# Why lock the thread ?????



## jamman

Why was the "TTOC Crisis" thread locked no one was throwing insults about and I think the "common" member was getting a great insight into how Nick and the committee work.

No reason given just locked :?


----------



## So Slow

jamman said:


> Why was the "TTOC Crisis" thread locked no one was throwing insults about and I think the "common" member was getting a great insight into how Nick and the committee work.
> 
> No reason given just locked :?


+ 1 :?


----------



## 44cmn

+ another 1 :?


----------



## Cloud

and another one!


----------



## jamman

Members of "your" club are asking a question Nick ?


----------



## davelincs

Why was it locked, surely club members should know


----------



## TT Law

I'm trying to find out.

Steve


----------



## rustyintegrale

Very good question. I'd also like to hear John's view on all this too.

I can understand keeping a distant stance but now it's all in the open some clarification is required.


----------



## Gazzer

rustyintegrale said:


> Very good question. I'd also like to hear John's view on all this too.
> 
> I can understand keeping a distant stance but now it's all in the open some clarification is required.


John is away this week end Rich, will be home later tonight he told me when we spoke on Saturday.


----------



## TT Law

Well the thread was locked by Nick.

I am sure this one will get locked soon so I will post my right to reply below:

Loosing Steve, can be seen in a couple of ways, but please bear in mind that last year, I organised the club presence at Ultimate Dubs, GTi International, Audis in the Park and Audi Driver International, while Dani fully organised Stanford Hall as usual. The reps all organised their local events. Steve booked Gaydon and interfaced with them, while Dani and John arranged the traders, I designed the tickets and Andrew posted them all out.

Have I ever claimed to do all this? No. I have been very clear for a long time that my time is limited so I would concentrate on the National Event. How easily you brush aside an individual contribution and criticise. Anyhow I am not one of the 'useful' committee members that are left as you have mentioned elswhere just another casualty. 

So, headline point is the events for 2013 will be no different. Ultimate Dubs is all ready fully organised, people on the stand arranged and signed up all with hotels booked for the weekend.

As is should be as you have personally arranged this before.

With regards the magazine, this will also continue at the same pace it always has done. Why John, or anyone else, thinks that John is the only person on this planet capable of editing a magazine is simply bewildering.

I dont think you remember what happened before when we had no editor. The magazine virtually stopped production.

Locking the TTOC Crisis thread demonstrates what is the real issue here. Democracy and the ability to openly discuss things with members. By ejecting (preventing renewal) of John before you had really understood whether the members who voted him on to the committee thought he had committed an offence caused all this. How do you think I would react when objecting to an unconstitutional vote late last year to eject him when again members had voted him on. It just feels like bullying.

If the club is really not moving away from the TTF, I welcome it fully.

Steve


----------



## Gazzer

Well said Steve


----------



## davelincs

So one person can lock a thread, for any reason they deem fit, surely that's not right


----------



## audimad

Loosing Steve, can be seen in a couple of ways, but please bear in mind that last year, I organised the club presence at Ultimate Dubs, GTi International, Audis in the Park and Audi Driver International, while Dani fully organised Stanford Hall as usual. The reps all organised their local events. Steve booked Gaydon and interfaced with them, while Dani and John arranged the traders, I designed the tickets and Andrew posted them all out.[/color]

NO you didn't Nick, i organised Ultimate Dubs last year as i was getting fed up of waiting for you to pull your finger out and contact the organisers. If i hadn't contacted them when i did it would have been too late to have a TTOC stand.


----------



## jamman

davelincs said:


> So one person can lock a thread, for any reason they deem fit, surely that's not right


Dave I'm hoping Nick will come on and explain his actions and reasons.


----------



## davelincs

Well I hope he does as well Jamman, it's not on really


----------



## Nem

This discussion is about the Club and the club alone, which should be being discussed by it's paying members not simply a free for all. There is a place where this should be taking place:

www.ttoc.co.uk/members


----------



## Gazzer

Nem said:


> This discussion is about the Club and the club alone, which should be being discussed by it's paying members not simply a free for all. There is a place where this should be taking place:
> 
> http://www.ttoc.co.uk/members


Isn't it in the ttoc section nick :roll:


----------



## Nem

But this is public and open to anyone to comment which isn't correct.

Take it to the members forum.


----------



## TT Law

I have just looked through the thread and can only find a handful of comments from non members and I really do not understand why the debate needs stifling.

Soon the TTOC will have no admin or mod rights on here so what would have happened then?

I know we sometimes do not like the contents and subjects of debates but we cant just stop them by locking them.

Steve


----------



## davelincs

It looks like some people think they have the power to do as exactly they like , Steve


----------



## Nem

Do we allow non members at an AGM?

This is members only, so a few or a lot of comments from non members it doesn't matter.

We have a members only forum which needs to be used.

I'm not stifling the discussion, simply putting it into the hands of paying members who's right it is to discuss this.


----------



## jamman

This is simply pathetic are you deluded we are on the TTF in the TTOC section and the rules are anyone can post.

If it's rude, offensive etc it will be removed and the member warned.

Who the hell are you to play god, you are so out of order it's unbelievable I think you have been in your position to long and it's gone to your head.

You can't just "nuke" a thread because you don't like it.

The sooner admin rights on this forum are removed from this gentleman the better.

This is bloody crazy post anything you like as long as Nick agrees with it and you will be fine else thread deleted, locked, member bans........


----------



## Nem

How you consistently miss the point is unbelievable.


----------



## jamman

Trust me Nick I know all the points it's your actions that are out of order.


----------



## Nem

Right, so pop along to the members forum and discuss it then.


----------



## jamman

Everyone wrong except Nick.... anyone see a pattern emerging.


----------



## jamman

Nem said:


> Right, so pop along to the members forum and discuss it then.


I would but there's only you on there :wink:


----------



## Gazzer

Nem said:


> But this is public and open to anyone to comment which isn't correct.
> 
> Take it to the members forum.


Then why have a ttoc section on here? It's ok to promote but not ok to ask questions you don't like? I'm confused, not hard I know lol


----------



## Nem

I'm done chaps.

I think you have clearly shown yourselves for who you are and I as I'm sure most on here are bored of you.

I have done nothing but defend myself from your constant baiting and lack of understanding of what is a complex situation.


----------



## rustyintegrale

Nem said:


> Right, so pop along to the members forum and discuss it then.


