Post by Joe K on Mar 3, 2016 6:00:02 GMT -5
Just leaving this here. It's me '[not taking up] a number of different meeting opportunities, before a formal letter of dismissal was sent'...
(I never had a reply to my email, just the 'letter of dismissal')
January 12th, '12
I should point out that these invitations to meetings didn't start out as such. Originally, I had a phone call from Ward telling me of a committee meeting I had to attend, although it had not been scheduled at the previous one. I popped by Gordon Barrington's (treasurer) house, and askd him if owt was amiss. No, no, just an ordinary committee meeting, Barrington said. So I sent Ward two emails, the first being ignored, here is the reply to the second...
And that is how this arrogant, egotistical man tried to railroad his partnership's secretary, instead of honestly following the clearly set out (but since muddied) rules on conduct.
(I never had a reply to my email, just the 'letter of dismissal')
January 12th, '12
Hi Tony,
Again, since you haven't replied, I have to ask, to what end? For someone who has repeatedly claimed to be 'reluctant' to take this action, you seem a lot more reluctant to hear me saying that you neither need to take it, nor have the right to do so.
I have agreed that GAVCA are right to say that this should be handled by the partnership internally, but questioned whether arranging a 'sub committee' (which is what you actually did), before even notifying me of your concerns, is what GAVCA meant by that. If you have no objection, I would like to see what advice GAVCA gave you, and how you presented this situation to them, to ensure that nothing important has been overlooked.
As for the details in your files, yes, I can appreciate that, although I opened the 'Bartred_NP' account on Thisisgloucestershire.co.uk to advertise events that nobody else was prepared to promote, and which I wasn't able to do so under my own name due to a culture of excessive moderation which has left TiG's own reputation tarnished, I did fail to draw a clear distinction between myself and the partnership as a whole. On the other hand, in some comments I identified my role in the partnership, and at no point did anyone suggest that those comments brought the BTNP into disrepute, though you're welcome to seek evidence to the contrary (although if anyone had complained, you would presumably have spoken to me immediately, limiting any further ramifications, or else you would have been partially responsible for ensuing consequences). The fact is that no-one appears to really care about the partnership, not TiG readers at any rate.
Which brings me to my reply to the secretary of the City Centre Community Partnership's email about an 'Important Meeting'. Yes, I said that we 'don't have much of a partnership now', because frankly, we don't. I could draw up a long list of the partnership's shortcomings, but ironically, 'communications' sums it up. Either people aren't talking to each other at all, or some people are talking, but not everyone is being included in the discussions. And here you are, arranging sub committees instead of talking to your secretary. So, no, on that score, I believe I spoke the truth, however much you may not like it, but you're quite welcome to talk the partnership up if you can. Your argument that I may have cost the partnership a free newsletter, though, begs the question of who would compile it, even write it, since I have already pointed out that no-one has come forward with material, and when I came to agree with Phillip Lowery that a newsletter was no more essential to us than it was to the BTCT or BTD, no-one argued otherwise.
Therefore, as you can see, I'm holding my hand up to the 'crime', albeit essentially victimless, of seeming to speak for the BTNP when no-one else was prepared to do so, but not to damaging the partnership's interests regarding the other partnerships (how many partnership officers' meetings have you failed to attend now, by the way?). And none of this required the assistance of a sub committee. Now, I believe that I have been asking for over a week now, why you felt the need to act as you have done. That is what I regard as 'attempting to resolve' an issue, and I have to say that in my opinion you have been extremely un-cooperative, and are hazarding the reputation of the partnership. When are you going to ('reluctantly') agree to the next step?
Cheers, Joe
In a message dated 26/10/2011 13:53:01 GMT Daylight Time, tony-st-james@hotmail.com writes:
Hi Joe
Please can you confirm from the following which dates that you will be able to attend
Tues 1st - Wednesday 2nd - Or Thursday 3rd November 2011
Or
Tue 9th or Wednesday 10th
Once I have received your confirmation I will arrange for the venue and either ask Mr Lowry or Mr Mehter to arrange a committee of 5 / 6 members of the partnership who can also attend.
Your response of dates would be appreciated by Friday 28th October 2011
Tony Ward
Chairman
=
Again, since you haven't replied, I have to ask, to what end? For someone who has repeatedly claimed to be 'reluctant' to take this action, you seem a lot more reluctant to hear me saying that you neither need to take it, nor have the right to do so.
I have agreed that GAVCA are right to say that this should be handled by the partnership internally, but questioned whether arranging a 'sub committee' (which is what you actually did), before even notifying me of your concerns, is what GAVCA meant by that. If you have no objection, I would like to see what advice GAVCA gave you, and how you presented this situation to them, to ensure that nothing important has been overlooked.
