Extraordinary General Meeting

[Russ Garrett]

As company secretary I have over the last week received 72 requests
from members to convene a general meeting. I have been able to
authenticate at least 65 of these requests as being from members
entitled to vote, which comprises 5.2% of the voting rights of the
association. Under section 303 of the Companies Act, this surpasses
the 5% threshold required to compel the trustees to call a meeting.

I have also received a notice of an intended resolution to remove Dean
as a director under section 168.

I have not yet received a statement of the reasoning behind these
calls and I expect this to be communicated to the membership via this
mailing list before the meeting. Dean has a statutory right of reply.

The Trustees have 21 days from yesterday to issue a formal notice of a
general meeting. Due to the timing of this request, the notice is
likely to be issued towards the end of this period in order to hold an
EGM in the first two weeks of January.

--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk

[Ian Henderson]

Sounds like trolling to me... Still the law's the law, so we'll have to comply.

It'll be an interesting meeting.

[Tim Reynolds]

I can assure it is not trolling at all. There are a lot of people seriously concerned about the negative impact Deans election will have on the organisation as a whole. 

[Billy]

Did they vote in the trustee's election?

If the members who are complaining now didn't vote in the election, then they have only themselves to blame.

Tim: While i find Dean to be abrasive and blunt in his communication style, he's no more abrasive and blunt than any other South African i've worked with/shared houses with, and he comes across as being thick-skinned.

Tom Greer is equally abrasive and blunt, typically Scottish, however he is much thinner-skinned, and takes offence very easily.

They are both passionate about the things they do, and are both very pro-active in getting shit done.

I don't know the full story about what is going on, as a lot of the communication about this has been running on back-channels that i don't have access to, in the same way that most of the members don't have access to them.

We definitely need to hear the full story before the EGM takes place.

[Tim Reynolds]

Billy, this covers most of it: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/london-hack-space/6U_cG0LMVXg

[David Murphy]

While I sometimes find Dean annoying he's elected fair and square and it's good to have some dissenters mixed in occasionally.

--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Tim Reynolds]

I think Dean goes beyond dissenting. He is actively harmful to the space. 

319 people voted in the election, 72 people have voted for this EGM. That is a lot of concerned people. 

For what it is worth, I am entirely prepared to put my money where my mouth is and cancel my membership if the EGM fails to remove Dean. I've heard the same from a fair number of other people that voted for this EGM, all of them integral and active members upkeeping the space. 

The price of Dean staying may well be the space becoming completely dysfunctional.

[deanforbes]

There are 1248 members of the London Hack Space they voted and it is their choice I represent

I look forward to hearing on what facts this motion is based and will respond accordingly at the appropriate time

[deanforbes]

oops they had the opportunity to vote 

On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 10:00:14 UTC, Russ Garrett wrote:

[tom k&e]

To avoid this happening again I propose we ammend the article 25.b.i from

> The Meek STV voting method with a "no further places" candidate
must be used.

To something along the lines of

> The Meek STV voting method with a "no further places" candidate
must be used. To be eligible for election, at least a candidate must be ranked above "no further places" by a simple majority of voters.

[Mark Steward]

That wouldn't affect the result. None of the candidates was voted below NFP by a simple majority.

Russ is working on some changes to be included in the EGM, which include getting rid of NFP entirely as it appears to only confuse people:

  https://github.com/londonhackspace/documentation/pull/5

Mark

[sara....@msn.com]

I find the content and tone of this chain outrageous!

The whole premise of an election held fare and square is now being called into question....

Proportional representation is just that - people vote and as some candidates drop out their votes get shared amongst the remainder!

You state you have been receiving requests for an EGM over the last week, but the election only closed on Sunday...

This makes no sense on the face of it.

Maybe some underhand behaviours have been going on behind the scenes?

This clear non acceptance of the result is immature at best or perhaps an abuse of position.......

This organisation is masquerading as being democratic - clearly it is not at all.

