# Being heavy handed



## A3DFU

Nick, you posted the Committee Statement from 17th February 2013 not even mentioning that neither Steve nor myself have agreed to it. The last I've seen on it on the Committee forum was that Mark warned that there willl be debate on here after posting the statement.

As soon as the debate started you replied and locked the topic.

You can't go round locking topics you dislike stifeling debate. In this case in the hope that until end of June people have forgotten about you, Sara, Andrew and one or two other committee members removing John from his duely elected position of absoluTTe editor unconstitutionally.
This was pointed out to you (and also Sara) many times by Mark on the committee forum and you know it.

In having thrown John out you have acted against the wishes of the members who elected him at the AGM. Now you lock a thread to kill debate. That is NOT a democratic way to act.l

I am not (yet) on the list to support or call for an EGM. Your repeated dictatorial ways may very well motivate me to do just that.

Now lock the thread as you do when you don't like things being said!


----------



## davelincs

Nick, could you please explain why you locked the statement from committee post
Thanks


----------



## Ikon66

Dani, I don't think he locked it after the debate started it was locked from the start. I have a feeling John unlocked it to put his points, nick replied then locked it again. I may however be totally wrong :?


----------



## Jac-in-a-Box

It was posted as a locked topic...no debate was ever started.


----------



## John-H

I unlocked it shortly after it was locked and posted. Nick posted again then locked it again. It's unlocked again now and is an issue which needs resolving. I've asked that it remains unlocked.


----------



## Nem

And I have asked it remain locked.

The statement was only posted here so that all can see it.

It is for members to discuss about the future running of their club and so will be discussed on the members are of the TTOC site.

I locked the topic on creation yet John saw fit to unlock it and reply on here AND the members area.

It's far too difficult to expect everyone to keep up with all replies on both places so the members area is the only place where this should be discussed.


----------



## Hark

Is there a link somewhere that explains why John is no longer editor?


----------



## John-H

Nem said:


> And I have asked it remain locked.
> 
> The statement was only posted here so that all can see it.
> 
> It is for members to discuss about the future running of their club and so will be discussed on the members are of the TTOC site.
> 
> I locked the topic on creation yet John saw fit to unlock it and reply on here AND the members area.
> 
> It's far too difficult to expect everyone to keep up with all replies on both places so the members area is the only place where this should be discussed.


Nick,

To be clear you posted it as a discussion topic type not an announcement and then locked it. There is no reason why it cannot be debated here when it clearly is incorrect and indeed when I unlocked it and replied pointing this out you replied as part of a discussion but then locked it again after you had had your say. I unlocked it and replied again to point out further errors and asked that it remained unlocked as it is a valid subject for discussion here in the TTOC section of the TT Forum. Your first and second post contained errors which I have pointed out. It is incorrect to have an erronious statement and then lock and try to prevent discussion in the place where it is posted especially after that is pointed out and you reply. It does not contain information private to club members as why else did you post it here in the first place. Please unlock the thread and allow the discussion to proceed.


----------



## A3DFU

Thanks for the info, mods


----------



## John-H

Hark said:


> Is there a link somewhere that explains why John is no longer editor?


Yes Hark here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=316744


----------



## bigsyd

People need to be very careful as certain members are going to be voted out not because they are right or wrong but because the people who vote will be voting on the memory of how some conducted themselves :x


----------



## NoMark

bigsyd said:


> People need to be very careful as certain members are going to be voted out not because they are right or wrong but because the people who vote will be voting on the memory of how some conducted themselves :x


A very good point bigsyd.


----------



## tony_rigby_uk

Wow, what the heck have I missed here!!!

I keep off the forum for a while and ALOT has changed.. i'm sure i'll see you all at meets but have to say i'm shocked.. 

but I don't know what has gone on so can't comment.... I will say however that I hope TTOC doesn't suffer as a result


----------



## Hark

John-H said:


> Hark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a link somewhere that explains why John is no longer editor?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Hark here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=316744
Click to expand...

Thank you.


----------



## Gazzer

bigsyd said:


> People need to be very careful as certain members are going to be voted out not because they are right or wrong but because the people who vote will be voting on the memory of how some conducted themselves :x


very true Sydders.........i'll get me coat then mucker :roll:


----------



## audimad

What is happening with the EGM?


----------



## Gazzer

audimad said:


> What is happening with the EGM?


viewtopic.php?f=1&t=317985 :roll:


----------



## peter-ss

I can't help but feel that there's fault on both sides here and the Statement from the Committee wasn't quite what I expected.

Had John been reinstated as Magazine Editor then I think an EGM would have been avoided.

Surely, as this has been going on for so long, the Committee Members could work together for another four months until the AGM?


----------



## Nem

But what happens then?

I don't want to stop what I'm doing, I enjoy it. But then the same must be true for John as we're both fighting our corners.

So we get to the AGM and we both stand and both get voted in but still can't work together.

That goes for more than just me, this isn't a me vs John situation, I have 4 other committee members feeling exactly the same.

It's been said that in cases like this the person who can't get on with the other should basically stand down, but again, who should do this?

5 committee members or just 1?


