I too have had a couple of run ins with the charity. I was a member for just over 12 months.
In January Paul Brooks questioned some entries on the run log master sheet where a delivery was made a lot later than expected. Paul Brooks immediately assumed that I, as the controller, had entered the time wrong.
When the other runs that were being done by the rider were pointed out to him, he understood why the delivery was delayed. Eventually he made a half hearted apology for assuming it was the controller at fault.
What Paul Brooks didn’t know is that making the assumption without asking questions first can seriously affect someone’s confidence. It was only thanks to the support from the controller management team that I returned to controlling.
There was no question asked on why the rider was delayed, just immediately assumed the controller had made a mistake.
He [Paul Brooks] spouts all the rubbish about how he supports the controllers and the work they do, but is very quick to jump on them for doing their VOLUNTARY job. He doesn’t jump on the riders or fellow committee members the same way when they are in the wrong. This is the same Paul Brooks who when he last did a shift as a controller, struggled and had to ask his wife for help and said he wouldn’t be doing another shift as a controller.
I am no longer a member due to one of the lamest reasons going. Because my husband had unsubstantiated allegations made against him by the Committee, he had all his access to NWBB systems revoked. I was then told by trustee Scott Miller
Time ticked by and apart from Scott Miller telling me that he couldn’t give me anymore information, all was quiet.
The next communication I received was copied into a mail sent to my husband which had the following letter
No right of appeal stated and no opportunity for me to offer any representation to any allegations or concerns the trustees have.
Guilty by association, or in this case guilty because the fleet manager was caught out by his own admission blind copying others into emails and decided to fabricate allegations.
From this letter, Scott Miller has made it clear that due to my association, or in other words marriage to another member, who was removed without evidence or grounds means that my conduct either now or in the future is questionable. Does this also mean that any other member who has a complaint made against them will be dismissed without any evidence and also their relatives, whether it be their wife or daughter will also be removed from the charity? I think we know the answer to this and that is no as some members of the charity are untouchable no matter how much factual evidence is against them.
Scott Miller should also explain his meaning of “attachment / connection”. In plain English.
Scott Miller has now stated that any person who has an association with another member who is removed from the charity will also be removed. This does not restrict to relatives, but also friends, acquittances or even associates from private clubs outside of the group.
Scott Miller also states that the constitution (the charities governing document) is optional. If this is the case why is the Chairman (on behalf of the committee) insistent that every member sign a declaration that they accept the constitution.
Why are members forced to accept an “optional” document?
The members of the charity are entitled to an explanation by the committee and trustees regarding their actions in the running of the charity. They appear to be making the rules up as they go along. It is obvious from the people they have removed over the last month that the committee and trustees don’t like people who have an opinion that differs from theirs.
They don’t like people who say no, I have known that for some time as they have previously forced people out from positions because they wouldn’t bow down to the bullying and instruction from those with very little knowledge.
I will leave you with this excerpt from the “optional” governing document.
B. Individual members shall enjoy equal rights and status within the Group irrespective of race, religion, sex, marital status or other distinction.