Humanist Society of Scotland at war with itself

[Gurdur]

Alan Henness resigned recently as Convenor of the Humanist Society of Scotland (HSS), and also resigned from its National Executive Committee (NEC). Facts on why he resigned are hard to come by, since he was too polite and too considerate of the HSS membership to make his resignation statement publically; however that has not stopped the NEC from issuing a statement that makes a rather nasty innuendo against Alan Henness, and also takes a sidewipe at Maria MacLachlan.

Both Alan and Maria are known to me; both have worked extremely hard to further the cause of secular humanism overall and the HSS in particular (in the HSS, and in Maria's case in the HSS and also in the British Humanist Association, the BHA). That they should be treated like this is a disgrace.

As I said, the facts of the matter were hard to glean, since I myself am not a member of the HSS; you can try following this public thread and then this split-off thread here here on the unofficial HSS board, which says bloody little until the bombshell of the NEC statement (now on the split-off thread), a statement I will reproduce below.

[Gurdur]

Here is the full statement of the NEC reproduced in full (my comments to follow):

Originally Posted by secular on the unofficial HSS board

Posted by "secular" on the unofficial HSS board

This is the NEC response following its meeting on 11th March. Posted by Ron McLaren ~ Secretary HSS.

Several have posted comment on the resignation of Alan Henness, in what can only be described as an ill -informed basis. Ill-informed for the simple reason of their not understanding the issues that apply. There has always been consistent acknowledgement of the work that Alan Henness has done, and rightly so. But this issue is not about the amount of work done. This issue is about style and awareness of good practice in management and leadership, of an organisation in which there are many talents and skills in those who have willingly become active in the governance of the HSS. There are 2 or 3 leadership styles that are appropriate for a volunteer based executive as we are, and there are many leadership styles that are not so. Alan Henness, unfortunately, is in the latter category.

The recent rapid growth in membership and status of the Society has brought into focus, weaknesses which have caused frustration through inappropriate intervention and support which can best be described as dilatory. If the NEC had been a happy coherent body with the right style of leadership and vision, the so called smear campaigns would have been nullified, stifling any further unease and disharmony. To infer otherwise is to be in denial. Members of the NEC recall very well, the first time such difficulties were raised publicly, by one of the office bearers no less, at the meeting of 13th August, when some upsets had become evident, upon which said person spoke of Alan's autocratic style and control freakery. That was minuted more delicately as . . . .’A brief discussion on style and related matters within the NEC resulted in an appeal to us all to value each other’s integrity, recognising that especially within a volunteer based organisation, there needs to be a certain level of trust and freedom to act, responsibly, in both our individual and sub – committee activities, within our democratic consensual process of governance, always being mindful to practice what we preach !’

Those present knew what that meant.

That brought about no change in style, nor did the NEC agreed publication of the 'Macaskill Method', circulated later, in a further attempt to bring things to order. Still there was no change. At the January meeting, Alan raised the matter of a vote of confidence in himself. That was almost unanimous in his favour. However, as is readily apparent, that was merely papering over the cracks.

Meanwhile, the NEC’s prior decision to have a Strategy Day was effected but, as we all know, the resignation preceded that by some 24hrs or so. Had Alan attended, the outcome may well have been the same ? And that is why the NEC’s interim response was as it was. Entirely valid and certainly not as some said, “ The bland damage limitation that was expected.�

Maria MacLachlan wrote in one of her more constructive posts. . . “I would hate anyone to get the impression that the NEC is rotten to the core. The majority on it have intelligence and integrity in abundance. I can certainly think of a few people on it who I'm sure would make good Convenors - including the very level-headed and experienced vice-Convenor, Charles Douglas, in whose capable hands the HSS lies at present. Unfortunately, I don't think any of those most suited to the role are willing to take it on - it is an extremely time-consuming job after all. To come home from a demanding job and then spend perhaps three hours a night on HSS work, night after night, week after week and year after year, for so many years is not something many people are willing to do . . . .�

On that revealing admission, one has to ask what sort of organisation or indeed management style allows that to continue year on year, to the point of detriment to the person concerned ? Hardly a recipe for success and well being !

The ethos of Humanism is of far greater importance than any one individual within it and any would be protagonists, and we of the NEC should remember that. So be it. The NEC is not divided. At the meeting of 11th March, there was overwhelming unity. The NEC has rallied round Bill Macaskill, the newly appointed convenor, who brings a wealth of know-how to the role.

The Society has hiccupped somewhat, but now moves on, re-invigorated.

And that is as it should be.

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by secular

....Several have posted comment on the resignation of Alan Henness, in what can only be described as an ill -informed basis. Ill-informed for the simple reason of their not understanding the issues that apply.

