Committee Meeting 18 December 2018
Here follow the Minutes of the 18 December 2018 Executive Committee Meeting.
Following the minutes there is a document giving the analysis of the Executive Committee of the Letter mentioned in the minutes below, based on Club records.
A Summary of the results of the Committee's investigation into the complaint mention in the minutes may be found below, and also on the webpage Committee Meetings '21 February 2019'.
Following the minutes there is a document giving the analysis of the Executive Committee of the Letter mentioned in the minutes below, based on Club records.
A Summary of the results of the Committee's investigation into the complaint mention in the minutes may be found below, and also on the webpage Committee Meetings '21 February 2019'.
Minutes of Norfolk Seniors Cricket Committee Meeting
held at Diss Cricket Club, Rectory Meadow, Diss,
19:30 hours Tuesday 18 December 2018 Monday
Present: A. Gregory (Chair), P. Thomas (President), M. Banham, A. Broughton, C. Palmer, J. Perry, G. Saunders, C. Yallop
1 .Welcome AG welcomed the committee members attending. He began by welcoming Peter Thomas as the incoming President. AG reminded the Committee that the Overstrand incident is now closed following the email sent by JP to all members on 6 December and placed on the Club website. AG reported that the Club has taken the following actions to avoid any such incident occurring again: (i) The Club has adopted a Code of Conduct, adopted unanimously at the 2018 AGM, which all members will be required to sign each season as part of their registration. Within this code are specific provisions concerning intimidatory behaviour and the use of insulting/discriminatory language. The Code contains clear instructions on the reporting of alleged misconduct. (ii) The Club has required all team Captains to affirm that they understand their roles in relation to the provisions of the Code of Conduct, and the building of a team culture where discriminatory language and intimidating behaviour do not occur and are not tolerated.
AG thanked the Captains for their help in implementing this strategy.
AG agreed to inform the Paul Hooton of the NCB of these initiatives.
Action: AG
2. Apologies: A. King.
3. Minutes of last Meeting
The minutes of the 29 October 2018 meeting were read and signed by AG as a true record.
4. Matters Arising not appearing later in the Agenda None
5. Correspondence (items not appearing later in the Agenda)
JP reported that the 2019 fixtures had arrived from the National Management Committee. All were agreed that Norfolk’s allocation to geographic groups was a great improvement on that of last season.
7. Chairman’s suggestions for future Committee activities
AG asked that this item be taken before item 6; all agreed. AG gave a very brief presentation of ideas to be discussed in more detail at the first Committee meeting in 2019. AG outlined a number of initiatives that he felt would take the Club forward, in line with modern practice.
These were:
(7.1) A Club Development Plan
AG said it was regarded as essential for all serious cricket clubs to have a development plan, which should be progressed after consultation with the Members. He floated the idea seeking Clubmark accreditation. PT warned that such an application, mainly applicable to youth cricket, would involve a massive amount of paperwork. Both MB and PT agreed with the idea of a Club Development Plan and thought this would help with attracting players in their late 40s who might be persuadable to join the O50s. PT volunteered to make special efforts at recruitment of very high quality players in that age group and mentioned at least five who should be targeted. MB agreed and said that if such players could be recruited this would certainly help to bring in others. All were agreed that attracting sufficient O50s is vital for the Club’s future.
(7.2) Club’s legal status
AG outlined how he saw the legal status of the Club. In particular he reminded the Committee that they were personally legally liable, and could be sued if the Committee acted outside the Constitution of the Club.
(7.3) Editing and Renovation of Constitution
AG said that the current Constitution needed to be rewritten as it was in parts ambiguous. He suggested himself and JP could serve on a sub-Committee to take this forward for the 2019 AGM
(7.4) Review of Club Officers
AG suggested that there was a need, from within the Executive Committee, for members to exercise the roles of Welfare Officer, Discipline Offocer and Promotion Officer, the latter being to advertise the Club and its activities.
(7.5) Attraction and Retention of Members
AG suggested that a subcommittee was required to tackle this (and see 1, above)
(7.6) Documents and Meetings
AG stressed the need to circulate documents, by email, well before meetings, so that there are no last minute surprises for attendees.
(7.7) Need for more friendly fixtures
AG mentioned the need to expand our friendly fixture list and to run more tours. He praised the efforts of Harold van Zanten in his hard work to organise the forthcoming tour to Malta. CY mentioned several plans he has as Fixture Secretary. These involve games on Wednesdays, the new Suffolk IIIrds run by Ray Black and he volunteered to liaise with Captains over this issue.
Action: CY
6. Complaint
AG introduced the complaint which concerned the letter circulated just prior to and at the AGM by Members Lund, Adams, Shales, Coote & Jackson . He began by reiterating that the Club statement of 6 December confirmed that the Overstrand Incident was closed and that the letter which prompted the complaint had been retracted in full by all signatories before 6 December. He reiterated the message in the draft minutes of the 26 November AGM, that there was a strong mandate from the membership to draw a line under the affair and for the Club to move on. However, since this complaint was received prior to 6 December it must be investigated. AG said that part one of the complaint referred to the Club Statement of 6 December and was therefore redundant. He then turned to part 2 of the complaint, taking it section by section; in what follows, the text of the complaint appears in italics.
