tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16608180.post8580585731028775851..comments2023-04-10T14:29:56.153+01:00Comments on Raw Light: poetry & opinion since 2005: A New Dawn for the Poetry SocietyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16608180.post-66027222109143124612011-07-25T20:02:55.564+01:002011-07-25T20:02:55.564+01:00The issue of length of editorship length should be...The issue of length of editorship length should be discussed, but right now surely the primary concern must be current governance. questions of liability for funds if illicitly spent and some kind of justice for those who resigned or departed out of principle, and therefore seem to me to be exactly who we'd want running the place. Does anyone know if someone from charities commission was at the EGM? Thanks to all who attended this meeting for those of us who couldn't attend.Eva Salzmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17352235455502746924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16608180.post-56695578706619747262011-07-25T17:14:47.685+01:002011-07-25T17:14:47.685+01:00I see your point re the editorship, Pat, but would...I see your point re the editorship, Pat, but would be loath to see the editorial structure go that way. The best magazines are indubitably those with a single commanding intelligence and taste. To 'dilute' her power would also dilute the magazine's impact.<br /><br />Perhaps Fiona Sampson will see her position as untenable after these revelations and the blogosphere storm surrounding them. I for one would not wish to continue as editor in such conditions, however well-paid the job.Jane Hollandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15590668593487445482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16608180.post-79461805337181938202011-07-25T16:51:32.119+01:002011-07-25T16:51:32.119+01:00Two comments (from a wide choice)-
1 It showed the...Two comments (from a wide choice)-<br />1 It showed the underlying attitude of the Board (I note the use of abstract terms like this, it should be a list of responsible names) that The Chair, Laura Bamford, could not name the staff at Poetry HQ. Ten people, apparently, but not deemed worth remembering.<br />2 Very little was/is said about Fiona Sampson and why the Editorship was settled as being forever /and ever /and ever. If she cannot be removed, she could be 'diluted' by adding a board of three other editors. Too much permanent and private power is going to gradually ossify the magazine.And absolutely no one bothered to tell us. That is an insult.Pat Jourdanhttp://patjourdan.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16608180.post-82981134438983149672011-07-23T23:05:57.482+01:002011-07-23T23:05:57.482+01:00First of all many thanks for such clear and detail...First of all many thanks for such clear and detailed account. Jane and Eva, I also am very worried as I don't think Judith will be coming back. I don't think she feels she can in the present circumstances. I asked Kate last night when Judith would need to return. Kate said Monday. What can we do to support and help her with so little time? <br />Apart from the loss to the Poetry Society, it is dreadful to think that it should end like this for Judith after everything she's been through.Martina Evansnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16608180.post-73595530614743297792011-07-23T21:21:40.702+01:002011-07-23T21:21:40.702+01:00Thanks to everyone who has left messages here. I&#...Thanks to everyone who has left messages here. I've been out most of the day so couldn't keep up. But I'll have a careful read through later (with a glass of wine!) and respond where appropriate. <br /><br />Eva, I do agree with you, and it bugs the hell out of me. But there was a real air of obstruction and non-denial denial and Officio-Talk at the meeting. Questions were asked and answers either could not be given - 'for legal reasons'; the perfect stonewalling response - or were flim-flamed and shuffled about in a series of verbal ellipses, often with nonsensical replies tagged onto coughs, hesitations, shrugs, hand gestures and general avoidance of giving a straight answer.<br /><br />To say we were frustrated is to put it very mildly indeed. People were ANGRY. And rightly so. <br /><br />I'm not sure what the next move is, or even if the requisitioners at large have the energy or stomach for a second strike. It was such an exhausting and emotionally draining process, I can't imagine many would willingly drag themselves through it again without a sure indication of success. <br /><br />However - and this is a big however - if someone smart and savvy about the law and constitutions is able to come up with a way to circumvent the lengthy wait until the Board properly resigns in September, during which time they may be merrily spending every last dusty farthing in the Poetry Society vault and perhaps shredding documents of a sensitive nature that will then never be available to us, then I will be happy to lend myself to any such campaign. But it had better have a high chance of succeeding. Because people are angry, yes, but they are also very tired.Jane Hollandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15590668593487445482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16608180.post-85469897694762357962011-07-23T20:59:03.285+01:002011-07-23T20:59:03.285+01:00I've left this note in several places, but in ...I've left this note in several