Oh, wonderful -- the NEC's first statement, also posted by secular on the unofficial HSS board, was a sheer evasion of all the issues concerned, and now with their second statement they try trotting out the clapped-out old line of "You dunno what it is, so you're wrong".

There are 2 or 3 leadership styles that are appropriate for a volunteer based executive as we are, and there are many leadership styles that are not so. Alan Henness, unfortunately, is in the latter category.

Oh really. Maybe the NEC will favour us with a much better analysis than this bald unsubstantiated assertion.

If the NEC had been a happy coherent body with the right style of leadership and vision, the so called smear campaigns would have been nullified,

Let's see. This is the first mention in public of smear campaigns --- and allegedly those smear campaigns would have been "nullified" had the "leadership" (meaning Alan Henness) been "right".

upon which said person spoke of Alan's autocratic style and control freakery.

Oh, apparently we're not supposed to know the issues, but we will get treated to a smear of Alan.

Maria MacLachlan wrote in one of her more constructive posts.

This little side-swipe strikes me as vindictive, absolutely uncalled-for, unnecessary, and an utterly shabby disgrace.

On that revealing admission, one has to ask what sort of organisation or indeed management style allows that to continue year on year, to the point of detriment to the person concerned ? Hardly a recipe for success and well being !

Oh, now they're pretending they're doing Alan a favour. What gall.

The Society has hiccupped somewhat, but now moves on, re-invigorated.

Oh, suuuuuuuure, and by the way, here's the Brooklyn Bridge on sale to you cheap as well.

[verte]

WTF? I realize I'm an outsider, and am not part of this organization. But after reading what you've quoted here, this seems appallingly ungrateful and, well, really fucking nasty of the HSS.

[Bud]

Some people just can't resist letting their personal rivalries work their way into official statements. That seems to be what's happened here. It's disgraceful.

[Kim o the Concrete Jungle]

It sounds to me like someone hasn't yet discovered how to write official communications in a formal and neutral voice, and why that is generally a good idea.

[Gurdur]

On the HSS thread in question, Autumn has raised an important point.

Originally Posted by secular

Maria MacLachlan wrote in one of her more constructive posts. . . “I would hate anyone to get the impression that ......."

The above quote is from that NEC statement.
Now:

Originally Posted by Autumn

Well, I've looked through this thread again and I see no such post - or indeed anyone called Maria MacLachlan posting anything in this thread! What's going on here?

Here is what I replied there:

Originally Posted by Gurdur on the HSS board

Autumn, you raise here a very important point, one which I missed. Many thanks to you.

It would appear that "secular" and the NEC statement quote a post of Maria's, a post made apparently in the HSS private members' forum, and they quote it here in public without asking her permission first. That's how it seems to me; I am not an HSS member, so I am not privy to their private forum and its posts here.

If that is so, then the NEC have treated this board and HSS members with contempt by quoting a private post publically. I trust the NEC will immediately address this particular issue at once.
____

Autumn, again my thanks to you for raising this particular issue. Maria is a member of the board here and of the HSS; if she wants to reveal her username, that's up to her, not up to me, and I will not reveal it myself.

Now, I want to stress that the HSS NEC has abused the trust and confidentiality of its HSS members and the members of the HSS board if they have in fact quoted a private post in public, and that under Maria MacLachlan's real name too.

If all that is so, "unprofessional" is not the word for it. How about mean-spirited, incompetent and self-destructive? Because if that was all so, then the HSS NEC are treating their own members and the privacy of their members with absolute contempt. Somehow I do not see that as moving on "re-invigorated".

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by verte

WTF? I realize I'm an outsider, and am not part of this organization. But after reading what you've quoted here, this seems appallingly ungrateful and, well, really fucking nasty of the HSS.

Originally Posted by Bud

Some people just can't resist letting their personal rivalries work their way into official statements. That seems to be what's happened here. It's disgraceful.

Yes. Agreed, seconded. Thank-you, verte and Bud, and please help bring this matter to a wider humanist public scrutiny if you can by linking back to this thread when raising the issue anywhere else where the wider humanist public is active.

Originally Posted by Kim o the Concrete Jungle

It sounds to me like someone hasn't yet discovered how to write official communications in a formal and neutral voice, and why that is generally a good idea.

There are times when I love your style of understatement.

[verte]

Originally Posted by Gurdur

if they have in fact quoted a private post in public, and that under Maria MacLachlan's real name too.

If they've done such a thing, it is completely, utterly inexcusable and indefensible.

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by verte

If they've done such a thing, it is completely, utterly inexcusable and indefensible.

