Dulwich Society SGM - Pressing for rule changes r.e. traffic policy

[first mate]

This thread should not be in roads and traffic then.

[Glemham]

The answer to this question Rockets is literally “blowing in the wind”. You could go to the Dulwich Society website where you’ll find the former and present constitutions, minutes of all recent executive and sub-committee meetings and SGM and AGM minutes. I particularly recommend the SGM of 2021 - the first ever in the Society’s recent history, and held on Zoom with some 150 members participating. There were only two motions both pertinent to posts on this thread.
 
If you look very carefully, as some members of the DS have done, buried in this plethora of documents you will find that around the time of Covid and the closure of the Dulwich Village and the introduction of LTNs, the Travel and Environment sub-committee gained a new Chair and lots of new members. The local DV Ward Councillors became regular attendees at this but not any of the other sub-committees.
Indeed it seems to have been a time of some upheaval in the DS as the long-standing Chair of the Society retired in 2021 to be replaced unopposed by the current Chair. 

At some point during this time it seems Southwark Council gained the impression that the DS and its members supported the closure of the junction and introduction of LTNs in their present form. Hence the SGMs of 2021 and May 2024.

 

[Metallic]

On 01/06/2024 at 18:09, DulvilleRes said:

I found it extraordinary that this grouping in Dulwich Society pushing for change refused to meet with the trustees to discuss their concerns, opting instead for an expensive Special General Meeting; this indicates to me a certain kind of needlessly combative approach to what is fundamentally an apolitical local charity. This perception was reinforced by the conduct of some supporters of this grouping in the room – hectoring, aggressive and ultimately unneighbourly, and certainly a hostility you wouldn’t want to tolerate in any organisation. 
Whilst I can’t talk for the trustees, as regards resigning, if they took the view that actually something extraordinary was happening to much loved local institution that was best dealt with by the Charity Commission, I wouldn’t blame them. 

 

Strangely enough, the rump of those not at the Dulwich Arts Society Lecture did not feel they could speak for others - you fail to see this was a disparate group with people who did not know each other.  I'm told they explained to the Chair they could not attend at a two day notice, and so they didn't go!  As for hostility, look at yourself Dulvilleres!  And the legal time for the SGM was in March 28 days after it was requested.  Rules don't seem to matter to the Chair in that matter.  I know the pub room was free so the only costs were ones made up by the Chair.

By the way, the One Dulwich group are not funded by anyone.

Edited June 6 by Metallic
misspelling

[Rockets]

On 06/06/2024 at 11:40, Glemham said:

The answer to this question Rockets is literally “blowing in the wind”. You could go to the Dulwich Society website where you’ll find the former and present constitutions, minutes of all recent executive and sub-committee meetings and SGM and AGM minutes. I particularly recommend the SGM of 2021 - the first ever in the Society’s recent history, and held on Zoom with some 150 members participating. There were only two motions both pertinent to posts on this thread.
 
If you look very carefully, as some members of the DS have done, buried in this plethora of documents you will find that around the time of Covid and the closure of the Dulwich Village and the introduction of LTNs, the Travel and Environment sub-committee gained a new Chair and lots of new members. The local DV Ward Councillors became regular attendees at this but not any of the other sub-committees.
Indeed it seems to have been a time of some upheaval in the DS as the long-standing Chair of the Society retired in 2021 to be replaced unopposed by the current Chair. 

At some point during this time it seems Southwark Council gained the impression that the DS and its members supported the closure of the junction and introduction of LTNs in their present form. Hence the SGMs of 2021 and May 2024.

 

Wow...just read the SGM of 2021 and it is very interesting particularly where it says in bold: The Travel & Environment Sub-Committee does not make decisions on behalf of the Dulwich Society.

Was there some sort of takeover of the sub-committee by active travel lobbyists?

Very interesting to see that new chair was <name removed> who is:

• Volunteer Chair of Southwark Living Streets
• A member of Dulwich and Herne Hill Safer Routes to School
  • which cites partners as:
    • Dulwich Society
    • Living Streets
    • A seemingly now defunct group called Clean Air Parents Network - I wonder if this is any relation to Clean Air Dulwich?
• who won London Cycling Campaign Campaigner Active Travel Campaigner Award:
  • LCC said: "<name removed> from Dulwich and Herne Hill Safe Routes to School was awarded active travel campaigner of the year for all the work she’s done, particularly around Our Healthy Streets Dulwich and the Streetspace measures that brought us Dulwich Square."
  • on accepting the award she said the below (I did read it and thought is Clean Air Dulwich a group - it seems to be more an anonymous online lobby group but very interested that she called them out specifically amongst actual groups.......:
    • She said: "I've learned at the feet of greats like Alastair Hanton and Jeremy Leach. We are proud to work collaboratively with amazing groups such as Mums for Lungs, Clean Air Dulwich, Southwark Cyclists, Lambeth Cyclists, London Living Streets, Better Streets groups, the new love my LTN groups that we're getting to know, and more."
• who made deputations to Southwark Council on behalf of Dulwich and Herne Hill Safe Routes in support of changes to Townley Road in 2015

 

Is this yet another example of the closed-shop active travel lobbyists assuming positions and then using them to propel changes - so interesting that the Dulwich Society said that the travel and Environmental Sub-Committee does not make decisions on behalf of DS...which suggests they did/thought they could?

Does anyone close to DS have an opinion?

I do wonder whether there is a very small group of local active travel campaigners, many of them who have linked to the local council and councillors who are behind all of the various lobby groups (online and actual) and all those groups are related to one another by that small group of people. And to think this thread was born from people questioning One Dulwich - what a can of worms those attacking One Dulwich seem to have opened as they seem to have, inadvertently, shone a light on the way the pro-LTN lobby operates.