----------



## Gazzer

Nem said:


> But what happens then?
> 
> I don't want to stop what I'm doing, I enjoy it. But then the same must be true for John as we're both fighting our corners.
> 
> So we get to the AGM and we both stand and both get voted in but still can't work together.
> 
> That goes for more than just me, this isn't a me vs John situation, I have 4 other committee members feeling exactly the same.
> 
> It's been said that in cases like this the person who can't get on with the other should basically stand down, but again, who should do this?
> 
> 5 committee members or just 1?


errr Nick check the chairmans role m8! it states impartial.........why does someone have to stand down i have to ask. you have backtracked on YOUR own ruling of dropping all admin rights and removing the ttoc home logo and yet refuse to re-instate john. a simple poll on ttoc site asking if the members would like john re-instated with a weeks deadline will give you the answer..............if they say no then sorted. if they say yes then as Peter states IT IS ONLY until the agm. stop digging this hole deeper, or as syd stated you could find you personally get voted out........be impartial as the role states.


----------



## TT K8

I know how hard it can be to work with someone you just don't get on with, but, if this was an employment situation and both parties concerned were doing their job satisfactorily/well the employer couldn't just sack someone on the grounds they're not Mr Popular. This seems to be what has happened here, as at no point have I read any critiscm of John as a magazine editor, apart from 2 issues being late - and as we are frequently told, you are all volunteers with other life committments that sometimes get in the way of your HOBBY.

Why is this any different?


----------



## Gazzer

TT K8 said:


> I know how hard it can be to work with someone you just don't get on with, but, if this was an employment situation and both parties concerned were doing their job satisfactorily/well the employer couldn't just sack someone on the grounds they're not Mr Popular. This seems to be what has happened here, as at no point have I read any critiscm of John as a magazine editor, apart from 2 issues being late - and as we are frequently told, you are all volunteers with other life committments that sometimes get in the way of your HOBBY.
> 
> Why is this any different?


 [smiley=mexicanwave.gif] Kate gets it


----------



## BrianR

> To be clear you posted it as a discussion topic type not an announcement and then locked it. There is no reason why it cannot be debated here when it clearly is incorrect and indeed when I unlocked it and replied pointing this out you replied as part of a discussion but then locked it again after you had had your say. I unlocked it and replied again to point out further errors and asked that it remained unlocked as it is a valid subject for discussion here in the TTOC section of the TT Forum. Your first and second post contained errors which I have pointed out. It is incorrect to have an erronious statement and then lock and try to prevent discussion in the place where it is posted especially after that is pointed out and you reply. It does not contain information private to club members as why else did you post it here in the first place. Please unlock the thread and allow the discussion to proceed.


[/quote]

You did , I didn't, you did. I didn't; look this isn't watergate, it is a forum for people who drive a particular car. Why can't those invloved just let this go for now for the benefit of the club and sort it in the correct manner at the AGM. Those who keep it rolling will have the chace to stand and vote at that time. As a bystander there needs to be a period of truce here and a few deep breaths taken, as this is not doing the club or any of the individuals involved any justice whatsoever. If this is what it was like being on a committee then it is little wonder the club finds itself where it does currently. Maybe stop focussing on the differences and begin focussing on where there is agreement.


----------



## A3DFU

Nem said:


> But what happens then?
> 
> I don't want to stop what I'm doing, I enjoy it. But then the same must be true for John as we're both fighting our corners.
> 
> So we get to the AGM and we both stand and both get voted in but still can't work together.
> 
> That goes for more than just me, this isn't a me vs John situation, I have 4 other committee members feeling exactly the same.
> 
> It's been said that in cases like this the person who can't get on with the other should basically stand down, but again, who should do this?
> 
> 5 committee members or just 1?


Isn't worrying about how future committee members will get on with eachother putting the cart in front of the horse? Should we try to get to the AGM or an EGM first?


----------



## jampott

It is difficult to keep up with all of the "he said, she said" posts. Suffice to say, as is always the case with "politics", whether on a hobby, local or national scale, we have a committee who were / are, I expect:

a) "voted in" largely unopposed
b) working as hard as they are able, in their spare time
c) fiercely protective over their position / role / opinion

As often as not, clubs and committes have their fair share of people who simply enjoy the fact that they are "elected" to a committee; or for whom, being voted off or removed, would be a sign of failure, somehow. They can match or even outnumber the people who really do have a deep-seated drive to actually run a good club / committee / council, etc., whether it is a Car Club, a Town Council, a Residents Association, etc.

There will also be times when tempers flare, and when committee members simply cannot get on. But, what some people are forgetting is, if you are elected by the membership to carry out a function, *then carry out that function you must*. To the best of your ability, and with the club / council / committee uppermost in your mind. Take the personal grudges and power trips and points scoring out of it, grow up, put your differences aside, and do what your members have elected you to do.

If you feel that personal issues are getting in the way of the proper running of the club, then the consitution and the opinions of the members are what really matters. But, make no mistake, a committee, cabinet or council where committee members do not get along, and disagree with each other, is not necessarily a bad one. It should promote, however, healthy debate and discussion about the best way forward, and compromise / best solutions reached *for the good of the club* and the membership, not for the personal power trip of individual committee members.

I do not want to hear that "XYZ just cannot get on with ABC, and refuses to be on the same committee". What are you all... 12 years old? Why are you volunteering your time, if not for the good of the club? If you don't think someone's actions are for the good of the club, then discuss it internally, at committee level and reach a proper compromise or way forward. Airing all of your dirty laundry "in public" does nobody any favours, and makes a mockery of the whole point of the club.

So if you don't think the consitution is a good one, and has more holes than substance, then you need to come out with a proposal to put in front of members to vote for change. And if you want a healthy committee, you need a bit of competition for the posts, so that members can actually choose (if they wish to) based on what someone proposes, what their plans are, and how well people think they may do the role.