The majority of the complaint is not based in historical issues but in the fact that the letter was sent to many, but not all, members of the club just prior to the AGM in a subversive way with the sole intention of manipulating for gain the democratic voting system in the section Election of Officers.
AG agreed that the emailed letter was sent to some but not all members of the club. AG explained that the letter was available at the AGM, but was not seen by all members. He reported that Martin Pearse asked that the letter be read to the AGM but that Hon. Sec. Joe Perry had correctly refused, as the Committee had determined, at its previous meeting, that no written or verbal statements relating to the elections were allowed at the AGM. AG saw nothing problematic in this, describing it as standard political practice to target ‘swing’ voters. Indeed, an attempt was made to read the letter transparently to all members at the AGM.
AG disagreed that there was ‘manipulation for gain’? Certainly not financial gain, or gain of office, as none of the signatories to the letter were standing for office. This may have been an attempt to influence the election of others, but AG argued surely that is permitted and has to be so in any democratic process. He summarised by saying that the committee or other members may dislike, or not agree with or not be happy with the expression of views in the letter, but it is part of an open and democratic process that such a letter can be written.
This action is totally unconstitutional, undemocratic and in contravention of the current governance of the club. I therefore believe that the whole issue must be thoroughly investigated as a matter of urgency and that any possible disciplinary procedures that arise be seriously considered and addressed.
AG felt that the issue of whether this was democratic had been dealt with (see above). On the issue of the Constitution, AG reported that the complainant was asked if they could be more specific on which parts of the Constitution they felt had been contravened and had received the following clarification:
In reply to your email please find enclosed the areas of the constitution that have been in my opinion contravened.
General Rule 2(b) (To embrace, promote & implement the principles of Sports Equity, Equal Opportunity, Spirit of Cricket & Inclusion/Diversity to ensure a duty of care to all members of the Club by adopting ECB policies & any future version of these policies.) Specifically, the inclusion of all members and the duty of care.
General Rule 16(a) (The procedure for voting at General Meetings shall be determined by the Chairman of the meeting) Specifically, that the Chairman was not allowed to rule on this letter prior to voting.
Appendix A, General: (Members are particularly reminded of the dangers of forwarding and broadcasting personal emails containing comments which might be construed as disrespectful.)
All three areas add up to a breach of the constitution and failure to encompass the spirit of cricket.
AG’s response was that, on rule 2(b), if that applies in this case there was at least an attempt to inform all members when there was a request to read the letter to the AGM; on rule 16(a), the Chairman was in charge of voting procedures at the AGM and the Hon. Sec. was able to rule that the letter should not be read out; on Appendix A, the letter was not forwarded nor was it posted on social media. It was sent to a specific, targeted group of individuals as seen above.
Should this complaint be ignored or not fully addressed then an extremely dangerous precedent will be set allowing similar actions to take place in the future leaving the executive committee unable to act and open to accusation of being unfit for purpose. It is the considered opinion of my advisors that this should be treated as a dangerous and calculated attack upon the constitution and governance of Norfolk Seniors CC and must be dealt with in the strongest possible terms.
AG questioned whether the letter constituted a contravention of the governance of the club or an attack on the governance of the club. Here he said that it is important to be clear on what would and what would not be allowed. AG said that it would not be proper to say that committee have no right to govern the club, or that they have forfeited that right, or that the governance of the club has passed to some other group. However, none of that was said here. Instead, there is criticism of the behaviour of the Committee. It is true that the Committee at one point acted unconstitutionally, though this was quickly corrected. Again, the Committee or other members may dislike, not agree with or not be happy with the expression of views in the letter, but it is part of the open and democratic process that such a letter can be written. AG emphasised that the complaint had not been ignored. It was received by the Chairman, passed to the Hon. Sec., and an emergency meeting of the Committee had been convened as soon as was possible. As is evidenced by the minutes, the Committee have considered this complaint in full and have replied to it in full.
AG summarised his position by saying that given the strong mandate from Club members at the recent AGM to move on and play cricket not politics, and bearing in mind his evaluation of the complaint he saw no grounds for disciplinary action. AG then called on the Hon Sec. for his thoughts.
JP said he agreed with much of what the Chairman had said, but there were areas where he strongly disagreed. He thought that much of the argument depended on the accuracy of the many allegations made in the letter. JP referred to the Committee analysis from Club records which showed that there were over a dozen areas where the letter contained allegations that were falsehoods, misrepresentations, half-truths or slurs lacking evidence. Therefore, his first area of disagreement with the Chairman was that he claimed that the Committee had a duty of care under rule 2(b) to those mentioned by name in the letter to defend their integrity, since dishonest attacks on Members are outside the Constitution. His second area of disagreement concerned the Chairman’s dismissal of the complaint regarding Appendix A of the Constitution which took, in his view, an overly literal view of the wording and was out of context. In JP’s view, the content of the letter had no respect for accuracy and its tone had no respect for individuals; therefore it was by definition disrespectful.
