United Kingdom: ME Association news

On their Facebook page I did recently notice several comments of praise for Charles Shepherd that seemed more fulsome than the post might warrant and wondered if they were by people aware of the current controversy that sought to defend him personally. Understandably for many Charles is the MEA and undoubtedly he has done an incredible amount of work for our community, however as already said there are significant risks when an organisation becomes over dependent on a small number of individuals.

 

Extracts from the MEA's Mission Statement:

https://meassociation.org.uk/mission-statement/

"We don't employ an expensive CEO. Instead we have an [sic] terrific group of trustees who provide strategy and management on a voluntary basis. Trustees are supported by an experienced team of full and part time staff who are committed to supporting the M.E. community."


"Website and Social Media
"The ME Association's website and social media platforms continue to attract strong numbers of visitors with reach and engagement rates showing we are being effective."
​

They are certainly being "effective" in shutting down "engagement" on two current, significant issues of concern.

And reading through their "Community Guidelines and Standards":

https://meassociation.org.uk/community-guideline-and-standards/

"3 When posting comments in the community or sending private messages to the charity, please choose your words carefully and do not use language that is threatening or offensive. Sometimes words that you deem acceptable or are written with passion may be taken as offensive.

"4 Maintain a respectful tone, especially when discussing passionate or controversial issues. We realise this can be difficult for people with cognitive problems, but we recommend you read your comments carefully before posting them."

​

I'm sure I'm not alone in considering that framing and minimising legitimate concerns as "the few who are baying for blood", as Ms Cavey, the MEA's freelance magazine editor and literature designer, has written, extremely offensive. (As was the way Neil Riley addressed barrister, academic and former PR executive, Valerie Elliot Smith.)

A guideline and standards for trustees, staff and freelancers for communicating is urgently required.

 

She’s not marking her own homework by being the one looking into this and taking the complains is she?

 

What phrase does she use re: the 1,000 who signed a petition?


And what did those few apparently ask for that was different to that 1,000 she hasn’t mentioned?

 

Sounds like it’s out of Neil’s personal version if how to win friends and influence people

- which seems to contain some new chapters that not all versions include/not seen before ?

 

With just 11 clear days before 9 December, surely the MEA will issue a statement postponing the AGM, today?

I've posted again on MEA Twitter/X with little expectation of any response.

While CS has been busily replying to non AGM and non Neil Riley issue comments on FB, no-one seems to be replying on their Twitter/X account about anything and many of the posts have been set so you can't reply to them.

 

I hope this gets quoted back at whoever described people signing a measured, cogently argued letter as "baying for blood".

It's genuinely puzzling that none of them seem to know how to communicate in a professional manner. People who deal with the public by insulting or patronising them don't usually survive their first week in a job.

 

Indeed, but they have no line manager.

 

I have for a while intended to rejoin the MEA as my membership lapsed some years ago simply because I did not have enough energy to renew, back in the days of posting cheques.

More recently I was debating whether or not this was an organisation I wished to support, though I did wonder if being a member might make it easier to promote change. If their AGM is postponed until next year, I am wondering if UK folk joining now could influence what happens then.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/charities-and-meetings-cc48/charities-and-meetings

Rules for charity meetings

"Annual general meetings (AGM)​

"Your governing document should also tell you when to hold the AGM and how much notice you need to give. If it does not, you should give reasonable notice, such as a minimum of 3 weeks."​

"Other types of general meeting
"Membership charities may also hold extraordinary general meetings or special general meetings if you need to...
Your governing document should tell you how to call these types of meetings, for example the amount of notice you must give."​

The 2005 Articles of Association did include clauses about calling for EGMs and gave the notice period as 14 clear days' notice (as opposed to 21 clear days' notice for calling of an AGM).

From the 2005 Articles of Association:

10. Calling of Extraordinary General Meetings
10.1 The Board of Trustees may call an extraordinary general meeting whenever they wish. Such a meeting must also be called if three members of the Board of Trustees or 5% of the members of the Charity request it.
​

The 2014 Articles of Association (which is the current governing document) includes no clauses on the calling of EGMs, who can call them, or how much notice is required to be given to the membership of an EGM.

 

“Only the few baying for blood” presumably

 

Maybe it's a bit like the Book of Judith, it depends which tradition you subscribe to.

 

ME Association on Twitter/X has turned Comments back on for all its posts except this one:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1858894112444825709

 

Does this mean the MEA ‘management’ think the matter is resolved or that they have agreed an official response strategy?

Presumably still no news about the AGM.

 

There is no complete archive on the MEA's website for AGM trustee election results so I don't know how many times Neil Riley has come up for retirement/rotation and has re-stood for election.

But it's disturbing that the membership had continued to vote him in again.

 

Who knows?