This is a statement in response to various questions that have been raised recently which do not seem to have been satisfactorily answered.
It is approved by 5 current trustees and 1 former trustee.
Dean Forbes was not involved in its writing.
A lot of the publicly available information purporting to be factual, particularly on the mailing list is, in our opinion, both biased and lacking in relevant detail, not to mention that this is not helped by the fractious and argumentative nature of some mailing list posts.
The reason for this lack of detail is mostly due to grievance procedure matters being confidential to Trustees. The result so far has been that the public discussion has contained many allegations, assumptions and questions, while a significant portion of the facts are still publicly unknown as a result of Trustees keeping that confidence.
Re the statement from 13 present and past Trustees:
'five occasions where members raised a complaint against Dean Forbes (the allegations being generally for aggressive and dictatorial behaviour)'
Three are recorded. Perhaps they relate to the 2 storage violation complaints referred to later, we don't know. There were also several unofficial complaints regarding storage violations. There is also an outstanding request to the Trustees for this information, as yet unanswered.
At least 3 of those who approved that statement took that number on trust, and due to the current lack of records or even informal knowledge of this matter we regret that decision.
Regarding those 3 complaints:
The first incident was referred to in the EGM, and when it occurred, in 2013, it was thoroughly investigated and dropped due to lack of evidence. It was clear that a heated encounter of some kind occurred but there was considerable scope for subjectivity and this was part of the reason for the lack of formal warning.
The second complaint, in June 2015, appeared to contain little actionable content, historical allegations, and indeed contained some errors of fact, and no action was taken. This is however still an example of a grievance procedure failure. It was not dealt with in a timely manner and got ignored and delayed for too long. Where there is a general consensus amongst the Trustees, such delays tend not to happen.
The third complaint (the one alluded to in the ML thread recently) has been investigated and 3 independent written statements have been received by the Trustees from the members who were present and witnessed the events first hand. They all state categorically that there was no wrongdoing on Dean’s part. It has also been alleged that they are all his friends. It is not so.
‘We are also aware of at least four occasions where members have brought Dean's alleged aggressive behaviour to trustees' attention in person’
As far as we know, 1 (now ex) Trustee received all of these allegations privately, and no specifics whatsoever have been passed on to the board.
‘but have declined to raise formal complaints because they were fearful of reprisals’
No one has been able to quantify the kind of reprisal they were fearful of, nor has anyone ever reported or even alluded to any such reprisal taking place, unless this refers to robust emails of denial or somesuch. No one has ever reported any threat of such reprisals.
This statement is in no way meant to imply that Dean is some kind of angel, nor are we the Dean appreciation society. We would like to see fair play though.
It is true that he has been guilty of various things, notably storage infractions, lack of communication regarding workshop equipment, and confusing posts to the mailing list. However, it is in our opinion not the case that the Trustees have failed to act out of fear of reprisals or any such thing. Some of them may have felt that way but if so they were in a minority. We believe that the allegations of intimidation are the result of misunderstanding and miscommunication due to his stature and forthrightness.
The grievance procedure does sometimes fall short, it could do with some improvement, and that is being worked on.
We would also like to add that we find the behaviour of some of the Hackspace members (and some Trustees) somewhat less than excellent and rather distasteful, not only with regard to Dean but others too.
Yes, this EGM is legal and those who requested and supported it have every right to do so. We believe however that the kind of divisiveness it creates could be as harmful as the problem it purports to solve.
Thanks for reading.
Paddy
Phil
Sam
Matthew
Andy
Dean
20 January 2016
Of course it in no way implies that Dean is an angel, nor are you the
Dean appreciation society - you'd just like to drive the point home once
again that no one in the hackspace fears reprisal because all the people
that do have either left or are too fearful to bring it up.
--
--
--
--
I was asked if I would consent and support a document setting out the facts which I did and do, I had no sight of this prior to it being published,
> <mailto:london-hack-space+unsub...@googlegroups.com>.
> <mailto:london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "London Hackspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com.
The current system is insufficient for handling a population of this
size. The board needs to delegate power in an official capacity to more
people. People who are likely to be on-hand, know the rules accurately
and can advise or act on behalf of the board.
And regarding the mailing list itself, I do not believe it is fit for
purpose any more. Even during peaceful times, most will ignore it
because of high traffic and a poor signal to noise ratio. 3000+ people
cannot have multiple meaningful discussions in a single monolithic
channel. It is incredible to me that it works as well as it does.