That said, he agreed that although the letter was misleading and invidious, it was not unconstitutional in the sense of affecting the legitimacy of the AGM. Furthermore, there were mitigating circumstances. JP agreed with AG that the letter was broadcast at the end of a turbulent period where feelings were running high. He felt that the Committee needed to reiterate the warning given at the start of Appendix A, and ensure that Members were informed that any future such communications would be viewed more severely. JP also said that the attacks on the Committee should be taken seriously and a response was required. He felt the letter was a flagrant and odious attempt to drive a wedge between the Committee, similar to tactics employed at the National Management Committee AGM, in which certain Committee members were singled out for criticism, without recognition of the fact that the Committee assumes collective responsibility for its decisions. With these caveats, he ended by concluding that he agreed with the Chairman; in this case no further disciplinary action was necessary.
AG then called upon CY to give his views, as the only one present mentioned by name in the letter.
CY said that this had been yet another very unpleasant experience. He felt that a set of people who had been prepared to take difficult decisions over disciplinary issues had been unfairly lambasted. He believed it might have influenced the Election of Officers at the AGM. He made the point that the fact that the retraction had been so quick probably showed that those who wrote the letter didn’t have much confidence in its accuracy. Also, he felt that the retraction meant nothing - if it can be done so easily what would stop this happening again at next year’s AGM? There could be lies told that could be retracted immediately afterwards. CY said the letter caused pain and hurt. He believed it needed to be forwarded both to the National League and the NCB. CY noted that Mike Smith and Nobby Cobb, also named in the letter, had worked hard for the Club and had behaved fairly. CY reported that has still not had any written notification of retraction of threats of legal action – that and this letter has caused grief to him and his family. CY felt strongly that he wanted the NCB to look at it.
AG gathered further views from around the table. AB described the letter as totally untrue – he asked how it could possibly be allowed to go forward without challenge. PT warned that if Norfolk Seniors put this to the NCB it would further erode confidence in our Club, which he reported was already at a low ebb with some members of the NCB. MB agreed and felt we should keep the issue in house as far as possible.
There followed a lengthy discussion, with clarifications, of an incident in which Norfolk played an underage O70s player in a match versus Sussex at the end of the 2016 season, after first discussing their problem with the Sussex Captain. After this there was some restatement of positions.
There was speculation concerning the author of the letter; several Committee members expressed scepticism that the main generator of text for the letter came from among the five signatories.
JP then put forward a compromise proposal and asked whether CY would be able to accept that there should be no further disciplinary action as long as the Committee made a full disclosure of their analysis of the letter, the reasons for their conclusions and issued the aforementioned warning as to future behaviour to all Members. CY agreed; all the Committee supported this as a way forward. PT stressed how important it was for the Club to move forward, draw a line and move on. AG, in agreeing with PT, again reiterated the strong mandate from the Members expressed at the AGM.
AG then called for a vote on the proposal that the Club would take no further disciplinary action, that the authors of the letter and the complainant would be informed, and that full information would be disclosed to members via the Club website. The proposal was carried with seven in favour and one abstention.
AG said he would report to NCB that the complaint had been dealt with and specify how, and would write to the authors of the letter and separately to the complainant.
Action: AG
8. Any other business
8.1 CP reported that the
Dinner booked at Wensum Valley Golf Club had been booked for the 2019 Club Dinner for 1 Nov 2019 at 19:00 for 19:30. Since there were presentations planned he suggested the Club fund prizes for each team.
8.2 AG reported that, as administrator of the Club Facebook page he had been forced to take down a post because it did not relate specifically to cricket.
8.3 JP agreed to email NC when it was appropriate to inform him of various issues.
There being no further business, the Chairman closed the meeting at 20:56.
held at Diss Cricket Club, Rectory Meadow, Diss,
19:30 hours Tuesday 18 December 2018 Monday
Present: A. Gregory (Chair), P. Thomas (President), M. Banham, A. Broughton, C. Palmer, J. Perry, G. Saunders, C. Yallop
1 .Welcome AG welcomed the committee members attending. He began by welcoming Peter Thomas as the incoming President. AG reminded the Committee that the Overstrand incident is now closed following the email sent by JP to all members on 6 December and placed on the Club website. AG reported that the Club has taken the following actions to avoid any such incident occurring again: (i) The Club has adopted a Code of Conduct, adopted unanimously at the 2018 AGM, which all members will be required to sign each season as part of their registration. Within this code are specific provisions concerning intimidatory behaviour and the use of insulting/discriminatory language. The Code contains clear instructions on the reporting of alleged misconduct. (ii) The Club has required all team Captains to affirm that they understand their roles in relation to the provisions of the Code of Conduct, and the building of a team culture where discriminatory language and intimidating behaviour do not occur and are not tolerated.
