HARDY FORUM ARCHIVE HO2055 9/10/02 "TH SOCIETY ANNUAL MEETING" ============================================================= From: Jcphardysoc@aol.com Full-name: Jcphardysoc Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:15:11 EDT THOMAS HARDY SOCIETY ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING 2002 As Vice-Chairman of the Thomas Hardy Society, I am concerned about the partial, inaccurate and biased report of the Society's 2002 Annual General Meeting (AGM), posted on TTHA website in the News Update section by Rosemarie Morgan and others (Jim & Helen Gibson?). Rosemarie claims to have posted this account to satisfy TTHA members' curiosity about the meeting, but as THS AGMs are usually fairly banal, but legally necessary occasions, almost non-events, one suspects that an expectation of controversy had been created in advance. With characteristic modesty, Rosemarie refrains from mentioning her own role in stirring up the controversy. The official minutes, to be approved at next year's AGM, will be the definitive legal record of the 2002 AGM. However, Rosemarie's account is such a travesty, which should have no place on TTHA website, as to demand a corrective riposte. To give her due, she has offered me the chance to do this on the Forum. I would suggest that her account be printed out to help make sense of what follows. Regrettably, it is also necessary for me to mention personalities in order to give a coherent account as the acrimony resulted from a clash of personalities. No-one would take issue with the first paragraph and the first sentence of the second paragraph: the meeting was indeed the worst most present had ever attended in any context - but much of the rest is of the questionable accuracy more commonly found in downmarket UK tabloid newspapers. Rosemarie refers to 'a dismal catalogue of ... events ... poorly attended meetings and projects ... costly to the Society'. Since the 2001 AGM, the THS has had several well supported members' events, including some innovative ones. Brief accounts of these are regularly published in the Journal. Not all have been as well attended as one would like, but it is hardly the Society's fault if more members do not avail themselves of the opportunity to attend meetings. In this hectic age, many people have to make difficult choices as to how they spend their valuable leisure time - I often have to decide between the activities of the several organizations I belong to. I have been very actively ! involved with the THS for three decades, and have a proactive role in other societies; but have to be an 'armchair' member of quite a number. The Society has resolved to discontinue the costly and admittedly often poorly attended London Lecture. How many events has TTHA put on for its members and are these invariably well supported? The 'problems with the distribution of the journals' had previously been fully explained to Rosemarie (basically because of a highly unsatisfactory office computer purchased on the advice of her friends), but she wilfully disregards this in her account. Yes, it was 'difficult to follow ... the Treasurer's ... presentation', but this was due to an almost continuous and bullying heckling of both the Treasurer and Chairman by many of Rosemarie's friends who were not interested in politely listening to measured explanations. So much for Rosemarie's 'politeness of speakers from the floor'. Yes, money has been 'borrowed' from the life membership fund, but this has attracted no adverse comment from the auditors [are TTHA accounts independently audited?] or the Charity Commission. With UK interest rates at their lowest for several decades, the interest on a life member's payment would not cover the cost of servicing his/her membership - principally Journal printing and mailing - so some of the capital sum has to be used. This would be expected to diminish on an actuarial basis as the member's life expectancy reduces. The Treasurer has devised a recovery plan starting next April when the increased annual subscription comes into effect. The implication in Rosemarie's account that the Treasurer has acted improperly is libellous. It is inaccurate to state that William 'Bill' Young was not re-elected to the Council: he was; but the mistake is pardonable given the general confusion and constant interruptions at the meeting. Despite this, the agenda was generally adhered to, notwithstanding Rosemarie's assertion to the contrary. The real controversial issue was the nomination (with notice less than the prescribed time) of Helen Gibson for re-election to the Council. She and other members of the Way Forward Committee had concertedly resigned from the Council in pique two years previously after its wilder and unrealistic ideas had been questioned