Guest guest Posted October 22, 2006 Report Share Posted October 22, 2006 Hi, I'm glad Michael is double-checking what we wrote in the letter, but someone is feeding him false information. A few examples: Rick Savage left *before* his period of secondment came to an end. Similarly Sebastien Pender left in March, several months before the start of his university term in October. To be clear about what they and I say in the letter, we don't claim that the problems were the only reason, only that they were *a* reason, and that the relocation uncertainty wasn't. Obviously, the best source of information about why Seb & Rick left are Seb & Rick. The two previous Company Secretaries did *not* remove explanations from motions. For example, the 2003 AGM material (if you happen to have kept it) shows a motion with a *lot* of explanation. Either way, the Company Secretary should have declared a conflict of interest and passed the decision on the motion about his girlfriend to someone else. I'm not aware of everwhere where Michael posted this, and don't necessarily have membership; Michael, how would you feel about cross-posting this where you posted your letter? Hope to see you at the AGM, Ian Michael Benis wrote: > > > > > > > > I would be very interested to hear the views of the signatories. > > Cheers > > Mike > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2006 Report Share Posted October 22, 2006 Hi Ian, Thanks for your reply. I'm quite happy to post that where I posted my original message. Most of the disucssion is in the Members Area of the Vegan Forum. Cheers Michael On Behalf Of Ian McDonald 22 October 2006 19:58 ; VegansUncensored Message about Vegan Society AGM Hi, I'm glad Michael is double-checking what we wrote in the letter, but someone is feeding him false information. A few examples: Rick Savage left *before* his period of secondment came to an end. Similarly Sebastien Pender left in March, several months before the start of his university term in October. To be clear about what they and I say in the letter, we don't claim that the problems were the only reason, only that they were *a* reason, and that the relocation uncertainty wasn't. Obviously, the best source of information about why Seb & Rick left are Seb & Rick. The two previous Company Secretaries did *not* remove explanations from motions. For example, the 2003 AGM material (if you happen to have kept it) shows a motion with a *lot* of explanation. Either way, the Company Secretary should have declared a conflict of interest and passed the decision on the motion about his girlfriend to someone else. I'm not aware of everwhere where Michael posted this, and don't necessarily have membership; Michael, how would you feel about cross-posting this where you posted your letter? Hope to see you at the AGM, Ian Michael Benis wrote: > > > > > > > > I would be very interested to hear the views of the signatories. > > Cheers > > Mike > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2006 Report Share Posted October 23, 2006 Hi, As a mere vegan member with no real information of what is going on, I made an attempt to try and work out what or who I should or shouldn't vote for. Or against. But really, there was no way of knowing from either the official Vegan Society information, or the private mailshot, what the truth of the matter was, save for the fact that some people seem to be disagreeing pretty vehemently on a personal level. There was no way of knowing who was right, or even what the issues really were, due to there being too much reference to things 'not disclosed'. Result? I didn't vote for council members, and won't be turning up to vote for anything else. Without proper information, to do so would be meaningless. So if there really is something important to be decided upon, beyond mere personality clashes, the only way for us ordinary folks to play an informed part would be to actually inform us of all the details. Is my take on it, anyways. John - " Michael Benis " <michaelbenis <VeganSoc-Chat; ; <VegansUncensored > Saturday, October 21, 2006 7:35 PM Message about Vegan Society AGM >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 > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2006 Report Share Posted October 23, 2006 Sad state of affairs isnt it John? The Valley Vegan............... John Davis <mcxg46 wrote: Hi, As a mere vegan member with no real information of what is going on, I made an attempt to try and work out what or who I should or shouldn't vote for. Or against. But really, there was no way of knowing from either the official Vegan Society information, or the private mailshot, what the truth of the matter was, save for the fact that some people seem to be disagreeing pretty vehemently on a personal level. There was no way of knowing who was right, or even what the issues really were, due to there being too much reference to things 'not disclosed'. Result? I didn't vote for council members, and won't be turning up to vote for anything else. Without proper information, to do so would be meaningless. So if there really is something important to be decided upon, beyond mere personality clashes, the only way for us ordinary folks to play an informed part would be to actually inform us of all the details. Is my take on it, anyways. John - " Michael Benis " ; ; Saturday, October 21, 2006 7:35 PM Message about Vegan Society AGM >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 > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2006 Report Share Posted October 23, 2006 Agreed, John. But if we really want to find and do something about it and have a say, the only thing to do is go to the AGM and ask questions and listen and maybe speak... Anyone going? Cheers Mike On Behalf Of peter VV 23 October 2006 17:52 Re: Message about Vegan Society AGM Sad state of affairs isnt it John? The Valley Vegan............... John Davis <mcxg46 wrote: Hi, As a mere vegan member with no real information of what is going on, I made an attempt to try and work out what or who I should or shouldn't vote for. Or against. But really, there was no way of knowing from either the official Vegan Society information, or the private mailshot, what the truth of the matter was, save for the fact that some people seem to be disagreeing pretty vehemently on a personal level. There was no way of knowing who was right, or even what the issues really were, due to there being too much reference