AG thanked the Captains for their help in implementing this strategy.
AG agreed to inform the Paul Hooton of the NCB of these initiatives.
Action: AG
2. Apologies: A. King.
3. Minutes of last Meeting
The minutes of the 29 October 2018 meeting were read and signed by AG as a true record.
4. Matters Arising not appearing later in the Agenda None
5. Correspondence (items not appearing later in the Agenda)
JP reported that the 2019 fixtures had arrived from the National Management Committee. All were agreed that Norfolk’s allocation to geographic groups was a great improvement on that of last season.
7. Chairman’s suggestions for future Committee activities
AG asked that this item be taken before item 6; all agreed. AG gave a very brief presentation of ideas to be discussed in more detail at the first Committee meeting in 2019. AG outlined a number of initiatives that he felt would take the Club forward, in line with modern practice.
These were:
(7.1) A Club Development Plan
AG said it was regarded as essential for all serious cricket clubs to have a development plan, which should be progressed after consultation with the Members. He floated the idea seeking Clubmark accreditation. PT warned that such an application, mainly applicable to youth cricket, would involve a massive amount of paperwork. Both MB and PT agreed with the idea of a Club Development Plan and thought this would help with attracting players in their late 40s who might be persuadable to join the O50s. PT volunteered to make special efforts at recruitment of very high quality players in that age group and mentioned at least five who should be targeted. MB agreed and said that if such players could be recruited this would certainly help to bring in others. All were agreed that attracting sufficient O50s is vital for the Club’s future.
(7.2) Club’s legal status
AG outlined how he saw the legal status of the Club. In particular he reminded the Committee that they were personally legally liable, and could be sued if the Committee acted outside the Constitution of the Club.
(7.3) Editing and Renovation of Constitution
AG said that the current Constitution needed to be rewritten as it was in parts ambiguous. He suggested himself and JP could serve on a sub-Committee to take this forward for the 2019 AGM
(7.4) Review of Club Officers
AG suggested that there was a need, from within the Executive Committee, for members to exercise the roles of Welfare Officer, Discipline Offocer and Promotion Officer, the latter being to advertise the Club and its activities.
(7.5) Attraction and Retention of Members
AG suggested that a subcommittee was required to tackle this (and see 1, above)
(7.6) Documents and Meetings
AG stressed the need to circulate documents, by email, well before meetings, so that there are no last minute surprises for attendees.
(7.7) Need for more friendly fixtures
AG mentioned the need to expand our friendly fixture list and to run more tours. He praised the efforts of Harold van Zanten in his hard work to organise the forthcoming tour to Malta. CY mentioned several plans he has as Fixture Secretary. These involve games on Wednesdays, the new Suffolk IIIrds run by Ray Black and he volunteered to liaise with Captains over this issue.
Action: CY
6. Complaint
AG introduced the complaint which concerned the letter circulated just prior to and at the AGM by Members Lund, Adams, Shales, Coote & Jackson . He began by reiterating that the Club statement of 6 December confirmed that the Overstrand Incident was closed and that the letter which prompted the complaint had been retracted in full by all signatories before 6 December. He reiterated the message in the draft minutes of the 26 November AGM, that there was a strong mandate from the membership to draw a line under the affair and for the Club to move on. However, since this complaint was received prior to 6 December it must be investigated. AG said that part one of the complaint referred to the Club Statement of 6 December and was therefore redundant. He then turned to part 2 of the complaint, taking it section by section; in what follows, the text of the complaint appears in italics.
The majority of the complaint is not based in historical issues but in the fact that the letter was sent to many, but not all, members of the club just prior to the AGM in a subversive way with the sole intention of manipulating for gain the democratic voting system in the section Election of Officers.
AG agreed that the emailed letter was sent to some but not all members of the club. AG explained that the letter was available at the AGM, but was not seen by all members. He reported that Martin Pearse asked that the letter be read to the AGM but that Hon. Sec. Joe Perry had correctly refused, as the Committee had determined, at its previous meeting, that no written or verbal statements relating to the elections were allowed at the AGM. AG saw nothing problematic in this, describing it as standard political practice to target ‘swing’ voters. Indeed, an attempt was made to read the letter transparently to all members at the AGM.
AG disagreed that there was ‘manipulation for gain’? Certainly not financial gain, or gain of office, as none of the signatories to the letter were standing for office. This may have been an attempt to influence the election of others, but AG argued surely that is permitted and has to be so in any democratic process. He summarised by saying that the committee or other members may dislike, or not agree with or not be happy with the expression of views in the letter, but it is part of an open and democratic process that such a letter can be written.