at the 2000 AGM. Her nomination had been seconded by Rosemarie in the full knowledge that it would be divisive and that Helen and Jim Gibson had quarrelled with Simon in record time since his election as Chairman. Jim had previously fallen out with the other Chairmen of recent years (apart from himself of course): Tom Wightman and Geoffrey Tapper, both like Simon, very honourable and affable gentlemen. [Jim and Helen speak contemptuously of Geoffrey Tapper and Stephen Mottram as 'Tapper' and 'Mottram']. Simon and other officers had become increasingly exasperated by Helen's meddling in Society affairs since her resignation and her involvement with the compute! r fiasco. Although Simon tried to explain that Helen's re-election would be so divisive he was again shouted down and her election was railroaded through on the votes of those who had clearly been lobbied by the Gibson faction during the Conference week. Simon treated the issue as one of confidence and tendered his resignation from the Council of Management immediately after the meeting. As a result of all this, I am for the time being presiding over a Society with a factionally divided Council of Management; and it is only personal loyalty to me that has so far prevented several key officers from resigning because they are not prepared to work with Helen. Despite Rosemarie's assertion to me that help will be offered, people are not queuing up to undertake these onerous tasks. The situation is particularly unfortunate for Simon, who after several years as a successful Society Journal Editor, relocated himself from his home in the north of England to Dorchester specifically in order to undertake the chairmanship. The new Chairman to be elected on 12 October will have an unenviable task. The behaviour of the Gibson faction at the AGM attracted very adverse comment on the Conference questionnaire. Admittedly John Antell was characteristically forthright in his denunciation of the Gibsons, but had to shout in order to be heard above a constant noisy heckling. Rosemarie questions the place of local authority representatives on the Council of Management, but they can be very useful conduits of communication between the Society and local government in Dorset. Over the years, the THS has greatly benefited from such links. I find Rosemarie's claim that she has the best interests of the Hardy Society at heart rather at variance with her behaviour. John Pentney ========== Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 10:52:38 -0400 From: Rosemarie Morgan Subject: Re: Unidentified subject! Thank you John Pentney for your comprehensive rejoinder to the TTHA report of the THSoc AGM. I understand from folks in Dorchester that a re-election is coming up shortly and that possible candidates for Chair are reliable, responsible and dedicated -- hence the future of the Hardy Society now looks very promising indeed. I should also reassure interested members that (I was told, by the Mayor of Dorchester), John Antell will not be serving another term on the Council. On behalf of TTHA & Hardy lovers everywhere I wish the Hardy Society a rapid recovery from its recent troubles and a thriving future. With every good wish, Rosemarie Morgan (Hardy Society Vice President) ========== From: Ajmw1@aol.com Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 13:18:12 EDT Subject: THOMAS HARDY SOCIETY ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING 2002 I did not attend the THOMAS HARDY SOCIETY ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING 2002 and I have never had any contact with Vice Chairman John Pentney. But his account, with its story of mob rule, hostile activists, and worthy officials traduced by libellous assertions, is both rancorous and unconvincing. It also presents an image of TTHA that is very far from the truth as I have experienced it. In the few years that TTHA has existed, it has opened up Hardy's novels and poetry not merely to fellow scholars, but to all those throughout the world who have a passion for his work. It is heartening to read a senior and eminent scholar helping out someone in their teens (or younger) with a Hardy query. The whole site and its activities are characterised by a quality of friendliness, courtesy, and openness that is very different from the picture of crabbed zealots in Vice Chairman Pentney's tale. There are many good websites dealing with literature and authors, but I do not know of any that have achieved this particular quality of a community of enthusiasts which defines TTHA. It is plainly the result of constant hard work, for a site of this quality does not happen by accident. Not only that, but its output appears both in electronic and print form, which is even more labour-intensive. I have to confess to