Jane & Bob James quit the ACA

So where does this leave us members? Still in the dark with the mushrooms, that's where. Never mind the confidentiality agreement, we, the members, have a right to know 'exactly' what B & J were accused of. Quite frankly the business of the 90p stamp does not leave me quivering with indignation. As for the printing business, they simply don't give enough information for us to form any sort of opinion. The ACA should tell us what's what, because so far there's been little of substance and more than a hint of petty in-fighting behind the whole matter.

The ACA owes its membership an explaination!

This is a convenient solution, but it is unsatisfactory as the reputation of both the ACA and Bob & Jane James has been damaged.

The members of the ACA are none the wiser about the allegations against Bob & Jane, much less their defence. As neither party is able to release any further information because of the agreement to secrecy the membership is as John Lock says "still in the dark with the mushrooms".

The few allegations that were published in the Independent probably came via a certain journalist who has been contacting people via this and other websites asking for information and promising anonymity.

All this time to arrive at a conclusion and then tell everyone its nothing to do with you. Why aren't I surprised.

If all it comes down to is a 90p stamp and a bit of printing (which we still don't know the full circumstances of) then quite frankly I am bloody disgusted that the suspensions took place in the first place.

If that is ALL it is then I'm not sure as to whether to resign from an organisation that handles itself in a very amateurish way or whether to volunteer to take it over and oust these venomous scandelmongers.

It's nothing less than shambolic.

The ACA would benefit from your knowledge Jeff, send off your CV now!!

If I were Bob, and I was confident that myself and my wife had done no wrong, I would stay and fight my corner.

If one, or both have been 'paid' off, then the membership surely have a right to know where their subs are going. Will members be happy that their subs are being used in that way?

It jars me off when I see my taxes being used to pay off civil servants who, for whatever reason, leave before their time is up. This does appear to be similar, just substitute taxes for subs and chief executives for civil servants.

All in all it is totally unsatisfactory from whatever angle you look at it.

Both sides are damaged, severly. A joint statement was the only sensible route, but as unlikely as Norwich winning the Premiereship.

The pertinent part of the announcement must surely be:"
"The details of the allegations, the resulting dispute and the severance terms may never be known as they are subject to a binding confidentiality agreement"

This intimates that there was a form of cash payment agreed between the parties, and if so, then surely the membership has a right to know those details, at least?

Due to an oversight on my part I have not re-joined the ACA since moving back from the USA. Given these developments and the lack of open and frank disclosures I think I'll be keeping my money in my wallet for the time being.
Sad really, as the ACA do a wonderful job but at the grass roots level of their endeavours.

I have followed & contributed to this thread throughout.

It would appear that we will never get to the bottom of this sorry episode given the circumstances of the severence package.

As such we should now all move on or do we want more bllod on the carpet?The ACA has until this latest incident gone about its work quietly & I believe effectively & I am not aware of any reason why this should not continue to be the case.


I am a member of the ACA but really do not see how my meagre contribution of ?15.00 a year or whatever the current fees are & a few raffle tickets gives me the right to demand meetings & this that & the other.To me the angling community owes a debt to the ACA & not the other way round.Perhaps some of the indignation shown by some on here might better be turned towards the pitifully low levels of membership.

Let the ACA get on with their work.To those who are considering their continued membership, the only people who will gain form such a stance will be the polluters.

Nigel, not so much a criticism of your posting, but you seem to view the ACA as an outside organisation working for us.

I know it's a limited company, but that is basically to protect its directors and its shareholders (probably only two anyway).

However, it is OUR society, strictly speaking. We fund it from our many ?15s and we pay the wages of the staff along with rent and rates, purchases of equipment etc.

Once we can be sure that anyone else involved in any misappropriation of OUR funds is removed from office, then I will be happy. We can then draw the line and move on.

In that statement I am not making a judgement on the Jameses, but I would have thought had they been innocent or it was such a trivial matter they would have fought to clear their names if nothing else. Also, were it me, I would want all the dirty washing out in the open - every last detail!

I disagree Nigel. If not for the membership payments by individual members and clubs where would the ACA be?

Surely as a member/stakeholder the membership has every right to have a say in how the Association operates, or be seen to operate.
Perhaps the current situation has arisen because the membership has never been encouraged to take more than a 'hand in pocket' part in the business of the Association.

As for 'confidentially agreements', I have first hand experience, and knowledge, that they are not worth the paper they are written on, unless a person has adequate funds to pursue any breach, as you will know, Nigel.

Got to agree with Jeff and John about this. The ACA is us, the members, and I want to know where my membership fee for the past 40 years or so has been going to.

If someone had unfairly accused me of nicking a stamp and paying for private printing out of those membership fees I'd be fighting it tooth and nail. I would not be accepting severance pay to go away and keep quiet about it.

I want to know who else, if anyone, has benefitted from the private printing. In fact I want to know all about what's been going on.

After all, it's my money we're talking about.

John,

What has got my goat on this issue is that all of a sudden everyone seems to have a view on the ACA & its well being.If some of that interest had over the years been channelled into perhaps fund raising or simply promoting membership to our friends or other fisherman on the bank the Association would have been better off for it.I should add that I have been as guilty as anyone in my inactivity.

