Re: AFFS

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.

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.

As far as I see it having read all of 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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!

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.

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).

Sam


John¹ wrote:
> On Monday 02 March 2009 21:56:48 Adam Bower wrote:
>   
>> Please elaborate on this, I am very interested to hear who you think
>> would have any power to compel me to answer to them and for what
>> reasons.
>>
>>     
> Go to a library, find a book on the law of meetings, when AFFS was set up, 
> and its rules were being adapted from a set of model rules, I think the 
> title of the book that I and others borrowed had the title, "The Law of 
> Meetings", due to Sedition, Riot, public order and the American War of 
> Independence, a huge body of law, civil and criminal has evolved around 
> meetings, their conduct, and the bodies that hold them. Look up the 
> section that covers the conduct of the business of an association, the 
> members access to minutes, membership, expulsion, and most importantly who 
> it is that carries the responsibility when things go wrong. It is the 
> members of the Committee, or whatever title the decision making body has! 
> That is why bigger associations indemnify the members of their committee, 
> against loss if they make the wrong decision, as the members can recover 
> any losses from them, separately and severally, i.e. if the members need 
> £1,000,000.00 repaid to them because the committee didn't spend it in a 
> proper way, then if one member has more money than the others, the money 
> can be recovered unevenly, taking everything from the poorer members, and 
> the balance from the one who was a multi millionaire, or of course the 
> other way round, taking all the money from the multi millionaire, as the 
> others have no assets.
>
> As I remember it the most common cases arise around the misuse of the 
> associations funds, and expulsion, (Young v The Imperial Ladies Club?), a 
> matter concerning what the Committee had the right to do, which seems to 
> be applicable here, and it revolved around a lack of notice being given to 
> someone who had had their membership revoked. The precedent should be easy 
> enough to find.
>
> In the case of the AFFS, we are looking at a matter which seems to 
> escalated quite quickly over a weekend with those who were involved, 
> getting quite heated because they are being asked to explain their past 
> actions or neglect, when I set out to find out what had happened in order 
> to make sure that any new rules made the workings of any revived body 
> easier.    
>
> For most of the small associations that exist there are no problems, and 
> the committee members do not realise that they have such onerous 
> responsibilities, However when things do go wrong, as in this case, in 
> particular with your making remarks such as " you have only acted in a 
> manner that would suggest you wish to carry out a witch hunt", "you can 
> ask these questions until the heat death of the universe", "It's because 
> you have no interest in doing anything with what is left of AFFS right 
> now", " anything else will be ignored if coming from John Seago", it does 
> tend make a bad situation worse. But as I have pointed matters escalate 
> quite quickly, even when no conflict existed in the first place. However 
> you should be aware that failing to adhere to the Constitution, or even 
> simply making mistakes, leaves all the Committee, (and as I understand 
> even those who were not present when the mistake was made, responsible, 
> and liable).
>
> Now I am not saying that matters will come to that point, but others have 
> been making statements to this list concerning the 'legal' position of the 
> AFFS, its members, their membership, the loss of their membership, etc., 
> etc., and from what I remember of the case that I was involved in it 
> included all the members of the Committee at the time of the action, even 
> those who had not been at the meeting that took the action, (see the 
> exchange of messages between myself an Jason Clifford).
>
> If you are concerned, I will give you the same advice I gave him, see a 
> solicitor, because the committee in question included you, and as it is 
> not clear what it did when and why, you are included. But again as I said 
> don't take my advice on this matter, I was only ever involved in one case, 
> on the winning side, go and see a solicitor, as I am not one, and even if 
> I was my opinion would not be free.
>
> I think that I have been quite 'elaborate' enough above 
>
>