contributing nothing to TTHA, but merely benefiting from its activities. There are probably a lot more of us, who are known as 'lurkers', than active members. But now is payback time for all that we, the silent battalions, have gained from the existence of TTHA. Keep up your work, and don't be hurt or deflected by blinkered attitudes like those advanced by Vice Chairman Pentney's posting. Andrew Wheatcroft ========== Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 15:00:05 +0200 Subject: Re: THOMAS HARDY SOCIETY ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING 2002 From: Eric Christen "I did not attend the THOMAS HARDY SOCIETY ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING 2002" so I am refraining from making any comments. -- Eric Christen Email: ericjchristen@bluewin.ch ========== From: "Perry Buckden" Subject: LIFE'S LITTLE IRONIES Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 14:46:43 +0100 Like Andrew Wheatcroft, I was not at the THS AGM. Unlike him, I regard that as ruling out my leaping to the defence of one side against the other. I am, however, intrigued by one thing Mr Pentney said, viz. "The real controversial issue was the nomination (with notice less than the prescribed time) of Helen Gibson for re-election to the Council.........her election was railroaded through". All the clubs, societies, etc of which I have been a member - from little local theater groups to two national trade unions - have had a written constitution, whose rules could be changed only by formal debate and vote at an AGM or EGM: and only then, of course, if the proposed change had been circulated before the meeting as a specific agenda item. Assuming the THS is a normal society, then there can be no question of anyone's election being "railroaded through". If Helen Gibson's nomination was put forward with insufficient notice, then it was invalid. There could therefore have been no election. No matter how many proposings, secondings, speeches for and against, shows of hand or secret ballots, and declarations of a result, there could not have been an election, and Helen Gibson cannot be an elected member of the Council of Management. It may be, of course, that the THS does not have its constitution or rules or standing orders in writing. Given that it is dedicated to one of the undisputed masters of the English language, that would be an irony too far. The infighting that has apparently brought the THS to its present pass seems to echo one of Hardy's own titles - A Tragedy of Two Ambitions. Perhaps those involved should bear in mind Cornelius Halborough's words in that same story: 'Let us make the best of it, and grind on.' Cheers. Perry Buckden ========== Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 12:47:41 -0400 From: Rosemarie Morgan Subject: Re: LIFE'S LITTLE IRONIES On the matter of constitution and correct procedures: The Hardy Society's constitution was consulted by the nominating parties on Wednesday, July 31st 2002. The ruling on "sufficient notice" stipulated that four days (inclusive) had to elapse between an official nomination and the AGM at which said nomination would be put to the vote. The AGM was to take place on Saturday, August 3rd 2002. The official nomination papers were therefore delivered immediately to the Hardy Society's office in Dorchester on Wednesday, July 31st. Patrick Tolfree delivered the papers; witnesses were David Selwyn, Helen Gibson, James Gibson and myself. At the AGM it was agreed that this procedure met the requirements laid out by the Society's constitution. The nomination of Helen Gibson was then verbally communicated to all members present. A show of hands was taken. Voting went in favour of Gibson. A second show of hands was requested by the chair, Simon Curtis. Again the vote went in favour of Gibson. It is, by virtue of this appointment to the Hardy Council that members, in making their vote for Gibson, place their hopes in the cessation of the infighting you mention, Perry. With every good wish, Rosemarie Morgan ========== From: Jcphardysoc@aol.com Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 15:55:17 EDT Subject: Re: LIFE'S LITTLE IRONIES Perry Buckden makes some good points. The Thomas Hardy Society was founded in 1967 as a company limited by guarantee i.e. with no share capital. Under British company law it is governed by a Memorandum & Articles of Association which together form its written constitution. Although Helen Gibson's nomination did not comply with the constitutional period of notice as was pointed out by the Chairman, her supporters insisted on a vote to waive the rules which was carried. It is wrong for Rosemarie Morgan to say 'that this procedure [delivering notice 3 days before the AGM] met the requirements laid out