“They also serve, who stand again and again and again and again and again and again, ad nauseam…”
Message posted by Fantasticspastic on 10 December, 2007:
Whatever reasons lie behind the waiving of the restriction preventing Isabelle and Co from serving on the Management Committee again (and, why not, again and again and again? I’m sure other ‘continuity’ type reasons can be thought of before the next AGM); I view what took place at the DASL AGM nothing short of expediency; a means to maintain the status quo ante. We have rules in our society, and within the various groups that make up our society. These define acceptable parameters in which we live and coexist. From time to time extraordinary events present themselves; events that some would deem to fall outside the boundaries defined by our rules. The ones that spring to mind are the various laws that have sprung up surrounding ‘terrorism’.
DASL’s necessity to change the 6-year ruling for Isabelle and Co back onto the Committee (correct me if I’m wrong – but, I’m willing to bet all three were successfully returned) was clumsy. The reason given for ensuring that these three would return was to preserve continuity. Ok; then why go through with an election?
On hearing that I’d put my name forward for the committee, Isabelle flashed me a nervous smile; she said new blood was good for the committee; but, continuity was very important – funny how some words stick…
Maybe George Bush should take a leaf out of your book, DASL. Come the next presidential election, he should put forward a Motion that waives his restriction to only standing for two terms of office – I’m certain he could invent some state of emergency situation; and, declare himself a wartime dictator.
Reply by ebenezer on 11 December, 2007:
There is rules of law and adminstration of justice and they seprate things in there applications.Sometimes rules are changed to accomade certain things which weren't foreseen before hand it's call amendment under the statue book and that is what happen at the AGM on 10th Dedember 2007.Haven says that "your are entitle to your opinion and I for one do respect your view and stand on this particular issue, am I not agreed with it. it is very courageous to stand for what you belief and I admired you for that. , but this is the fact of the issue,
"This people use there free time to serve our organisation unpaid. Baz is like the biblcal Peter on whom the foundation of DASL is laid and the other ladies whom you refered to in your blog, are persons of highest intergity with full commmitment to serve our community as a whole and disable persons in Lambeth in general (I salute them)"
The issue was put to vote and the majority voted in favour as far as I consern, it is the end of the matter.
I'll look forward seeing you at the meetings.
We can do with experience like yours.
Ebenezer
Reply by Fantasticspastic on 12 December, 2007:
Courageous? Sorry mate, I think you’re diminishing the act of courage when applying it to my ‘standing’ up to changing the rules to serve narrow interest. The Resolution at the DASL AGM had one purpose, and one only, jobs for the boys and girls. Where I come from this is called a stitch-up. My raising objections to it weren’t courageous – it was something that you should all have done.DASL talks about wanting new blood in its organisation; how exactly is that to be accomplished when new people are barred from entry in order to keep regulars in place?
Next year, it’ll be some other special circumstance – Baz knows where the Hobnobs are hidden; or, Ameena’s so indispensable cos she’s the only one that knows PowerPoint; or, David Strong sacrificed a gerbil and its entrails spelled out ‘ISABELLE’; or, some other way to ensure a tame management committee preserves the integrity of DASL – for integrity of DASL read, it looks after certain people.
“Baz is like the biblical Peter? In the first instance, I’m an atheist; therefore, biblical Peter means nothing to me. However, I do remember enough of the New Testament to know about Peter – didn’t he betray his Lord, three times?
St Peter, and the rest of DASL may purport to support ‘our’ community; though, I’d not agree. You may view them as having the highest integrity; in which case you operate from a low benchmark.
For you, Ebenezer, this may be the end of the matter – after all, that’s your prerogative; for me it isn’t, ok?
As for seeing me at meetings of DASL; you won’t. I have no interest in associating myself with an organisation that uses base expediency to change its rules; that abuses the grounds of ‘special circumstances’; that is in effect creating permanent posts for a favoured few.
Reply by ebenezer on 12 December, 2007:
I appreciate your comments, but no need to be personal. the courage that I refered to, is not for the fact that you said what you said but taking the stand on what you beileve and as priciple.Sometime we lose another time we win augments but the best way to effect a change in any organisation usually happens within not from outside.
The points that you're making are valid and swensible at best and I agree with you (the reasons & why, is that it would set a precedence with can be unhealth for small organisation) but , your methodology and approachs are fundermentaly wrong.
In 20th century concescus are reach by agreement and decstions are made base on several opinion been considered into making a right one.
Opurtunity was givien to opposed or suppor this motion, you registered your disagreement and it was noted (democraticly.
I wish you well.
I can assured you that there is nothing under hand in this saga).
I would let other respond to you if they wish but on my part , this is my final note to you.
Thank you for your responce.
Ebenezer
Reply by Fantasticspastic on 12 December, 2007:
Ebenezer, you accuse me of being personal; yet, it is you who endows Boz Borowy with mythical biblical status. It is ok to be personal when ingratiating oneself to an individual; but, not when meting out measured criticism. Looks very much like a double standard being run up the flag pole, mate.If Lambeth’s ruling Labour Council had pushed through their vicious policy on care packages, thus denying hundreds of disabled and elderly people essential care provision; they would have been acting ‘democratically’. ‘Democratically’, yet their policy would have been wrong.
DASL when formed agreed on a set of ‘Articles of Association’ – a set of rules to guide their actions. I’ve been party to similar formulations. During what is usually a protracted process, much thought goes into each clause; questioning its relevance, how it works in the body of the Articles/Constitution; and, under what circumstances it should be applied.
Ebenezer, you as well as the rest of the people at the meeting on Monday were misled – by whom; I’ll leave you to work out. The people running DASL desired status quo ante – it’s the old tale; a fear of change; of the unknown; of, maybe, less malleable people coming on board.
Well in advance of the DASL AGM it had been decided that Ameena Berkowitz, Boz Borowy and Isabelle Clement would sit beyond the six-year period. The whole voting on the ‘Special Resolution’ was a charade. Here is why. The three named individuals were part of the Committee that called for the ‘Special Resolution’ – which is aptly named.
Resolution, in my long experience is arrived at after debate has taken place; and, usually as a result of a vote. Since this was presented to us as a ‘Resolution’ – when in fact it was a Motion, or at the very least a proposal – I can only surmise that the whole thing was predetermined.
Although, DASL is a relatively new body; there are signs of staleness creeping in. I’m wondering, was the six consecutive-year ruling placed in the ‘Articles of Association’ for this expressed purpose; to eliminate complacency, jobs-for-life and to bring new people in; new people with fresh ideas, different views. But, if DASL is determined to keep its Management Committee ramped with the same-old same-old faces (does the Management of DASL see its own reflection when it looks into the mirror of the Management Committee?); why not dispense with Clause 24iii – you might even enjoy the sense of honesty this affords you.
Reply by Fantasticspastic on 12 December, 2007:
At the AGM there was some mumbling about certain people needing to be retained on the Management Committee, due to work they are involved with. Is anyone from the DASL Management Committee willing to outline exactly who is carrying out work of such import so as to make them indispensable?While I shall not be actively involving myself with anything DASL puts its name to; I fully intend to keep an eye on everything DASL is involved in. As a disabled resident of Lambeth I’m looking to get involved in local disability issues; and, as DASL is still in receipt of public monies, I intend to call for accountability at every level, and opportunity that arises.
- Go back to list of have your say topics.
Reply by Fantasticspastic on 10 December, 2007:
I've ordered a copy of DASL's 'Articles of Association' from the Charities Commission; these should, or most likely not, make for interesting reading.