places, but in keeping this board in place this also means that Judith Palmer could only protect herself at the exepnse of the Society, since this period before they leave is when she'd have to put case for constructive dismissal. This is an impossible situation and we were told discussions were happening. Frankly, apologies should be issued and she should be brought back under circumstances as suits. <br /><br />Remember if she did return, she'd return to exactly the situation she'd left: the one enforced on everyone since the board decided en masse to stay on. And this is apart from any other damage that may be done. <br /><br />And why is it that Sampson and Palmer were the only names, mentioned, members of board as mentioned in Ranford's letter were brought o account by name? Why was this board protected by anonymity when the most serious problems, like this sum of money, were their responsibility. THe whole thing stinks, frankly. The Guardian article likewise shored up this perception of two women's "cat-fight: in their piece. For shame all around. <br /><br />When I mention this elsewhere, someone listed board members but where were the queries as to who exactly bullied and treated staff unprofessionally? Could this not be symptomatic of a climate leading to resignations? BUt no, it's a cat-fight between two women. <br /><br />Meanwhile, what about Trustee's liabilities for money spent in unauthorised ways? Neither has this been settled. And, again, I'm saying this at different sites, this is exactly why PR, lawyers and faciliators were paid, and job done. And why not since apparently they can get away with this. <br /><br />Neither Judith Palmer nor Ranford nor any other requisitioners who fought hard not from some petty and personal grievance as surely can be see now, but out of a sense that something is deeply wrong....what about these people and their jobs and their future? People talk about a bright future but how can this happen when so many things have still to be addressed? Maybe it's just me but I'm deeply troubled and despondent about this.Eva Salzmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17352235455502746924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16608180.post-61400938275531965582011-07-23T14:32:52.853+01:002011-07-23T14:32:52.853+01:00Bravo Jane, great call for action. I'm with yo...Bravo Jane, great call for action. I'm with you!Frances Clarkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02946591007420239497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16608180.post-88284785666791714292011-07-23T14:27:17.481+01:002011-07-23T14:27:17.481+01:00Thank you Jane - a great summary, and some very pe...Thank you Jane - a great summary, and some very perceptive comments too. I do agree with you about now being the time to support the Society and not turn away from it - I do not envy the new trustees as they have a very difficult job ahead and will need our support (even if we are not 'right-thinking members')! I was at the EGM too and have blogged on it here:<br />http://poetryneverpays.blogspot.comChristine Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16608180.post-90422580290116693882011-07-23T14:11:29.644+01:002011-07-23T14:11:29.644+01:00Thank you for your helpful account of the EGM. It...Thank you for your helpful account of the EGM. It suggests, as other accounts have done, the mismanagement which has taken place. I have been a member (with, I think, two gaps) for nearly fifty years, maintaining my membership even when it was unclear how well the PS served the interests of poetry, particularly for poets (and readers of poetry) who lived outside the ambit of London. In my mind, that question remains unresolved. I agree with Tim C that the Editor should not be on a permanent contract.Clive Watkinsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16608180.post-28373509506317356232011-07-23T13:07:55.041+01:002011-07-23T13:07:55.041+01:00Thank you for your report on the PoSocEGM, and I f...Thank you for your report on the PoSocEGM, and I find myself in complete accord with your analysis of the situation. It is astonishing that the Board of Trustees are clinging to 'power' despite the vote of no-confidence, and it is troubling to consider what further harm may come to the PoSoc between now and Sept.<br />I would also urge all to continue to support the PoSoc as it struggles to return to its role of representing and serving poets and poetry.Penelope Shuttlenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16608180.post-67195910538837490152011-07-23T12:06:06.726+01:002011-07-23T12:06:06.726+01:00And what of the situation of the Poetry Review edi...And what of the situation of the Poetry Review editor, whose dysfunctional relationship with the former director appears to have kicked off the whole spate of resignations, which have subsequently cost the society tens of thousands of pounds and endangered its future? Is she going as well? One feels a new broom is needed. It seems a bad idea - a very bad idea - to have one permanent incumbent in that editorial chair, whoever it is. If the board has resigned, so should the editor, who is tangled up with numerous other limbs at the heart of this utter debacle, it seems. <br />And hopefully the charitable plan to give the AC money to a handful of successful, very well supported and relentlessly lauded poets who do not need money from the public purse was taken out the back and firmly dealt with, and all in strict rhyme and metre too.Tim Cnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16608180.post-10940164269291561872011-07-23T11:45:53.393+01:002011-07-23T11:45:53.393+01:00Thanks, Jane. A great summary. I hugely enjoyed me...Thanks, Jane. A great summary. I hugely enjoyed meeting you after the EGMRoderic Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06519267912305907364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16608180.post-72240727339462611452011-07-23T11:41:18.296+01:002011-07-23T11:41:18.296+01:00Dear Jane