Correct. And if you know who actually set up and managed that message board for the HSS, then it gets even far more disgusting.

Here is the latest bit from the HSS thread:

Originally Posted by JRM81 on the HSS

OMG!

As someone who has read the thread in the members forum, it is obvious to me that the NEC statement was provoked by the critical posts in there. It has no relation whatsoever to what has been said out here - in fact it's an absolute disgrace. Rank and file HSS members have stuck to the 'dirty laundry principle' and kept the acrimony out of the public forum but the NEC jump straight in with both feet.

I would request that that the stupid NEC posts and the responding comments are split to a different thread so that this one can remain what it started out as - a nice, support thread for Alan.

Originally Posted by Gurdur on the HSS

I request that if split off, they be kept in public, so that the wider humanist public may scrutinise the NEC response to what are most important points.

[Meathead]

Seems they should consider their own advice on choosing the best way to do things.

[Gurdur]

The Secretary of the HSS NEC has now come out with a very insufficient apology for unspecified actions.

This simply isn't good enough. Below is a copy of my reply on the HSS board.
____________________

Ron McLaren has made a very vague and insufficient apology for certain actions which were left unspecified. This simply will not do. The HSS NEC decided to shove its dirty linen in the face of the wider public; they may now commence to wash it in public as well.

Questions to the HSS NEC:

1) When the NEC decided to make a public statement that included two personal smears against Alan Henness and Maria MacLachlan, two members who have never attacked the NEC in public, and who have worked extremely selflessly in the advancing of Scots humanism and of the Humanist Society of Scotland (HSS), just which medium did the HSS NEC use to attack Alan Henness and Maria MacLachlan? In other words, when the HSS NEC made its public statement which included such underhanded and unprofessional personal attacks, just who set up the message board for the HSS on which the HSS NEC abused HSS members' privacy by quoting private posts in public, by making such personal attacks, and by thusly bringing the HSS as a whole into such disrepute? Please spell that out exactly.

2) When the HSS NEC has been so repeatedly deficient as not to answer repeated public questions about its actual official goals and stances, just why is the HSS NEC otherwise so eager and so quick to defame individual HSS members in public with such public statements --- on a medium set up for them by who again? Spell that out exactly.

3) The HSS NEC has made an official claim that smear campaigns would be "nullified" by the "right" leadership style. The HSS NEC therefore owes it to everyone to spell out exactly how that is so and how that is possible.

4) The HSS NEC claimed in a previous public statement not to even have discussed the resignation of Alan Henness at the time it happened; just why not? Just how much was well-known of the issues prior to the event, and just why were they not discussed?

To repeat: it was the HSS NEC that decided to shove its dirty linen in the face of the wider humanist public, and that while not even bothering to answer important public policy questions. It may now commence to wash in public as well, and to spell out exactly just how the NEC is supposed to be advancing the interests of humanism and of its members.

No doubt that more questions will be raised; and no doubt at all but that these questions will not go away, and will remain very much in the public eye --- as the direct result of the HSS NEC's actions and decisions. You broke it, you fix it.

[Master Taran]

Originally Posted by Puck

May the asshattery end soon.

Like that's going to happen.

[Gurdur]

Below is a copy of my next post on that thread there on the Humanist Society of Scotland (HSS) board, addressed mostly to the National Executive Committee (NEC):
_______________

Originally Posted by Firebrand

I'm appalled at the content of the NEC statement and the fact that it was posted publicly but why are they compounding it by ignoring the subsequent questions?

Cowardice? I only suggest it as a possible explanation that could be mooted; I am sure the NEC will prove me wrong. How about it, NEC?

Originally Posted by Firebrand

That is ridiculous! The internet is the public domain. How can googling someone be an invasion of privacty.

Possibly some people are just paranoid idiots. Just another possible suggestion.
_______________

To the HSS NEC again:

I congratulate you on your stunningly effective public relations campaign so obviously bent on furthering the cause of humanism and of your members.

Here are some of the initial results of your sterling work, NEC.

Do a Google Search for the terms: hss nec

Take a look at the results, especially the first and the fifth. Now that's good publicity work on your part, NEC!

Or you could do this Google Search instead. Now that's the type of publicity money just can't buy. And it won't go away; that will be there for years to come, NEC, years to come.

So, NEC, all that remains is your explanation of just how you are furthering the cause of humanism in Scotland, and furthering the interests of your members. Like how come you felt the need to make such puerile, unprofessional personal attacks in an official statement, publically, But I am absolutely sure you have some good explanation, NEC, so how about it? We're all waiting on you. And these questions just won't go away, NEC. Years to come!

