We have received a response to our formal
grievance
(A Moderation Mess).
I can't verify this by having a look in the minutes
(The Saga of the Minutes),
but we will take it that the response reflects MFS Committee handling
of the grievance under the grievance policy.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and
quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. Based on our test
drive, the society's grievance policy is a sham. Maybe it was
designed to be used against members, and not by members against
decisions of MFS Committee, who can say.
The MFS Committee's response to my grievance
against them, was to say that they have reviewed their own decision
and decided it was correct. Well, they would, wouldn't they?
They restated their unsubstantiated story of
complaints about my postings to MFS announce (and presumably no
complaints about others who are allowed to use MFS Announce without
problems).
This committee appears totally unaware of the
rules of natural justice referred to in the Associations
Incorporation Act. Everyone is entitled to a fair and independent
hearing, and to confront their accusers. What are these contrived
complaints and who is said to have made them? Where is the
independent panel to decide on my complaint of MFS Committee abuse of
power for vindictive purposes? Is the panel really the MFS Committee
itself? If so, the grievance process is a sham.
Their second reason for deciding their own
decision was correct was that they don't like me expressing my
opinion on my blog. This is even more indefensible, messing up my use
of MFS Announce as revenge for me writing this blog. It appears to me
to be an abuse of power.
Again, they quote complaints about this blog that
they allege they have received, with no substantiation. I have heard
no complaints from others outside the MFS Committee about either my
use of MFS Announce or my blog. I have had some comments published on
my blog disagreeing with this or that that I wrote but none recently
in spite of high readership numbers. I encourage polite comments and
contrary views on my blog, in the interests of open discussion.
The MFS Committee call sending out event
announcements with reminders closer to the time "overloading".
Again a baseless complaint obviously contrived to convince themselves
they are right, and a statistical count of announcements shows that
we are very low on overall message count, and about in the middle for
number of reminders per event. Folks with busy lives like a reminder
a few days before the event.
They also state as a reason "The announce
list is for information of events, not for baseless accusations".
Who could disagree, but talk about setting up a straw man and then
knocking it down, this reason is the most baseless I have ever seen.
I requested access to the list of who is moderated
and who is not, under Rule 40 (The records, books and other documents
of the society shall be open to inspection). I received a general answer
that did not provide the list.
The MFS Committee have moved the date of the AGM
to a week later this year, to a date that is when we will be away at
the Bush Dancers Bendigo Bivouac. So, I leave it to those who are in
town to think about the problems that lie behind this mess, and to
realise that the best solution is a brand new committee of ten. What
are you going to do?
Regards
Lance
The MFS Secret Minutes?
ReplyDeleteThe current MFS committee is keeping their management of the society's business behind a veil of secrecy. No minutes of committee meetings are published on the MFS member's web site as was previously the case, and hurdles have been constructed for any member who wishes to avail themselves of their legal right to see these minutes.
The excuse offered now has no relevance, as it applied to a confidentiality agreement with the "kick up your heels" organiser which has long since lost any meaning.
So what is it that this MFS committee has been doing that needs to be a closely guarded secret?
What is this committee trying to hide?
These circumstances are surely most irregular and could be interpreted as suggestive of incorrect behaviour or unaudited financial benefits:
1. With lots of money flowing for the Canberra centenary dance celebrations, and the MFS committee being involved in running these events.
What are we to think?
2. With one member of this committee being accused of, and confessing to, improper touching of women whilst acting on behalf of the society.
Then initiating legal defamation proceedings against his accuser, causing an insurance claim, and defence mounted to protect that member
accuser. Then continuously but falsely claiming his defamation action was to proceed over a period of twelve months.
Then letting the time window for such action expire, having caused the most possible hurt and disruption to everyone involved.
What sort of committee do we have?
3. With personal vendettas being conducted by some committee members against the most hard working and most effective event organisers within the society.
How are we to view this committee?
4. Some committee persons have been on the committee in various roles for up to seven years, and over that time we have seen many resign in disillusionment, now of this year's six remaining, only four have not indicated they will resign at the end of term.
Why have so many resigned?
5. This committee has steadfastly refused to accept that the MFS is a decentralised organisation, and repeated tried to force an inappropriate top down hierarchy on the society, claiming that only the committee has the authority to run society events.
Why can this committee not accept that it must delegate authority?
The only way to correct this situation is to replace those four who would stay, with new people, and start afresh. The alternative of carrying on as usual can only perpetuate the these troubles until the society is destroyed from within.
It is not a difficult job running a decentralised society which is how it should be run. We just need a clean slate and ten good people to share what is a small work load.
Can you help in this task of saving the MFS?