Butte de Warlencourt sold?

[David Filsell]

I genuinely feel now, that this discussion is simply creating more heat than light. A mistake made has been corrected, now an ex chairman of the WFA has now  become involved, and some who appear to have little apparent involvement in or commitment to the work of the WFA have chucked in their three penny worth.

The Association, which has has wisely stayed out of the debate, has under a number of chairmen dutifully met its stated objectives. Should we not now not simply let it  (admiting involvement as Book Reviews Editor - a non trustee position not uninvolving the governance or running of the organisation) just get on with handling the damage and sorting things out and moving?

Edited 4 November , 2018 by David Filsell

[Gareth Davies]

No, the mistake has not been corrected. The mistake is that the EC appear to have misled the membership. 

[johnboy]

Can anyone give an answer to post #92?

[David Filsell]

Put simply the decision to sell has been changed (and thus corrected in the opinion of those opposed to the decision to sell).

Edited 4 November , 2018 by David Filsell

[keithmroberts]

There is an argument for letting a little time pass, and given the notice (28 days  postally),  as well as the expense required for an EGM , however funded,  maybe some further off line discussions between aggrieved members and the remaining officers might be a good idea, and could lead to the whole thing being thrashed out at the next AGM, with those willing to offer themselves as replacements for some fairly onerous roles putting their names forward.  There is also a case for a round of "blue sky" thinking about the future direction of the organisation, but by its very nature that needs time and debate to develop into anything positive.

 

 

 

[David Filsell]

How do a few half informed comments on this thread dictate the need of "blue sky" thinking and the need to look at the future direction of the organisation? The current event is not related to 'direction'. It is a single issue matter. Be clear, the last AGM indicated absolutely no concern about the WFA's direction from members, rather,  infact, satisfaction with its governance and direction  - which remains exactly that outlined by ex WFA Chairman Chris Baker and that which he followed during his chairmanship of the organisation.

 

Whilst every organisation  needs to move onward and upward, the WFA has been far from stick in the mud and has evolved by contributing to meeting its original objectives and by extending its 'reach' in many areas, (not least at events during the past four years).  Equally it must be said - criticism of the administration of the WFA is in my long experience of the organisation is misplaced, rather it has been highly efficient - on the ball. Just as they have proved in reversing a decision in the face of criticism

 

The administration and decision to sell the BdW may well have been ill judged. - in the opinion of some  - even if only as a matter of form - perhaps it should have been put to an EGM or the next AGM. But the the trustees have, providing everything was legally correct, the remit from members to make such decisions on their behalf.

 

The WFA' s decision to reverse turn was both rapid and reactive. I have worked for and advised far bigger organisations who have proved far less capable of seeing and recognising how to react when the wind is against them - or their public's mood swings against them - and have ignored advice as to how they should handle the situation. 

 

No doubt lessons have been learned, but few of the climb-on-board comments made by some on this  thread -  some authors of which I suspect have no apparent dog in the fight - seem to simply intended to offer only comments quite deliberately less than harmless to the Association which fail to recognised its achievements since its foundation, its good governance and its achievements over a long period.

 

 

Edited 5 November , 2018 by David Filsell

[Gareth Davies]

3 hours ago, David Filsell said:

Put simply the decision to sell has been changed (and thus corrected in the opinion of those opposed to the decision to sell). I have nothing more to add.

 

Apart from post #109.........

[David Filsell]

Most perceptive of you. Thank you for the correction.

[healdav]

15 hours ago, David Filsell said:

How do a few half informed comments on this thread dictate the need of "blue sky" thinking and the need to look at the future direction of the organisation? The current event is not related to 'direction'. It is a single issue matter. Be clear, the last AGM indicated absolutely no concern about the WFA's direction from members, rather,  infact, satisfaction with its governance and direction  - which remains exactly that outlined by ex WFA Chairman Chris Baker and that which he followed during his chairmanship of the organisation.

 

Whilst every organisation  needs to move onward and upward, the WFA has been far from stick in the mud and has evolved by contributing to meeting its original objectives and by extending its 'reach' in many areas, (not least at events during the past four years).  Equally it must be said - criticism of the administration of the WFA is in my long experience of the organisation is misplaced, rather it has been highly efficient - on the ball. Just as they have proved in reversing a decision in the face of criticism

 

The administration and decision to sell the BdW may well have been ill judged. - in the opinion of some  - even if only as a matter of form - perhaps it should have been put to an EGM or the next AGM. But the the trustees have, providing everything was legally correct, the remit from members to make such decisions on their behalf.

 

The WFA' s decision to reverse turn was both rapid and reactive. I have worked for and advised far bigger organisations who have proved far less capable of seeing and recognising how to react when the wind is against them - or their public's mood swings against them - and have ignored advice as to how they should handle the situation. 

 

No doubt lessons have been learned, but few of the climb-on-board comments made by some on this  thread -  some authors of which I suspect have no apparent dog in the fight - seem to simply intended to offer only comments quite deliberately less than harmless to the Association which fail to recognised its achievements since its foundation, its good governance and its achievements over a long period.

 

 

The only mention of this story that I have seen said that the membership was informed by e-mail.

I'm a member, I wasn't informed.

Frankly, I didn't even know that they had bought this place, and am not particularly fussed about them selling it, but they could at least get their poor handling of this accurate!

 

[Steven Broomfield]

1 hour ago, healdav said:

The only mention of this story that I have seen said that the membership was informed by e-mail.

I'm a member, I wasn't informed.

 

 

I'm glad you mentioned that. I have been wondering ever since the story broke what e-mail I missed, but it seems I am not alone.

[IanA]

1 hour ago, Steven Broomfield said:

 

I'm glad you mentioned that. I have been wondering ever since the story broke what e-mail I missed, but it seems I am not alone.