Nick, with respect, as I have said before in the locked thread, this is no longer about personalities, it is about the future of the club. Like it or not that future is not only determined by the current TTOC membership. There are plenty of TTF members who might join the club if it was run by people more acceptable to them. As I have said, I would be prepared to rejoin the TTOC for no other reason than to vote for it's future if necessary.


----------



## jamman

Nem said:


> I'm done chaps.
> 
> I think you have clearly shown yourselves for who you are and I as I'm sure most on here are bored of you.
> 
> I have done nothing but defend myself from your constant baiting and lack of understanding of what is a complex situation.


There's only one person coming out of this badly Nick and that is you.

There is no baiting from me show me where ?

You close one thread because non TTOC members posted, did they abuse no, did they insult no they gave reasoned comments (Rich etc) but you dont agree with them so press the locked button.

It's pathetic and an abuse of power.


----------



## KammyTT

I will be a member again as soon as I get another TT


----------



## KammyTT

Oh and I only commented as I care how the club is run and I will be joining again as soon as I'm back in a TT


----------



## jamman

KammyTT said:


> Oh and I only commented as I care how the club is run and I will be joining again as soon as I'm back in a TT


Good man.

Was just reading your wedding thread made me smile


----------



## denTTed

I would rejoin if Nick stepped down....


----------



## AfterHouR

Nick, what happened to freedom of speech? You are not coming out of this well, especially with your dictatorship attitude... You can't just lock a thread because you don't like it. 
I can see why John-H has got his back up, there doesn't seem to be any democracy, just your way and if you don't like it you will either silence them, get rid of them or both....
You are only one person and not asking the members what they want, you can't have a holier than thou attitude, you are supposed to be a representative of the members... I'm a member, I pay by subs like anybody else, you are making decisions for me based on your own personal issues and not the good of the club... Shame on you...


----------



## Hev

AfterHouR said:


> You are only one person and not asking the members what they want, you can't have a holier than thou attitude, you are supposed to be a representative of the members... I'm a member, I pay by subs like anybody else, you are making decisions for me based on your own personal issues and not the good of the club... Shame on you...


Are you serious??????

I have never met anyone more passionate about the club as Nick. We as members voted for Nick to take the Chairman position, representing us members and make decisions on our behalf (along with other members of the committee). I have been a member of the TTOC since 2005 and I can assure you that Nick has always had the interest of the club as top priority. It appears here that Nick is getting all the abuse here but remember that he is the Chairman......not the only man in the committee! So why is there an apparent hate campaign for Nick alone????

John is also very passionate about the club. He has been involved in editing the magazine for a good number of issues - but like us all, he is human, makes mistakes and is not God (many people appear to be putting him on a pedestal - remember that there is no smoke without fire).

Do members really believe that John has hacked the committee off so much with an article in the magazine? Take a step back and maybe wonder what other issues are there. I have unfortunately been in the background of many Skype committee meetings (my husband is phope) and I have been shocked at some of John's outbursts and insults towards committee members. I can assure you that the other members of the committee are trying hard to keep the club moving forward, growing and being a success - and goodness, moving forward with technology too!

I know for a fact that John has seen a lot of the posts on the TTF (I have seen him logged on) and yet has not commented.....considering he had a lot to say in the magazine I find this very strange.

I just hope that we move on from this sorry episode very quickly and let those who are passionate about the club carry on. I just wonder how many of our members who are having a go at Nick personally, actually attended the AGM. If you are not prepared to be active then shut up......if you have something to say, go the the AGM!

Hev x


----------



## Mrs Wallsendmag

Hev said:


> AfterHouR said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are only one person and not asking the members what they want, you can't have a holier than thou attitude, you are supposed to be a representative of the members... I'm a member, I pay by subs like anybody else, you are making decisions for me based on your own personal issues and not the good of the club... Shame on you...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious??????
> 
> I have never met anyone more passionate about the club as Nick. We as members voted for Nick to take the Chairman position, representing us members and make decisions on our behalf (along with other members of the committee). I have been a member of the TTOC since 2005 and I can assure you that Nick has always had the interest of the club as top priority. It appears here that Nick is getting all the abuse here but remember that he is the Chairman......not the only man in the committee! So why is there an apparent hate campaign for Nick alone????
> 
> John is also very passionate about the club. He has been involved in editing the magazine for a good number of issues - but like us all, he is human, makes mistakes and is not God (many people appear to be putting him on a pedestal - remember that there is no smoke without fire).
> 
> Do members really believe that John has hacked the committee off so much with an article in the magazine? Take a step back and maybe wonder what other issues are there. I have unfortunately been in the background of many Skype committee meetings (my husband is phope) and I have been shocked at some of John's outbursts and insults towards committee members. I can assure you that the other members of the committee are trying hard to keep the club moving forward, growing and being a success - and goodness, moving forward with technology too!
> 
> I know for a fact that John has seen a lot of the posts on the TTF (I have seen him logged on) and yet has not commented.....considering he had a lot to say in the magazine I find this very strange.
> 
> I just hope that we move on from this sorry episode very quickly and let those who are passionate about the club carry on. I just wonder how many of our members who are having a go at Nick personally, actually attended the AGM. If you are not prepared to be active then shut up......if you have something to say, go the the AGM!
> 
> Hev x
Click to expand...

+1


----------



## Luvs my Cupra

With a club with members spread totally across the country it is not feasible and sometimes not financially viable for all members to attend an AGM to vote. In my opinion you are wrong in saying because they do not attend they have no right to make comment.
The committee should have been looking to find ways whereby members can vote without physically having to attend. Maybe they should stop their personal agenda and get on with managing the club and bringing it forward using today's technology.


----------



## Wallsendmag

Luvs my Cupra said:


> With a club with members spread totally across the country it is not feasible and sometimes not financially viable for all members to attend an AGM to vote. In my opinion you are wrong in saying because they do not attend they have no right to make comment.
> The committee should have been looking to find ways whereby members can vote without physically having to attend. Maybe they should stop their personal agenda and get on with managing the club and bringing it forward using today's technology.


Like emailing every member giving them a chance to ask questions and vote as we have for the last few years ???? Of course only members would know this which is why the committee is only discussing this matter in the TTOC members area .


----------



## Luvs my Cupra

I shall just quote your friend shall I?

