Butte de Warlencourt sold?

[Ken Lees]

37 minutes ago, Muerrisch said:

 

Do I have an answer you may ask?

Only to suggest that the critics put up or shut up... 

 

 

So, the only people entitled to voice an opinion are those who are prepared to stand for office?

[Muerrisch]

25 minutes ago, Ken Lees said:

 

So, the only people entitled to voice an opinion are those who are prepared to stand for office?

 

The thought had not occurred to me. What do you think?

[Terry_Reeves]

1 hour ago, Ken Lees said:

 

So, the only people entitled to voice an opinion are those who are prepared to stand for office?

I quite agree with Ken. David Filsell also suggested that those who have never served at HQ WFA should keep quiet. How about the branch chairmen, treasurers, speaker finders, publicity officers and the folks who make the tea, the very people who actually keep the WFA running along with the members who might not hold a position but turn up for the meetings that make the WFA what it is?  

 

All this could have been avoided as I have said previously.

 

TR

[keithmroberts]

This is a horror story. Not being on the inside, I am just a member,active and supportive in my local branch, I am not closely involved in this chaos. I have served, like Muerrisch and others as a trustee  elsewhere, and as an officer and member of a number of voluntary organisations. Its a mess, some members, and some former trustees/EC members feel no longer able to work together as a result of this mishandling and fiasco.

 

I am inclined to respect all parties, as having tried to do the "right thing", and utterly reject the idea of dishonesty or lies. The present EC messed up. Their presentation of a difficult situation has been a disaster and they have all agreed to stand down as a result.  That in itself, if we refuse to be vindictive, is a decent and honourable step. Some may offer themselves for re-election, some may not, but they are all decent people trying to do a voluntary job for the WFA.  Sometimes when challenged or criticised the only proper answer is the one with fewest words. That sometimes applies even here when Mods are challenged for using what they see as their best judgement. Right or wrong, words have to be weighed carefully and sometimes silence is best.

 

I think we do need to look forward, and I hope that when it comes to the AGM some hatchets can be buried and an EC / trustees can be elected with less venom.  Ultimately, all parties to this debate are I think on the same side, wanting to forward the aims of the WFA.   There are new challenges to come now that the centenary of the armistice has passed, so I do believe that the WFA probably does need some new ideas, some fresh inspiration, and that is no criticism of the past. 

 

I hope to attend the AGM, subject to the date and location, but not in anger, and with every respect for the work done by the trustees of  recent times. The pension records have been saved, That is quite an achievement and I wonder for example just how many unpaid hours David Tattersfield has spent to achieve that.  The whole Butte affair seems to have been an honest attempt to address issues that were previously never thought of.

 

This should not be a fight, but a coming together of members with the same ultimate aims, to work forwards. We have some excellent publications, Jonathan Vernon has done a great job with the website, and David, grouchy as he is, has set a new standard with the reviews. We need to respect the successes that have been delivered, and somehow move forwards; if the AGM ends up as a contest between factions comparable to those evident in our main political parties, we the members, and the WFA, will all be losers, as will be the underpinning objective.

For the record, I have no intention of standing for any office, but hope to continue to play a part in  the WFA at local level, whoever occupies the various posts.

 

Keith

[Muerrisch]

Thank you Keith. Blessed are the peacemakers.

I would hope that even the harshest critics and the most combative of the contributors here could wish for a united and strong and forward-looking WFA.

[Ken Lees]

9 hours ago, Muerrisch said:

Thank you Keith. Blessed are the peacemakers.

I would hope that even the harshest critics and the most combative of the contributors here could wish for a united and strong and forward-looking WFA.

As long as everyone knows their place though, obviously. 

[Muerrisch]

Quite so.

[David Filsell]

Grouchy? Moi? Far from it. I have simply attempted to seek a balanced view fully in line with expressed by Keith..

What has truly surprised me has been the rush to condemnation - and the venom - and lack of understanding of some on this thread.

Of course everbody deserves a view. However, some seem simply to throwing stones from sidelines and making what appear to be unsupported criticisms of the governance of the WFA.

The real forum at which such points can and should be made and can be judged is the associations' AGM - not the WFA  forum.

Equally, I feel it  strange that in the face face of a single badly handled issue  - sale of the BdV - such claims of widespread misgovernance of the association have been made? As an early member I judge the overall success of trustees in recent years (and their contribution to the study of the Great War and educational work) by far outweighs the way the trustees have handled the sale of the BdW. Equally I am simply pleased that I was not amongst those who had to balance the wide range serious and potentially personal financial consequences of ownership of the matter.

 

[Muerrisch]

David, your " some seem simply to [be] throwing stones from [the]  sidelines" might be judged to need clarification.

 

Can I suggest that the sidelines may be said to comprise contributors here who are NOT WFA members? There may be none such.

 

We who are members are surely all on the playing field and are enfranchised to express non-venomous opinions. As to whether the GWF is an appropriate medium for such opinions, I am unsure. I do know that my several attempts to have my views on WFA matters considered in house [such as the role or continuing existence of the Bulletin] have been comprehensively rubbished and kicked to death by what might be called the WFA Establishment.