Most of all, though... and this is the elephant in the room... you need a club worth actually having a committee for. A membership of 800 is, I have to say, woeful considering just how common the TT is these days. Back in the early days, when a big proportion of owners cared about the TT enough to form a club, the membership as a % of total cars on the road in the UK was better than today's by what... a factor of 10? 100? 1000? Having a mere 800 members is, I hate to say it, hardly the sign of a club which is going from strength to strength, regardless of what awards it wins at ADI.

When you lump in all of the politics, the arguments, the public spats, and the on/off relationship with the TTF - ask yourself, "What's the point?". I'm not saying there isn't a point - but, if there is one, the point is "THE TTOC". So if you are a committee member, then either serve the members who have elected you in, and actually drive the club forward, or stand aside. Either someone else will drive it forward, or it'll stagnate and fade away - but a surefire way to kill it stone dead is to get embroiled in these petty arguments and make the whole lot of you look unelectable.

No, I'm not on anybody's side. I personally can't see the point of the club in this day and age. It would seem that the TTF fulfils (or could easily fulfil) almost every aspect of what most people seem to want from a club. If the TTOC had built up from the few hundred members when Russell was running it, into a few thousand today, then I think it would be worth the effort, the arguments and the politics. But you don't get any more people turn up to National Meets now than you did in 2001 / 2002 (when PiP organised Blenheim?) and if you can't see that that is the real issue here, then you're deluded.


----------



## Wallsendmag

jampott said:


> It is difficult to keep up with all of the "he said, she said" posts. Suffice to say, as is always the case with "politics", whether on a hobby, local or national scale, we have a committee who were / are, I expect:
> 
> a) "voted in" largely unopposed
> b) working as hard as they are able, in their spare time
> c) fiercely protective over their position / role / opinion
> 
> As often as not, clubs and committes have their fair share of people who simply enjoy the fact that they are "elected" to a committee; or for whom, being voted off or removed, would be a sign of failure, somehow. They can match or even outnumber the people who really do have a deep-seated drive to actually run a good club / committee / council, etc., whether it is a Car Club, a Town Council, a Residents Association, etc.
> 
> There will also be times when tempers flare, and when committee members simply cannot get on. But, what some people are forgetting is, if you are elected by the membership to carry out a function, *then carry out that function you must*. To the best of your ability, and with the club / council / committee uppermost in your mind. Take the personal grudges and power trips and points scoring out of it, grow up, put your differences aside, and do what your members have elected you to do.
> 
> If you feel that personal issues are getting in the way of the proper running of the club, then the consitution and the opinions of the members are what really matters. But, make no mistake, a committee, cabinet or council where committee members do not get along, and disagree with each other, is not necessarily a bad one. It should promote, however, healthy debate and discussion about the best way forward, and compromise / best solutions reached *for the good of the club* and the membership, not for the personal power trip of individual committee members.
> 
> I do not want to hear that "XYZ just cannot get on with ABC, and refuses to be on the same committee". What are you all... 12 years old? Why are you volunteering your time, if not for the good of the club? If you don't think someone's actions are for the good of the club, then discuss it internally, at committee level and reach a proper compromise or way forward. Airing all of your dirty laundry "in public" does nobody any favours, and makes a mockery of the whole point of the club.
> 
> So if you don't think the consitution is a good one, and has more holes than substance, then you need to come out with a proposal to put in front of members to vote for change. And if you want a healthy committee, you need a bit of competition for the posts, so that members can actually choose (if they wish to) based on what someone proposes, what their plans are, and how well people think they may do the role.
> 
> Most of all, though... and this is the elephant in the room... you need a club worth actually having a committee for. A membership of 800 is, I have to say, woeful considering just how common the TT is these days. Back in the early days, when a big proportion of owners cared about the TT enough to form a club, the membership as a % of total cars on the road in the UK was better than today's by what... a factor of 10? 100? 1000? Having a mere 800 members is, I hate to say it, hardly the sign of a club which is going from strength to strength, regardless of what awards it wins at ADI.
> 
> When you lump in all of the politics, the arguments, the public spats, and the on/off relationship with the TTF - ask yourself, "What's the point?". I'm not saying there isn't a point - but, if there is one, the point is "THE TTOC". So if you are a committee member, then either serve the members who have elected you in, and actually drive the club forward, or stand aside. Either someone else will drive it forward, or it'll stagnate and fade away - but a surefire way to kill it stone dead is to get embroiled in these petty arguments and make the whole lot of you look unelectable.
> 
> No, I'm not on anybody's side. I personally can't see the point of the club in this day and age. It would seem that the TTF fulfils (or could easily fulfil) almost every aspect of what most people seem to want from a club. If the TTOC had built up from the few hundred members when Russell was running it, into a few thousand today, then I think it would be worth the effort, the arguments and the politics. But you don't get any more people turn up to National Meets now than you did in 2001 / 2002 (when PiP organised Blenheim?) and if you can't see that that is the real issue here, then you're deluded.


The membership has doubled on the last two years and is climbing steadily the new web membership is very popular


----------



## Mark Davies

Don't say I didn't warn you.

Above we have mirrored exactly what I've been saying to you for months. You cannot choose who you work with on an elected committee - for good or bad you've just got to get on with it as best you can. Your primary responsibility is your duty to the Club - not settling your personal grievances. Perpetuating these squabbles for months on end will do nothing but persuade the members you're not fit to look after their Club.