An EGM in the current context is manipulation and not democracy in my view!

Good night

On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 10:00:14 UTC, Russ Garrett wrote:

[Tim Reynolds]

There has been unrest about Deans behaviour for a long time.


The EGM was started way before the election, and would have happened
regardless of the outcome of it.

319 people voted in the election, 72 voted for the EGM. Why are the
votes for the EGM invalid?

> ru...@garrett.co.uk <javascript:>

>
> --
> 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

> <mailto:london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com>.

[Charles Yarnold]

Hi Sara,

I think it's worth noting again, as people are missing it, that the motion was to remove Dean as a member, not a trustee and was started before he became a trustee, since the election concluded it has been amended to also remove him as a trustee as this has changed since the first motion was started.

Best,

Sol

--

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.

[Adrian Godwin]

Wasn't Sara outed as a troll and moderated ?

[Charles Yarnold]

Not that I can see, the only ML interaction with them has been people CC'ing them into threads about items stored without permission "Notice Of Disposal on things" in 2014. Thei also apear to be a paid up member with a valid postcode on their members account.

(though they could still be called a troll or trolling, I just mean they seem to be a real person)

[Tim Reynolds]

Someone supporting Dean and shouting about justice and order while
breaking storage rules? I for one am shocked.

On 01/12/2015 21:08, Charles Yarnold wrote:
> Not that I can see, the only ML interaction with them has been people
> CC'ing them into threads about items stored without permission "Notice
> Of Disposal on things" in 2014. Thei also apear to be a paid up member
> with a valid postcode on their members account.
>
> (though they could still be called a troll or trolling, I just mean they
> seem to be a real person)
>
> On 1 December 2015 at 16:00, Adrian Godwin <artg...@gmail.com

> <mailto:artg...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Wasn't Sara outed as a troll and moderated ?
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Charles Yarnold
> <charles...@gmail.com <mailto:charles...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Sara,
>
> I think it's worth noting again, as people are missing it, that
> the motion was to remove Dean as a member, not a trustee and was
> started before he became a trustee, since the election concluded
> it has been amended to also remove him as a trustee as this has
> changed since the first motion was started.
>
> Best,
>
> Sol
>
> On 1 December 2015 at 15:50, <sara....@msn.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

> <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

> <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

> <mailto:london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com>.

[Adrian Godwin]

Sorry if I'm wrong.

But there was a poster using a very similar style recently, wasn't there ? That Mark pointed out and moderated ?

I've no strong view either way on the EGM or its motions, but we can do without that sort of rabble-rousing, I think.

[Russ Garrett]

On 1 December 2015 at 20:50, <sara....@msn.com> wrote:
> You state you have been receiving requests for an EGM over the last week,

> but the election only closed on Sunday... [...] This makes no sense on the face of it.

> Maybe some underhand behaviours have been going on behind the scenes?

I am just stating what I am legally obliged to do.

It is true that the call for this EGM started before the end of the
election, but that doesn't change its validity. This is a requirement
of company law.

--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk

[tom k&e]

Good point. Well perhaps 2\3 supermajority then, and rename "no other places" to "veto". That sort of criteria does have precedent, to avoid this sort of situation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackballing

[Ben Clifford]

On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, tom k&e wrote:

> Good point. Well perhaps 2\3 supermajority then, and rename "no other places" to "veto". That sort of criteria does have precedent, to avoid this sort of situation.
>
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackballing

Can you put details of how you see this working as a comment to
https://github.com/londonhackspace/documentation/issues/4 ?

Perhaps use real election data from one of the elections (or some subset
of it) to show how the result would be calculated differently.

Are you aiming for "I would rather there be an empty trustee space than
any candidate rated below this point on my ballot" ?

Or some different semantics?

--

[sara....@msn.com]

Yes, I am a real person - not a troll.

Indeed I don't think the definition of a troll fits with my post at all.