And to think that I once believed that ...Dear Jane<br /><br />And to think that I once believed that poets were sensitive people! It's just as well that the board is resigning because it sounds as though they couldn't run a bath, let alone a poetry society. To me it is all too typical of the British Poetry Establishment in general - opaque, clique-ridden and totally unaccountable to the tax-paying public who are footing all their bills. If the Poetry Society ever manages to sort itself out with a brand new board plus a new editor of Poetry Review, I might even consider joining myself.<br /><br />Best wishes from SimonPoetry Pleases!https://www.blogger.com/profile/16686247991180317838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16608180.post-30604608659441103212011-07-23T10:49:30.448+01:002011-07-23T10:49:30.448+01:00Thank you, Jane. I shall be rejoining the PoSoc in...Thank you, Jane. I shall be rejoining the PoSoc in the hope of playing some small part in its reconstruction as a proper body to promote poetry and represent the interests of poets & audiences. The current, post-EGM situation is plainly still unsatisfactory (as one of my correspondents said to me yesterday, the current Board can still do a lot of damage in their time remaining), and the financial situation is particularly worrying. For one thing, my experience with ACE leads me to believe that they will be extremely reluctant to release firther funding while there is still such manifest lack of confidence in the Board, & in the mean time there will be expenses to be met, while it is very unlikely that the current Trustees are either willing or able to engage in the restructuring necessary to repair the damage they have done. This raises the nature of the PS as a charitable organisation. The Trustees are legally bound to hold the Society's finances in trust for its members and beneficiaries, & to use them in a proper and responsible way for the attainment of its charitable purposes. It is strongly arguable that unnecessary payments to expensive law firms do not square with this obligation, & the Board is therefore acting *ultra vires* in terms of the law. I have repeatedly said in my private interventions on this matter that the Charity Commission should be taking an interest in the PS's governance, & would suggest that an approach by the Requisitioners with their concerns - apparently strongly bolstered by yesterday's outcome - would be difficult to ignore. At very least, a formal indication by a large proportion of the membership that they are prepared to take action to remedy the malpractices carried out in their name should shield the Society as a body from any more drastic action the Commission might feel obliged to take if the current Trustees continue - even for only two months - to pursue their questionable conduct and further imperil the organisation's financial position and credibility.Phil Simmonshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01156197044838196466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16608180.post-48627507635151712352011-07-23T09:42:32.476+01:002011-07-23T09:42:32.476+01:00Thanks for this Jane, I'm in France and findin...Thanks for this Jane, I'm in France and finding information about the problems has been difficult to come by. I was shocked by the fact that the board can, and must stay until a new board is elected. I read the articles and memorandum, and it does appear so. Maybe it would take another meeting but the trustees would need notice served and more time would pass anyway. <br /><br />I have worked on the board of a local charity and the difference between governance and management is not always clear. I am shocked by the boards option to take on expensive solicitors when any web search would bring up ACAS.<br /><br />Dealing with staff disputes needs to be done swiftly, decisively and within the remit of laws and rules of the organisation. Any hiding or fudging only ever results in a mess, and that is what we now have hear.<br /><br />I hope your call will bring and hold members together, for a better society as a result. I will keep my membership and will send an email to other European members.<br /><br />Jim Barronredjim99https://www.blogger.com/profile/04902719199921889493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16608180.post-72259063731146642672011-07-23T07:40:51.278+01:002011-07-23T07:40:51.278+01:00Thank you for this, Jane - for going and for writi...Thank you for this, Jane - for going and for writing it up so clearly.<br />I find the boards behaviour and excuses astonishing on so many points.<br />I've worked for charities for years and know something about trustees' responsibilities - this lot either didn't bother to educate themselves about the roles and responsibilities or thought they could behave however they liked.Angela Francehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00039428389406819768noreply@blogger.com