Do you not realise nobody is the least bit interested in the substance of your bickering? It makes no difference who is right or wrong about anything because nobody could care less. These are all matters that are important to nobody but yourselves. So all you're achieving by constantly going on and on about it is demonstrate to the members that you're quite incapable of reaching compromise for the good of the Club. In other words you're demonstrating as clearly as you possibly can that you're unfit to do the job and unelectable.

Here we have a situation where Nick has rashly taken action with John that has seriously upset the members and has led to exactly the sort of furore that John and Steve hoped to create with their seperate announcements. As a result John is back in the club, a decent voting system is to be put in place, there's discussion on updating the constitution, the decisions that so bothered you have been reversed and even though John doesn't find himself re-instated as editor of the magazine it was only a matter of time before the AGM and him being returned by the membership. In your position I would have considered that 'job done' - but no! There's no compromise, no patience, no waiting. It's got to be absolute, total and complete victory and it's got to be now!

Seriously, just where does the Club come into all of this? Exactly what interests of the Club are now being served by hammering this point? It's certainly not serving your own interests.

For pity's sake - enough is enough. Learn to recognise when you've won.


----------



## rustyintegrale

Mark Davies said:


> Do you not realise nobody is the least bit interested in the substance of your bickering?


Well it looks like we're thinking broadly along the same lines Mark...

http://www.ttoc.co.uk/members/viewtopic ... t=60#p5691


----------



## jampott

The web membership is probably the only thing (speaking as an outsider) keeping the club membership numbers going.

So you really only had ~400 members a couple of years ago?

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, let alone the Membership Sec. - and, I've deliberately worded my post so I'm not seen to be taking any sides in this either way. I don't know or care who is right and who is wrong, I just see that the situation as a whole reflects badly on the entire club, and members (of which I'm probably not one anymore?) should expect better for their money.

I'd be surprised if there were less than 50,000 TTs of various models and variants still on the road in the UK, but it is clearly no longer a niche "enthusiasts" car, nor does it yet have the historical significance to be a "classic" model (although it will, undoubtedly). So ~800 members out of tens of thousands of cars is really not a wonderful degree of penetration. 2372 people "Like" The TT Forum on Facebook, for example, and the TTF itself has over 40,000 registered users. I''m not stupid enough to assume that each of those 40,000+ registered users is active, or a TT owner, and I'm sure a fair number of them are old accounts, spambots and the like... but even once you whittle away the numbers, there are supposedly almost 700 users online at this precise moment (an otherwise quiet and dull Tuesday morning), which is almost the same number of members as the entire OC can count on. So, to an outsider, the OC simply isn't something which captures the attention of the majority - whereas the TTF always has and appears to still do.

Your increasing number of Web members also don't benefit from receiving the much-vaunted absoluTTe through their letterbox. If this membership level is, as you say, "very popular" - doesn't that tell you something about what people want?

Even ignoring the "first" TTOC which Russell setup, it is now 11 years since it was re-invented, and almost 5 since the total changing of the guard at Rockingham.

800 members? You should have THOUSANDS if the club were going from strength to strength.


----------



## A3DFU

Whatever happens in the future with regards to the committee and whoever may be on it, I'll suggest one thing now:

there ought to be an independant advisor / overseer to ensure that inter-committee fighting will be firmly a thing of the past


----------



## Gazzer

A3DFU said:


> Whatever happens in the future with regards to the committee and whoever may be on it, I'll now suggest one thing now:
> 
> there ought to be an independant advisor / overseer to ensure that inter-committee fighting will be firmly a thing of the past


Big Mark............gets my vote Dani!!! now get back to work ya skiver :roll:


----------



## jampott

A3DFU said:


> Whatever happens in the future with regards to the committee and whoever may be on it, I'll now suggest one thing now:
> 
> there ought to be an independant advisor / overseer to ensure that inter-committee fighting will be firmly a thing of the past


What... like a Chairman or something? :lol:

Seriously... the committee need to take care of this themselves. Anyone "independent", and voted for by the membership, is basically just another committee member. So they aren't "indepdendent".

The point is, adults should behave like adults and either run the club as they have been elected to do, or stand aside. A committee who are committed to running the club properly shouldn't need an "appropriate adult" to oversee things for them. Indeed, I can only see that would make things worse.


----------



## tony_rigby_uk

Thought the independent element existed.... the members... who if you send a mass e_mail out to a poll will take up the mantel and tell you what they want....

Mostly for all this rubbish to be over as the TTOC already look like a bad club from this...

A independent person... who would that be... everyone can have there ear bent towards one side than another... why give one person the power... like I said your members including me are independent and probably more than a few like me are bored of it all.. and I came to this late.... if in doubt ask the members... you can send e-mails out as statements... why not widely involve the members...

Get over it... move forward now please as the longer this continues the worse it gets for the club....and me as a member to be associated with what seems to be a farce of he said / she said... you don't get on... you all have. Differen't views and got to the point you can't work together... well too bad... what is done is done but suspension would have been better pending re-election... not as harsh... but what is done is done...

Let's continue with the club... either call another meeting or forget about it until the AGM better yet ask the users to vote if they want you to get together now and sort it... or wait... them the membership has spoken instead of a committee who clearly isn't doing the jobs they were elected for... and I mean this broadly to all committee members.. the ones that haven't got involved are also to blame for not sorting this out and reminding everyone the members are most important.. it's only 700 e-mails and then a vote to have a meeting or leave it to the next.. that way nobody gets criticised as it the members who chose...