The same cannot be said for others in the threads I read.

I am surprised that popularity seems to be a pre-requisite to enjoying membership of LHS.

Can this be so and is it fair?

One would imagine that disagreement or issues could (and should) be resolved outside of an EGM that seems to be a surprise to many!

It is clearly very difficult to have a constructive conversation or for one's view to be heard without discord.

Out

On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 10:00:14 UTC, Russ Garrett wrote:

[SamLR]

From a legal standpoint if there are enough members to call for an EGM then there has to be an EGM. It's not a good way of dealing with anything but unfortunately that's how these things work.

As to popularity it's not a requirement for membership but it is for being a trustee, if you're unpopular you won't get voted in. No matter how good you might be.

In this case Dean was popular enough to get voted in but also unpopular enough to have an EGM called against him which is certainly odd but not unheard of.

--

[Eugene Nadyrshin]

I can confirm Sara is not a troll, from my understanding she's Dean's partner.

On 1 December 2015 at 22:52, <sara....@msn.com> wrote:

--

[Henry Best]

So she's totally unbiased. :)

[sara....@msn.com]

I am a member and have been for some time and I am entitled to my opinion.

I am fiercely independent and anyone that knows me in a personal or professional capacity will know that and they will also know that should my view differ to Dean's then I have no hesitation in airing it!

My comments in this forum are about what is being played out in such an abhorrent way.

 

On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 10:00:14 UTC, Russ Garrett wrote:

[Mr Ed]

On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 20:59:42 UTC, Solexious wrote:

Hi Sara,

I think it's worth noting again, as people are missing it, that the motion was to remove Dean as a member, not a trustee and was started before he became a trustee, since the election concluded it has been amended to also remove him as a trustee as this has changed since the first motion was started.

Was this ever aired on the mailing list? I don't recall seeing it.

Also, if Dean's behaviour is so bad, why haven't people making complaints leading to a ban by the trustees? Are the usual methods inadequate, or is there something I'm missing here?


-Ed


 

[SamLR]

Ed (and other late-comers),

NB For the sake of transparency I should note I did support the motion although I'm not sure I'll support the vote. Frankly the whole thing is pretty sickening and a lot of people's actions here are really making me question what benefit I get from the hackspace and whether I'd be better off not bothering (not that I bother much anyway).

Anyway this is my understand of the situation:

 

Was this ever aired on the mailing list? I don't recall seeing it.

As far as I'm aware the prospect of banning Dean was not explicitly raised on the list as a thread. Support was raised off list and voiced directly to the trustees.

 

Also, if Dean's behaviour is so bad, why haven't people making complaints leading to a ban by the trustees? Are the usual methods inadequate, or is there something I'm missing here?

Based on the wiki[1] Dean has not received a second formal warning (the first formal warning is not published). It may well be that complaints have been made but not upheld or that no complaints have been received.

Why this is happening is that every member has the right to call an EGM and, should that call receive enough support, then an EGM is held. Apparently 71 people supported this call so there is at least that much support. That being said for the motion to pass a majority* of those attending the EGM must agree with it and the EGM must be quorate. Quorum is 10% of eligible members and currently 124 people (this includes proxy votes).

Anyway, I think that is a fair primer on how this is happening if nothing else.

S

* I think this is a simple majority but it may not be and I can't find specific reference in the constitution.
[1] https://wiki.london.hackspace.org.uk/view/Grievance_Procedure/Warnings_Issued

[Adrian Godwin]

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 11:04 AM, SamLR <sam.lind...@gmail.com> wrote:

* I think this is a simple majority but it may not be and I can't find specific reference in the constitution.
[1] https://wiki.london.hackspace.org.uk/view/Grievance_Procedure/Warnings_Issued

 

From following the conversation, I think that removing a member  (as was suggested when the EGM was proposed)  would require first a 75% vote to change the constitution to allow the action, followed by whatever vote was then required to make it happen.

