Non member view and thoughts about the Gauge O guild

[009 micro modeller]

2 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

The key here is surely the manufacturers/retailers who support the three shows.

 

Would they be willing to "jump ship" to a similar set of shows organised by a person/group with better management skills and experience of running shows?

 

Can anyone say whether any similar situations exist elsewhere in model railway gauge/scale-specific societies, in which the “central” society itself is responsible for organising the big shows rather than this being done by related local groups? As an 009 Society member I think that most of the big NG shows mainly rely on local organisation and funding rather than support from one or more of the main NG societies (the ‘Convention’ we had for the 40th anniversary a few years ago and will hopefully repeat in future, for example, is a slightly different type of event from a normal exhibition).

 

As an outsider it almost sounds as though a semi-independent (financially separate?) “show committee” specifically to run the shows separately from the rest of G0G might provide some solutions to the problems mentioned above.

[Fenman]

6 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

But how much detail could be published while still being GDPR compliant?

GDPR needn’t be a problem. Simply make it a condition of receiving expenses that you agree to have the details published.

 

There are plenty of organisations where much more sensitive personal information is routinely published (my salary and expenses are all published, against my name, in my employer’s annual report). 

 

Paul

[Compound2632]

50 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

Can anyone say whether any similar situations exist elsewhere in model railway gauge/scale-specific societies, in which the “central” society itself is responsible for organising the big shows rather than this being done by related local groups?

 

Surely that's the case with both the EM and Scalefour Societies, which each organise their two or three big shows.

[chris p bacon]

2 hours ago, Fenman said:

GDPR needn’t be a problem. Simply make it a condition of receiving expenses that you agree to have the details published.

 

 

It's a while since I had to read up on them but I don't think that is possible.  

 

IIRC you cannot be made to agree to something as a condition for receipt of something you are entitled to. 

[polybear]

Though stating something like "The combined expenses figure for x people (no names) amounted to y pounds".

And then watch the members shout HOW MUCH??.....

[Fenman]

6 hours ago, chris p bacon said:

 

It's a while since I had to read up on them but I don't think that is possible.  

 

IIRC you cannot be made to agree to something as a condition for receipt of something you are entitled to. 

You’d have to set the rules beforehand — you probably can’t do it retrospectively for expenses already incurred, especially if the organisation has had a culture of total secrecy.

 

But in a small voluntary organisation I’d be amazed if transparency wasn’t considered a virtue.
 

Some people are overly scared of GDPR. By itself, it doesn’t prevent publication of information like this (just ask those MPs whose expenses are now routinely published). 

 

Paul

[Giles]

 I cancelled my membership (of quite a few years) due to the way one particular member was being treated by the powers that be.... I saw it as symptomatic of attitudes I did not want to be associated with, although I appreciate what the Guild are trying to do, and how much work such an enterprise takes.

 

I should love to hear that it's found its way on to the straight and narrow, at which time I will happily rejoin - but we'll see.... i did email to explain why i wasnt renewing, and why i found things unacceptable.  

[fail safe]

From what I can see it looks like this email from a director is just another part of the effort by existing management to influence the voting members to stop reforming candidates from being elected into their closed shop. GDPR is important but in this case is just a side issue. I've heard from a friend in the Guild that one reform candidate for management has apparently had his published statement cut in half rendering it useless, and other reformers have not had theirs published in the guild news alongside preferred candidates..  They must be worried about something.

[Craig Watson]

I joined the GOG last September after speaking to a few local members at a show ran by a local o gauge group, I'd been invited along with my modern image  layout and had a great day with lots of positive comments.

 

After joining I signed up to the forum, I couldn't believe some of the stuff in the guild talk section regarding the costs of Telford etc, members asking genuine questions being brushed off or ignored.

 

I pretty soon began to wonder what I'd signed up to, given the questions about the accounts, the now clear efforts of the "establishment" to protect their positions and seeing the posts above about the Telford jolly enjoyed by them I can't see myself renewing if things don't change.

[009 micro modeller]

35 minutes ago, Fenman said:

You’d have to set the rules beforehand — you probably can’t do it retrospectively for expenses already incurred, especially if the organisation has had a culture of total secrecy.

 

But in a small voluntary organisation I’d be amazed if transparency wasn’t considered a virtue.
 

Some people are overly scared of GDPR. By itself, it doesn’t prevent publication of information like this (just ask those MPs whose expenses are now routinely published). 

 

Paul

 

I don’t actually think it should be a problem, but I can see it being cited as an issue by people who have misunderstood or the regulations or interpreted them too literally. I would think the main issue would not be the actual expenses information but possibly whether the information published (if very detailed) could be used to infer other personal information. But in other organisations just publishing a figure against the number of people it is for would usually be enough for people to decide if it’s reasonable. I’m not sure I can agree with the idea of claiming a lot of expenses for an event you would have attended in any case, run by your own group, anyway.