----------



## BrianR

Nem said:


> But what happens then?
> 
> I don't want to stop what I'm doing, I enjoy it. But then the same must be true for John as we're both fighting our corners.
> 
> So we get to the AGM and we both stand and both get voted in but still can't work together.
> 
> That goes for more than just me, this isn't a me vs John situation, I have 4 other committee members feeling exactly the same.
> 
> It's been said that in cases like this the person who can't get on with the other should basically stand down, but again, who should do this?
> 
> 5 committee members or just 1?


Nick, John, what would need to happen for you both to feel like you have satisfaction in this? Is there any middle ground that can be found here? Can you both leave this for a week and create a space where a breath can be taken and some thought given? What is currently happening isnt working for either of you, the membership or the Forum and Club; so can you try and focus on what may work?


----------



## TT K8

BrianR said:


> Nem said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what happens then?
> 
> I don't want to stop what I'm doing, I enjoy it. But then the same must be true for John as we're both fighting our corners.
> 
> So we get to the AGM and we both stand and both get voted in but still can't work together.
> 
> That goes for more than just me, this isn't a me vs John situation, I have 4 other committee members feeling exactly the same.
> 
> It's been said that in cases like this the person who can't get on with the other should basically stand down, but again, who should do this?
> 
> 5 committee members or just 1?
> 
> 
> 
> Nick, John, what would need to happen for you both to feel like you have satisfaction in this? Is there any middle ground that can be found here? Can you both leave this for a week and create a space where a breath can be taken and some thought given? What is currently happening isnt working for either of you, the membership or the Forum and Club; so can you try and focus on what may work?
Click to expand...

Rusty's already asked a very similar question of each but seems so far to have been ignored, so +1, and can all parties give this some proper thought and respond this time. We just want our happy club back pleeeeeease!


----------



## Phil_RS

A3DFU said:


> Whatever happens in the future with regards to the committee and whoever may be on it, I'll suggest one thing now:
> 
> there ought to be an independant advisor / overseer to ensure that inter-committee fighting will be firmly a thing of the past


I've said this from the beginning of these problems and completely agree!!!


----------



## peter-ss

I've read quite a few negative comments about twenty five members getting together and calling for an EGM - There are suggestions that the club will be ruined because of twenty five people!

On the other hand we have five members of the Committee take it upon themselves to get rid of John, which the members are supposed to just accept despite the fact that John was voted into his position by the members.

As I've said before, I think that an EGM would be avoided if John was reinstated.


----------



## Gazzer

peter-ss said:


> I've read quite a few negative comments about twenty five members getting together and calling for an EGM - There are suggestions that the club will be ruined because of twenty five people!
> 
> On the other hand we have five members of the Committee take it upon themselves to get rid of John, which the members are supposed to just accept despite the fact that John was voted into his position by the members.
> 
> As I've said before, I think that an EGM would be avoided if John was reinstated.


thank you peter for an honest reply as usual


----------



## R6B TT

I think one of the key issues here is that John (who has done a great job) wants to stay with the same designer - I remember discussions over change when I was last on the committee 5 or more years ago and John opposed. I can understand the frustration if 5 years on a change is suggested and the same arguments appear. If someone else can do it better / faster / cheaper for the club - why not look at it seriously. The Mag is both a major expense and benefit, and whilst there may be nothing wrong with it after 10 years why not look afresh ?

After the first year of the new TTOC (when I think we paid Jae's company £12000 for design and print), Graham (Love-iTT) did the design work using his skills for free and leveraged his print contacts for a good rate for a good number of issues, despite extensive criticism from certain Iron Oxide forum members.


----------



## rustyintegrale

R6B TT said:


> ...despite extensive criticism from certain Iron Oxide forum members.


Well like I said ten years ago and repeated again at the Rockingham AGM, it is tired and old-fashioned. Now it appears you might finally agree with me. :roll:

Having just received a copy I can confirm it is still a tired design and looks like an 'internal communication'. Quite what is wrong with the concept of 'change' I fail to understand but it seems to be the elephant in the room whenever mentioned.


----------



## richardaudi0

Perhaps the designer should be consulted first for his/her ideas on a redesign as a matter of courtesy.


----------



## Wallsendmag

richardaudi0 said:


> Perhaps the designer should be consulted first for his/her ideas on a redesign as a matter of courtesy.


I thought he had been , the meeting minutes available on the club forum note that he was to be asked.


----------



## John-H

Just let me correct something here. The current designer was proposing freshening up the design months ago to me before anybody else suggested it. The current design is based on the previous and has evolved rather than been completely and radically redesigned out of sensitivity for members who may be conservative and do not want radical change.

The current designer has worked on many famous car magazines as a designer, editor, sub editor and is very experienced, has an in depth knowledge of the auto industry and can advise on publishing legal issues to avoid being sued for libel etc. So we don't only get a proper magazine designer but also, proof checking, sub editing, car knowledge and legal advice. I have also built up a close working relationship with our current designer and we work well together which is also something not to be dismissed lightly.

What was recently proposed to me was that an alternative designer, who is I believe a graphics designer and not a magazine designer should produce a front cover design and that our preset designer should too and then a decision made based on only this as to who should be the designer. Of course I objected.

Anyone cam produce a pretty cover picture but it's not just that that makes a magazine - it's all the other stuff as I've outlined above that makes the content including the goodwill that brings about dedication to the job with sometimes working through the night unti three in the morning frequently with the editor filling in writing content because not enough material has been supplied.


----------



## Nem

richardaudi0 said:


> Perhaps the designer should be consulted first for his/her ideas on a redesign as a matter of courtesy.