 

dulwich-society-sgm-20210628-amp.pdf

Edited June 13 by Administrator
Name removed under request.

[sanda]

It isn’t exactly a conspiracy that an award winning volunteer would be active in multiple groups. <massive shrug>
 

I was at this meeting, as I was at the online meeting in 2021 and thought it was incredible what a waste of time and money was created yet again by the One Dulwich/Conservative group. They remain anonymous until their names pop up when they try to be disruptive to the Dulwich Society with some ill-thought out motions.  If only those people, who also seem to post repeatedly on here, spent as much time volunteering for good in the community instead of attacking those people that are actually getting involved.  

This all has echos of the recent attack on the National Trust, which was also defended. Hopefully we as a country can start moving on from everything being so vitriolic and a culture-war. 

[Rockets]

On 08/06/2024 at 17:51, sanda said:

It isn’t exactly a conspiracy that an award winning volunteer would be active in multiple groups. <massive shrug>

But might it be something of a conflict of interest that an award winning active travel lobbyist (you forgot to mention that part), who LCC commends for bringing Dulwich Square into existence, is leading the environmental and transport sub-committee of the Dulwich Society, a society that insists on taking a neutral position?

 

Or do you think that like <names removed> we are supposed to believe that <name removed> will take an impartial position on all matters?

 

Are we to assume that since <name removed - the environment contact at DS> took the role some of the decisions made by the sub-committee have been seen by the Dulwich Society as less than impartial - the minutes from the 2021 meeting would suggest that might be the case? Is it telling that the Dulwich Society has had to put on record that the sub-committee that <name removed> leads does not make decisions on behalf of DS?

Sanda, can I ask if had you attended meetings before 2021 and, if not, what made you tstart attending that year? It appears there was a large increase in members and attendees that year.

 

Edited June 13 by Administrator
Name removed under request.

[DulvilleRes]

A thread on Dulwich Society governance, when actually the thread started in part by asking questions about One Dulwich governance -  a strange turnaround. 

As regards Dulwich Society governance, here is what happened. Dulwich Society several months ago moved to update their rules to what is currently Charity Commission best practise for a charity such as they are – I would think most people would find this responsible governance. The irresponsible thing would be to leave the outdated rules as they were. This update would include the possibility to have online meetings for decision making, or a hybrid in person/ online, and to also raise the threshold for the number of members needed to call a Special General Meeting. The latter would have the effect of preventing a small minority bogging everyone down with potentially vexatious and expensive meetings. The trustees entered into a period of extensive consultation about their proposed changes, where it would appear that people who was later to challenge them, actually agreed with the Society’s actions. The trustees might be forgiven for thinking they were being played when later down the line those people did a 180 degree turn on their position, and then refused, when offered, to discuss their concerns, opting instead for a Special General Meeting. 

During the Special General Meeting, a former Conservative mayor of Lambeth spoke, and accused her fellow Conservatives, several of whom were the ones pushing for their own rule changes and opposed to the trustees’ position, of employing 'divisive' tactics. I’m not privy to the inner workings of the local Conservatives or any other group, but as an observer, it felt to me that the calling of the Special General Meeting might have been a bit more than simply some concerned Dulwich Society members ‘democratising’ the Society as they claimed, and have the hue of a broadly political attempted intervention into an apolitical local charity. This is certainly what many people in the room I spoke to felt, and the words of the former Tory mayor would reinforce that perception. Clearly the people involved might have a different view.

If this is what the trustees felt in deciding their position during the Special General meeting of making it a matter ultimately, if they lost the vote for updating the rules, for the Charity Commission to step in, I wouldn’t blame them. As for all the allegations of Dulwich Society mis-governance, apart from the fact that I think it is aggrieved nonsense, if there is a case to answer there are formal processes open to anyone who feels that way. Anyway, the vocal minority was outvoted by a factor of at least 2 to 1 in every vote,  a comprehensive defeat by any measure. Hopefully the Dulwich Society can now get back to the great range of local work it does without these debilitating distractions. 

[Rockets]

On 08/06/2024 at 20:44, DulvilleRes said:

A thread on Dulwich Society governance, when actually the thread started in part by asking questions about One Dulwich governance -  a strange turnaround. 

To be fair DulvilleRes it was your post that triggered the change of direction and suddenly the affairs of the Dulwich Society seemed far more interesting than rants about who is behind One Dulwich.

In light of some of the things you have now drawn our attention to I think there are far more pertinent questions around why <name removed> was ever allowed anywhere near a DS sub-committee - a clear conflict of interest and seemingly it led to less than impartial approaches to sub-committee issues.

You focus on the most recent SGM (and it is clear there are two sides to that particular story) but what is of far more interest is what has been happening to get us to that point, why DS has had to state that the sub-committe headed by <name removed> does not make decisions on behalf of DS or that concerns were raised that the sub-committee was not being neutral in council consultations.

Any thoughts on those issues?

[malumbu]

It's telling that you were there Dulvilleres and that others weren't 

Edited June 8 by malumbu

[Rockets]

I think it is far more telling that it got to this point and, it seems, that the Dulwich Society has an internal issue with a sub-committee headed by one of London's leading active travel lobbyists.....

[first mate]

Does not sound as though that sub committee could by any stretch be described as apolitical.

The overall impression is that a subcommittee has been harnessed as a useful stakeholder tool in helping to drive through a council agenda. 

[Glemham]

Got it in one First Mate! 

[Metallic]

Dulvillres has the inside story, so do tell  all instead of pussyfooting around.

[Metallic]

It seems as if Dulvillres hasn't got the urge to explain their post to us all.  They get at us, but we can't get to  them. Perhaps they are doing research for the DS committee no one can get on to.  Or something.