Re: Andrew Welch's response (Part 1A)

Duncan Heenan wrote:
> To try to overcome the technical problems I am posting Andrew Welch's
> response to my recent post entitles "What to do about BN?" and my further
> comments thereon in 2 parts, the first with 2 sectinons - to make it
> smaller). Here is the first part, first section.
> (Perhaps it is Mick Ayers who should really be answering the points raised).
> ------------------
> At last I have been able to access Andrew Welch's response to my post on
> URN. I have no idea why it did not appear on my newsreader , but it appears
> I am not the only one who didn't see it. Anyway, here are my comments on
> AW's
> response, interleaved as were AW's own responses:
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Andrew Welch response (AW) -
>
> I couldn't sit by and not get involved in this interesting thread. I'm
> always happy for people to have opinions and to argue the points, but I
> really don't like it when the facts are wrong.
>
> As ever I'm happy to answer any questions people may have.
>
> Duncan Heenan comment (DH)
>
> Thank you I'm sure we'll all remember that promise! There are some questions
> contained in my comments below, and I eagerly await the answer.

Here it is - by the way, in case anyone thinks i have nothing to do
since I am replying so apparently instantly, Duncan mailed me his
comments earlier and so I have had time to prepare...
>
> Duncan Heenan Original Post (OP) -
> With BN's (CCBN) annual general meeting on 23.10.05. looming, those members
> who care for the organisation's future are faced with some interesting
> questions. The prime one, of falling membership
>
> AW - how can a net increase of 127 be a falling membership?
>
> DH - I was referring to the broad sweep of the years Mick Ayres listed. The
> choice of 31.7.05 is an isolated figure which is not necessarily
> representative or consistent with accounting disclosure dates. In any case
> the number is trivial and can not rate as sufficient to be called a success.

Noted, but you haven't answered the question.

31st July was the last date that we could produce figures to go in
BN165. Again, Duncan, with respect, you criticise when figures are not
published and then do so again when the most up to date ones are
given...
>
> OP - and the financial crisis
>
> AW -can you explain what you mean by "crisis" - what figures are you working
> from? You must have info that I haven't seen.
>
> DH - The crisis is beginning to show in the 31.12.05 accounts, See OP. It is
> continuing in the current year, but BN members are given no interim accounts
> or forecasts. I wonder why not? My own projection for the current year is a
> £70k loss, and a significant tightness of cash.

Ok, you are quite entitled to your opinion. Difficult though to make
such predictions about the end of the year on figures representing only
part of the year.
>
> OP - which is slowly engulfing BN is raised but fudged, in chairman Mick
> Ayres'
>
> AW -small point but FYI it's "Ayers"
>
>
>
> DH- I stand corrected on the spelling of Mick Ayers surname, and apologise
> for my error.
>
> OP piece on p21 of this Autumn's BN magazine (No.165). In it he publishes
> figures of BN membership (which some people challenge as to accuracy)
>
> AW - who, and why?
>
>
>
> DH - Me and others! For example read Richard Burnham's URN post in which he
> draws attention to significantly lower membership statistics being
> circulated to EC members currently. It is a normal reaction when faced with
> 'spin' to be sceptical, especially when the Chairman denies glaringly
> obvious financial facts.

Richard's post did not come until after you posted.
>
>
>
> OP showing:
> > 31.12.00 18,524
> > 31.12.01 18,631
> > 31.12.02 18,070
> > 31.12.03 16,611
> > 31.12.04 16,138
> > and, grasping at straws
>
> AW --"grasping at straws"?? Why is quoting the current figures described
> by you in that way? Incidentally, Duncan, in a post that you made after
> some figures were quoted in the previous BN, you were critical that
> Mick had not given a full picture. Now he has, and you still
> criticise...
>
>
>
> DH - Yes indeed, Mick Ayers has had these figures dragged out of him by
> criticism, not offered at the outset of the public debate on this issue.

The database change was problematical and it was only in BN164 that we
were able to produce numbers. I would like to see figures quoted in
every issue actually. Again, you are entitled to your opinion, but you
seem to imply quite often that there is some dark reason for info being
kept from the members, when there isn't - you'll have to trust me on
that I guess, but from your business experience you must acknowledge
that not every piece of info can be released to the outside world
instantly?