Maybe the designer could have allowed us to contact him, or even contacted the committee himself, rather than join the forum and start asking leading questions.

Richardaudi0 is our current designer in case there is any confusion. And people wonder why we're tired of all the games.


----------



## Gazzer

to be fair nick, people questioned your leadership skills and you retaliated correct? so his skills as a designer have been brought into question, and he has come on to defend himself! where is the game in that? he only did as you and i would do in all fairness............ :?


----------



## burns

In fairness, and to correct the errors set out above, if you consider the November 2012 Skype meeting minutes, you will see that it was proposed that concepts (not just cover designs) would be invited from new designers, as well as the current designer. Since John is the one working closely with the current designer it's not unreasonable to expect that he would have invited him to submit a concept.


----------



## rustyintegrale

richardaudi0 said:


> Perhaps the designer should be consulted first for his/her ideas on a redesign as a matter of courtesy.


I guess that depends upon the person you are dealing with and the relationship you currently enjoy.

In the design industry - and I would suppose almost any other where subjective creativity is involved - it is not unusual for a client to seek an alternative design for any reason. It is more often than not because the brief hasn't been answered properly or even more likely because the client's partner doesn't like it!

Equally a difficult client who stifles a designer's creativity or demands more input than necessary has to shoulder some responsibility for the way the finished article looks. Too many cooks etc...


----------



## Gazzer

burns said:


> In fairness, and to correct the errors set out above, if you consider the November 2012 Skype meeting minutes, you will see that it was proposed that concepts (not just cover designs) would be invited from new designers, as well as the current designer. Since John *WAS *the one working closely with the current designer it's not unreasonable to expect that he would have invited him to submit a concept.


 :roll: just corrected your error to Sara

ok i'll get me coat


----------



## rustyintegrale

John-H said:


> The current design is based on the previous and has evolved rather than been completely and radically redesigned out of sensitivity for members who may be conservative and do not want radical change.


How do you know that John? What about those that would prefer to see something modern, bright and dare I say it - radical?

A bit like the TT was all those years ago.


----------



## paulc1

Judging the designer on the dreadful dragon he added on the cover of issue 33 it maybe a good idea to look elsewhere


----------



## burns

Gazzer said:


> burns said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness, and to correct the errors set out above, if you consider the November 2012 Skype meeting minutes, you will see that it was proposed that concepts (not just cover designs) would be invited from new designers, as well as the current designer. Since John *WAS *the one working closely with the current designer it's not unreasonable to expect that he would have invited him to submit a concept.
> 
> 
> 
> :roll: just corrected your error to Sara
> 
> ok i'll get me coat
Click to expand...

Excellent work. Want a job as a proof-reader for absoluTTe?


----------



## Gazzer

burns said:


> Gazzer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> burns said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness, and to correct the errors set out above, if you consider the November 2012 Skype meeting minutes, you will see that it was proposed that concepts (not just cover designs) would be invited from new designers, as well as the current designer. Since John *WAS *the one working closely with the current designer it's not unreasonable to expect that he would have invited him to submit a concept.
> 
> 
> 
> :roll: just corrected your error to Sara
> 
> ok i'll get me coat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent work. Want a job as a proof-reader for absoluTTe?
Click to expand...

aww hun nice offer, but i have me bog cleaner job lined up lol.


----------



## R6B TT

rustyintegrale said:


> R6B TT said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...despite extensive criticism from certain Iron Oxide forum members.
> 
> 
> 
> Well like I said ten years ago and repeated again at the Rockingham AGM, it is tired and old-fashioned. Now it appears you might finally agree with me. :roll:
> 
> Having just received a copy I can confirm it is still a tired design and looks like an 'internal communication'. Quite what is wrong with the concept of 'change' I fail to understand but it seems to be the elephant in the room whenever mentioned.
Click to expand...

Its all about timing and money Rich. If you thought it was dated all those years ago, and its fundamentally remained the same for another 5 years... the matter then was of survival and Nick, Karoly, Mark Leavy and myself delayed claiming money spent to keep TTOC afloat. There may have been others, I don't remember. I was very against Rockingham due to the costs but the committee vote carried. That is how Committees and Board of Directors work.

I was the last one to get my money back but that was my choice. It is a testament to the current team that the club is financially secure again.


----------



## John-H

rustyintegrale said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current design is based on the previous and has evolved rather than been completely and radically redesigned out of sensitivity for members who may be conservative and do not want radical change.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know that John? What about those that would prefer to see something modern, bright and dare I say it - radical?
> 
> A bit like the TT was all those years ago.
Click to expand...

The design when I took over editing was updated by our current designer which some said blew them away at the time but it was a while ago. The current designer was going to produce some up to date modern designs to bring the style up to date I remember him saying but when I told him about what was going on it did somewhat put the Kibosh on the whole thing.

To be honest, getting the last magazine out after being treated like I have been was not easy.


----------



## rustyintegrale

John-H said:


> To be honest, getting the last magazine out after being treated like I have been was not easy.


I'm sure John. I'm not being critical of your efforts at all, but we did have a conversation about this at the AGM prior to Rockingham and you were anti change then too.


----------



## rustyintegrale

R6B TT said:


> Its all about timing and money Rich. If you thought it was dated all those years ago, and its fundamentally remained the same for another 5 years... the matter then was of survival and Nick, Karoly, Mark Leavy and myself delayed claiming money spent to keep TTOC afloat. There may have been others, I don't remember. I was very against Rockingham due to the costs but the committee vote carried. That is how Committees and Board of Directors work.
> 
> I was the last one to get my money back but that was my choice. It is a testament to the current team that the club is financially secure again.