Removing a trustee (which appears to be what the motion has mutated into, post-election) may have a lower threshold since I believe it doesn't require a constitutional change.

Those people wanting to remove members wold be better off doing it through the existing mechanism of warnings. Such warnings would only be administered by the trustees if found to be valid.

[Russ Garrett]

On 3 December 2015 at 11:04, SamLR <sam.lind...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Quorum is 10% of eligible members and currently 124 people (this includes proxy votes).

Quorum is 10 members, not 10%, but everyone will be eligible to vote by proxy.

--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk

[Mark Steward]

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Adrian Godwin <artg...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 11:04 AM, SamLR <sam.lind...@gmail.com> wrote:

* I think this is a simple majority but it may not be and I can't find specific reference in the constitution.
[1] https://wiki.london.hackspace.org.uk/view/Grievance_Procedure/Warnings_Issued

 

From following the conversation, I think that removing a member  (as was suggested when the EGM was proposed)  would require first a 75% vote to change the constitution to allow the action, followed by whatever vote was then required to make it happen.

It doesn't require a lasting change to the constitution. It just has to have a special resolution (75% support) because it overrides it.

 

Removing a trustee (which appears to be what the motion has mutated into, post-election) may have a lower threshold since I believe it doesn't require a constitutional change.

Those people wanting to remove members wold be better off doing it through the existing mechanism of warnings. Such warnings would only be administered by the trustees if found to be valid.

I haven't seen the reasons, but my understanding is one of the major concerns is Dean's controlling of the downstairs workshop in a way that benefits himself over others. This is not something that's covered by the grievance procedure.

I do also know that complaints have been made to the trustees about his personal behaviour one-on-one, but they're hard to act on due to lack of witnesses, the lack of a clear violation of the code of conduct, and denials from Dean. While this may not warrant removing him as a member, it makes his election into the grievance process problematic in my view.

Mark

[Aden]

I suspect this has not been dealt with using the existing procedure due to trustees fearing for their own personal safety. What other possible reason for the many complaints not resulting in action?

--

[David Murphy]

>it makes his election into the grievance process problematic in my view.

I'm curious. Is there any special system for grievance process if a trustee is involved? Does it simply get treated as a vote by 8 trustees? Or do they vote as well.

If we don't have any mechanism for that should such a mechanism be added?

Dean can be an ass on the mailing list but I was looking forward to seeing the equivalent of that south park episode where Cartman keeps criticizing the class president until he gets given the job and gets angry because someone starts doing the same thing to him and he realizes he has no power.

http://southpark.wikia.com/wiki/Dances_with_Smurfs/Script

It would only be a matter of time before someone else started accusing Dean of being part of a shadowy conspiracy and he discovered that trustees don't have much in the way of actual power.

As such it's a real pity a bunch of people decided to try to push him out before this inevitability could come to pass.

[Samb1]

There isn't anything different as such. Obviously it's complicated by the fact that the result has to be enacted by trustees (which can be done by directors vote if the individual doesn't agree to the result) it simply requires us (the directors/trustees) to maintain our integrity in the face of dealing with a difficult issue.

[Mark Steward]

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:21 PM, David Murphy <murphy...@gmail.com> wrote:

>it makes his election into the grievance process problematic in my view.

I'm curious. Is there any special system for grievance process if a trustee is involved? Does it simply get treated as a vote by 8 trustees? Or do they vote as well.

If we don't have any mechanism for that should such a mechanism be added?

Complaints can be sent directly to a subset of the trustees if necessary. Contact details are linked from the wiki page:

  https://wiki.london.hackspace.org.uk/view/Organisation/Trustees

I believe that this would normally be relayed to the trustees IRC channel and Trello by one of the recipients, and in case of a dispute, permission would be sought to reveal the complaint.

The trustees in my experience try to come to unanimous decisions. However, a direct vote can be held on OneClickOrgs, and it would be of all the trustees (with anyone who wants to remain impartial abstaining).

