Oh dear.
Many Members – and non-members it seems – have received two letters from the WSRA today.
Both unsigned letters are from Trustee Ian Aldridge who claims to be WSRA Chairman.
Members should be aware of the letters would appear to lack proper authority.
Both letters suggest the forthcoming General Meeting saying it is “postponed” and “will not proceed” . Despite this proclamation, as far as we can tell, having been correctly called the General Meeting is going ahead.
Why do the letters lack authority?
It seems that the meeting of six Trustees (The Chairman, Trustee Frank Courtney was unable to attend and Trustee Michael Rowe was not notified) on 15 February 2016 was invalid due to it not being properly called the Articles require.
That means any decisions – such as appointing Trustee Ian Aldridge as Chairman – made at that meeting are also invalid.
Also invalid are any decisions taken since that meeting by the wrongly-appointed Chairman.
Also invalid are any actions based on those decisions – such as the spending of WSRA funds to send out these letters to all Members.
Trustees Ian Aldridge, David Williams, Nigel Bruce-Robertson, Nick Nicholls, Paul Johnson and Peter Chidzey have each been asked to explain why they think the meeting of 15 February 2016 and its decisions are valid. We doubt those Trustees will give the Membership the courtesy of a reply. Or maybe they will.
Update 25 February 2016: Trustee Ian Aldridge has replied with a single word “Noted”.
WSRA+ 
Rest assured WSRA’s EGM is most definitely going ahead as planned at 11am on Saturday morning. Please make every effort to attend whether you have submitted a proxy form or not.
Weather forecast is dry but cold on Saturday morning. Crowcombe Village Hall will undoubtedly be toasty warm as a capacity crowd is keenly anticipated.
LikeLike
This is a KEY question which, so far, the ‘6’ Trustees have failed to answer – like so mnay others.
The only response, as so often in the past, has been to claim that ‘legal advice’ states that the meeting was valid. But how? The relevant article is quite clear and specific – the relevant notice must be sent to ALL Trustees, but it was not – so HOW does the ‘legal advice’ determine otherwise? Why do the Trustees continually hide behind this smoke-screen and not give the members an explanation?
Mr Aldridge voted at the PDG last week in /support/ of the Coombes Report recommendations! He *claims* to be the current WSRA Chairman. The role of the Chairman is to show and provide leadership, so why does he not do so by being the first to reign IMMEDIATELY? There are 8 Trustees at the moment, so there is no hinderance to 2 resignations straight away.
It would appear also that the letters contain various unsubstantiated claims, including at least one which has been previously reported as defamatory and already lead to the initial version being redacted – yet it has been included in the copy sent to all members! Is this yet another example of Trustee incompetence?
LikeLike
Let me repeat what I said elsewhere. The re-writing of the WSRA Articles into their present form was done AFTER my Chairmanship – I had no involvement. Ian Aldridge has been a Trustee throughout the relevant years. This is nonsense put about by Paul Johnson. To untruthfully associate my name as justification for the actions of a group of individuals now under investigation by the Charity Commission and Avon and Somerset Constabulary is potentially defamatory but I waive any right to a legal claim about this letter so that WSRA members with an important decision to make can be fully informed about the individuals clinging on to their positions. The ‘6’ were informed of this untruth when the letter was published on the WSRA website some days ago but have done nothing to correct it.
LikeLike
I assume that there will be an attempt to reclaim the cost of posting this correspondence from the Association in due course. Hopefully FC & MR have a grip on the chequebook and the cost will fall where it belongs and is just the first of many.
LikeLike
From posts on National Preservation it would appear that many copies of the letters, including the one with defamatory comment, has been sent to a number of non members. I seem to recall the deciding factor in the 6024 case was that defamatory remarks in their newsletter had been sent to a small number of non members, many will recall that proved to be very, very costly…. I can only hope that similar happens here….
These guys are about as popular as a knife thrower at a circumcision at the moment, they must just be totally blind to the vitriol that surrounds them. Fingers crossed for a positive outcome on Saturday.
LikeLike
Very generously Robin White has, yet again, waived her rights regarding the defamatory remarks so that they can further expose the incompetence and general nastiness shown by the T6. What I find so extraordinary is the claims made by the T6 that their actions have been taken after professional legal advice. They really don’t stand up given what is already in the public domain.
LikeLike
I am one of the non-members who received the “Two Letters”. I have emailed David Williams using the email address included in his latest Press Release, pointing out I have not been a member of the WSRA for a year and ask how my personal information was accessed, stating that this is probably a breech of the Data Protection Act and I wanted an explanation, I have so far received no reply.
LikeLike
I have reported the unauthorized use to the Data Protection Registrar
LikeLike
This would seem to suggest the membership register is not kept up to date: another indication of administration failings perhaps? How many other former members still reside in the register?
LikeLike
Not so. The T6 are using an out of date version the obtained from somewhere. It still shows RW as a member. It would seem that this data file is not being used with legal authority. Yet another thing the T6,are going to have to explain if we win the vote tomorrow.
LikeLike
Interesting information Peter and something I’m not in the know about, it had occurred to me that an ‘unofficial’ data file could have been made use of. I really hope the result of tomorrow’s meeting is a positive one and that finally the gateway to progress can open.
LikeLike