Re: [Fsfe-uk] AFFS

[John¹]

On Tuesday 03 March 2009 06:22:43 you wrote:
> Re: [Fsfe-uk] AFFS
>  Date: Tue Mar  3 06:22:43 2009
>  From: "Sam Liddicott" <address@hidden>
>  To: address@hidden
>  CC: address@hidden
>
> I have offered to participate in a re-vitalised AFFS which you nicely
> acknowledged, and since then you have been rude to me, even appearing to
> question my right to post to this mailing list.
>
I was not questioning your right right to post, merely enquiring who you 
were, and what your sudden interest was.
>
> Perhaps because I have not provided the information you wanted, but
> rather nicely suggested (having had personal experience with more than
> one lapsing organization) that you won't get any answers because there
> aren't any, you seem to think you can be rude and expect me to shut up
> and go away. This is the message that your attitude communicates.
>
You may take this as rude, but it is simply a statement of the obvious, you 
are being naïve, of course there are answers. The committee asked to be 
give the responsibility of running the AFFS. There was a reason that they 
decided to stop taking subscriptions from existing members, there was a 
reason they neglected to take action following an AGM that was not 
quorate, there were options open to them to remedy the failure of that 
AGM, they have yet to proffer explanations for those reasons, and/or 
decisions, any of them, they were asked direct questions, they dissembled, 
in one case one member of that committee offered to make a 1200 mile round 
trip to talk to me in order to avoid giving written answers. In the case 
of the failure to take subscriptions, there are reasons that that can be 
done but it requires that notice be give to each individual stating that 
reason. I have read your resume, your life would seem to have been a 
little longer say two years, than my experience of public service, at 
local, regional, and National levels, indeed at the time you were getting 
your A Levels, 1988 – 1990 Wyggeston & Queen Elizabeth I College, 
Leicester,A Level Maths, Physics, Electronics, I was being consulted by 
the Commission of the then EEC, (EU), running a County wide voluntary body 
sitting as a member of the National Executive of my Professional body, and 
sitting on the National decision making body of a membership organisation 
with over 100,000 members and a budget running into millions, I was also 
on the Cabinet Office List of those who may be asked to give opinions, 
(indeed I might even still be so). In all that time I have been just a 
blunt and forthright as I am now and still managed to get elected to those 
posts. Whilst you might find me rude, others apparently thought my 
approach was that of someone they wanted to elect.  
>
> As far as I see it having read all the posts, there are no officers,
> their election having lapsed and you are (probably) the only member, in
> which case it may have been down to you in the last few years to hold
> elections and post meeting notices, but possibly (for valid personal
> reasons too, no doubt) you were paying about as much attention as
> everyone else seems to have been. It has been suggested that if you are
> the only member that there is even no association.
>
The valid reason that I did not do so until this last weekend, being that 
the last committee gave no-one notice of any actions it had taken or of 
decisions it had made with regard to subscriptions, or indeed Meetings.
>
> If you don't want "not members" (which is probably almost everyone
> except you) and "never members" to join in the conversation, then -
> having placed your notice - hold the discussion in private.
>
To the best of my recollection this mailing list was one of those set up to 
act as a conduit for the members of the AFFS, due to the non-stop flow of 
argument on some parts, and lengthy suggestions such as this, your 
paragraph below applies, as the volunteer, I have had about one spare hour 
to actually communicate with those who are actually doing something. 
>
> As you are holding a public discussion I'm trying to be helpful; and
> state some things that I thought you would have known but appear not to:
>
> Volunteers often over estimate their ability in an underestimated
> capacity. In other words they are helpful and hopeful and often the
> other members leave them to get on with it and members often don't even
> bother to make themselves aware of how well the volunteer is managing
> under the new burden. Perhaps you fall under this category of member,
> and if so, no doubt you have your reasons just as everyone else will.
>
As I pointed out I've been a volunteer probably since you were between 2 to 
5 years old, I've always been clear as to the responsibilities and 
liabilities of taking office, and in particular have acted as 
trustee/proxy owner when purchasing land for a voluntary body. I'm also 
aware of the amount of flack one attracts by doing so, In having to spend 
my time to reply to this message for a start.
>
> You seem to have believe that you have a better understanding of the
> responsibilities and liabilities of these officers (and perhaps you do)
> but if you do, how can you be surprised if these officers fail to
> understand these responsibilities as well as you do, and fail to meet
> your demands? Even now they are acting as volunteers in answering your
> questions.
>
No they're not, the questions have yet to be answered by one of them, and 
look at one of the answers that I have got, " you can ask these questions 
until the heat death of the universe" is that a volunteer answering my 
questions?
>
> And when I see what appears to be veiled legal threats and accusations
> of non-members eyeing up the funds; I just have to ask: Can't you see
> that it's not working? Whatever you are trying to do and find out is not
> working - you need the co-operation of these old members and officers,
> and you aren't getting that. Many people reply and tell you WHY you
> aren't, but you don't try another approach.
>
I didn't make any "veiled legal threats" I gave the benefit of my 
experience to one who gave his 'legal opinion on more than one occasion, I 
also "elaborated" when requested, again based on personal experience. If 
you mean the AFFS, you're right its not working, and I'm demanding to know 
why. Those who formed the last committee have a DUTY, to answer the 
questions of the members/member. if they aren't prepared fully and frankly 
to do so, then they are still part of the problem that caused it, (the 
AFFS), to implode, and not part of the solution.
>
> I do not see how the AFFS can be resurrected - as the main instigator
> has both practically declared it to be a legal impossibility as well as
> alienating everyone who could help!
>
If the foregoing is referring to me, then I suggest that you look to your 
own attitude, its very easy to attack me, but what are you doing to 
discover the facts?  Has it not occurred to you that that may be due to 
the non-cooperation of those who got it into this state in the first 
place, volunteer responsibility again... This should act as a warning to 
those who volunteer without finding out what they are responsible for. 
Heres a suggestion for you, why don't you set up a new association and 
I'll concentrate on closing this one down and transferring its 
engagements.  
>
> Who can answer your questions now after threats of being made to answer?
> Will the answer be used in evidence? You adversarial posturing makes one
> question the wisdom in telling you anything at all about the facts - it
> may be safer to not try to recall a faulty memory and just let the money
> go to the crown.
>
Then you suggest that to all those who were members and get back to me with 
the answer. My actions in this matter are designed to STOP the money going 
to the crown. Others are not clearly stating their interest in the AFFS 
despite being apparently particularly anxious to give me their, as far as 
I can tell, un-qualified legal opinions, indeed I was given an opinion by 
someone who had arrived at it without bothering to actually read the rule 
in question.
>
> My reading is this:
> If we can't tell how many members there are, then we can't suppose that
> the association has ceased to exist, only that it has failed to keep
> some of it's rules. If this much can't be agreed then there isn't enough
> agreement to re-start anyway - if you want to resurrect, then keep it
> that way, have a few new people pay their dues and elect new officers.
> (I don't think I want to be one, the burden seems too great now).
>
You have failed to recognise one fact, that there are others, at this 
moment, working to ascertain the points you outline above, and indeed it 
may well be that the best thing to do with what they discover is to wind 
up the AFFS, so I suggest again, you set up another association to accept 
its engagements. However you should make it clear to all involved the 
responsibilities and liabilities that flow from office in it!

-- 
John Seago
GNU/Linux Registered User No. #219566 http://counter.li.org/