 

Dean can be an ass on the mailing list but I was looking forward to seeing the equivalent of that south park episode where Cartman keeps criticizing the class president until he gets given the job and gets angry because someone starts doing the same thing to him and he realizes he has no power.

http://southpark.wikia.com/wiki/Dances_with_Smurfs/Script

It would only be a matter of time before someone else started accusing Dean of being part of a shadowy conspiracy and he discovered that trustees don't have much in the way of actual power.

As such it's a real pity a bunch of people decided to try to push him out before this inevitability could come to pass.

Power can be a matter of perception. How many issues have we had where people have claimed "a trustee told me I could"?

Mark

[David Sullivan]

On Thursday, 3 December 2015 12:49:18 UTC, Mark Steward wrote:

Power can be a matter of perception. How many issues have we had where people have claimed "a trustee told me I could"?

There have been some though. At least one has resulted in verbal abuse and serious physical intimation by someone who'd been given the "green light" to store an item. I was very disappointed with the lack of lack of acknowledgement that this sort of informal approval was a serious mistake by the trustee in question (who even went on to mock the incident resulting from it) and the informal warning given for the incident in that case.

To all intents and purposes this has all been an "invisible" issue to many.

Sully.

[Mark Steward]

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:17 PM, David Sullivan <david.c....@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, 3 December 2015 12:49:18 UTC, Mark Steward wrote:

Power can be a matter of perception. How many issues have we had where people have claimed "a trustee told me I could"?

There have been some though.

Guess I worded that wrongly. There have been a significant number of issues over the years caused by people asking an innocuous question to a trustee (often "do you reckon there will be a problem if..."), and then using that to overrule other members.

Mark

[Mr Ed]

Well, apparently there's still the motion going on, but I feel very much in the dark.

What I don't understand is what Dean has done which isn't covered by the grievance procedure. What is meant by "controlling the workshop"? If it's abuse of storage requests, other people's stuff stored there or abuse of the machines or people, then those are all covered. I can't think of anything else off hand.

With the EGM, it appears I'm being asked to vote, but I don't feel I have any real details on what I'm meant to be voting on.

So far, what I've heard is a lot of back and forth on the mailing list which is hard to follow, vague threats that important people will leave if Dean isn't removed (no details of who[*]) and claims that it can't be done by the grievance procedure.

Kind of light on details for someone who hasn't been in recently and doesn't use the IRC channel.

There's also the point that the existence of the motion to be implies either something is wrong with the grievance procedure, or something is wrong with the motion.

Can anyone shed any light on what is wrong with the procedure? Someone mentioned lack of direct evidence, but as far as I can see surely the same applies to us voters who aren't in the know.

[*] there's nothing wrong with threatening to leave: I've done that in a different organisation. However it only works if one knows who and why. Otherwise it's just yet another insinuation.

[Adrian Godwin]

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Mr Ed <edward...@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, apparently there's still the motion going on, but I feel very much in the dark.

What I don't understand is what Dean has done which isn't covered by the grievance procedure. What is meant by "controlling the workshop"? If it's abuse of storage requests, other people's stuff stored there or abuse of the machines or people, then those are all covered. I can't think of anything else off hand.

I'm a bit surprised that abuse can be performed that can't be addressed by the grievance procedure. Do we need to update it ?

 

With the EGM, it appears I'm being asked to vote, but I don't feel I have any real details on what I'm meant to be voting on.

Russ stated that

"I have not yet received a statement of the reasoning behind these
calls and I expect this to be communicated to the membership via this
mailing list before the meeting. Dean has a statutory right of reply."

So I presume that no formal motion has yet been proposed, but will be before the EGM occurs. SInce this is some weeks away, there's no rush.

 

So far, what I've heard is a lot of back and forth on the mailing list which is hard to follow, vague threats that important people will leave if Dean isn't removed (no details of who[*]) and claims that it can't be done by the grievance procedure.