by the ... constitution' - rather Helen's supporters voted to set aside the constitution. However, I am not primarily so much concerned with legal niceties, as with the Society's future following a highly divisive election to the Council of Management. It is disingenuous for Rosemarie to say in her Forum e-mail of 14 September to state that: 'It is by virtue of this appointment to the Hardy Society Council that members in making their vote for Gibson [sic], place their hopes in the cessation of the infighting'. Quite the opposite is the case: Helen's re-election has re-opened old wounds and has already led to infighting. Her election will certainly not unite the Council and should not have been railroaded through, if only on the pragmatic grounds that few of the key officers are willing to work with her. John Pentney THS Vice-Chairman ========== Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 19:25:57 -0700 From: Betty Cortus Subject: Let's End the Bitterness Dear Members, I can't describe how saddened I am that the bitterness which has apparently infected the Thomas Hardy Society UK for some time, has now spread to our Forum, where heretofore, in the seven years I have been directing it, it has been a venue devoted to education, and to peaceful interaction between scholars and Hardy lovers young and old. As Forum Moderator I tried hard to remain neutral in a dispute that has become tainted by acrimonious name calling and finger pointing. But I can no longer stand by and see Rosemarie Morgan, a scholar whose selfless devotion to Hardy Studies is matchless, wrongly accused of stirring up a controversy which I now find out was of quite long duration in the UK long before the Conference began. Yes, I did vote for Helen Gibson's election to the Council of Management, but certainly not because I was recruited or "railroaded" into doing so by any so-called pro-Gibson faction. In fact it was quite the opposite--I was approached by another Society member, who tried to extract a promise from me NOT to vote for Helen, and when I hesitated, this person then attempted to persuade me at least to abstain. I voted for Helen, purely based on my personal experience in dealing with her. I have never asked her for help, or asked her question which did not receive a prompt, comprehensive and encouraging reply. Messages I sent the the Society e-mail address, on the other hand, never once received a word of response, and both my February and May Journals were months late in arriving. I was greatly impressed by what I saw on the web-site Helen worked on, and the pictures of the new "baby" poems attributed to Hardy on the TTHA web-site are just one of her many delightful contributions the work we are all attempting to do. Rosemarie assures me that she had nothing to do with the computer problems the Society experienced, and certainly gave no advice on its purchase. I have no reason to doubt her. I am not about to try to analyze what happened at the AGM, but as a humble observer, who also happens to be the President of a very large Association which adheres strictly to Parliamentary Procedure in its Meetings, I found the loss of control and lack of decorum appalling. This was my fourth Conference, and sadly it will be my last. The unpleasant events at the AGM however, are not enough to deter me--the rest of the Conference was a total pleasure. But age and infirmity are catching up with me. I would beg Forum members not to believe everything said about others in the heat of the moment. I fear that distortions are all too common when emotions run high. For the sake of harmony, let us put an end to these disruptive discussions, and let lovingkindness do its healing work. Wistfully, Betty ========== From: "rushmere" Subject: Re: THOMAS HARDY SOCIETY ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING 2002 Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 13:39:51 +0100 what is all this dispute about! It seems to me that certain people think themselves superior just because they are a scholar- I thought this society was for people who appreciate the genius of hardy - often it seems like some people think that If they know more (or appear to) they are more inteligent and therefore a better person and a better hardy fan - snobbery we call it in england - grow up - lets get back to reasonable debate and treat everyone in the forum with equal respect and inteligence. ========== From: Martin Ray Sender: enl090@abdn.ac.uk Subject: Re: Let's End the Bitterness Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 14:55:50 +0100 (BST) I would like to thank Betty for her timely reminder of the great assets of this Forum: its courtesy, generosity and common purpose. I therefore regret Mr Pentney's recent attempts to export the