Response To AROC Chairmans Report
On page 7 of the February 2009 AROC magazine there appeared a report -described as a "summary"- from the AROC Chairman regarding the events over which he presided during much of 2008. The AROC had long avoided making any statement over the underhand way in which it treated two of its Directors and one of its Sections, so this was the chance to set the record straight and perhaps even go further. Instead, it presented a collection of unsubstantiated opinions and carefully selected facts, indeed just the sort of things which started this whole affair and left the AROC on the wrong end of a High Court judgement and with a large and unnecessary legal bill. Given what has happened, this attempted whitewash is as predictable as it is unsatisfactory, so here are some informed comments on each paragraph of the report.
Para 1: There were no legal reasons from outside the AROC for the AROC membership not being kept informed: In fact, the only restraint upon the AROC was a solicitor's warning not to make any defamatory statements.
Para 2: The two Directors in question were only ever constructively critical of policies and actions of the MT in their attempts to improve AROC performance and service to the membership, although their comments obviously reflected on those responsible for any under-achievement. The two Directors were indeed interested in planning a better future for the AROC as many MT members seemed content with its stagnation and its poor performance, but no evidence has ever been presented -despite many requests, personally and from solicitors - of the accusations contained in this paragraph and elsewhere, which have in any case been absolutely refuted.
Para 3: The MT meeting held in April was tantamount to a kangaroo court since it was convened without the knowledge of the two Directors. To admit that the entire MT knew so little about the Club Rules and Articles (which were on the Club's website) that they took various actions in contravention of them is surely grounds for their mass resignation, particularly that of the Company Secretary who is ultimately responsible for legal matters: There were also instances of non-compliance other than the two selectively given. Club Rule 4.2 requires the Chairman to ensure the club is "operated in accordance with the Club Rules and Regulations, the Companies Act" ....etc. and the Club's Articles of Association (a legal document) state, "The Management of the Club shall be undertaken in accordance with the Club Rules." Between May and August the MT were advised by the two Directors and their solicitors on various occasions exactly what they had done incorrectly, but they chose to ignore this advice.
Para 4: The meeting of December -organised at 48 hours notice!- simply voted not to allow several specific G&S members to renew their memberships, although those not part of the MT were not given notice of the meeting, not invited to attend and not advised of the grounds to be considered against their continued membership, nor were they given any option to appeal.
Para 5: The oft-repeated untruth that one of the Directors in question was an officer of another Section makes its appearance yet again, although there was in any case no Rule against this until December 2009! The timing of the 'discovery' of the AROC's mistake in allegedly not approving this Section -although they paid it the Section Subsidy for two years and recognised it in so many other ways- indicates a hidden agenda, with all references to G&S being expunged from the AROC website and publications shortly after the unconstitutional actions were first taken. It was an obvious attempt at isolation but had the opposite effect, especially when members who asked why all references to their Section -one of the most successful in the AROC- had been removed received differing and obscure reasons for this. The offers of contact with the AROC or -irrelevantly- surrounding Sections were rejected by G&S members as they could see that the actions which had been taken were inept and unjustified and so G&S continued to function as before, until the prospect of never being reconciled with the AROC forced its decision to go it alone.
Para 6: The AROC has never been "gagged" by anyone, but chose to suppress in all of its media any mention of the conflicts which it had instigated and has tellingly only chosen to make the statements in question after removing from the organisation those opposing its unconstitutional actions.
Para 7: How can acting outside the Rules and Articles be described as being in the "best interests" of an organisation? The claim that a take-over was being attempted is an absurd suggestion bordering on paranoia, but may also be seen as a diverting tactic in view of the fact that the Club is now being 'managed' by a group which no longer encourages uninvited nominees to join it.
Para 8: In reality these were the first steps towards centralising power among a few, one of whom was voted out of office by the members in 2001. Given their lack of understanding of the Rules they would appear to be the least suitable group to rewrite them, but they did so and the new regulations were adopted late in 2009!
Para 9: How can anyone reconcile 'protecting reserves' with wasting £9000 on an unwinnable court case and employing expensive solicitors to run up further costs
Para 10: The comments on Sections are impossible to square with the way in which G&S was treated and the debacle of ditching NAD 2008 in favour of a non-event is glossed over (as are any resultant financial losses to the Club), although that certainly showed how divorced from the membership the MT had become.
Para 11: At least the results of the voting get a mention this time, but for the second consecutive occasion no figures are published. Would most people be happy with a general or even local election result being presented in this fashion and why have no results of the 2007 election ever been announced, despite repeated requests?
All in all this a Chairman's report which at best amounts to nothing more than a subjective use of the truth in an attempt at self-justification. The fact that the members of the AROC are happy to appoint Club Officers who admit to incompetence and mismanagement is truly astounding: Perhaps they could at least demand that these people reimburse the Club for the members' money which they have wasted as a result of their unconstitutional actions?