 

Nevertheless the greater good has surely to be the continued existence of the WFA and in particular the unrivalled breadth of the scholarship in ST!

[Blincodave]

This may be of interest from Taff Gillingham's Facebook page this morning:

 

The Western Front Association

Dear All,

Sorry for the delay in responding to the enclosures with the latest issue of the Western Front Association magazine, Stand To!. It has been a busy week.

Having now had the opportunity to read both, it is clear that the intention of these is to obscure the real issue. The half-hearted, grudging apology is also too little, too late.

It is a great shame that, through a total lack of imagination, the outgoing EC view the Butte de Warlencourt as a millstone rather that the asset to the WFA that it should - and could - be.

After reading the Stand To! enclosures, you all need to ask yourselves one simple question; why, if the real issue was insurance as these statements claim, was insurance not mentioned in the first announcement in the email newsletter, ‘Trench Lines’; in the website announcement or the subsequent Questions and Answers which did so much to inflame the situation; in the statement issued by the Legal Officer on Facebook and Twitter or, indeed, in the minutes of the meeting on 28th July when the secret decision was taken to sell the Butte without asking the members?

The outgoing EC didn’t ask the opinion of the membership about the sale in case, collectively, the ‘little people’ didn’t give them the answer they wanted.

All the guff in these statements about insurance is a smokescreen to cover an appalling series of bad decisions, a total lack of judgement, some of the worst communication imaginable and a complete disregard for the opinions of the 6,000+ members of this Association. Insurance was never the issue.

Over the past couple of weeks it has become abundantly clear that there are a number of ways that the Western Front Association can continue to own the Butte de Warlencourt without risk. Among our own members there are many people who have been in contact with me to offer their professional advice, experience and their services.

It is very clear that alternatives were not sought by the outgoing EC or, if they were, they were ignored.

The information in the statements about 25 tonnes of unexploded ordnance fails to mention that none of it was removed from the Butte de Warlencourt. It was removed from around the battlefields, the same battlefields that many of us visit on a regular basis and, as far as I know, there is no recorded instance of battlefield tourists being blown up. None at all. This is deliberate scare-mongering.

I was told on that first Sunday evening that the French insurance company had withdrawn the insurance cover, with little notice, three weeks earlier. However, the Chairman’s statement now says “…we had to conclude that there was a risk of that the French insurers of the Butte may not pay out in the event of a claim”. I was told that the insurers had withdrawn the cover. Now it seems that the committee concluded that the French insurers “…may not pay out…”.

The decision to sell the Butte was taken in secret on Saturday 28th July, along with the decision to tell none of the membership. In fact the original meeting minutes make no mention of the discussion about the Butte at all. It was deliberately omitted.

Fortunately for the membership, former trustee, Jane Backhouse, insisted that the minutes were altered to reflect what had actually been agreed and the meeting minutes were amended and issued, although the section on the sale of the Butte was marked *** This item must remain confidential ***.

The email correspondence shared by former EC members corroborates all of this.

The minutes show clearly that Bob Paterson was going to buy the Butte and the WFA was going to repay him via sponsorship.

In simple terms, the EC cooked up a plan to sell the Butte de Warlencourt to a former member of their own committee in secret, with no competitive offers sought, and no chance given to others who may have proved suitable owners, no attempt to find the true market price, with no transparency, no accountability and the sale pushed through and announced two weeks before the centenary of the Armistice. Then they were going to give him his money back.

There is no sign that any thought had been given to what happens to the long term future of the Butte in the event that anything happens to Bob.

I say again, the evidence of their own original announcements and statements show that the sale had nothing to do with insurance. They really must think we are all mugs.

Having shown appalling lack of judgement, and no leadership whatsoever, over the Butte de Warlencourt affair, the outgoing EC should not be entrusted with deciding the future of the association.

The proposal for an independent working group was mine, and Colin and I had been discussing this until the WFA President stepped in and requested a ‘truce’ for Armistice100.

The outgoing EC now deciding to appoint working group members themselves cannot be seen as impartial. There will always be the suspicion that working group members were appointed to exonerate the outgoing EC.

The outgoing committee, having announced their departure, should not be allowed to tie a future committee to any decisions they may take in the meantime.

However, no matter what the outgoing EC decides, the debate is already happening among branches, branch chairmen, members and potential members at local meetings and online.

It is very clear that there is a great deal of knowledge, experience and plenty of fresh ideas on tap available to a revamped WFA and I call upon all of you who want to see the WFA succeed, and become the association it should always have been, to ignore the appeal to join working groups run by the outgoing committee and form a truly independent group which can work with branches and members - and also potential members - to achieve this aim and work with those who are already putting themselves forward behind the scenes to take over as trustees once the outgoing committee have gone.
Do get in touch if you are interested.

The Western Front Association failed to make much of an impression throughout the four years of the centenary and, extraordinarily, membership numbers have even dropped during the same period when interest in the subject was at its height.

This whole, sorry business gives the WFA a once-in-a-lifetime chance for root and branch reform, plenty of fresh thinking and to decide the type of association that members want post-centenary.