This action is totally unconstitutional, undemocratic and in contravention of the current governance of the club. I therefore believe that the whole issue must be thoroughly investigated as a matter of urgency and that any possible disciplinary procedures that arise be seriously considered and addressed.
AG felt that the issue of whether this was democratic had been dealt with (see above). On the issue of the Constitution, AG reported that the complainant was asked if they could be more specific on which parts of the Constitution they felt had been contravened and had received the following clarification:
In reply to your email please find enclosed the areas of the constitution that have been in my opinion contravened.
General Rule 2(b) (To embrace, promote & implement the principles of Sports Equity, Equal Opportunity, Spirit of Cricket & Inclusion/Diversity to ensure a duty of care to all members of the Club by adopting ECB policies & any future version of these policies.) Specifically, the inclusion of all members and the duty of care.
General Rule 16(a) (The procedure for voting at General Meetings shall be determined by the Chairman of the meeting) Specifically, that the Chairman was not allowed to rule on this letter prior to voting.
Appendix A, General: (Members are particularly reminded of the dangers of forwarding and broadcasting personal emails containing comments which might be construed as disrespectful.)
All three areas add up to a breach of the constitution and failure to encompass the spirit of cricket.
AG’s response was that, on rule 2(b), if that applies in this case there was at least an attempt to inform all members when there was a request to read the letter to the AGM; on rule 16(a), the Chairman was in charge of voting procedures at the AGM and the Hon. Sec. was able to rule that the letter should not be read out; on Appendix A, the letter was not forwarded nor was it posted on social media. It was sent to a specific, targeted group of individuals as seen above.
Should this complaint be ignored or not fully addressed then an extremely dangerous precedent will be set allowing similar actions to take place in the future leaving the executive committee unable to act and open to accusation of being unfit for purpose. It is the considered opinion of my advisors that this should be treated as a dangerous and calculated attack upon the constitution and governance of Norfolk Seniors CC and must be dealt with in the strongest possible terms.
AG questioned whether the letter constituted a contravention of the governance of the club or an attack on the governance of the club. Here he said that it is important to be clear on what would and what would not be allowed. AG said that it would not be proper to say that committee have no right to govern the club, or that they have forfeited that right, or that the governance of the club has passed to some other group. However, none of that was said here. Instead, there is criticism of the behaviour of the Committee. It is true that the Committee at one point acted unconstitutionally, though this was quickly corrected. Again, the Committee or other members may dislike, not agree with or not be happy with the expression of views in the letter, but it is part of the open and democratic process that such a letter can be written. AG emphasised that the complaint had not been ignored. It was received by the Chairman, passed to the Hon. Sec., and an emergency meeting of the Committee had been convened as soon as was possible. As is evidenced by the minutes, the Committee have considered this complaint in full and have replied to it in full.
AG summarised his position by saying that given the strong mandate from Club members at the recent AGM to move on and play cricket not politics, and bearing in mind his evaluation of the complaint he saw no grounds for disciplinary action. AG then called on the Hon Sec. for his thoughts.
JP said he agreed with much of what the Chairman had said, but there were areas where he strongly disagreed. He thought that much of the argument depended on the accuracy of the many allegations made in the letter. JP referred to the Committee analysis from Club records which showed that there were over a dozen areas where the letter contained allegations that were falsehoods, misrepresentations, half-truths or slurs lacking evidence. Therefore, his first area of disagreement with the Chairman was that he claimed that the Committee had a duty of care under rule 2(b) to those mentioned by name in the letter to defend their integrity, since dishonest attacks on Members are outside the Constitution. His second area of disagreement concerned the Chairman’s dismissal of the complaint regarding Appendix A of the Constitution which took, in his view, an overly literal view of the wording and was out of context. In JP’s view, the content of the letter had no respect for accuracy and its tone had no respect for individuals; therefore it was by definition disrespectful.
That said, he agreed that although the letter was misleading and invidious, it was not unconstitutional in the sense of affecting the legitimacy of the AGM. Furthermore, there were mitigating circumstances. JP agreed with AG that the letter was broadcast at the end of a turbulent period where feelings were running high. He felt that the Committee needed to reiterate the warning given at the start of Appendix A, and ensure that Members were informed that any future such communications would be viewed more severely. JP also said that the attacks on the Committee should be taken seriously and a response was required. He felt the letter was a flagrant and odious attempt to drive a wedge between the Committee, similar to tactics employed at the National Management Committee AGM, in which certain Committee members were singled out for criticism, without recognition of the fact that the Committee assumes collective responsibility for its decisions. With these caveats, he ended by concluding that he agreed with the Chairman; in this case no further disciplinary action was necessary.
AG then called upon CY to give his views, as the only one present mentioned by name in the letter.