"I just wonder how many of our members who are having a go at Nick personally, actually attended the AGM. If you are not prepared to be active then shut up......if you have something to say, go the the AGM!"

Nice way to address members eh?


----------



## Wallsendmag

Luvs my Cupra said:


> I shall just quote your friend shall I?
> 
> "I just wonder how many of our members who are having a go at Nick personally, actually attended the AGM. If you are not prepared to be active then shut up......if you have something to say, go the the AGM!"
> 
> Nice way to address members eh?


I refer you to the last line of my previous post


----------



## Hev

There is no personal agenda!

I for one agree with you in that not everyone can attend the AGM......I for one make every effort to attend but it does not always happen....when it does though, I've ended up 'furthest travelled'. So I am the wrong person to remind about membership being spread across the country.

Someone may correct me here (cos my memory is rubbish) but I think I remember an agenda being issued in advance and details on how to vote. Over the years, I have had the opportunity to vote on proposed motions for other organisations I am linked to but if I do not attend, any motion that comes up during the meeting and requires a vote, well that is my tough luck for not attending. Harsh maybe but common practice and how would any organisation move forward if they had to wait for everyone in the membership to vote (especially since they were given the opportunity to go the the AGM).

Hev x


----------



## Hev

Luvs my Cupra said:


> I shall just quote your friend shall I?
> 
> "I just wonder how many of our members who are having a go at Nick personally, actually attended the AGM. If you are not prepared to be active then shut up......if you have something to say, go the the AGM!"
> 
> Nice way to address members eh?


That'll be me then! Considering the amount of animosity on here right now, I think that is tame :?

I still stand by it. Everyone has an opinion but as soon as there is a pair of shoes to fill, suddenly there is tumble weed blowing through.

Hev x


----------



## paulc1

Wallsendmag said:


> Luvs my Cupra said:
> 
> 
> 
> With a club with members spread totally across the country it is not feasible and sometimes not financially viable for all members to attend an AGM to vote. In my opinion you are wrong in saying because they do not attend they have no right to make comment.
> The committee should have been looking to find ways whereby members can vote without physically having to attend. Maybe they should stop their personal agenda and get on with managing the club and bringing it forward using today's technology.
> 
> 
> 
> Like emailing every member giving them a chance to ask questions and vote as we have for the last few years ???? Of course only members would know this which is why the committee is only discussing this matter in the TTOC members area .
Click to expand...

+1


----------



## Luvs my Cupra

Wallsendmag said:


> I refer you to the last line of my previous post


This is being discussed in a public forum regardless that it is on the TTOC section, therefore is open for all TTF members to contribute, unless the powers that be ban or lock members/threads!


----------



## AfterHouR

Luvs my Cupra said:


> With a club with members spread totally across the country it is not feasible and sometimes not financially viable for all members to attend an AGM to vote. In my opinion you are wrong in saying because they do not attend they have no right to make comment.
> The committee should have been looking to find ways whereby members can vote without physically having to attend. Maybe they should stop their personal agenda and get on with managing the club and bringing it forward using today's technology.


Absolutely... Please don't tell me to shut up because I haven't attended an AGM... if you read the other thread before it was locked, you would see I have said this already and as a fully paid up member this is my voice... the TTOC is not a dictatorship and any paid up member has their right to voice their opinions and my opinion if you like it or not is that you are all out of order making secret committees and ganging up on members, that is not your decision to make and all you are doing is bringing the club into disrepute by your actions. We need this club to survive and move on and passion is no excuse for bullying...


----------



## Mark Davies

I was appalled before - I'm furious now.

Locking the thread discussing this issue was not a good move. Okay, you want to keep the discussion to members only. However one very good reason for keeping the discussion here is that the vast majority of the club members aren't even registered to the TTOC forum - only 367 out of 840 members are registered there. The vast majority of our membership still choose to use this forum for their communications. So, by closing any discussion here and moving exclusively to the TTOC forum you're cutting half the membership out of the debate. Okay, they can always go and register there if they want to, but they've not wanted to do it before now.

What it does do is reinforce the impression that you are simply trying to enforce your will on everyone.

I will say it again, it's not John being expelled that angers me. I think he was out of order in the way he published his editorial and though I wouldn't necessarily agree with the sanction imposed on him I understand the reasoning. And to be frank I don't buy into this theory that people are hell-bent on splitting the TTOC from the TTF either and don't think it's very helpful to be constantly raising it.

However, since joining the committee what I have seen are a handful of people who seem to have no understanding whatsoever of 'stewardship'; who seem to have little concept that they hold their positions not so they can have things done their own way, not so they can feel important having a title and being a big fish in a little pond - but in order to serve the membership, to look after the club on their behalf, to do the will of the members. Coupled with this there seems to be no understanding of democratic process.

The first signs of this came when a faction of the committee tried to vote off one of their own number, John - completely disregarding the fact that John had been put in place at the express wishes of the membership. Quite clearly it wasn't the place of the committee to defy the wishes of their membership, but they planned to do it anyway. And this wasn't because John wasn't doing his job properly but because other members were stamping their feet and basically throwing tantrums because they couldn't get on with him. I don't think John was entirely blameless but then nobody had covered themselves in glory over it. Frankly I was dismayed at the mess I found and apparently the bickering had been going on for months.

After making my views clear that their proposed vote to expel one of their number was beyond their authority I then found the written constitution was woefully inadequate but even that made no provision allowing the committee to have the vote they were proposing. Of course, they went and did it anyway. Not only that, knowing I was opposed to what they were doing they deliberately delayed my appointment to the committee to ensure I wouldn't be involved in the vote.

Thankfully I think I was able to persuade Nick that the course of action they were following could only lead to disaster. What was he going to do if they voted John off only for the members to vote him back in again at the next AGM, as they were likely to do? They really hadn't thought it through and that dilemma clearly illustrated the fundamental flaws in what they were trying to do. The vote shouldn't have been allowed to proceed but it went ahead. At least Nick abstained from the vote, meaning it was tied and the motion to sack John not carried. However, that was really just a cop-out.

And then the committe more or less ceased to function. Those that didn't get their own way seemed to go off and sulk. Those that had backed John were left sidelined.