It will be a terrible shame if this opportunity is not taken.

[Steven Broomfield]

14 minutes ago, Blincodave said:

This may be of interest from Taff Gillingham's Facebook page this morning:

 

The Western Front Association ... membership numbers have even dropped during the same period when interest in the subject was at its height.

 

 

If true (and I see no reason to think Taff has his numbers wrong) this is surely the greatest indictement of the people in charge.

[ss002d6252]

16 minutes ago, Steven Broomfield said:

 

If true (and I see no reason to think Taff has his numbers wrong) this is surely the greatest indictement of the people in charge. 

 

Annual reports shows membership as:

 

2017 - 6069
2016 - 6271
2015 - 6333
2014 - 6427

 

Craig

[Heid the Ba]

13 hours ago, Muerrisch said:

David, your " some seem simply to [be] throwing stones from [the]  sidelines" might be judged to need clarification.

 

Can I suggest that the sidelines may be said to comprise contributors here who are NOT WFA members? There may be none such.

I am not a WFA member, as I said in my first post on the thread my interest in this is as a legal curiosity as I am a solicitor who deals tangentially with trusts. I am on the sidelines, any WFA member is most certainly on the playing field.

[Skipman]

I too am on the sidelines but posted it because a well-respected WFA member obviously felt so strongly about it. He is not throwing stones from the sidelines, more like grenades from the very heart of it.

 

Mike

[Steven Broomfield]

1 hour ago, ss002d6252 said:

 

Annual reports shows membership as:

 

2017 - 6069
2016 - 6271
2015 - 6333
2014 - 6427

 

Craig

 

Shocking

[ss002d6252]

13 minutes ago, Steven Broomfield said:

 

Shocking

I have to say I was very surprised to see the figures had dropped over the last 4 years, I was expecting them to stay relatively steady. I can't imagine the current position, which ever side one takes, will help boost membership (Although I have recently rejoined - mainly for StandTo!).

 

Craig

[David Filsell]

Just out of interest, has anyone actually asked Taff Gillingham if wishes to buy the Butte de Wallincourt? 

[Gareth Davies]

Yes.

[Muerrisch]

7 minutes ago, David Filsell said:

Just out of interest, has anyone actually asked Taff Gillingham if wishes to buy the Butte de Wallincourt? 

 

Where?

3 minutes ago, Gareth Davies said:

Yes.

 

3 minutes ago, Gareth Davies said:

Yes.

 

So where is this other Butte? Never heard of it.

Edited 19 November , 2018 by Muerrisch

[David Filsell]

Mr D,

Thank you for reply. And his?

Mr M,

Clearly not in my spell check! Apologies

 

[Gareth Davies]

I suggest that you ask him. 

[Muerrisch]

Please bear with the musings of an old [in all senses] member of the WFA and GWF, who pays his dues, looks forward to ST!, thinks the Bulletin as a stand-alone is a waste of money, and contributes an occasional article .

 

Dare I suggest that looking backwards, exchanging barbs and recriminations and pointing fingers is all very well but solves nothing?

 

It may be fair to say that just about every participant on this thread could agree that:

 

The EC made at least two dreadful errors: first the sale without consultation, second the PR debacle.

 

and that

 

It was right and proper for the EC to resign.

 

A majority might also agree that, all in all, the WFA has been run during its existence by volunteers in a way that is at least acceptable, but falls short of excellent. In particular, "Stand To!" has produced very good centenary editions [although I declare a very minor interest].

 

Turning to the future, has the WFA run its course? Is the falling membership count telling us something [other than pointing the finger at the outgoing EC]?

Then again, to elect a completely new EC may be to exchange future incompetence for flawed past competence.

Is Mr Gillingham's stance purely altruistic? To some it may look like an attempted coup. On the other hand, his grumbling effectively and then making concrete proposals for the future as he has done seems constructive.

 

I suspect that, like a silent majority of the dwindling 6000, I will be grateful if matters go on as in the past: fairly smoothly with the occasional crisis. 

"If it is not essential to change, it is essential not to change"

[Gareth Davies]

I think that's a fair summary of my views - clearly I can't speak for anyone else.  I don't think that the WFA has run its course, quite the opposite. I think that its object is a sound one and that gives it a reason to exist. But I do think that it needs a bit of a boot up the bum and some reorganisation (of mindset at the least and possibly structure/people) in order to meet its object.

[Gareth Davies]

1 hour ago, David Filsell said:

Mr D,

Thank you for reply. And his?

 

 

I asked him again. I don't think you would want me to post his reply. 

 

[David Filsell]

Let's face it the WFA was never expected to be a mainstream interest organisation. A relatively small percentage drop in membership can be expected from time to time.

But, tHat said Surrey WFA is attracting record numbers at meetings. 

It's also been suggested from time that Forum traffic has dropped.I wonder if the is any correlation which might indicate an overall growing or falling interest in the Great War?

Has the public actually developed Great War weariness becase of the amount of coverage? I think it may well have done. Certainly a couple of publishers have admitted book sales on the topic have been fewer than they had expected.

 

Edited 19 November , 2018 by David Filsell