CY said that this had been yet another very unpleasant experience. He felt that a set of people who had been prepared to take difficult decisions over disciplinary issues had been unfairly lambasted. He believed it might have influenced the Election of Officers at the AGM. He made the point that the fact that the retraction had been so quick probably showed that those who wrote the letter didn’t have much confidence in its accuracy. Also, he felt that the retraction meant nothing - if it can be done so easily what would stop this happening again at next year’s AGM? There could be lies told that could be retracted immediately afterwards. CY said the letter caused pain and hurt. He believed it needed to be forwarded both to the National League and the NCB. CY noted that Mike Smith and Nobby Cobb, also named in the letter, had worked hard for the Club and had behaved fairly. CY reported that has still not had any written notification of retraction of threats of legal action – that and this letter has caused grief to him and his family. CY felt strongly that he wanted the NCB to look at it.
AG gathered further views from around the table. AB described the letter as totally untrue – he asked how it could possibly be allowed to go forward without challenge. PT warned that if Norfolk Seniors put this to the NCB it would further erode confidence in our Club, which he reported was already at a low ebb with some members of the NCB. MB agreed and felt we should keep the issue in house as far as possible.
There followed a lengthy discussion, with clarifications, of an incident in which Norfolk played an underage O70s player in a match versus Sussex at the end of the 2016 season, after first discussing their problem with the Sussex Captain. After this there was some restatement of positions.
There was speculation concerning the author of the letter; several Committee members expressed scepticism that the main generator of text for the letter came from among the five signatories.
JP then put forward a compromise proposal and asked whether CY would be able to accept that there should be no further disciplinary action as long as the Committee made a full disclosure of their analysis of the letter, the reasons for their conclusions and issued the aforementioned warning as to future behaviour to all Members. CY agreed; all the Committee supported this as a way forward. PT stressed how important it was for the Club to move forward, draw a line and move on. AG, in agreeing with PT, again reiterated the strong mandate from the Members expressed at the AGM.
AG then called for a vote on the proposal that the Club would take no further disciplinary action, that the authors of the letter and the complainant would be informed, and that full information would be disclosed to members via the Club website. The proposal was carried with seven in favour and one abstention.
AG said he would report to NCB that the complaint had been dealt with and specify how, and would write to the authors of the letter and separately to the complainant.
Action: AG
8. Any other business
8.1 CP reported that the
Dinner booked at Wensum Valley Golf Club had been booked for the 2019 Club Dinner for 1 Nov 2019 at 19:00 for 19:30. Since there were presentations planned he suggested the Club fund prizes for each team.
8.2 AG reported that, as administrator of the Club Facebook page he had been forced to take down a post because it did not relate specifically to cricket.
8.3 JP agreed to email NC when it was appropriate to inform him of various issues.
There being no further business, the Chairman closed the meeting at 20:56.
Executive Committee analysis of the letter mentioned in the above minutes
Analysis of letter from Lund, Adams, Shales, Coote & Jackson
List of untrue or unproven allegations, and responses to them from Executive Committee
Allegation
“M Pearse has since continued to receive detrimental treatment from part of the committee”
Response:
(1) The Committee in post at the time of the AGM has, since the resignation of J. Lund and R. Taylor, acted as one body, assuming collective responsibility for all their actions. Apart from one instance at the Committee meeting of 23rd April, when the Chairman unintentionally departed from the Constitution, the Club records show that the disciplinary process against M Pearse was fully within the Constitution. All outcomes of the disciplinary process had the support of the majority of the Committee.
(2) There was no detrimental treatment of M Pearse; the disciplinary process was followed in line with the rules of the Club. At every hearing there was independent representation from officers of other leagues outside the Norfolk Seniors Club.
(3) Far from there being detrimental treatment of M Pearse, the reverse is true. For whilst the Review Panel of 12 June 2018 concluded that M. Pearse was guilty of gross misconduct that could have resulted in immediate termination of his membership, the Committee decided only to ban him from being a Committee member or a Captain for one year.
Allegation
“detrimental treatment from part of the committee which is unacceptable and in part unconstitutional”
Response
(4) See above. The only instance (see above) of departing from the Constitution was unintentional and rectified within a couple of days. The Committee rejects any allegation that it as a whole, or any individual member, has intentionally done anything outside the constitution.
Allegation
“a character assassination plus vendetta”
Response
(5) Since there is no evidence presented, this is impossible to refute. The Committee as a whole has never commented on his character or pursued a vendetta against him.
Allegation
“they have also been involved and colluded with B Briscoe (National Secretary)”
Response
(6) No one from the Committee has colluded with Barry Briscoe regarding any disciplinary issues. All the Committee has done is to pass on verified details of the disciplinary process against M Pearse when it became appropriate to do so. The National Management Committee took disciplinary action independently of Norfolk, who were not involved or consulted on the process.
Allegation
“The said group have also been involved with the sacking of Nick Andrews, Cambs, who was part of the National committee as area representative”
Response
(7) As far as the Committee is aware there is no mention of Nick Andrews in any of the Club’s records for 2018, the season in which the alleged ‘sacking’ took place. However, the Norfolk representative to the National Committee and members of the National Committee at the time of Andrews’ tenure have provided the following information:
(7.1) The nomination of Andrews was made some time in 2014 or 2015 by M.Pearse (the Chairman of the Seevent National Committee at that time) on behalf of Norfolk, after very limited consultation with just one Norfolk Committee member and without informing him that there were other candidates. In fact, all the counties had been asked to nominate an individual and a vote was required.