In my opinion, switching to web-forums would vastly improve
communication matters. The argument against this previously has been
that you can't respond by email. It depends on which forum software you
choose, but there are plugins that permit this. Most will send you
updates to watched topics or sub-forums as standard.
Web-forums would also be a good route for power delegation; forum
moderators, acting to keep discussions civil and in the correct topic
> <mailto:london-hack-space+unsub...@googlegroups.com>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
This definitely could have been timed better. The aim was to release some kind of statement before the EGM and since the vote is happening today it was either release it or not bother at all (perhaps the latter would have been wiser).
There's not a lot I can add to this but I had probably clear up a few loose ends...
To Jonty: yes it was me that originally provided the count of complaints for the aforementioned statement. It was '4 plus a note' (copied from the transcript). I've gone through the emails again and can only find 3 plus the note, plus an allegation of a complaint that was never made. Apologies for any confusion there.
Regarding the private complaints: Nowhere in the statement is there any insinuation that you lied about them. You repeat that twice but it is not there. We mistakenly wrote that they were all received by you and that is due to a failing of my memory, and I apologise for that and to Sarah and Eugene for forgetting theirs, yes it would have added better historical accuracy but the board's lack of knowledge of the complaints remains the same.
To Eugene: I'm sorry that you think we are being hypocritical and indulging in backstabbing, that is absolutely not our intention. It is not true that this was solely penned by 2 of us with the others 'agreeing to the sentiment'. Anyone who feels they are in that category is welcome to speak up. And yes the timing may seem rather convenient, but as Sam pointed out, last night was the final hard deadline. The original plan was for it to go out days before the EGM. It's true that you were not consulted regarding any factual issues in your complaint in June, but the complaint was barely discussed at all so it never came up. Yes that in itself was a failing as noted and that will be worked on.
On a general note: I became involved in preparing this statement because of enquiries both to me personally and to the Trustees with regard to the discussions on the mailing list, seeking clarification as they felt unable to make an informed decision. You are hopefully now as informed as you are likely to be. If you want to vote him out go for it, as now everyone has vented their spleen no one should have any reason for complaint whatever the outcome, and then we will be in a much better position to move on.
--
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dean Forbes (PERS) <de...@deanforbes.com>
Date: 1 December 2015 at 12:53
Subject: Re: This EGM :(
To: Jonty Wareing <jo...@jonty.co.uk>
Jonty
As I've said give me time to mull this over, I will be in on Wednesday if you want to chat,
I don't discount the group that are driving this however, I believe their motivation is precisely the thing I stand against, I do however value the space as a community for all, what works against me in my view is that the majority are not the vocal crew or group that generally stick there head above the parapet.
Cheers
Dean
PS I am sure the space will survive it is bigger than you and I
Regards
Dean Forbes
Mobile Phone +44 7906948725
On 1 December 2015 at 11:52, <jo...@jonty.co.uk> wrote:
Hi Dean,
So far we've had a large proportion of active members of the hackspace support the motion, so while not the majority they're a very large group. Don't discount groups just because they disagree with you, that ends up generating even more hostility!
The grievance procedure does not apply in this case, as it doesn't have the ability to remove trustees, only ban people - I don't believe anybody wants to see you banned, they just do not wish to have you as a trustee with power.
I have been told that the EGM proposal will not be withdrawn under any circumstances, so efforts in that direction will be somewhat futile.
Please seriously consider what I said. I really can't see any other way to stop this being absolutely awful and have you come out of it well.
Jonty
On Tue, 1 Dec 2015, at 11:22 AM, Dean Forbes (PERS) wrote:
Jonty
I will consider what you have to say
I would like to say that I believe that I believe in fighting for what is right. I believe my role as a director is to represent all the member and that is what I believe i am doing
There may be a group of longstanding members who resent me coming in as a trustee. In terms of the membership I don't believe they are the majority and if an egm can overturn the election it makes a mockery of due process
I have the interest of the organisation at heart that I hope you know, however at this point I feel that the effort should be asking the EGM crew to be withdrawn there motion and asking them to follow a stand greviance procedure that is fair and transparent, I am one member of a board do they not understand that.
I am in on Wednesday if you want to chat
Cheers
Dean
Regards
Dean Forbes
Mobile Phone +44 7906948725
On 1 December 2015 at 10:49, <jo...@jonty.co.uk> wrote:
Dean,
I'm writing this email in a personal capacity, after a completely
sleepless night of worry about the EGM.