The state of affairs was perfectly outlined when in response to a request from your local reps I asked if we could put together regional mailing lists of our members so that they could be kept informed of regional events more efficiently. I assumed our membership secretary would have this information at his fingertips - it's his job after all. If he did it didn't do much good because he didn't lift a finger to help. Instead a members list had be be constructed by others from the merchandising records. What should have been done quite easily in a couple of days in the end took weeks - and what we ended up with is no doubt incomplete. An absolutely pathetic state of affairs. When you hear of a dysfunctional committee, that's what it means.

And then we come to this. John does what he does. Bad enough, but the response could hardly be worse. Again a complete lack of understanding of democratic process is displayed. How can anyone think it is acceptable to call a committee meeting and only invite half of the committee to take part - and a very specific half of the committee who'd already very much nailed their flags to the mast over John - to stage a vote to expel him from the club? It is beyond belief!

Nick wants to know why he is personally getting attacked over this. Well if he doesn't understand the anger then it seems he genuinely doesn't see what is so blatantly wrong with his actions. They were not the actions of a steward of the Club. They were not the actions of someone who understands that they are not the power of the Club but merely a custodian. They are the actions of someone who seems to have no understanding that there have to be limits to what they can do, regardless of whether they are the club chairman or not and regardless of whether they can gather together a few close confederates to pass unconstitutional votes in secret meetings.

I don't doubt everyone involved in this mess has what they think are in the Club's best interests at heart. The problem is - always is - that it's what *they* think is the Club's best interests. It's just their personal opinion and ever since I got involved I've been banging on that the committee members are no more than one club member with one vote - one vote out of more than 800. However, they persist in the view that as long as a vote is carried in the committee that's fine - behaving as if the few members of the committee invited to a vote are the whole membership. The membership never get asked what they want, of course.

Some time ago I suggested the reason the committee was at such loggerheads was because where a few individuals were all trying to do business their own way then egoes were always going to clash. The solution is simply to take the power away from those committee members and pass it back to the club membership, leaving the committee to be what they should be; simply stewards handling the day-to-day business. Not making policy, not implementing change - just steering the ship on an even and steady course. Policy changes should be down to the membership in an open vote at the AGM and a proper vote that enables everybody to take part. Democratic process eliminates ego and prevents the clashes coming about.

I firmly believe that's where we should be going and this fiasco clearly highlights how urgently we need to be getting on with it. But what we need first is a bit of humility from the chairman. Nick - stop trying to dictate the debate. Stop trying to stamp authority on the membership you're supposed to be serving. If people want to talk about it they have every right to do so - _wherever_ they choose to do it. You're doing yourself no favours and frankly I don't think you're doing the Club any good at all either.


----------



## rustyintegrale

Mark Davies said:


> I was appalled before - I'm furious now.
> 
> Locking the thread discussing this issue was not a good move. Okay, you want to keep the discussion to members only. However one very good reason for keeping the discussion here is that the vast majority of the club members aren't even registered to the TTOC forum - only 367 out of 840 members are registered there. The vast majority of our membership still choose to use this forum for their communications. So, by closing any discussion here and moving exclusively to the TTOC forum you're cutting half the membership out of the debate. Okay, they can always go and register there if they want to, but they've not wanted to do it before now.
> 
> What it does do is reinforce the impression that you are simply trying to enforce your will on everyone.
> 
> I will say it again, it's not John being expelled that angers me. I think he was out of order in the way he published his editorial and though I wouldn't necessarily agree with the sanction imposed on him I understand the reasoning. And to be frank I don't buy into this theory that people are hell-bent on splitting the TTOC from the TTF either and don't think it's very helpful to be constantly raising it.
> 
> However, since joining the committee what I have seen are a handful of people who seem to have no understanding whatsoever of 'stewardship'; who seem to have little concept that they hold their positions not so they can have things done their own way, not so they can feel important having a title and being a big fish in a little pond - but in order to serve the membership, to look after the club on their behalf, to do the will of the members. Coupled with this there seems to be no understanding of democratic process.
> 
> The first signs of this came when a faction of the committee tried to vote off one of their own number, John - completely disregarding the fact that John had been put in place at the express wishes of the membership. Quite clearly it wasn't the place of the committee to defy the wishes of their membership, but they planned to do it anyway. And this wasn't because John wasn't doing his job properly but because other members were stamping their feet and basically throwing tantrums because they couldn't get on with him. I don't think John was entirely blameless but then nobody had covered themselves in glory over it. Frankly I was dismayed at the mess I found and apparently the bickering had been going on for months.
> 
> After making my views clear that their proposed vote to expel one of their number was beyond their authority I then found the written constitution was woefully inadequate but even that made no provision allowing the committee to have the vote they were proposing. Of course, they went and did it anyway. Not only that, knowing I was opposed to what they were doing they deliberately delayed my appointment to the committee to ensure I wouldn't be involved in the vote.
> 
> Thankfully I think I was able to persuade Nick that the course of action they were following could only lead to disaster. What was he going to do if they voted John off only for the members to vote him back in again at the next AGM, as they were likely to do? They really hadn't thought it through and that dilemma clearly illustrated the fundamental flaws in what they were trying to do. The vote shouldn't have been allowed to proceed but it went ahead. At least Nick abstained from the vote, meaning it was tied and the motion to sack John not carried. However, that was really just a cop-out.
> 
> And then the committe more or less ceased to function. Those that didn't get their own way seemed to go off and sulk. Those that had backed John were left sidelined.
> 
> The state of affairs was perfectly outlined when in response to a request from your local reps I asked if we could put together regional mailing lists of our members so that they could be kept informed of regional events more efficiently. I assumed our membership secretary would have this information at his fingertips - it's his job after all. If he did it didn't do much good because he didn't lift a finger to help. Instead a members list had be be constructed by others from the merchandising records. What should have been done quite easily in a couple of days in the end took weeks - and what we ended up with is no doubt incomplete. An absolutely pathetic state of affairs. When you hear of a dysfunctional committee, that's what it means.
> 
> And then we come to this. John does what he does. Bad enough, but the response could hardly be worse. Again a complete lack of understanding of democratic process is displayed. How can anyone think it is acceptable to call a committee meeting and only invite half of the committee to take part - and a very specific half of the committee who'd already very much nailed their flags to the mast over John - to stage a vote to expel him from the club? It is beyond belief!
> 
> Nick wants to know why he is personally getting attacked over this. Well if he doesn't understand the anger then it seems he genuinely doesn't see what is so blatantly wrong with his actions. They were not the actions of a steward of the Club. They were not the actions of someone who understands that they are not the power of the cCub but merely a custodian. They are the actions of someone who seems to have no understanding that there have to be limits to what they can do, regardless of whether they are the club chairman or not and regardless of whether they can gather together a few close confederates to pass unconstitutional votes in secret meetings.
> 
> I don't doubt everyone involved in this mess has what they think are in the Club's best interests at heart. The problem is - always is - that it's what *they* think is the cCub's best interests. It's just their personal opinion and ever since I got involved I've been banging on that the committee members are no more than one club member with one vote - one vote out of more than 800. However, they persist in the view that as long as a vote is carried in the committee that's fine - behaving as if the few members of the committee invited to a vote are the whole membership. The membership never get asked what they want, of course.
> 
> Some time ago I suggested the reason the committee was at such loggerheads was because where a few individuals were all trying to do business their own way then egoes were always going to clash. The solution is simply to take the power away from those committee members and pass it back to the club membership, leaving the committee to be what they should be; simply stewards handling the day-to-day business. Not making policy, not implementing change - just steering the ship on an even and steady course. Policy changes should be down to the membership in an open vote at the AGM and a proper vote that enables everybody to take part. Democratic process eliminates ego and prevents the clashes coming about.
> 
> I firmly believe that's where we should be going and this fiasco clearly highlights how urgently we need to be getting on with it. But what we need first is a bit of humility from the chairman. Nick - stop trying to dictate the debate. Stop trying to stamp authority on the membership you're supposed to be serving. If people want to talk about it they have every right to do so - _wherever_ they choose to do it. You're doing yourself no favours and frankly I don't think you're doing the Club any good at all either.