(7.2) During the course of Andrews’ tenure, several counties in the Region (not Norfolk) became increasingly frustrated and dissatisfied with Andrews’ performance, and at the end of 2017, asked Chris Watson of Suffolk if he would take on the role. The other two counties in the region had no objection to that.
(7.3) Andrews himself pledged via email his full support for Watson:
From: "Nick Andrews" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 2:14 PM
Subject: Area Reps
... I had received an email from Colin saying that Chris Watson of Suffolk had
his and, as it seemed the full support of the majority of the eastern
counties to take over the chair of our group. Colin ... was of the view I was
looking to stand down from the position to which I said I didn’t want to
stand in anyone’s way if they were keen to do the job, especially as I
believed there was pretty much unanimous support for this change and had
no desire to dig my heels in and fight the change.
Nick
(7.4) The Norfolk representative to the National Committee was subsequently informed by the National Committee that there would be a vote for a new representative as Andrews was not interested in continuing in post and that Chris Watson had declared an interest in the post. The Norfolk representative to the National Committee conveyed to Barry Briscoe (the current National Secretary) that Norfolk were happy to support Watson.
In summary, (1) no one from Norfolk was involved in any ‘sacking’ of Andrews; (2) Norfolk believed he had resigned and Andrews’ own email supports this view; (3) when a vote was taken Norfolk supported the current holder of the post, Chris Watson of Suffolk, in whom the Committee has full confidence.
Allegation
“this group who collectively or singularly have suspended bans to their names issued from Seevent and Norfolk in recent times relating to wilful cheating, defamation of character, bad language towards a opponent, misuse of social media and leaking subjudice evidence.”
Response
(8) No one on the Committee at the time of the 2018 AGM has leaked subjudice evidence; nor has there ever been any complaint against anyone on the Committee at the time of the 2018 AGM for leaking subjudice evidence.
(9) No one on the Committee at the time of the 2018 AGM has received any ban or suspended ban from Seevent or Norfolk for defamation of character.
(10) No one on the Committee at the time of the 2018 AGM has received any ban or suspended ban from Seevent or Norfolk for bad language against an opponent.
(11) No one on the Committee at the time of the 2018 AGM has received any ban or suspended ban from Seevent or Norfolk for misuse of social media.
Allegation
“it would be remiss of us not to name said group as they are all seeking re-election or standing for election notably Messrs Cobb, Yallop, Parkin, and of course Gale ..., along with Mr Smith...”
Response
(12) Gale was neither seeking re-election nor standing for election.
(13) Parkin has never served on the Committee. His only official involvement with M Pearse has been as member of the disciplinary Review Panel held in June 2018 for which he was invited due to his experience as Discipline Officer for the Norfolk Cricket League.
List of untrue or unproven allegations, and responses to them from Executive Committee
Allegation
“M Pearse has since continued to receive detrimental treatment from part of the committee”
Response:
(1) The Committee in post at the time of the AGM has, since the resignation of J. Lund and R. Taylor, acted as one body, assuming collective responsibility for all their actions. Apart from one instance at the Committee meeting of 23rd April, when the Chairman unintentionally departed from the Constitution, the Club records show that the disciplinary process against M Pearse was fully within the Constitution. All outcomes of the disciplinary process had the support of the majority of the Committee.
(2) There was no detrimental treatment of M Pearse; the disciplinary process was followed in line with the rules of the Club. At every hearing there was independent representation from officers of other leagues outside the Norfolk Seniors Club.
(3) Far from there being detrimental treatment of M Pearse, the reverse is true. For whilst the Review Panel of 12 June 2018 concluded that M. Pearse was guilty of gross misconduct that could have resulted in immediate termination of his membership, the Committee decided only to ban him from being a Committee member or a Captain for one year.
Allegation
“detrimental treatment from part of the committee which is unacceptable and in part unconstitutional”
Response
(4) See above. The only instance (see above) of departing from the Constitution was unintentional and rectified within a couple of days. The Committee rejects any allegation that it as a whole, or any individual member, has intentionally done anything outside the constitution.
Allegation
“a character assassination plus vendetta”
Response
(5) Since there is no evidence presented, this is impossible to refute. The Committee as a whole has never commented on his character or pursued a vendetta against him.
Allegation
“they have also been involved and colluded with B Briscoe (National Secretary)”
Response
(6) No one from the Committee has colluded with Barry Briscoe regarding any disciplinary issues. All the Committee has done is to pass on verified details of the disciplinary process against M Pearse when it became appropriate to do so. The National Management Committee took disciplinary action independently of Norfolk, who were not involved or consulted on the process.