I'm assuming that the reason you stood to be a trustee is to improve the
space and help it continue to exist in the future, and that you have the
space's best interests at heart rather than your own.
I've spoken to a large number of long-standing members of the space to
gather facts about the situation, and while very few of them wish to see
you banned from the space, nearly all of them are unhappy with you being
a trustee.
With that in mind I've gone over and over all the possible outcomes and
they boil down to this:
1) The EGM proposal succeeds in removing you as a trustee. You are no
longer a trustee, and the membership has to deal with an incredibly
harsh action. You stay as a member, and there will always be lingering
nastyness beneath the surface.
2) The EGM proposal fails in removing you as a trustee. The large number
of people who obviously do not want you as a director are unhappy with
the trustees, and either end their relationship with the space or
actively attempt to remove you again. You stay as a trustee and there
will be persistent issues because this has happened.
Essentially, nobody wins with this EGM. Whatever happens it'll be a
catastrophic blow to the community and the space as a whole. In the next
year we need to actively begin to prepare to move the space to a new
home in two years time, and I am absolutely terrified that this EGM will
lose us many of the very involved members we need to keep the space
running.
I've looked at the voting numbers and the EGM thresholds, and I'm
certain that the EGM proposal will succeed to remove you as a trustee.
It really doesn't take a lot of people to push it through.
After thinking about every possible option, the only way I can see this
ending well is if you do this on your terms, not theirs: If you
voluntarily stand down as a trustee you can say that you understand
you're a divisive figure in the hackspace and would rather continue your
good work as a member rather than as a trustee that many of the
membership reject.
Essentially you spin this in your favour and put them in a bad light,
preventing this from going completely out of control and causing
disastrous harm to the space. I suspect you'd end up with a substantial
amount of respect from members for putting the space before yourself and
trying to end things amicably.
I know it's in your nature to fight everything, but I think pursuing
this fight will take the space down with you.
Jonty
This is a statement in response to various questions that have been raised recently which do not seem to have been satisfactorily answered.
It is approved by 5 current trustees and 1 former trustee.
Dean Forbes was not involved in its writing.
A lot of the publicly available information purporting to be factual, particularly on the mailing list is, in our opinion, both biased and lacking in relevant detail, not to mention that this is not helped by the fractious and argumentative nature of some mailing list posts.
The reason for this lack of detail is mostly due to grievance procedure matters being confidential to Trustees. The result so far has been that the public discussion has contained many allegations, assumptions and questions, while a significant portion of the facts are still publicly unknown as a result of Trustees keeping that confidence.
Re the statement from 13 present and past Trustees:
'five occasions where members raised a complaint against Dean Forbes (the allegations being generally for aggressive and dictatorial behaviour)'
Three are recorded. Perhaps they relate to the 2 storage violation complaints referred to later, we don't know. There were also several unofficial complaints regarding storage violations. There is also an outstanding request to the Trustees for this information, as yet unanswered.
At least 3 of those who approved that statement took that number on trust, and due to the current lack of records or even informal knowledge of this matter we regret that decision.
Regarding those 3 complaints:
The first incident was referred to in the EGM, and when it occurred, in 2013, it was thoroughly investigated and dropped due to lack of evidence. It was clear that a heated encounter of some kind occurred but there was considerable scope for subjectivity and this was part of the reason for the lack of formal warning.
The second complaint, in June 2015, appeared to contain little actionable content, historical allegations, and indeed contained some errors of fact, and no action was taken. This is however still an example of a grievance procedure failure. It was not dealt with in a timely manner and got ignored and delayed for too long. Where there is a general consensus amongst the Trustees, such delays tend not to happen.
The third complaint (the one alluded to in the ML thread recently) has been investigated and 3 independent written statements have been received by the Trustees from the members who were present and witnessed the events first hand. They all state categorically that there was no wrongdoing on Dean’s part. It has also been alleged that they are all his friends. It is not so.
‘We are also aware of at least four occasions where members have brought Dean's alleged aggressive behaviour to trustees' attention in person’
As far as we know, 1 (now ex) Trustee received all of these allegations privately, and no specifics whatsoever have been passed on to the board.
‘but have declined to raise formal complaints because they were fearful of reprisals’
No one has been able to quantify the kind of reprisal they were fearful of, nor has anyone ever reported or even alluded to any such reprisal taking place, unless this refers to robust emails of denial or somesuch. No one has ever reported any threat of such reprisals.