You can ignore that. It's called FUD. Many people are valuable, but nobody is indispensable. Any members / trustees are very welcome to make a statement of the form 'him or me' in supporting the motion, but it's not valid if propagated by rumours.

 

There's also the point that the existence of the motion to be implies either something is wrong with the grievance procedure, or something is wrong with the motion.

Can anyone shed any light on what is wrong with the procedure? Someone mentioned lack of direct evidence, but as far as I can see surely the same applies to us voters who aren't in the know.

[*] there's nothing wrong with threatening to leave: I've done that in a different organisation. However it only works if one knows who and why. Otherwise it's just yet another insinuation.

Exactly.

[Peter "Sci" Turpin]

It should be made clearer that individual trustees do not have capacity
to override the the rules of the space.

While I want the space to remain flexible enough to take advantage of
any opportunities that come up at short-notice, trustees need to be held
to a higher standard of behaviour to avoid accusations of abusing their
position.

That said, auto-approval for short-term storage should in theory prevent
this, which in turn places any abuses of the system in an even harsher
light.

As Mark says, it's also an issue when regular ol' members wilfully
assume this is the case to their own benefit. E.G; "This trustee
casually said they wouldn't object to my storing this, so I didn't think
I needed to get a storage request".

[Charles Yarnold]

I make sure to make it very clear when answering questions these days, usually going "personally I think [X] is [Y/N] but that's just me personally not as a trustee, other members might not agree" but this still has resulted in "Charles said it was ok, he is a trustee"

[Peter "Sci" Turpin]

I think you may need to be even more direct and outright state they'll
still need to seek general approval. Just the word "might" in there
could still be taken as tacit approval, which if they're looking for an
easy route out, they will.

I hope this doesn't come across as trying to censor your manner of
speech. I'm just trying to spot how people could be exploiting it.

On 03/12/2015 17:41, Charles Yarnold wrote:
> I make sure to make it very clear when answering questions these days,
> usually going "personally I think [X] is [Y/N] but that's just me
> personally not as a trustee, other members might not agree" but this
> still has resulted in "Charles said it was ok, he is a trustee"
>
> On 3 Dec 2015 12:34, "Peter "Sci" Turpin" <s...@sci-fi-fox.com

> <mailto:s...@sci-fi-fox.com>> wrote:
>
> On 03/12/2015 13:22, Mark Steward wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:17 PM, David Sullivan
> <david.c....@gmail.com <mailto:david.c....@gmail.com>

> <mailto:david.c....@gmail.com

> <mailto:london-hack-space%2Bunsu...@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

> <mailto:london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com>.

[Billy]

While this is a problem of behaviour that needs addressing, it's a little off-topic and deserves a separate thread.

THe question occurred to me this morning, If Dean has been such a problem, then why hasn't anyone started the formal greivance procedure?

After all, we already have a method for getting members to alter their behaviour, before going for an outright ban.

Why hasn't this procedure been followed?

> <mailto:london-hack-space+unsub...@googlegroups.com>.

[George Cox]

On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 10:34:35 AM UTC, Billy wrote:

While this is a problem of behaviour that needs addressing, it's a little off-topic and deserves a separate thread.

The question occurred to me this morning, If Dean has been such a problem, then why hasn't anyone started the formal grievance procedure?

After all, we already have a method for getting members to alter their behaviour, before going for an outright ban.
Why hasn't this procedure been followed?

Absolutely agree.  I was asked twice privately to write to the trustees requesting that Dean be banned.  I did not do so for two reasons.  Firstly I wasn't affected by any of the alleged activities, so I have nothing first-hand to complain about, but secondly (and more importantly in this context of this or would-be other thread) I considered that canvassing members for such a purpose assuming they would be of a similar mindset was a lynch-mob attitude of which I wanted no part.