+1


----------



## tonksy26

Anybody fancy filling me in on what's happend ? I never stick my neck out the mk1 section so haven't been up-to-date with what's going on. Only a short paragraph to sum up will do


----------



## blackers

Mark Davies said:


> I was appalled before - I'm furious now.
> 
> Locking the thread discussing this issue was not a good move. Okay, you want to keep the discussion to members only. However one very good reason for keeping the discussion here is that the vast majority of the club members aren't even registered to the TTOC forum - only 367 out of 840 members are registered there. The vast majority of our membership still choose to use this forum for their communications. So, by closing any discussion here and moving exclusively to the TTOC forum you're cutting half the membership out of the debate. Okay, they can always go and register there if they want to, but they've not wanted to do it before now.
> 
> What it does do is reinforce the impression that you are simply trying to enforce your will on everyone.
> 
> I will say it again, it's not John being expelled that angers me. I think he was out of order in the way he published his editorial and though I wouldn't necessarily agree with the sanction imposed on him I understand the reasoning. And to be frank I don't buy into this theory that people are hell-bent on splitting the TTOC from the TTF either and don't think it's very helpful to be constantly raising it...............
> 
> ...........................I firmly believe that's where we should be going and this fiasco clearly highlights how urgently we need to be getting on with it. But what we need first is a bit of humility from the chairman. Nick - stop trying to dictate the debate. Stop trying to stamp authority on the membership you're supposed to be serving. If people want to talk about it they have every right to do so - _wherever_ they choose to do it. You're doing yourself no favours and frankly I don't think you're doing the Club any good at all either.


Well written Mark [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## AfterHouR

Mark Davies said:


> I was appalled before - I'm furious now.
> 
> Locking the thread discussing this issue was not a good move. Okay, you want to keep the discussion to members only. However one very good reason for keeping the discussion here is that the vast majority of the club members aren't even registered to the TTOC forum - only 367 out of 840 members are registered there. The vast majority of our membership still choose to use this forum for their communications. So, by closing any discussion here and moving exclusively to the TTOC forum you're cutting half the membership out of the debate. Okay, they can always go and register there if they want to, but they've not wanted to do it before now.
> 
> What it does do is reinforce the impression that you are simply trying to enforce your will on everyone.
> 
> I will say it again, it's not John being expelled that angers me. I think he was out of order in the way he published his editorial and though I wouldn't necessarily agree with the sanction imposed on him I understand the reasoning. And to be frank I don't buy into this theory that people are hell-bent on splitting the TTOC from the TTF either and don't think it's very helpful to be constantly raising it.
> 
> However, since joining the committee what I have seen are a handful of people who seem to have no understanding whatsoever of 'stewardship'; who seem to have little concept that they hold their positions not so they can have things done their own way, not so they can feel important having a title and being a big fish in a little pond - but in order to serve the membership, to look after the club on their behalf, to do the will of the members. Coupled with this there seems to be no understanding of democratic process.
> 
> The first signs of this came when a faction of the committee tried to vote off one of their own number, John - completely disregarding the fact that John had been put in place at the express wishes of the membership. Quite clearly it wasn't the place of the committee to defy the wishes of their membership, but they planned to do it anyway. And this wasn't because John wasn't doing his job properly but because other members were stamping their feet and basically throwing tantrums because they couldn't get on with him. I don't think John was entirely blameless but then nobody had covered themselves in glory over it. Frankly I was dismayed at the mess I found and apparently the bickering had been going on for months.
> 
> After making my views clear that their proposed vote to expel one of their number was beyond their authority I then found the written constitution was woefully inadequate but even that made no provision allowing the committee to have the vote they were proposing. Of course, they went and did it anyway. Not only that, knowing I was opposed to what they were doing they deliberately delayed my appointment to the committee to ensure I wouldn't be involved in the vote.
> 
> Thankfully I think I was able to persuade Nick that the course of action they were following could only lead to disaster. What was he going to do if they voted John off only for the members to vote him back in again at the next AGM, as they were likely to do? They really hadn't thought it through and that dilemma clearly illustrated the fundamental flaws in what they were trying to do. The vote shouldn't have been allowed to proceed but it went ahead. At least Nick abstained from the vote, meaning it was tied and the motion to sack John not carried. However, that was really just a cop-out.
> 
> And then the committe more or less ceased to function. Those that didn't get their own way seemed to go off and sulk. Those that had backed John were left sidelined.
> 
> The state of affairs was perfectly outlined when in response to a request from your local reps I asked if we could put together regional mailing lists of our members so that they could be kept informed of regional events more efficiently. I assumed our membership secretary would have this information at his fingertips - it's his job after all. If he did it didn't do much good because he didn't lift a finger to help. Instead a members list had be be constructed by others from the merchandising records. What should have been done quite easily in a couple of days in the end took weeks - and what we ended up with is no doubt incomplete. An absolutely pathetic state of affairs. When you hear of a dysfunctional committee, that's what it means.
> 
> And then we come to this. John does what he does. Bad enough, but the response could hardly be worse. Again a complete lack of understanding of democratic process is displayed. How can anyone think it is acceptable to call a committee meeting and only invite half of the committee to take part - and a very specific half of the committee who'd already very much nailed their flags to the mast over John - to stage a vote to expel him from the club? It is beyond belief!
> 
> Nick wants to know why he is personally getting attacked over this. Well if he doesn't understand the anger then it seems he genuinely doesn't see what is so blatantly wrong with his actions. They were not the actions of a steward of the Club. They were not the actions of someone who understands that they are not the power of the Club but merely a custodian. They are the actions of someone who seems to have no understanding that there have to be limits to what they can do, regardless of whether they are the club chairman or not and regardless of whether they can gather together a few close confederates to pass unconstitutional votes in secret meetings.
> 
> I don't doubt everyone involved in this mess has what they think are in the Club's best interests at heart. The problem is - always is - that it's what *they* think is the Club's best interests. It's just their personal opinion and ever since I got involved I've been banging on that the committee members are no more than one club member with one vote - one vote out of more than 800. However, they persist in the view that as long as a vote is carried in the committee that's fine - behaving as if the few members of the committee invited to a vote are the whole membership. The membership never get asked what they want, of course.
> 
> Some time ago I suggested the reason the committee was at such loggerheads was because where a few individuals were all trying to do business their own way then egoes were always going to clash. The solution is simply to take the power away from those committee members and pass it back to the club membership, leaving the committee to be what they should be; simply stewards handling the day-to-day business. Not making policy, not implementing change - just steering the ship on an even and steady course. Policy changes should be down to the membership in an open vote at the AGM and a proper vote that enables everybody to take part. Democratic process eliminates ego and prevents the clashes coming about.
> 
> I firmly believe that's where we should be going and this fiasco clearly highlights how urgently we need to be getting on with it. But what we need first is a bit of humility from the chairman. Nick - stop trying to dictate the debate. Stop trying to stamp authority on the membership you're supposed to be serving. If people want to talk about it they have every right to do so - _wherever_ they choose to do it. You're doing yourself no favours and frankly I don't think you're doing the Club any good at all either.


