Message about Vegan Society AGM

[Guest guest]

I also posted this on the Vegan Forum's " members only " forum.

 

Considering the drama, alarm and potential adverse consequences for the

Vegan Society of a message direct to members complete with supportive

" blog " , which inspire all sorts of images of a lack of transparency and

democracy in the Vegan Society, there has been a singular lack of any debate

on concrete matters of policy or initiative regarding TVS on which the

furore is centred. So I have done a little digging with other TVS members

and members of council to try and ascertain what all this fuss is about and

initially simply the factual basis of the allegations in the " message " . Here

is what I have found, taking the points in the order they appear:

 

 

 

It is claimed that staff turnover and the loss of members of staff is

entirely as a result of resignations resulting from some sort of problems of

maladministration. This is inaccurate. Rick Savage, for example, did not

resign for any such reason. He was seconded from his job in the treasury and

stopped being CEO of TVS when his period of secondment came to an end.

Similarly, I am told Sebastian Pender stopped being Business Development

Officer for the simple reason that he intended to return to university. I am

also told that figure of 8 regards a period of more than one year and that

some of the resignations were simply to do with members of staff who did not

or could not, for family reasons, move with the office to Birmingham. If

anyone has any further or contrasting information I would be glad to hear

it.

 

 

 

Regarding the " editing " of the motions/proposals for resolution for the AGM:

The wording of the proposals as they would be adopted at the resolutions has

remained unchanged, as anyone can see from comparing the TVS Annual Report

and the " message " . What has been omitted are the rationales for the

proposals, which have never been included in the past and were not therefore

included this time. The logic is that the rationale would be explained in

much greater detail at the AGM itself.

 

 

 

The intimations of legal action simply involved the person who is threatened

with removal from Council irrespective of whether they are elected in the

postal ballot stating that they would seek legal advice on the matter, which

seems quite understandable given the situation.

 

 

 

The matters surrounding the forums that are no longer up and running have

been discussed elsewhere here.

 

 

 

So what's left?

 

 

 

I don't think anyone would deny more transparency is a good idea. None of

the members of Council who are not signatories to the " message " have

declared themselves opposed to it, which takes care of most of the proposals

in the message.

 

 

 

Interestingly, five of the signatories are members of Council. This cannot

but give the impression that the proposal to appoint an education officer,

proposed and seconded by two current members of Council, is in some way a

contentious matter that has been opposed by other members of council.

Surprisingly, I am informed by two members of Council that it has never been

proposed by these or other members at a recent council meeting and that they

are in agreement with the proposal, which makes one ask why all the drama,

and why put it as a motion to the AGM rather than just get on with the job

(and one's colleagues) now?

 

 

 

I ask myself what ordinary members are to conclude from this? Even the

proposal for a resolution regarding a named council member seems to be ill

judged, imprecise and unnecessarily adversarial and factional. It would have

been more cohesive, equally effective in the short term and more effective

in the long term to have proposed a resolution proscribing and describing in

detail the destructive actions that the party is alleged to have committed.

 

 

 

Lastly, one has to ask what the need for the " message " was and for venturing

the risk of all the potential fallout and adverse consequences for TVS, with

7 signatories of the " message " being either existing members of council or

standing for election.

 

 

 

I would be very interested to hear the views of the signatories.

 

 

 

Cheers

 

 

 

Mike