[Mr Ed]

On Friday, 4 December 2015 10:34:35 UTC, Billy wrote:

While this is a problem of behaviour that needs addressing, it's a little off-topic and deserves a separate thread.

THe question occurred to me this morning, If Dean has been such a problem, then why hasn't anyone started the formal greivance procedure?

After all, we already have a method for getting members to alter their behaviour, before going for an outright ban.

Why hasn't this procedure been followed?

Indeed. The wall of silence about this is kind of deafening. If 70+ members have actually got up and seconded the motion and expect me (i.e. us, the wider Hax membership) to vote on it, I'd expect someone to tell me/us/the people in this thread asking what on earth is going on.

I appreciate that grievances are treated as private, but this can never be since it's going to be subjected to a public vote. Either the motion along with reasoning or it will have to be dropped. Are any of the 70 seconding members prepared to tell me why they think I should vote for this motion, or at least tell me why I can't yet be allowed to know?

Is there any good reason to leave this to the shortest possible time before the EGM?

-Ed



 

[Gavan Fantom]

On 04/12/2015 12:07, Mr Ed wrote:
> Indeed. The wall of silence about this is kind of deafening. If 70+
> members have actually got up and seconded the motion and expect me (i.e.
> us, the wider Hax membership) to vote on it, I'd expect someone to tell
> me/us/the people in this thread asking what on earth is going on.
>
> I appreciate that grievances are treated as private, but this can never
> be since it's going to be subjected to a public vote. Either the motion
> along with reasoning or it will have to be dropped. Are any of the 70
> seconding members prepared to tell me why they think I should vote for
> this motion, or at least tell me why I can't yet be allowed to know?

70+ members have seconded the call for the EGM, not necessarily the
motion to be voted on.

I fully agree that now that the EGM has been called it's time for a
clear statement explaining why people should vote for the motion(s) on
the table.

It is my belief that without such a statement it is unlikely that such a
motion will be carried by a 50% majority, let alone 75%.

It is also my opinion that such a statement needs to address the
question of why the ordinary grievance procedure was unable to address
the problem.

Now is the time to put these issues on the table in a concrete form.
Otherwise the EGM will be a pure straight out popularity contest.

This is also an opportunity for the membership to decide to back Dean if
they wish to do so. If a strong majority votes against the motion(s)
tabled then it will cement his position as both a member and a trustee.

[Billy]

This is exactly why the Formal Complaints/Greivance procedure was set up. To avoid this lynch mob mentality.

This behaviour always crops up in groups of neo-monkeys with a population density that is over Dunbar's Number.

The systems that we set up, were our attempt to construct a hack around this problem.

If the systems are insufficient, then we need to talk about a better solution, but there needs to be a conversation explicitly about this.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The choice to set up a Company Limited By Guarantee, was so we could rent the space in Cremer Street, as the landlord didn't want to rent to an individual, and no-one wanted to be personally liable if things went wrong. A nice legal hack.

But because of this, our internal organisational rules are trumped by Company Law.

This is due to the fact, that we are working under the English legal system, and how we get the protections, and the responsibilities, that arise from using the English legal system.

Why aren't the people who have put this complaint forward trying to follow our internal rules first, rather than jumping to the full formal requirements of Company Law?

[Samb1]

Hello,

Clearly there's a bit of uncertainty/confusion regarding the current situation.

We (the trustees) are in the process of writing a response to explain the current status of things and why this is happening.

This should be posted to the ML very soon.

Sam

On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 12:07:31 PM UTC, Mr Ed wrote:

[jo...@jonty.co.uk]

Billy,

 

The grievance procedure simply allows the trustees to ban members, for a trustee to be removed it requires a member vote at an EGM or AGM.

 

Jonty

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com.

[A S]

Jonty,

That might be true if the request for the EGM was started after Dean was democratically elected as a trustee, but it was started a week or so before that, in an attempt to ban him from the space. Billy's question still stands.