[Master Taran]

Up till yesterday the NEC was the 2005 NEC - National Electrical Code.

[Gurdur]

Yesterday was yesterday. Okay, I feel guilty about the re-wiring. But it's electrifying either way.

[Gurdur]

Why stop at one post there when I can do two?
Below is a copy of my next post there.
___________

And here's another little fascinating Google Search for your consideration. Congrats, NEC! I'm sure you know what you are doing!

[Master Taran]

Originally Posted by Gurdur

Yesterday was yesterday. Okay, I feel guilty about the re-wiring. But it's electrifying either way.

[Gurdur]

A copy of my newest post to that thread on the HSS:
_____________________

Originally Posted by admin

I've just had an email from someone asking who 'agreed' the second NEC statement. The first statement had a list of the names of those agreeing to it and was careful to point out that five NEC members had not been contactable.
This was a question asked in the members forum but received no reply there either so I'm afraid the answer is unknown to me, as I'm not on the NEC.

So either someone is putting out unauthorized public statements in the name of the HSS NEC, or the NEC is actually behind their second public statement but were too .... careless to say so? Or maybe they did not inform everyone on the NEC about their statement and it's the result of only a group on the NEC pretending to speak for the whole NEC?

Hmmmm, hmmm, NEC, you need address this issue! If only for the sake of competence.
_______________________


And on a related matter, I opened up a new thread on the HSS and here is a full copy of my post there in that new thread:
________

Hi derekmc,
Thank-you very much for your supportive email, , and you are so right to suggest that a public organization must expect public scrutiny. Unfortunately, your email address is a dud, so when I replied to your email which you sent over the HSS board, I only got back an auto-reply that your email address does not exist. Such a pity!
________

[Storm_Raven]

Originally Posted by Gurdur

Now, I want to stress that the HSS NEC has abused the trust and confidentiality of its HSS members and the members of the HSS board if they have in fact quoted a private post in public, and that under Maria MacLachlan's real name too.

If they have quoted a private post in public then they are at the very least in breach of their own rules, they may also be in violation their ISP's and board software operating rules.

Personally If I were her I would be taking legal advice over their actions, they are totally unacceptable and unforgivable, add to this their public comments about both people could also leave them in legal hot water.

Storm Raven

[Never]

Sorry if this side-tracks, but that one statement says "the NEC agreed publication of the 'Macaskill Method', circulated later, in a further attempt to bring things to order".

I've been searching all over to find out what this is. So far I've found an article by someone named Macaskill comparing "methods to detect publication bias in m e t a-analysis" but it makes no reference to anything specifically called the "Macaskill Method".

abstract

I found one other article about statistical tests for publication bias which mentions 3 statistical test methods of which Macaskill's was the least effective.

reference(PDF)

Whatever it is, it has more references on the HSS than anywhere else.

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by Never

...the 'Macaskill Method'...

You're thinking too logically.

It's most likely the puir, sick, wee brain-bairn * of some bloke over there, and most likely means some sort of idiotic one-liner pretending to be The Answer To All Organizational Problems. IOW, NOT some published actual thingy with any more substance than you could write on the back of a postage stamp in really thick crayon.

_____

My own invention. Bairn = child. So brainchild. I'm feeling inventive today, even if at a pitifully low level of intellect.

[Godless Dave]

I don't live in Scotland, but I have Scottish ancestry. Fighting amongst ourselves is what prevented us from driving the English out. Just sayin'.

[Jinx]

That and our irresistable charm.

[Gurdur]

Another post of mine on the cited and linked thread, copied below.
_________

Originally Posted by Akmenzies

Heya, I'm not part of the HSS structure but can I remind people that this is just a discussion forum.
If you've got questions to people in their role as elected whatevers ask them directly, they've got no obligation to read this forum, sign up to it or even have internet access.

M.

Not just a "discussion forum", but originally a forum meant to be for the use of the HSS. Since the HSS NEC have seen fit to post two public statements here (at least allegedly the NEC, in the second statement's case) --- in this very thread --- then questions to the HSS NEC are well in order here and very appropriate. This is asking them directly --- VERY directly. I couldn't have been more direct about it if I had tattooed the questions on their foreheads.

Since at the very least the Secretary has signed up here (see his posts in this thread), then hey, I do believe the NEC well know of my questions, whether they answer them or not.

As to whether they are under any obligation --- most certainly they have a moral obligation to answer, in view of the two public statements here, and in view of their public nature (being a charity and all that).

Whether or not they answer is a bit of a moot point. The important thing is that these questions are up here for the world to see --- and these questions aren't going to go away or disappear. At all.