Thankfully at last, somebody with some sense and so eloquently put! Mark Davies, you get my vote!!!


----------



## Gazzer

Mark Davies said:


> I was appalled before - I'm furious now.
> 
> Locking the thread discussing this issue was not a good move. Okay, you want to keep the discussion to members only. However one very good reason for keeping the discussion here is that the vast majority of the club members aren't even registered to the TTOC forum - only 367 out of 840 members are registered there. The vast majority of our membership still choose to use this forum for their communications. So, by closing any discussion here and moving exclusively to the TTOC forum you're cutting half the membership out of the debate. Okay, they can always go and register there if they want to, but they've not wanted to do it before now.
> 
> What it does do is reinforce the impression that you are simply trying to enforce your will on everyone.
> 
> I will say it again, it's not John being expelled that angers me. I think he was out of order in the way he published his editorial and though I wouldn't necessarily agree with the sanction imposed on him I understand the reasoning. And to be frank I don't buy into this theory that people are hell-bent on splitting the TTOC from the TTF either and don't think it's very helpful to be constantly raising it.
> 
> However, since joining the committee what I have seen are a handful of people who seem to have no understanding whatsoever of 'stewardship'; who seem to have little concept that they hold their positions not so they can have things done their own way, not so they can feel important having a title and being a big fish in a little pond - but in order to serve the membership, to look after the club on their behalf, to do the will of the members. Coupled with this there seems to be no understanding of democratic process.
> 
> The first signs of this came when a faction of the committee tried to vote off one of their own number, John - completely disregarding the fact that John had been put in place at the express wishes of the membership. Quite clearly it wasn't the place of the committee to defy the wishes of their membership, but they planned to do it anyway. And this wasn't because John wasn't doing his job properly but because other members were stamping their feet and basically throwing tantrums because they couldn't get on with him. I don't think John was entirely blameless but then nobody had covered themselves in glory over it. Frankly I was dismayed at the mess I found and apparently the bickering had been going on for months.
> 
> After making my views clear that their proposed vote to expel one of their number was beyond their authority I then found the written constitution was woefully inadequate but even that made no provision allowing the committee to have the vote they were proposing. Of course, they went and did it anyway. Not only that, knowing I was opposed to what they were doing they deliberately delayed my appointment to the committee to ensure I wouldn't be involved in the vote.
> 
> Thankfully I think I was able to persuade Nick that the course of action they were following could only lead to disaster. What was he going to do if they voted John off only for the members to vote him back in again at the next AGM, as they were likely to do? They really hadn't thought it through and that dilemma clearly illustrated the fundamental flaws in what they were trying to do. The vote shouldn't have been allowed to proceed but it went ahead. At least Nick abstained from the vote, meaning it was tied and the motion to sack John not carried. However, that was really just a cop-out.
> 
> And then the committe more or less ceased to function. Those that didn't get their own way seemed to go off and sulk. Those that had backed John were left sidelined.
> 
> The state of affairs was perfectly outlined when in response to a request from your local reps I asked if we could put together regional mailing lists of our members so that they could be kept informed of regional events more efficiently. I assumed our membership secretary would have this information at his fingertips - it's his job after all. If he did it didn't do much good because he didn't lift a finger to help. Instead a members list had be be constructed by others from the merchandising records. What should have been done quite easily in a couple of days in the end took weeks - and what we ended up with is no doubt incomplete. An absolutely pathetic state of affairs. When you hear of a dysfunctional committee, that's what it means.
> 
> And then we come to this. John does what he does. Bad enough, but the response could hardly be worse. Again a complete lack of understanding of democratic process is displayed. How can anyone think it is acceptable to call a committee meeting and only invite half of the committee to take part - and a very specific half of the committee who'd already very much nailed their flags to the mast over John - to stage a vote to expel him from the club? It is beyond belief!
> 
> Nick wants to know why he is personally getting attacked over this. Well if he doesn't understand the anger then it seems he genuinely doesn't see what is so blatantly wrong with his actions. They were not the actions of a steward of the Club. They were not the actions of someone who understands that they are not the power of the Club but merely a custodian. They are the actions of someone who seems to have no understanding that there have to be limits to what they can do, regardless of whether they are the club chairman or not and regardless of whether they can gather together a few close confederates to pass unconstitutional votes in secret meetings.
> 
> I don't doubt everyone involved in this mess has what they think are in the Club's best interests at heart. The problem is - always is - that it's what *they* think is the Club's best interests. It's just their personal opinion and ever since I got involved I've been banging on that the committee members are no more than one club member with one vote - one vote out of more than 800. However, they persist in the view that as long as a vote is carried in the committee that's fine - behaving as if the few members of the committee invited to a vote are the whole membership. The membership never get asked what they want, of course.
> 
> Some time ago I suggested the reason the committee was at such loggerheads was because where a few individuals were all trying to do business their own way then egoes were always going to clash. The solution is simply to take the power away from those committee members and pass it back to the club membership, leaving the committee to be what they should be; simply stewards handling the day-to-day business. Not making policy, not implementing change - just steering the ship on an even and steady course. Policy changes should be down to the membership in an open vote at the AGM and a proper vote that enables everybody to take part. Democratic process eliminates ego and prevents the clashes coming about.
> 
> I firmly believe that's where we should be going and this fiasco clearly highlights how urgently we need to be getting on with it. But what we need first is a bit of humility from the chairman. Nick - stop trying to dictate the debate. Stop trying to stamp authority on the membership you're supposed to be serving. If people want to talk about it they have every right to do so - _wherever_ they choose to do it. You're doing yourself no favours and frankly I don't think you're doing the Club any good at all either.