[Mike Bellamy]

The Acting Chairman (who is not standing for election) has said that the email has not been sanctioned by the Management Committee.

 

I am replying the the posts made today with regard to the e mail sent out by XXXX about the forthcoming election.
I would like to state that this was not discussed with or sanctioned by the Management Committee and that we in no way condoned it.
It was sent by XXXX in a personal capacity although I understand by the fact that he holds a position in the Guild as Regional Manager and Director this could be misconstrued. I am informed that the message was sent to five leaders of clubs in his constituency all of whose e mail addresses were known to XXXX.

 

However the damage has been done as the email has been forwarded between friends and is no longer restricted to those in his area of responsibility. It has also been published in full on the Guild Forum and clearly makes a recommendation against each of the 10 resolutions which will require a vote at the AGM.  The list includes the names of who to vote for as six (out of 12) of the Committee/Director posts are/will be vacant. 'Reform Group' members are only contesting 4 of the 6 vacancies and if successful will still only be 4 out of 12 on the Committee.

 

There are also questions being asked about letters published in the Guild Gazette about the Guildex Show being cut back to one day, and making the Gazette an 'online only' publication.  These are not formal proposals from the 'Reform Group' but in view of a declining membership, reduced income and increasing costs, then everything should be considered and numerous suggestions have been made by others in some of the many, often heated, debates on the Guild Forum.

 

I will declare an interest here as I proposed David Rae for the position of Chairman.

 

Mike

 

 

[H2O]

54 minutes ago, fail safe said:

From what I can see it looks like this email from a director is just another part of the effort by existing management to influence the voting members to stop reforming candidates from being elected into their closed shop. GDPR is important but in this case is just a side issue. I've heard from a friend in the Guild that one reform candidate for management has apparently had his published statement cut in half rendering it useless, and other reformers have not had theirs published in the guild news alongside preferred candidates..  They must be worried about something.

I'm not a member but wondering (if true) this could potentially invalidate a vote? Surely to make the election free and fair all candidates statements should be officially be published in full or none should be published?  Sadly, unless someone wishes take legal action, this could be swept under the carpet.

[jamie92208]

Apparently candidates were told to make their statements not more than 250 words. At least one has been shortened but strangely the Secretaty's own statement fills a whole column.

 

Jamie

 

 

[Arun Sharma]

2 hours ago, Craig Watson said:

I joined the GOG last September after speaking to a few local members at a show ran by a local o gauge group, I'd been invited along with my modern image  layout and had a great day with lots of positive comments.

 

After joining I signed up to the forum, I couldn't believe some of the stuff in the guild talk section regarding the costs of Telford etc, members asking genuine questions being brushed off or ignored.

 

I pretty soon began to wonder what I'd signed up to, given the questions about the accounts, the now clear efforts of the "establishment" to protect their positions and seeing the posts above about the Telford jolly enjoyed by them I can't see myself renewing if things don't change.

Well Craig, you have a chance to influence things - just use your vote.

[Arun Sharma]

1 hour ago, H2O said:

I'm not a member but wondering (if true) this could potentially invalidate a vote? Surely to make the election free and fair all candidates statements should be officially be published in full or none should be published?  Sadly, unless someone wishes take legal action, this could be swept under the carpet.

Whether or not legal advice and/or action is sought, the problem is that there is now a collective memory of what has happened. Our membership does not have a collective memory 'reset' button so it is possibly unlikely that retiming the election would have any significant benefit/effect.

[Doncaster]

After all the shenanigans of the past year or more I wonder whether the guild can change.  Perhaps it would be best to leave the control freaks and grumpy old codgers to it and look towards a 7FS society.

[H2O]

31 minutes ago, Arun Sharma said:

Whether or not legal advice and/or action is sought, the problem is that there is now a collective memory of what has happened. Our membership does not have a collective memory 'reset' button so it is possibly unlikely that retiming the election would have any significant benefit/effect.

Hi Arun,

If the statements could be published in full (subject to being a reasonable length for all) that should help in making any election fair, which I presume is in everyone's interest.  I assume the GOG website would have room for that even at this late stage?  As I have no access perhaps the statements are already there and it is just the magazine that is being referred to?

Sadly if members are unhappy with how the election goes they may have to resort to voting with their feet.

:-(

[Craig Watson]

1 hour ago, Arun Sharma said:

Well Craig, you have a chance to influence things - just use your vote.

I have done.

[Doncaster]

1 hour ago, H2O said:

......