Snap.

[Ken Lees]

2 hours ago, Steven Broomfield said:

 

I'm glad you mentioned that. I have been wondering ever since the story broke what e-mail I missed, but it seems I am not alone.

 

I received the e-mail on 27th October. It was in the "Trench Lines" format.

 

If anyone would like it forwarding, PM me with an e-mail address.

[Frajohn]

Blushing a little today, maybe embarrassed about all of the fuss.

 

[Ron Clifton]

Quick question for healdav, Steven and IanA:

 

Does the WFA have your e-mail addresses? If not, that might explain why you never received an e-mail.

 

Ron

[healdav]

46 minutes ago, Ron Clifton said:

Quick question for healdav, Steven and IanA:

 

Does the WFA have your e-mail addresses? If not, that might explain why you never received an e-mail.

 

Ron

I get their newsletter.

[SteveMarsdin]

10 minutes ago, healdav said:

I get their newsletter.

Dave, it wasn't a separate e-mail, just a paragraph in the "Trench Lines" e-mail newsletter.

 

Steve

[healdav]

Just now, SteveMarsdin said:

Dave, it wasn't a separate e-mail, just a paragraph in the "Trench Lines" e-mail newsletter.

 

Steve

Ahhh. That's why I didn't notice it.

[Steven Broomfield]

7 hours ago, Ron Clifton said:

Quick question for healdav, Steven and IanA:

 

Does the WFA have your e-mail addresses? 

 

Ron

 

Yes. I, too, get thieir newsletter

[Gareth Davies]

The chairman said in an email to me yesterday:

 

"A full statment to all members should be with you today/tomorrow. You can make your own mind up based on the evidence presented."

 

 

[tullybrone]

10 minutes ago, Gareth Davies said:

The chairman said in an email to me yesterday:

 

"A full statment to all members should be with you today/tomorrow. You can make your own mind up based on the evidence presented."

 

 

 

Are WFA trying to bury it while others are focussed on “Brexit Day”

 

Steve

[keithmroberts]

The statement is included in the issue of Stand To mailed to members along with a slightly  more detailed background document. Mine was delivered this morning.

 

Keith

[mva]

online, for everybody to see :

http://www.westernfrontassociation.com/latest-news/november-2018/3-background-butte-de-warlencourt/

(there was a twwet a few minutes ago

kind regards from the Somme, martine

[David Filsell]

Not least now, regardless of unfortunate the timing and communication on this matter, every member of he WFA can now see the clear logic behind decision made by trustees to sell the BdW. The initial purchase was an over-reach and implications of its ownership were, both when the decision to purchase was made, and now, quite threatening - not just to trustees, but to the future  of the  WFA as a whole. 

We shall see what the AGM decides about the future of the trustees, but I have total confidence in the present management of the WFA  for common sense decision making and commitment.

[Bernard_Lewis]

Yes, it dropped on my mat today. I can't understand why, 20 years after the purchase, it has suddenly become a poisoned legal chalice. That said, I can understand the trustees deciding the hassle isn't worth the effort of EC membership. As I read it, they're all packing in at/before the AGM?

 

All I would add is that having paid my WFA membership fee for 10+ years, I would have expected matters to be handled in a better way than was the case here.

 

Bernard

 

[MartinWills]

It seems to me that there are two issues here - separate ones in their own way. One is the future of the Butte De Warlencourt, the other is the future of the WFA

 

As regards the Butte many peole saw good reason to support it's preservation as a landmark of the war at a time when other landmarks were at risk or disappearing. The aim then was to see it preserved for posterity, and I am sure that remains the ideal in the eyes of many. The true solution would be one that sees it preserved for posterity, more than the 20 years currently proposed, and more than the 100 years which the French regard as posterity. I doubt it matters who owns it as long as it remains safe as a landmark of the war. Bob Paterson how holds the poisoned chalice and the WFA understandably is uneasy about buying it back. Now is the time for all interested parties to get together and work toward an amicable solution ensuring  it's long term preservation.

 

I have listened to many folks about the future of the WFA, an organisation which has managed in recent days to emphasise the divide between it's branches, members, supporters and its central management.  Particularly strong feelings attach to those who contributed to the purchase of the Butte in the first place. We are at a turning point in the history that represents the Great War. All the veterans have passed on and the war is a dim memory for an increasingly small number of senior citizens. Equally we have passed through the centenary of the Great War (Peace treaty aside).The flurry of literature associated with the war will ease off as we move beyond the centenary. The torch of remembrance passes to a younger generation, a generation who in all probability will approach the Great War from the persepctive of history lessons and, to a greater degree from the perspective of family history. That is so different from the days of the early 1980s when the WFA was born. Travel too, has changed and the further outposts of the war are so much more readily reached by the traveller these days. Communications, technology and sources of research have changed too over this period - after all the internet was little more than a twinkle in the eye in the early days of the WFA.

 

It is often said that there is one certainty in life, and that is change. We are generally resistant to change, but there are landmark times when change is a truly positive step. The passing on of veterans, the centenary of the war, the growth of great war history in the learning curriculum and the surge in family history all represent changes in how we see the Great War. The WFA, surely, needs to change to reflect that there is a different approach to the war almost 40 years on. To assure it's future it needs to match and support the changing needs of its audience, members, supporters and those who are simply "interested" for whatever reason.

 

I am saddened that the current WFA trustees have either resigned or will stand down over the next few months, saddened that it has come to this inevitability after the debacle of recent weeks. It does, however, give the WFA a chance to embrace change and set out it's stall for the next quarter of a century or more and hold proud the torch that is remembrance of a World War that spread it's wings far further than just the Western Front.