it at me at the meeting and then dumped the cashbox in my lap. Yet another example of the attempt to turn this whole episode into one of ME being "the fly in the ointment". And then you wanted to take them back off me. I left the cashbox and key in the safekeeping of others present at the meeting so there would be no further pointing of fingers at me.
>when i speak of "profit" i am talking about an overall
>balance taken over a year & in my view i have managed
>to create a winning formulae where the group is now on
>the up because THIS YEAR i have managed to get
>lecturers fees down & that should slowly be bringing
>profits up if i can get enough people through the
>door....as yet i have not focussed much on how well we
>are doing
Not so: in your letter calling for the meeting you specifically state, "the group only makes a small profit on exceptionally busy nights & more frequently struggles to break even or takes a small loss..." This is not the case. If, in your role as Chairman, you have managed the group's finances properly, that is only to be expected (otherwise you'd be voted out in short order!). I am not decrying the work you have done, but you haven't created the bank balance all on your own - it was put there by those who have paid their money into the group.
"...as yet i have not focussed much on how well we are doing...":
Again, not so: in your letter calling for the meeting you state, "...during the last three years my efforts have pushed this figure up to the level of £394.50 at the time of writing."
>only you antagonise me in these issues whilst the
>others all seem very happy to let the thing slide into
>a new format smoothly & without any fuss - because of
>this you seem to feel "scapegoated" but i assure you
>this is not the case -it is simply that the ONLY
>clashes i am experiencing are with you & not with
>anyone else -in that sense it does make you rather
>stand out from the crowd because you stand alone ,but
>this need not be allowed to get out of hand -the vote
>is coming up soon & then hopefully all of this stuff
>will be resolved
I am not "antagonising" you about anything. All I did was to remind you that at our last AGM we decided to pay £1.00 on non-speaker nights. Ever since then you have been venting your spleen on me about wanting to privatise the group. Everything I have said or done since my first simple e-mail has been in response to YOUR words and actions. I "stand out from the crowd", as you put it, only because YOU continually pick me out to argue with! And what do you mean, I "stand alone"? I am not the only person who disagrees with AEM/NUFOS being privatised.
>be assured there is NOTHING in that letter intended to
>scapegoat you or anyone else
It's what you've been saying and doing in the meantime that is the cause of the problem and it's not just what is obviously deducible from events, but also what I've been told by those you've been talking to.
>i ask if you or ali intend offering any alternative
>simply because there are no other individuals present
>within the club who have any qualities of leadership &
>also because none of them have ever come forward to
>accept any commitee posts or suchlike
I would contest that there is no one else in the group who has "any qualities of leadership" - and perhaps the reason no one has come forward as candidates for office is because no elections have been called!
>i beleive that none of the others would even DREAM of
>submitting themselves as a candidate for election
>against me & even if they did i think it unlikely such
>an opponent would pick up even a single vote
Well, what can I say? (Although I think if there were a proper election process, where matters are properly discussed in the open, you might be a little surprised.)
>there are often occasions when the club makes a
>loss...especially last year & as you correctly point
>out there are a good number of people who plead
>poverty & either get in for free or for very little &
>such things are not entered into the accounts
Here you go again, putting words in my mouth! I have not said "there are a good number of people who plead poverty & either get in for free or for very little". And why is it that "such things are not entered into the accounts" anyway?
>i said i would not cite you as the reason for my
>proposals & i have not done so -as far as i am aware
>no one would think this nor would they have any reason
>to think this
Well, I can only repeat: I would not be facing such odd attitudes and behaviour from other members if you hadn't been "bad-mouthing" me. You can't seriously pretend that the only words you've uttered on the subject are contained in the letter you've sent out calling for a meeting. And you seem to have forgotten your behaviour following the meeting on 18th. February, which was witnessed by the others present.
>as i told you at Kathis , this is about MONEY ,not
>personalities - i simply want to get paid for what i
>do & NOT continually do everything & get nothing
Point taken. As you write in your letter calling for a meeting: "I simply cannot bring myself to sacrifice so much time & effort if continually expected to hand over the nights revenue to someone else" (although I haven't got the faintest idea who you mean by "someone else").
>i would view ANYONE displaying an anti-privatisation
>stance as being disrespectful to the efforts i have
>made over the period i have been chairman
There is absolutely no connection between being opposed to privatisation of AEM/NUFOS and disrespect (or otherwise) for yourself. You obviously have some sort of personal issue to deal with here, which is not relevant to the matters at hand.
>- surely
>after all this time i am now entitled to some measure
>of reward ?? - privately it is the opinion of the club
>that i AM & i fully expect this to be become a public
>fact of life after the vote
"...it is the opinion of the club..."? Who, exactly, do you mean by "the club"? And you refer again to your "private" discussions. Is this what you would define as free, open and honest debate? The fact is, you've been running the group as a private commercial enterprise in all but name for some time now, and your obvious strategy in the run-up to a meeting on the subject has been to bad-mouth any opponents of privatisation to make it look as if the opposition is not valid, but just about personal issues involving you.
>i suggest we bring a cassette recorder to the March
>11th meeting to avoid any future ambiguity & then
>everyone will know exactly who said what & when
I imagine several tape recorders will be needed, since it is highly unlikely that there will be agreement as to who can be trusted with the tape afterwards. And if the vote goes in favour of privatisation, the recording, along with all other records, as you put it, "will obviously no longer be relevent once the group is privately run".
In any event, the meeting on 11th. March will clearly be a farce, since there is absolutely no consensus about who is or is not a "member", or who is or is not allowed to attend, let alone vote.
Finally, as I have to keep repeating, this is NOT an argument between you and me, so I won't be discussing the matter further with you as an individual before 11th. March, by phone, text message, e-mail, face-to-face or otherwise.
John