Yeah I know Rob. Rockingham was the best event by far though. A great venue but let down by the lack of trader support. I think Donington killed that.

Regarding the magazine, at the time I was producing all the graphics stuff anyway, so it could've been redesigned for free but there was a general reluctance to do it back then.


----------



## John-H

rustyintegrale said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest, getting the last magazine out after being treated like I have been was not easy.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure John. I'm not being critical of your efforts at all, but we did have a conversation about this at the AGM prior to Rockingham and you were anti change then too.
Click to expand...

Rich, the design was changed some time after Rockingham to freshen it up (A20). Perhaps you didn't see this happen as I don't think you were in the club at the time - I may be wrong.

My first issue was A14 (Donington) winter 2007 when the club had lost the previous designer Graham, who did it for free and editor Barry whose last issue was A13 spring 2007 about a whole year previously because it took the club so long to find someone willing to take on the editor's and designer's workload.

At the time when I said yes to doing the editing and joined the committee under Nuts we had no magazine designer and the club had been trying to find someone to do it voluntarily. I think you as a designer had offered to do it on a paid basis and there had been a falling out with the committee - it's a big job though as is now accepted. In my naivety at the time and trying to be helpful I did look into the possibility of doing both but soon realised that was impossible. Autometrix came to the rescue and found us our current magazine designer who has worked for them and other publishers. He picked up the existing design (A14 ) and ran with it to establish continuity. I managed to get the magazine schedule back on track which hadn't been the case for some time.

After Rockingham the main priority was trying to stop the club going under. We had no marketing for the magazine and I took on dealing with the advertisers too and tried to bring the club closer to the TT forum to gain strength for all from the symbiotic relationship. With that developed our advertising revenue share with the experience gained from marketing the magazine and the work we did administering and moderating on TTF which also brought revenue to the club.

It's amazing how despite putting in so much effort and work with the best intentions of ultimately helping members get more out of their club and forum, some choose to criticise and attack you for their own interests. I don't mean you Rich of course - I've found you to be helpful whenever I've dealt with you e.g. over frauds on the forum and when we've needed help calming things down. I think you know Rob how you can go out of your way to help but get treated in a less than appreciative way.

I started on the TT forum and was immediately impressed by people like Wak and Chip-iTT who went out of their way to be so helpful to others in this TT community. I've tried to do my bit too and started out with How Tos and technical advice and editor Barry asked if he could use some of my material.

I've always looked on the club as an enhancement of involvement with the forum and was happy to help on that basis. I've never seen it as a them and us situation unlike some other committee members who say I should be loyal only to the club. I see the whole thing as one that should be inclusive of everyone to the benefit of all.


----------



## rustyintegrale

John-H said:


> I've always looked on the club as an enhancement of involvement with the forum and was happy to help on that basis. I've never seen it as a them and us situation unlike some other committee members who say I should be loyal only to the club. I see the whole thing as one that should be inclusive of everyone to the benefit of all.


I agree.

Regarding the mag, when I first joined the TTOC originally just prior to Donington I volunteered as Club Designer. There was a lot of aggression then - people questioning why I was a committee member in 'that role' etc. FFS I was helping them out and Mark Leavy wasn't exactly short of things for me to do - all at crazy deadlines because the national was just weeks away. I was interested in that stage at taking on the magazine but it never got that far. I found the attitude of some of the committee wanting and nobody with the exception of one guy who's name I can't recall spoke to me at Donington.

That made my mind up. I wasn't ready to become a nerd in a cliquey car club and so I resigned...

I then became involved with the TTOC again when Mark resigned at Rockingham. But again I found the whole process of getting things done wanting. Everyone thinks graphic design is easy because 'you have a computer'. Well it isn't if done properly and if I can't do it properly then I'd rather not do it at all - especially as a volunteer.


----------



## tony_rigby_uk

Ok are we serious here???????

Why on earth we are talking about a magazine and how it looks and Blah, Blah, Blah.. to me it's a firm deflection of what is really this issue.. I'm sorry but i don't care what people say. the Mag is a Mag and surly is not the source of this whole situation. In my Opinion the lot of you need to forget about the mag and short out the bigger underlining issues with the TTOC..

In My opinion there needs to be a shake up.. people need to voice there comments (and i mean all of you) round a table and discuss this like adults.. I get the impression that there are a few keyboard warriors who can skype and type and open their mouth in the comfort of their own home but not to each other personally.

If you can't sort out a issue face to face then should you be sorting it out on a public forum, or via e-mail phone call ect... in reality the answer is NO... and your all at fault for this..

The mag is the least of the problems it would seem. in truth the mag doesn't have anyone working on it at present, with johns departure. and lets be honest with the statement in the last mag he would look a fool if hhe was reinstated and wrote a retraction. so we know that won't happen..

Time to take stock of where you are and how you can move forward. no dragging up 10years of prior history and conflicts. what's done is done. time to move on.. but please focus on the initial issues and not appointing someone else to design the mag. As a member it's the least of my worries when the people than run the TTOC can't seem to see eye for eye and agree the simplest of things. Like who is in the ccommittee circle to begin with..