This statement is in no way meant to imply that Dean is some kind of angel, nor are we the Dean appreciation society. We would like to see fair play though.
It is true that he has been guilty of various things, notably storage infractions, lack of communication regarding workshop equipment, and confusing posts to the mailing list. However, it is in our opinion not the case that the Trustees have failed to act out of fear of reprisals or any such thing. Some of them may have felt that way but if so they were in a minority. We believe that the allegations of intimidation are the result of misunderstanding and miscommunication due to his stature and forthrightness.
The grievance procedure does sometimes fall short, it could do with some improvement, and that is being worked on.
We would also like to add that we find the behaviour of some of the Hackspace members (and some Trustees) somewhat less than excellent and rather distasteful, not only with regard to Dean but others too.
To fill in some context of one of Jonty's emails exchanges
--
--
--
Actually I think this proves jontys point, and most of the substance, if not the entire content was public anyway. You should not share confidential emails sent between 2 trustees on a public list. There was no direct request to keep it confidential, but it is implied because he didn't post it to the public list in the first place.
Actually I think this proves jontys point, and most of the substance, if not the entire content was public anyway. You should not share confidential emails sent between 2 trustees on a public list. There was no direct request to keep it confidential, but it is implied because he didn't post it to the public list in the first place.
Besides that, sharing a leaked private email between another person and Jonty, shows a horrible lack of judgement. If we can't trust you to keep private emails confidential, how can people at the hackspace trust you with sensitive matters that the trustees sometimes have to deal with. Will you release those too if things become a bit too hot?
If your reaching into your pants to get your penus out can you stop for a moment and consider. Course it's embarrassing.
Every one take a deep breath, take you hand away from you zip. Have a cup of tea, then come back to this.
Please.
if you are sent an email you are entitled to do what you want with it
For clarification no email sent to the trustee email address will ever be shared
Pingless has hit the nail on the head.
Every person on this thread has argued that releasing emails like that is a dick move, so how can you continue to argue that it's the actions of a 'reasonable' person?
It amazes me that criticism of your actions suddenly becomes a personal vendetta against you. Any 'reasonable' person would take stock and think about what the membership have said, not continuously twist it.
I've cast my vote, and I hope the Hackspace can move forward constructively after the results because at present I honestly don't see how it's possible.
Your own conduct would have seen you removed from companies; at least in all companies I have worked with it would not be tolerated.
This argument is becoming circular, a common theme I've noticed in most of your threads. The end is the same; you believe yours is the only correct opinion with no room for debate.
As I said, I hope the Hackspace can move on constructively once the vote is in.
Talking of lines if my information is correct thank you for the giant elephant willie warmer - I burst into a roar of laughter (hey Ho)
That trustees have differing opinions is to be expected. However, that 5 trustees have decided to release a statement, close to a vote, and apparently without broad consensus or even consideration by the rest of the board is of great concern.
On 20 January 2016 at 11:54, <space...@gmail.com> wrote:
I dont see this as the trustees being fractured or having a broken hackspace.
This issue has been very divisive within the hackspace.
The fact that the board is divided over it actually shows that the boards opinions are a good representation of the opinions of the membership.
It is the sign of a well balance board.
In my opinion, switching to web-forums would vastly improve
communication matters.
The argument against this previously has been
that you can't respond by email. It depends on which forum software you
choose, but there are plugins that permit this.
Most will send you
updates to watched topics or sub-forums as standard.
Web-forums would also be a good route for power delegation; forum
moderators, acting to keep discussions civil and in the correct topic
threads.
On 20/01/2016 13:02, geekinesis wrote:
> I haven't been to the hackspace in months and have no idea what's
> going on there so this is just my view after reading months of
> depressing emails. This may seem like a stupid question but I think I
> understand the organisation of the backspace in that there are a set
> of trustees who are elected by the membership, but is there someone
> who is ultimately in charge or responsible for the management of the
> space? Ie if the hackspace appears (from an outside perspective) to
> be in semi crisis, is there anyone who is in overall control who can
> pull things together if the trustees system fails? Like most
> charities with trustees have a ceo/manager or whatever? Do trustees
> normally have to be the day to day managers as well? I fully support
> the idea of the hackspace as a social/organisational experiment but
> It just seems from reading the many depressing daily emails that the
> problems are getting so complex and convoluted it could need a bit of
> impartial leadership to bring things back into perspective.
>
Likewise Jonty canvassing for EGM votes then attempting to play it off
as a neutral party working in Deans best interest is also a dick move.
--