I'm voting you off the committe next agm/egm mark as posts that are 14 pages long need banning bud!!! Good post as usual, but drop the copper lingo and call a spade a spade. I dare ya m8


----------



## brittan

AfterHouR said:


> Thankfully at last, somebody with some sense and so eloquently put! Mark Davies, you get my vote!!!


I made the same comment, even used the same words, in response to Mark's posts in another (now locked)thread on this subject.

Well said again Mark.


----------



## Gazzer

brittan said:


> AfterHouR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully at last, somebody with some sense and so eloquently put! Mark Davies, you get my vote!!!
> 
> 
> 
> I made the same comment, even used the same words, in response to Mark's posts in another (now locked)thread on this subject.
> 
> Well said again Mark.
Click to expand...

Wazzuk, I been on their all night fighting the cause while you buggered off to bingo lol


----------



## KammyTT

jamman said:


> KammyTT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and I only commented as I care how the club is run and I will be joining again as soon as I'm back in a TT
> 
> 
> 
> Good man.
> 
> Was just reading your wedding thread made me smile
Click to expand...

Yes it may take a tad longer to be back in a TT than I had antisapated


----------



## Wallsendmag

KammyTT said:


> jamman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KammyTT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and I only commented as I care how the club is run and I will be joining again as soon as I'm back in a TT
> 
> 
> 
> Good man.
> 
> Was just reading your wedding thread made me smile
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it may take a tad longer to be back in a TT than I had antisapated
Click to expand...

You've no chance with that wedding to pay for. :?


----------



## KammyTT

Henry ill have to wait! I was expecting to be back by summer


----------



## sbd119

I don't know any of those concerned personally and I am just a forum member and yes, I am currently a TTOC member.

I joined the Forum because I was thinking of buying a TT. I had not even realised that the Forum and the Owners' Cub were not organised by the same group of people. I joined the latter because I wanted to support the former (the Forum) because it had been of help to me in making the decision to buy the car I eventually did. It also seemed a pretty friendly and welcoming sort of forum. There was loads of information for a newbie like me from the likes of Toshiba and John.

I have only ever been to one meet in Kent which was great but slightly too far and there isn't anything locally in south-east London that is close to me. (Be happy to help set something up if there's anyone local to me, Bromley, reading this) The one thing I do value is the magazine. I'm a big Apple fanboy but this is one area where I'm not interested in digital content. I think it is an outstanding magazine for a small voluntary organisation and much of the credit for magazines such as this, is usually down to the interpersonal skills of the editor in persuading others not only to submit copy but to do so in time. My copy arrived on Saturday and like others I was sad to read the editorial. Since then I've also read a lot of the posts that relate to it on here.

I have worked in community organisation for many years and have often seen groups of friends, end up not speaking to each-other for years as a result of disagreements about policy or where arguments should be properly had. I can honestly say that in my experience the venue or locale for an argument or falling-out, makes no difference whatsoever.

It struck me as bizarre that a club so intimately involved with a forum should try and control the disagreement by locking the thread and insisting that this disagreement is conducted 'in private' after it has already boiled over into the public domain (presumably because it could not be sorted in private in the first place).

Discussing it in private has clearly not worked and anyhow the whole thing seems to be about linkages with the forum, so what's the problem if everyone has their say? What is the disagreement about anyhow? Is it worth this amount of rancour? I'm much more likely to remain a forum member than pay to support a committee that clearly finds it too painful to function inclusively any longer.

For what it is worth, I am much more persuaded by what I have read from (in no particular order) Peter-SS, Mark Davies, mighTy Tee, DaveLincs, TT Law and Dani A3DFU. Like rustyintegrale, I read the editorial and could not see what all the fuss was about.

I have been less than impressed by other posts including one from the Chairman which accuses the Editor of lying. I think denTTed's post summed up the pointlessness of the whole sorry saga when he said 'Suspend me, it's only the (sic) interent'.

There a lot of things worth being angry about in the world today; to my way of thinking, I'm not sure that a contrary opinion, however controversial some might consider it, from an editor of of a car club magazine, rates as one of them.


----------



## Mark Davies

Gazzer said:


> I'm voting you off the committe next agm/egm mark as posts that are 14 pages long need banning bud!!!


Don't worry - I won't be standing.

I've spent a short time simply observing the committee. I've never been involved in a meeting, never voted on anything. I've done what I can for the regional reps because that was the job I thought I was being asked to do. But primarily I have simply been dismayed by what I've seen going on within the committee.

There's nothing actually wrong with the Club. It's generally in great shape. We have active regions with loads going on and there's no reason why the Club can't be as busy country-wide as it is in our most active spots as long as the reps get the right tools and appropriate support. Even the club finances are in great shape. There's going to be a problem with the magazine and I suspect this year's evenTT may not be up to the standard we've grown accustomed to, but that can be sorted and even if not we'll survive without them.