> <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.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Billy]

On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 12:54:19 PM UTC, Jonty Wareing wrote:

Billy,

 

The grievance procedure simply allows the trustees to ban members, for a trustee to be removed it requires a member vote at an EGM or AGM.

 

Jonty

Yes!

But this process was started BEFORE he was elected as a trustee. So it can't have been about removing Dean as a trustee, because he wasn't a trustee when the EGM was first requested.

The people putting this request in didn't use the internal procedures that we set up to stop this getting out of hand.

-------------------------------------------------------------

I have a proposal that i would like to add to the EGM.

Since the people calling for the EGM asking to ban Dean as a member, haven't bothered to follow our internal rules, they are obviously people who cannot co-operate within a shared space. Therefore, i would like to propose a ban for all of them from membership of the hackspace as well. This vote to be taken at exactly the same time as the vote on Dean's membership.

So if Dean gets banned, they get banned as members as well.

It's only fair.

This would also mean, that they would be allowed to take part in the EGM, but they wouldn't get to vote.

So it would be entirely the uninvolved members who are having to vote on this situation.

---------------------------------------------------------------

The members who have been proposing this EGM, could always choose to follow our internal procedures, in which case, there is no need for an EGM, and no need for accepting my proposal as the EGM would not take place.

 

[Mr Ed]

I thought the initial reason was to remove Dean as a member, and that started before the election results. I think someone said something up thread about it.

-Ed

[Nick Johnson]

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 1:25 PM Billy <bi...@billycomputersmith.com> wrote:

On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 12:54:19 PM UTC, Jonty Wareing wrote:

Billy,

 

The grievance procedure simply allows the trustees to ban members, for a trustee to be removed it requires a member vote at an EGM or AGM.

 

Jonty

Yes!

But this process was started BEFORE he was elected as a trustee. So it can't have been about removing Dean as a trustee, because he wasn't a trustee when the EGM was first requested.

The people putting this request in didn't use the internal procedures that we set up to stop this getting out of hand.

-------------------------------------------------------------

I have a proposal that i would like to add to the EGM.

Since the people calling for the EGM asking to ban Dean as a member, haven't bothered to follow our internal rules, they are obviously people who cannot co-operate within a shared space. Therefore, i would like to propose a ban for all of them from membership of the hackspace as well. This vote to be taken at exactly the same time as the vote on Dean's membership.

So if Dean gets banned, they get banned as members as well.

A witch hunt, excellent! We should question everyone involved closely, they might have co-conspirators who require banning too.

 

> <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.

[Paddy Duncan]

Correct, and can the speculation please hold off, it is distracting those who are actively trying to produce more facts in the background.

Ta

> <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.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Russ Garrett]

On 4 December 2015 at 13:25, Billy <bi...@billycomputersmith.com> wrote:
> But this process was started BEFORE he was elected as a trustee. So it can't
> have been about removing Dean as a trustee, because he wasn't a trustee when
> the EGM was first requested.

I provided members with advice on this in my capacity as chair. The
vast majority of the requests in favour of this EGM came after the
election concluded, and I believe they were in support of the motion
to remove Dean as a trustee, not as a member.

A request for an EGM does not have to provide the exact nature of the
business to be conducted.

> Since the people calling for the EGM asking to ban Dean as a member, haven't
> bothered to follow our internal rules, they are obviously people who cannot
> co-operate within a shared space. Therefore, i would like to propose a ban
> for all of them from membership of the hackspace as well. This vote to be
> taken at exactly the same time as the vote on Dean's membership.

I consider this a vexatious motion and I will not let it be brought at the EGM.

--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk

[Billy]

But no-one's been turned into a newt recently... :))

Yes. These rules were set up to avoid the lynch mob/witch-hunt mentality.

By trying to do an end-run around the internal rules that we set up, they're behaving in a very hacky, but also very unco-operative, manner.

I'm just proposing that the same rules that they want to use to ban Dean, be applied to them.