Sadly if members are unhappy with how the election goes they may have to resort to voting with their feet.

:-(

 

Craig,

 

I already have.  There has been a lot of unpleasantness directed at anyone that didn't think the management of the guild was brilliant.  After a particularly unpleasant episode involving one if the directors I decided I would not renew my membership as to do so would add a tiny bit more legitimacy to his actions.  Just before that, the management structure of the guild was amended to concentrate even more power in the management committee, making them even less accountable.

 

If there's real change I'll rejoin but I'm not holding my breath.

 

Vernon

[Joseph_Pestell]

4 hours ago, Mike Bellamy said:

. 'Reform Group' members are only contesting 4 of the 6 vacancies and if successful will still only be 4 out of 12 on the Committee.

 

 

 

A poor strategic move there. In a situation such as this, a list needs to contest all available seats.

 

Do the other six come up for re-election next year?

[fail safe]

1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

A poor strategic move there. In a situation such as this, a list needs to contest all available seats.

 

Do the other six come up for re-election next year?

From what I hear, I think it's because not all the seats are available to contest and at least one other seat has another excellent person already incumbent and doing a good job, and is therefore not challenged.

[Joseph_Pestell]

33 minutes ago, fail safe said:

From what I hear, I think it's because not all the seats are available to contest and at least one other seat has another excellent person already incumbent and doing a good job, and is therefore not challenged.

 

It is entirely normal in a company for only part of the board of directors to be up for re-election each year, usually one third of the members. If I understand correctly here, it is a Management Committee that is the issue here which is not necessarily the same bunch of people as the Directors/Trustees.

 

The person you mention may be "doing a good job" in some respects. But, as a member of the Board, he has wider responsibilities and if he is not exposing and opposing the problems that he must be aware of, I would suggest that his position should be challenged.

 

On the point raised earlier about the legality/lawfullness of some of the election practices, I would need to read the Memorandum and Articles of Association to see what is contained there. If the current election breaches the rules set out in the Mem & Arts, it should not be difficult to get the election overturned. Some breaches of the Mem & Arts might not even need court action but just some contact with Companies House. Where's Horsetan when we need him?

 

Edit to add:

Just had a look through the Mem & Arts as amended by an EGM last year (available via Companies House website). I find clause 10.4 quite extraordinary. Why would any membership organisation wish to conceal financial information and other documents from its membership? And why would members present at an AGM (or voting by proxy) vote for such a thing? What percentage of the membership voted for this? Turkeys and Xmas comes to mind.

Edited July 29, 2020 by Joseph_Pestell

[Fenman]

7 hours ago, fail safe said:

... I've heard from a friend in the Guild that one reform candidate for management has apparently had his published statement cut in half rendering it useless, and other reformers have not had theirs published in the guild news alongside preferred candidates..  They must be worried about something.

I’ve managed elections in various bodies, and the usual rule is to set a word limit (and even to specify the software to count the words — so that acronyms, etc, are all treated in the same way). If someone sends a 275 word statement when the limit is 250, you just end the statement after the 250th word, even if that’s mid-sentence.

 

As an election manager, I think it would be incredibly poor practice to edit a statement — I have even left in bad spelling, wrong facts and jumbled grammar. It is their statement; I’m just responsible for guarding the integrity of the process. 
 

It reminds me of when the Guardian sketch-writer stood for election as an MP (in the 1980s?). All candidates had to submit to the Returning Officer their official description for the ballot paper (eg, “Conservative and Unionist Party”). His description was “Tall and tanned and young and lovely”. Unfortunately the Returning Officer rejected it, because it was 7 words and you’re only allowed 6.
 

Paul

[Joseph_Pestell]

6 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

I’m not sure I can agree with the idea of claiming a lot of expenses for an event you would have attended in any case, run by your own group, anyway.

 

People's view on the matter of expenses tends to be very variable. And it is not an easy matter.

 

In many voluntary organisations, directors/officers do waive the payment of expenses. That is all well and good for the affluent who can afford to pay their own costs. If it becomes a norm for the organisation, it can preclude some members from being on an even footing when it comes to putting themselves forward for election. That is not such a good thing.

 

I would suggest that in a national organisation, where travel costs can be a big factor, expenses should be paid. But every effort should be made in a voluntary organisation to minimise them and that should be made transparently clear to the membership.

 

One recognises too that some "benefits" may be appropriate to reward people who are giving freely of their time. One organisation that I was a committee member of had a pub meal paid for after meetings rather than people claiming for mileage. Is that so bad?

 

[009 micro modeller]

16 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Surely that's the case with both the EM and Scalefour Societies, which each organise their two or three big shows.

 

And do they manage OK keeping a check on the expenses?