No, it's been quite clear the only problem has been with the committee. Not so much the personalities - though that has certainly contributed to the current mess - but in the way it works. There has been no sense that the committee members are simply stewards put in place to look after the daily business of the Club. Instead they have seen themselves more like directors of a company, instilled with executive power. They have thought of themselves as being in control of the club rather than as its servants. So where people think they are in control they want to implement their ideas, and when there's a small handfull of people with differing ideas there's always going to be conflict. And that in my view is the heart of the problem; committee members dictating to the membership when instead they should have been going to the membership asking for permission. The recent conduct of our chairman attests to that problem more emphatically than I can express.

Get that committee/club relationship right, and the mindset that goes with it, and you eliminate the personalities and egoes. If all the committee are doing is managing the simple day-to-day business of the club or implementing policy decisions that have been decided upon by the membership in a democratic process then there's no need nor room for arguments. It solves the problem.

I proposed this very shortly after I found myself dropped into this mess but nothing has been done about it - an indication of how the committee has become so paralyzed by its problems that it can't even take action to save itself.

I'm passionate that changes need to be made and am determined to see that there is a proper debate for the members to decide how they want to see their club move forward. But I'm also conscious that my efforts to drive that debate will inevitably be seen by some as a threat to their position - as an attempt to take control. I'm not going to be part of just yet more political nonsense; the Club has had more than enough of that!

So for that reason I'll make it absolutely clear that once this mess is sorted out and the real control of the club has been handed back to the membership with proper processes in place for genuine, meaningful elections I'll be standing down, and I have no intention of standing for election to any post on the committee.


----------



## bigsyd

Well there is one thing that is for sure from all this, the present committee can't work together for the club anymore :? There is no coming back from this mess,a change is needed


----------



## davelincs

I totally agree with you Syd, a change is needed it looks like the committee are split anyway, lets hope it gets sorted out sooner rather than later


----------



## Gazzer

Mark Davies said:


> Gazzer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm voting you off the committe next agm/egm mark as posts that are 14 pages long need banning bud!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry - I won't be standing.
> 
> I've spent a short time simply observing the committee. I've never been involved in a meeting, never voted on anything. I've done what I can for the regional reps because that was the job I thought I was being asked to do. But primarily I have simply been dismayed by what I've seen going on within the committee.
> 
> There's nothing actually wrong with the Club. It's generally in great shape. We have active regions with loads going on and there's no reason why the Club can't be as busy country-wide as it is in our most active spots as long as the reps get the right tools and appropriate support. Even the club finances are in great shape. There's going to be a problem with the magazine and I suspect this year's evenTT may not be up to the standard we've grown accustomed to, but that can be sorted and even if not we'll survive without them.
> 
> No, it's been quite clear the only problem has been with the committee. Not so much the personalities - though that has certainly contributed to the current mess - but in the way it works. There has been no sense that the committee members are simply stewards put in place to look after the daily business of the Club. Instead they have seen themselves more like directors of a company, instilled with executive power. They have thought of themselves as being in control of the club rather than as its servants. So where people think they are in control they want to implement their ideas, and when there's a small handfull of people with differing ideas there's always going to be conflict. And that in my view is the heart of the problem; committee members dictating to the membership when instead they should have been going to the membership asking for permission. The recent conduct of our chairman attests to that problem more emphatically than I can express.
> 
> Get that committee/club relationship right, and the mindset that goes with it, and you eliminate the personalities and egoes. If all the committee are doing is managing the simple day-to-day business of the club or implementing policy decisions that have been decided upon by the membership in a democratic process then there's no need nor room for arguments. It solves the problem.
> 
> I proposed this very shortly after I found myself dropped into this mess but nothing has been done about it - an indication of how the committee has become so paralyzed by its problems that it can't even take action to save itself.
> 
> I'm passionate that changes need to be made and am determined to see that there is a proper debate for the members to decide how they want to see their club move forward. But I'm also conscious that my efforts to drive that debate will inevitably be seen by some as a threat to their position - as an attempt to take control. I'm not going to be part of just yet more political nonsense; the Club has had more than enough of that!
> 
> So for that reason I'll make it absolutely clear that once this mess is sorted out and the real control of the club has been handed back to the membership with proper processes in place for genuine, meaningful elections I'll be standing down, and I have no intention of standing for election to any post on the committee.
Click to expand...

now mark you know my comment was tongue in cheek, i always love your common sense approach to a problem bud and only occasionally do i think in opposit to your good self. if an egm does and should now happen i would want you to stand please.


----------



## AfterHouR

Gazzer said:


> now mark you know my comment was tongue in cheek, i always love your common sense approach to a problem bud and only occasionally do i think in opposit to your good self. if an egm does and should now happen i would want you to stand please.


+1 I agree with Gazzer, as I said before you get my vote Mark, you seem to have your head screwed on right...


----------



## Mark Davies

It's okay Gazzer, I did appreciate you were joking!

And I do appreciate the kind comments, guys - but there's been a whole load of distrust going on with suspicions of conspiricies and hidden agendas and it has proved impossible to convince some people that it's possible to only be concerned for the Club and not to be fighting someone's corner for them. I want to help sort things out and to get that done I think it's important that it is clear there are no ulterior motives. So no, to immediately divert any accusations that all I'm doing is trying to take over myself I think it's quite necessary that I have no more involvement in the committee.


----------



## Gazzer

Mark Davies said:


> It's okay Gazzer, I did appreciate you were joking!
> 
> And I do appreciate the kind comments, guys - but there's been a whole load of distrust going on with suspicions of conspiricies and hidden agendas and it has proved impossible to convince some people that it's possible to only be concerned for the Club and not to be fighting someone's corner for them. I want to help sort things out and to get that done I think it's important that it is clear there are no ulterior motives. So no, to immediately divert any accusations that all I'm doing is trying to take over myself I think it's quite necessary that I have no more involvement in the committee.


Mark, no-one thinks you are trying to take over bud


----------



## KammyTT

Lets just hope mark doesn't become the new editor


----------



## bigbison

KammyTT said:


> Lets just hope mark doesn't become the new editor [/quote
> yep
> 
> the rain forests would vanish


----------