As for the details in your files, yes, I can appreciate that, although I opened the 'Bartred_NP' account on Thisisgloucestershire.co.uk to advertise events that nobody else was prepared to promote, and which I wasn't able to do so under my own name due to a culture of excessive moderation which has left TiG's own reputation tarnished, I did fail to draw a clear distinction between myself and the partnership as a whole. On the other hand, in some comments I identified my role in the partnership, and at no point did anyone suggest that those comments brought the BTNP into disrepute, though you're welcome to seek evidence to the contrary (although if anyone had complained, you would presumably have spoken to me immediately, limiting any further ramifications, or else you would have been partially responsible for ensuing consequences). The fact is that no-one appears to really care about the partnership, not TiG readers at any rate.
Which brings me to my reply to the secretary of the City Centre Community Partnership's email about an 'Important Meeting'. Yes, I said that we 'don't have much of a partnership now', because frankly, we don't. I could draw up a long list of the partnership's shortcomings, but ironically, 'communications' sums it up. Either people aren't talking to each other at all, or some people are talking, but not everyone is being included in the discussions. And here you are, arranging sub committees instead of talking to your secretary. So, no, on that score, I believe I spoke the truth, however much you may not like it, but you're quite welcome to talk the partnership up if you can. Your argument that I may have cost the partnership a free newsletter, though, begs the question of who would compile it, even write it, since I have already pointed out that no-one has come forward with material, and when I came to agree with Phillip Lowery that a newsletter was no more essential to us than it was to the BTCT or BTD, no-one argued otherwise.
Therefore, as you can see, I'm holding my hand up to the 'crime', albeit essentially victimless, of seeming to speak for the BTNP when no-one else was prepared to do so, but not to damaging the partnership's interests regarding the other partnerships (how many partnership officers' meetings have you failed to attend now, by the way?). And none of this required the assistance of a sub committee. Now, I believe that I have been asking for over a week now, why you felt the need to act as you have done. That is what I regard as 'attempting to resolve' an issue, and I have to say that in my opinion you have been extremely un-cooperative, and are hazarding the reputation of the partnership. When are you going to ('reluctantly') agree to the next step?
Cheers, Joe
In a message dated 26/10/2011 13:53:01 GMT Daylight Time, tony-st-james@hotmail.com writes:
Hi Joe
Please can you confirm from the following which dates that you will be able to attend
Tues 1st - Wednesday 2nd - Or Thursday 3rd November 2011
Or
Tue 9th or Wednesday 10th
Once I have received your confirmation I will arrange for the venue and either ask Mr Lowry or Mr Mehter to arrange a committee of 5 / 6 members of the partnership who can also attend.
Your response of dates would be appreciated by Friday 28th October 2011
Tony Ward
Chairman
=
I should point out that these invitations to meetings didn't start out as such. Originally, I had a phone call from Ward telling me of a committee meeting I had to attend, although it had not been scheduled at the previous one. I popped by Gordon Barrington's (treasurer) house, and askd him if owt was amiss. No, no, just an ordinary committee meeting, Barrington said. So I sent Ward two emails, the first being ignored, here is the reply to the second...
Hi Joe
The meetingis at 6:45pm
All will be explained when u get there
All im prepard to say at this time is it is to do with communications and is a serious matter
Tony
From: StarredArk@aol.com
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 08:02:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Commitee Meeting
To: tony-st-james@hotmail.com
Hi Tony,
You haven't replied to my last email about this meeting. Gordon assures me that it is a proper committee meeting, despite being brought forward a month or so, and on a different day, and Ahmed Hansdot telling Lorraine Mutty this morning that he wasn't aware of it. Gordon, however, was under the impression that the meeting starts at 6:15, and I recall from the last committee meeting that he also understands that residents are not allowed to attend these meetings, although the constitution and the city council say otherwise.
Could you forward me a copy of the email you have sent to other committee members, so we're all on the same page, and I can inform any residents I meet?
Cheers, Joe
In a message dated 13/10/2011 11:33:31 GMT Daylight Time, tony-st-james@hotmail.com writes:
Hi Joe
There is a Commitee meeting at the Friendship Cafe on 19th Oct at 6:45pm can you please attend
Tony
The meetingis at 6:45pm
All will be explained when u get there
All im prepard to say at this time is it is to do with communications and is a serious matter
Tony
From: StarredArk@aol.com
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 08:02:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Commitee Meeting
To: tony-st-james@hotmail.com
Hi Tony,
You haven't replied to my last email about this meeting. Gordon assures me that it is a proper committee meeting, despite being brought forward a month or so, and on a different day, and Ahmed Hansdot telling Lorraine Mutty this morning that he wasn't aware of it. Gordon, however, was under the impression that the meeting starts at 6:15, and I recall from the last committee meeting that he also understands that residents are not allowed to attend these meetings, although the constitution and the city council say otherwise.
Could you forward me a copy of the email you have sent to other committee members, so we're all on the same page, and I can inform any residents I meet?
Cheers, Joe
In a message dated 13/10/2011 11:33:31 GMT Daylight Time, tony-st-james@hotmail.com writes:
Hi Joe
There is a Commitee meeting at the Friendship Cafe on 19th Oct at 6:45pm can you please attend
Tony
And that is how this arrogant, egotistical man tried to railroad his partnership's secretary, instead of honestly following the clearly set out (but since muddied) rules on conduct.