In his BN Forum posting of 24.3.09, CCBN's current Chairman Michael Farrar (inter alia) says;
"We are left, therefore, with the inescapable fact that, while nobody can be shown to be culpable, CCBN is worse off by £1068.85. This will, however, be set right, since the Executive Council was informed at its March meeting that an individual decision had been made to suspend making any claim for reimbursement of expenses until that sum has been made good. This may satisfy the proper concerns of some members, though they will surely insist that we should be much more careful in future."
This is 'information' repeated in the recent BN magazine. No one 'culpable' - pull the other one Mr. Farrar. The evidence of culpability was there plainly on the file! But let's move on to the next intriguing twist in the tale. Despite enquiries, I have been unable to find out who this 'individual' is who is going to to pay back Ayers' debt for him, by not making any expense claims for a while. Neither have I been able to find out why she, or he, feels they have to do such a thing. I can only speculate that she, or he, considers themselves complicit in the whole affair, and that her, or his, conscience has caught up with them. Why it has taken so long for her, or him, to come to this conclusion I can't guess, nor do I know why the EC are so coy about naming this 'generous' individual, as failing to do so opens the flood gates of speculation once more. A far better outcome would have been to have got Ayers himself to pay his debts, and we still haven't been given a proper explanation as to why the EC would not sue him. I wonder if Mr. Farrar's words " This may satisfy the proper concerns of some members, though they will surely insist that we should be much more careful in future.", will be realised in action. If so, being 'careful' would seem to imply that we should not allow any one person to control CCBN's money (not forgetting that information is power). If there is , as I suppose above, a person who feels they were complicit in the Ayers affair (and by 'repaying' the money, as above, is admitting it) surely she, or he, should not be involved in CCBN's finances again? CCBN's current Treasurer is stepping down in October and no one has stood for replacement so far. I wonder if the EC is concerned at the lack of financial control this could lead to? It would be hard for them to defend a situation in the future if the person who has not been named, turned out to be the sole person with control over CCBN's money and the information about it, wouldn't it? -- Duncan Heenan
On 3 July, 08:21, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> In his BN Forum posting of 24.3.09, CCBN's current Chairman Michael Farrar > (inter alia) says;
<rest snipped for brevity>
Did Farrar post this during one of his rare moments of lucidity? Or was he still in his usual state of advanced senile dementia? That could make a lot of difference!
> I wonder if Mr. Farrar's words " This may satisfy the proper concerns of > some members, though they will surely insist that we should be much more > careful in future.", will be realised in action. If so, being 'careful' > would seem to imply that we should not allow any one person to control > CCBN's money (not forgetting that information is power). If there is , as I > suppose above, a person who feels they were complicit in the Ayers affair > (and by 'repaying' the money, as above, is admitting it) surely she, or he, > should not be involved in CCBN's finances again? > CCBN's current Treasurer is stepping down in October and no one has stood > for replacement so far. I wonder if the EC is concerned at the lack of > financial control this could lead to? It would be hard for them to defend a > situation in the future if the person who has not been named, turned out to > be the sole person with control over CCBN's money and the information about > it, wouldn't it? > -- > Duncan Heenan
There are still a great many members who are unsatisfied with the way the EC dealt with this issue, as can be seen on the BN forum, so whilst the EC, our elected officials, refuse to do as their members wish, why then cannot a quorate number of members take the issue in hand and pursue it through the courts as a members claim. I assume Duncan is still prepared to underwrite the claim, has already done the leg work, and is willing to appear on our behalf. If all that is required is 20 signatures of fully paid up members of CCBN, I would be more than willing to put my name forward, and another 18 shouldn't be that difficult to find. Should anyone be interested in adding their name, please drop me a line.
If Mick's mates won't bite the bullet, then we'll have to go it alone.
Pete Knight wrote: > why then cannot a quorate number of members take the issue in > hand and pursue it through the courts as a members claim.
The same thought has occurred to me. If an unincorporated association has no separate legal personality from its individual members, then any alleged fraud against the organization would ipso facto constitute a fraud against each individual member. So why should Duncan not lodge a personal claim against Mick Ayers for the 50p that he believes to have been stolen from him? That would have the advantage of not requiring the organization itself to take a view one way or another on the propriety of the decisions made - a subject on which we members are not agreed amongst ourselves, it being something about which 'reasonable men may differ'.
> There are still a great many members who are unsatisfied with the way > the EC dealt with this issue, as can be seen on the BN forum, so > whilst the EC, our elected officials, refuse to do as their members > wish, why then cannot a quorate number of members take the issue in > hand and pursue it through the courts as a members claim. I assume > Duncan is still prepared to underwrite the claim, has already done the > leg work, and is willing to appear on our behalf. > If all that is required is 20 signatures of fully paid up members of > CCBN, I would be more than willing to put my name forward, and another > 18 shouldn't be that difficult to find. Should anyone be interested in > adding their name, please drop me a line.
> If Mick's mates won't bite the bullet, then we'll have to go it alone.
> Pete
Very sensible quote Pete, lets hope some members take it on and give it their backing
>> why then cannot a quorate number of members take the issue in >> hand and pursue it through the courts as a members claim.
> The same thought has occurred to me. If an unincorporated association has > no separate legal personality from its individual members, then any > alleged fraud against the organization would ipso facto constitute a fraud > against each individual member. So why should Duncan not lodge a personal > claim against Mick Ayers for the 50p that he believes to have been stolen > from him? That would have the advantage of not requiring the organization > itself to take a view one way or another on the propriety of the decisions > made - a subject on which we members are not agreed amongst ourselves, it > being something about which 'reasonable men may differ'.
> -- > Steve
What craP you spout, are you personaly happy about a person gaining a loan then not paying it off and letting others do it for him, if so would you care to settle dome of my loans !!!!!!
|