to things 'not disclosed'. Result? I didn't vote for council members, and won't be turning up to vote for anything else. Without proper information, to do so would be meaningless. So if there really is something important to be decided upon, beyond mere personality clashes, the only way for us ordinary folks to play an informed part would be to actually inform us of all the details. Is my take on it, anyways. John - " Michael Benis " ; ; Saturday, October 21, 2006 7:35 PM Message about Vegan Society AGM >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 > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2006 Report Share Posted October 23, 2006 No, I can't go - I have another event on that day - really would have appreciated the chance to find out what they had to say for themselves. It's so frustrating. I felt I needed to vote, but it was so hard to figure out what was going on, even having access to one of the former members of staff... oh well, whether I've made the right choices or not, my votes are in the post. I just hope something good comes of all this cr*p. Carole On Behalf Of Michael Benis 23 October 2006 18:39 RE: Message about Vegan Society AGM Agreed, John. But if we really want to find and do something about it and have a say, the only thing to do is go to the AGM and ask questions and listen and maybe speak... Anyone going? Cheers Mike On Behalf Of peter VV 23 October 2006 17:52 Re: Message about Vegan Society AGM Sad state of affairs isnt it John? The Valley Vegan............... John Davis <mcxg46 wrote: Hi, As a mere vegan member with no real information of what is going on, I made an attempt to try and work out what or who I should or shouldn't vote for. Or against. But really, there was no way of knowing from either the official Vegan Society information, or the private mailshot, what the truth of the matter was, save for the fact that some people seem to be disagreeing pretty vehemently on a personal level. There was no way of knowing who was right, or even what the issues really were, due to there being too much reference to things 'not disclosed'. Result? I didn't vote for council members, and won't be turning up to vote for anything else. Without proper information, to do so would be meaningless. So if there really is something important to be decided upon, beyond mere personality clashes, the only way for us ordinary folks to play an informed part would be to actually inform us of all the details. Is my take on it, anyways. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2006 Report Share Posted October 23, 2006 Pretty much how I feel.... On Behalf Of Carole Backler 23 October 2006 19:21 RE: Message about Vegan Society AGM No, I can't go - I have another event on that day - really would have appreciated the chance to find out what they had to say for themselves. It's so frustrating. I felt I needed to vote, but it was so hard to figure out what was going on, even having access to one of the former members of staff... oh well, whether I've made the right choices or not, my votes are in the post. I just hope something good comes of all this cr*p. Carole On Behalf Of Michael Benis 23 October 2006 18:39 RE: Message about Vegan Society AGM Agreed, John. But if we really want to find and do something about it and have a say, the only thing to do is go to the AGM and ask questions and listen and maybe speak... Anyone going? Cheers Mike On Behalf Of peter VV 23 October 2006 17:52 Re: Message about Vegan Society AGM Sad state of affairs isnt it John? The Valley Vegan............... John Davis <mcxg46 wrote: Hi, As a mere vegan member with no real information of what is going on, I made an attempt to try and work out what or who I should or shouldn't vote for. Or against. But really, there was no way of knowing from either the official Vegan Society information, or the private mailshot, what the truth of the matter was, save for the fact that some people seem to be disagreeing pretty vehemently on a personal level. There was no way of knowing who was right, or even what the issues really were, due to there being too much reference to things 'not disclosed'. Result? I didn't vote for council members, and won't be turning up to vote for anything else. Without proper information, to do so would be meaningless. So if there really is something important to be decided upon, beyond mere personality clashes, the only way for us ordinary folks to play an informed part would be to actually inform us of all the details. Is my take on it, anyways. John ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, there may be another side to the story you have not heard. --------------------------- Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline> Un: send a blank message to - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2006 Report Share Posted October 24, 2006 Hi, I guess on the plus side, no matter what personal issues are going on, the vegan movement itself is more than strong enough to survive a few problems with its society... John - " peter VV " <swpgh01 Monday, October 23, 2006 5:52 PM Re: Message about Vegan Society AGM > Sad state of affairs isnt it John? > > The Valley Vegan............... > > John Davis <mcxg46 wrote: > Hi, > > As a mere vegan member with no real information of what is going on, I > made > an attempt to try and work out what or who I should or shouldn't vote for. > Or against. But really, there was no way of knowing from either the > official > Vegan Society information, or the private mailshot, what the truth of the > matter was, save for the fact that some people seem to be disagreeing > pretty > vehemently on a personal level. There was no way of knowing who was right, > or even what the issues really were, due to there being too much reference > to things 'not disclosed'. > > Result? I didn't vote for council members, and won't be turning up to vote > for anything else. Without proper information, to do so would be > meaningless. So if there really is something important to be decided upon, > beyond mere personality clashes, the only way for us ordinary folks to > play > an informed part would be to actually inform us of all the details. > > Is my take on it, anyways. > > John > > > - > " Michael Benis " > ; ; > > Saturday, October 21, 2006 7:35 PM > Message about Vegan Society AGM > > >>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 >> >> >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.