Allegation
“The said group have also been involved with the sacking of Nick Andrews, Cambs, who was part of the National committee as area representative”
Response
(7) As far as the Committee is aware there is no mention of Nick Andrews in any of the Club’s records for 2018, the season in which the alleged ‘sacking’ took place. However, the Norfolk representative to the National Committee and members of the National Committee at the time of Andrews’ tenure have provided the following information:
(7.1) The nomination of Andrews was made some time in 2014 or 2015 by M.Pearse (the Chairman of the Seevent National Committee at that time) on behalf of Norfolk, after very limited consultation with just one Norfolk Committee member and without informing him that there were other candidates. In fact, all the counties had been asked to nominate an individual and a vote was required.
(7.2) During the course of Andrews’ tenure, several counties in the Region (not Norfolk) became increasingly frustrated and dissatisfied with Andrews’ performance, and at the end of 2017, asked Chris Watson of Suffolk if he would take on the role. The other two counties in the region had no objection to that.
(7.3) Andrews himself pledged via email his full support for Watson:
From: "Nick Andrews" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 2:14 PM
Subject: Area Reps
... I had received an email from Colin saying that Chris Watson of Suffolk had
his and, as it seemed the full support of the majority of the eastern
counties to take over the chair of our group. Colin ... was of the view I was
looking to stand down from the position to which I said I didn’t want to
stand in anyone’s way if they were keen to do the job, especially as I
believed there was pretty much unanimous support for this change and had
no desire to dig my heels in and fight the change.
Nick
(7.4) The Norfolk representative to the National Committee was subsequently informed by the National Committee that there would be a vote for a new representative as Andrews was not interested in continuing in post and that Chris Watson had declared an interest in the post. The Norfolk representative to the National Committee conveyed to Barry Briscoe (the current National Secretary) that Norfolk were happy to support Watson.
In summary, (1) no one from Norfolk was involved in any ‘sacking’ of Andrews; (2) Norfolk believed he had resigned and Andrews’ own email supports this view; (3) when a vote was taken Norfolk supported the current holder of the post, Chris Watson of Suffolk, in whom the Committee has full confidence.
Allegation
“this group who collectively or singularly have suspended bans to their names issued from Seevent and Norfolk in recent times relating to wilful cheating, defamation of character, bad language towards a opponent, misuse of social media and leaking subjudice evidence.”
Response
(8) No one on the Committee at the time of the 2018 AGM has leaked subjudice evidence; nor has there ever been any complaint against anyone on the Committee at the time of the 2018 AGM for leaking subjudice evidence.
(9) No one on the Committee at the time of the 2018 AGM has received any ban or suspended ban from Seevent or Norfolk for defamation of character.
(10) No one on the Committee at the time of the 2018 AGM has received any ban or suspended ban from Seevent or Norfolk for bad language against an opponent.
(11) No one on the Committee at the time of the 2018 AGM has received any ban or suspended ban from Seevent or Norfolk for misuse of social media.
Allegation
“it would be remiss of us not to name said group as they are all seeking re-election or standing for election notably Messrs Cobb, Yallop, Parkin, and of course Gale ..., along with Mr Smith...”
Response
(12) Gale was neither seeking re-election nor standing for election.
(13) Parkin has never served on the Committee. His only official involvement with M Pearse has been as member of the disciplinary Review Panel held in June 2018 for which he was invited due to his experience as Discipline Officer for the Norfolk Cricket League.
Summary of Executive Committee Decisions following a complaint concerning the letter circulated before and during the 2018 AGM from Lund, Adams, Shales, Coote & Jackson
The Committee discussed the complaint at length and their deliberations are recorded in the minutes of the Executive Committee meeting of 18 December 2018 on this website. No disciplinary action will be taken. However, the Committee reiterate the warning in Appendix A of the Constitution covering Disciplinary policy, that: “Members are particularly reminded of the dangers of forwarding and broadcasting personal emails containing comments which might be construed as disrespectful.” Any future such communications will be viewed more severely in the post-Overstrand era.
There is no impact of this complaint on the Statement made by the Club concerning the Overstrand Incident, on 6 December 2018.
The Committee checked the allegations in the letter against Club records and were concerned that the letter contained several inaccuracies and unsubstantiated statements. These are set out in a separate document. The Committee will not enter into any debate on whether, with further investigation or evidence, the claims in the AGM Letter can be substantiated. For the sake of transparency the Committee states what is in its records so that members can understand why it acted as it did.
There is no impact of this complaint on the Statement made by the Club concerning the Overstrand Incident, on 6 December 2018.
The Committee checked the allegations in the letter against Club records and were concerned that the letter contained several inaccuracies and unsubstantiated statements. These are set out in a separate document. The Committee will not enter into any debate on whether, with further investigation or evidence, the claims in the AGM Letter can be substantiated. For the sake of transparency the Committee states what is in its records so that members can understand why it acted as it did.