> Inclusion of the (yet to be verified) 31.7.05 figure is described as
> 'grasping at straws' because we don't know why that date has been chosen,
> and in any case it is not matched by any accounts drawn up to the same date,
> so we can not judge the cost of achieving this tiny increase, if it is
> actually true.

31.7.05 - see above.

> Can you please confirm whether Mick Ayers figures include
> some people who had not at the dates given actually renewed their membership
> and paid their subscriptions. If so, how many in each case please?

Sorry, not sure I am with you. The only people mentioned in the
published figures are people who have paid their subs, otherwise they
would not have "renewed"

>
>
>
> OP -
>
> > 31.7.05 16,256
>
> The decline in numbers roughly corresponds with Ayres' own chairmanship, but
> I would not claim that he is wholly to blame. However he has the
> responsibility of doing something about it, both for the future of BN, and
> because membership numbers must be the final verdict on how naturists in
> Britain feel BN is representing their wishes regarding 'naturism' (whatever
> we each think that is!).
>
>
>
> AW --yes, there are thousands of members each with a different view. A
> large part of my job is arranging things so that the greatest number of
> people are pleased at any one time. If they don't always accord with
> what you want, then I hope that I can be forgiven.
>
>
>
> DH - An I hope I too can be forgiven for valuing freedom of speech, and the
> wish that its exercise is base on fact and not just rhetoric.
>
> OP -In 2004, Ayres sought to address the problem by appointing Andrew Welch
> as Commercial Manager at a fee of £1,000 a week plus expenses etc
>
> AW --my contract provides for expenses, but I do not claim any.
>
>
>
> DH - Why not? Do you really mean to say you've never had any expenses
> reimbursed in any way by BN? Surely if you are doing the job, and not just
> sitting at home on your computer, you're incurring expenses which can, and
> should, be legitimately be claimed.

I claimed some in the first month I think. I choose not to now,
subconscious philanthropy perhaps. Anyway, it helps keep the costs
down.
>
> OP - Ayres is quoted as saying ' Well, we have to do something'
>
> AW - where and when please?
>
>
>
> DH - It was a verbal quote to me from 3 sources, all placed high in BN. I
> believe, but am not certain it was said in an EC meeting. But does it
> matter? I agree with him, something did (and still does) have to be done,
> the question is, is the solution chosen working sufficiently to risk the
> whole organisation by blindly sticking with it, despite the lack of
> measurable success.

I think my complaint was the inference in your words that it was "any
port in a storm"!
>
> Continued in Part 1 b...........

.

Relevant Pages

  • Andrew Welchs response (Part 1A)
    ... To try to overcome the technical problems I am posting Andrew Welch's ... (Perhaps it is Mick Ayers who should really be answering the points raised). ... At last I have been able to access Andrew Welch's response to my post on ... AW - how can a net increase of 127 be a falling membership? ...
    (uk.rec.naturist)
  • Mick Ayers speaks! (but says little)
    ... URN readers will recall I wrote to Mick Ayers (Chairman of BN for the last 7 ... is the reason for a three part motion on fees which is being put to the AGM. ... The membership need to express their views as to the type of BN they would ... Duncan Heenan ...
    (uk.rec.naturist)
  • Re: get your barely maintaining translation as my ship
    ... He'll be chasing in response to thorough ... the membership will access v the successive woodland. ... crisis in Sadam's butterfly might spot some horizontal insiders. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Will Pitruzzello judge the base?
    ... It should swear respective strangers below the positive exotic ... membership, whilst Nelly shakily rejects them too. ... leaving in response to the magazine now, ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: BN Web Updates
    ... Duncan Heenan ... Those figures for 2009 would be interesting Duncan, must admit I find some of your posts most interesting as if this decline goes on how long will CCBN last. ... CCBN shows no inclination to grasp the nettle of cost control, as they immediately reversed all the moves I started in that direction last year as soon as I left the EC. ... In the meantime Andrew Welch will be best remembered for saying about 5 years ago that he aimed to increase BN membership by around 20% in his first contract period, whilst in fact delivering about a 33% decline so far, at a cost which will be approaching about a third of a million pounds by the middle of this year. ...
    (uk.rec.naturist)