----------



## John-H

You shouldn't ignore the past when judging people's motivation though Tony, although I quite agree the decisions made now are ones moving forward for the future. When judging a candidate for a job you look at their CV which is all about the past. If people can't agree in private about direction then of course it had to come out to member's attention if those on the committee, who thought it was against member's interests, had that as a primary concern. Don't think sorting it out in private has not been tried. Yes the magazine is only part of it - the main issue is the forum. From what's been revealed it's clear that, openness, democracy, constitutional reform and an acceptance of what members want in their interests should drive direction and be key. You choose people to fulfil these obligations based on trust of their motivations and moral choices as well as their experience and skills they can bring. If you can't trust them and only rely on skills and ability you have to create a controlling structure that ensures safe direction but may tend to micro manage and stifle creativity and progress. Clearly a compromise must be struck which safely solves the problem. Can you do that with a constitution alone? Well we've already seen how words mean different things to different people - it needs more than that.


----------



## A3DFU

tony_rigby_uk said:


> people need to voice there comments (and i mean all of you) round a table and discuss this like adults.. I get the impression that there are a few keyboard warriors who can skype and type and open their mouth in the comfort of their own home but not to each other personally.


Tony,

I 100% agree with you in that face-2-face meetings are a must! When we still did them at the time of Rother Valley and Ducksfield non of the current problems with personalities were there and I'm sure it was due to the fact that people behave very differently when they speak to "real people" rather than hiding behind a keyboard or Skypeing.


----------



## rustyintegrale

tony_rigby_uk said:


> Ok are we serious here???????


 :lol: :lol:

To be fair Tony, you have rather jumped in on a conversation which itself has been going on in the TTOC forums across multiple posts...

...but in essence you're correct.

...so anyway, back to the serious stuff... [smiley=book2.gif]


----------



## Wallsendmag

rustyintegrale said:


> tony_rigby_uk said:
> 
> 
> 
> However the latest news seems to be that the remaining committee are now doubting that they can continue because there seems to be a lack of trust. Who's trust they are referring to is not clear. It seems we might be in for a change of personnel anyway...
> [smiley=book2.gif]
Click to expand...

Don't know where you got that from


----------



## rustyintegrale

Wallsendmag said:


> rustyintegrale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tony_rigby_uk said:
> 
> 
> 
> However the latest news seems to be that the remaining committee are now doubting that they can continue because there seems to be a lack of trust. Who's trust they are referring to is not clear. It seems we might be in for a change of personnel anyway...
> [smiley=book2.gif]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't know where you got that from
Click to expand...

Here...
http://www.ttoc.co.uk/members/viewtopic ... =100#p6026

If I've misunderstood the content then I'll delete the comment.


----------



## Wallsendmag

rustyintegrale said:


> Here...
> http://www.ttoc.co.uk/members/viewtopic ... =100#p6026
> 
> If I've misunderstood the content then I'll delete the comment.


I have no problem with the current committee


----------



## rustyintegrale

Wallsendmag said:


> rustyintegrale said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here...
> http://www.ttoc.co.uk/members/viewtopic ... =100#p6026
> 
> If I've misunderstood the content then I'll delete the comment.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with the current committee
Click to expand...

I dunno. Confused. Gotta go out now anyhow so feel free to delete the comment if it transpires I got the wrong end of the stick. Apologies if I have...

*EDITED IT OUT ANYHOW*


----------



## Faxygaz

The whole situation is a mess.
its about 2 commitee members having different views.and if not careful and sort the whole thing out fast.the club will begin to implode on itself.as no one wants to pay into a club thats not run well anymore.both guys involved have done a great job.but we need more member input into how the club is run and not just the commitee.
i found the kicking a member out of the club ..a commitee member at that ..gobsmaking.especially without a full members vote and a proper explanation to us full members why.
a possible change of commitee members is overdue?..as it seems to be a bit of a "club".if some of the posts ive read are to be believed.
trust is everything guys..because unless a lot of serious issues are addressed very fast.,i think the club will start losing members fast
lets get this sorted

regards,

Gary [faxygaz]


----------



## les

As an ex TTOC and regional rep for many years I find the whole thing ridiculous and decisions taken unconstitutional to say the least. Expelling members and a committee member at that without a mandate to do so smacks of dictatorship. Why then do you even bother to have members vote for committee members at each AGM, Just appoint committee members and higher and fire as you wish.

What kind of a democratic club has the TTOC become when such things happened without the powers, mandate or consent to do so? The TTOC is not the club I joined all those years ago and to be quite frank I am glad I am out of it. At least one present committee member thinks I have no right to speak my mind as it does not concern me. Well it does as I don't like to see a once great club going to the dogs due to the behaviour of a few individuals on the committee.

Will the membership be given the opportunity to voice their opinions at the AGM (if they have one) and have a postal if as many they can't attend to vote on any proposals or is that now too democratic?


----------



## Wallsendmag

les said:


> Will the membership be given the opportunity to voice their opinions at the AGM (if they have one) and have a postal if as many they can't attend to vote on any proposals or is that now too democratic?


Yes


----------



## les

Wallsendmag said:


> les said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will the membership be given the opportunity to voice their opinions at the AGM (if they have one) and have a postal if as many they can't attend to vote on any proposals or is that now too democratic?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes
Click to expand...

That's at least a step in the right direction Andrew and good too see the TTOC getting back towards its own constitution and rules after all that's what they are there for.


----------



## les

les said:


> Wallsendmag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> les said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will the membership be given the opportunity to voice their opinions at the AGM (if they have one) and have a postal if as many they can't attend to vote on any proposals or is that now too democratic?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's at least a step in the right direction Andrew and good too see the TTOC getting back towards its own constitution and rules after all that's what they are there for.
Click to expand...

On the other hand :roll:


----------