Society's in-fighting by giving a highly inaccurate account of the conduct of members, such as myself, who were present at the AGM. Like Betty, I am happy to confirm that I was certainly not 'clearly lobbied' by some entity called the 'Gibson faction'. Indeed, nobody discussed the nomination of Helen Gibson with me before the day of the AGM, and it was in fact Simon Curtis who first mentioned it to me. If there were any lobbying, I would obviously have been approached as a member of the Society's council of management. I find the idea of being 'railroaded' into supporting Mrs Gibson simply risible. One of the most disgraceful aspects of the AGM was the chairman's attempt to present his personal opposition to Mrs Gibson's nomination as being the 'unanimous' view of the council of management, and I sense that Mr Pentney continues such a tactic by his suggestion that a majority of the 'key' officers are unwilling to work with Mrs Gibson. May I ask who these soi-disant people are? May I ask why they feel happy to ignore the views of the membership, who voted by a majority of two to one for members of the council to work with Mrs Gibson? How does Mr Pentney know the views of his fellow officers (he has certainly never asked me)? One point of clarification. Mr Pentney finds it suspicious that TTHA members should be curious about the outcome of the AGM. Such curiosity had nothing whatsoever to do with any 'expectation of controversy'. Rather, TTHA members (who are also Society members) wished to know how their many complaints about the distribution of the Journal would be addressed (as was widely discussed on this Forum earlier in the year). As we know, the explanation offered by the chairman was so woefully inadequate that one member of the council of management stood up and asked whether anyone present understood a single word of it. Society members have a right to know how their complaints were answered. I have recently been accused since the AGM of being a member of a 'well-organized bunch of nasties'. Leaving aside the fact that the author of this comment seems to think that 'well-organized' is a term of abuse, I am happy to declare that there was manifestly no plotting and no conspiracy. Such regrettable discourse merely makes me determined that the spirit of TTHA should continue to inform the deliberations of our sister organization. Martin Ray Editor, Thomas Hardy Journal Dr Martin Ray Department of English University of Aberdeen Aberdeen AB24 2UB Scotland, UK m.ray@abdn.ac.uk ========== From: "harrybatt" Cc: "John Bridell" Subject: The green felt field of honor Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 09:55:01 -0500 Debate will get us nowhere. Reasonable folks settle touchy affairs by playing a game of 8-Ball. The rules of the game are simple enough. However, we should agree that you lose if you scratch on the 8-Ball. Further, if you are shooting the 8-Ball yuh gotta call your shot. This was a banging good solution when I was a kid and it ought to work now. Caveat ! Don't let anyone from England get you into a game of snooker. You'll lose hands down. Turning, then, to the suggested notion of discussing Hardy's descriptions let me pull out his short story, "The Grave by the Handpost." Hardy had a knack for preserving the history of his changing rural society. Here is A Christmas Eve scene on that Roman Road crossroad mid-point between Sydling St. Nicholas and Maiden Newton. "On this night there were two or three violins, two 'cellos, a tenor viol, double gas, hautboy, clarionets, serpent, and seven singers." Of course, the organ made short work of that ilk of musical effort. John R. Bridell, Minneapolis, Minnesota USA ========== Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 11:07:43 -0500 From: John Farrell Subject: green field of honor I could not agree more with John Bridell. Except that since there are liable to be both snooker players and pool players involved, I'd split the difference and make the game nine-ball (lag for the break, 3-foul rule applies). JackFarrell ========== From: "harrybatt" Subject: The Green Felt Field of Honor Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 12:01:21 -0500 ERRATUM; double gas = double bass No excuse from, John R. Bridell, Minneapolis, MN, USA ========== From: "Gary Alderson" Subject: Re: The green felt field of honor Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 18:32:16 +0100 "On this night there were two or three violins, two 'cellos, a tenor viol, double gas, hautboy, clarionets, serpent, and seven singers." Of course, the organ made short work of that ilk of musical effort. It did, but in most of the churches I'm familiar with, guitars, basses, singers etc are now making short work of the organ. The quire's revenge perhaps? ==========