I'm not sure any organization, however well organised or democratic, can consult its members as to its running at every turn.We are not talking about a big organisation here but one who's limited resources are channelled into it's core activities.

The main criticism here seems to be lack of information.For the nth time, the ACA was bound by its disciplinary procedures/employment law good practice not to disclose details of its investigation.

I do not know why the ACA chose to agree a deal with the James's.Perhaps it reflects a view that its legal positon was not quite as clear cut as they might have wished to allow them to dismiss the James's outright. If they had done so they would certainly have opened themselves up to the risk of bad publicity & potential long running litigation from the James's so perhaps this was the most practical way out?

I am sure the same calls for openess as to what went on will now follow the disclosure of the severance deal. I am not sure I see your argument as to the enforcibilty of confidentiality agreements, John. Who are you suggesting should break it & what purpose would that serve.

Throughout this,I have not seen any suggestion from anyone that the ACA is not functioning correctly as to its main aims. If that is the case then I reiterate my wish that members should now put this matter behind them & let the ACA move on.

Graham,

I take your point, but how about a campaign to see where our water rates have gone for the past 40 years given the rate of storm drain sewage discharge into rivers is still so high, or the number of waters lost due to anti-angling local councils.

There a lots of far more pressing issues anglers as a community should be getting excited about than this episode.

The reason for the greater interest in this issue Nigel is that it's a very emotional one.

I've been brought up to respect the ACA and all it stands for. In the past few weeks I've suffered a blow. I've lost that respect, both for the organisation and the people who run it.

Which isn't to say that the other issues you mention are not important. Of course they are, but the ACA/James issue really rankles and saddens me.

Maybe it's because I know more about it than most. But that's what doesn't sit well with me. It all should be an open book.

Shambolic is a good word to describe this outcome together with the way in which we arrived here. There are no winners, neither party emerges with any credit at all.

Bob and Jane have these allegations of dishonety hanging over them for the rest of their lives, as they didn't stay and fight to clear their names. Many will reach the obvious conclusion. Who would give them another responsible, leadership job in fishing with ready access to other people's money or other property after this? Not me for one. A crying shame, because they have done a huge amount for the good of angling and our precious environment. Good luck to both of them.

The committee appear to be several cards short of a full deck when it comes to effectively and sensibly dealing with what (if the Independent story is the sum total of it) appears to be a run of the mill disciplinary situation. Surely the matter would have been better dealt with in a speedy, confidential way without creating weeks of uncertainty and damage which were the inevitable and totally predictable consequences of the suspensions. The committee's handling of the issue smacks of a naive, legalistic, formulaic approach to management lacking the single most vital ingredient of all... common sense.

So where does this leave members who have supported the ACA, in many cases for decades? I think that members have been badly let down by the committee, who in my view have demonstrated a lack of nouse when it comes to dealing with this (seemingly) relatively straightforward disciplinary situation. Can members afford to sit back and let the same group carry on regardless? In my opinion no. The committee should be strengthened with new blood, in particular, experienced people used to dealing with organisational management issues. Someone who understands when and how to communicate effectively is sorely needed too.

Members should stay on board the ACA ship and work to ensure that we get these necessary improvements in the future. Throwing the toys out of the pram and walking away doesn't move the world forward in this case (not yet anyway!). Let's hope that the committee are big enough to recognise their own shortcomings which have been so clearly exposed by this affair. After all, it is in all our interests to have an effective ACA working for the good of everyone.

I'm a life member of the ACA.

It seems to me that the ACA have done the right thing in following the best practice in employment legislation. They haven't publicised the accusations which would have been unfair to Bob James. It was an internal disciplinary matter, not a public circus.

Often in employment disputes, agreement is only reached after both parties accept that the details of the agreement is not made public. Perhaps the ACA, and Bob James and his wife for that matter, thought confidentiality was the best solution.

Like Keith I am a life member of the ACA and I entirely share his view as to how the ACA have handled the matter.

The ACA is part of the institution of angling. Rather taken for granted, but nevertheless, important to anglers. Whether as members or not, who care.

I will accept Keith's point that the ACA has probably followed 'best practice', but that really doesn't say much for current employment legislation.

The ACA is a charity, it is a club. It is answerable to its membership, it has a duty to inform its membership. It has a web-site but information is sparce.

It would appear that the whole matter is a breach of trust, right down the line. And that is what for me, makes the whole matter thoroughly disagreeable. That an employee, if it is the case, should breach that trust with such as the ACA is, I think, dispicable.

I shall remain a member dispite all this upheaval, hopefully the ACA will come out of this rather meaner and probably leaner, but ready to move forward.

Regardless of whatever feelings or views I might have of this debacle, I could not contemplate for one second, resigning from the ACA. They are the watchdog and proptector of all anglers, members or not, against those who would polute our waters and kill fish. They are not frightened to take on the giant conglomerates, or some bolshy or inconsiderate farmer, and whatever they (the ACA) decide to tell the general membership regarding what is, after all, an internal or domestic wrangle, does not or should not detract from their principle role of defenders of anglers.