Re the many posts about loans to the former Chairman of BN.  I must have 
missed something, can anybody enlighten me -

1.    Why was BN giving out loans in the first place? Who to?
2.    Who authorised the loans?  What were these loans for?  How much money 
was involved?  Was interest payable or were they interest free?  When were 
they to be repaid by?
3.    What action was taken when payment defaulted?
4.    Why were they written off?
5.    Who, on the executive has voted for, abstained, or voted against 
writing debts off?
6.    Were the decisions to provide the loans and to write off the debts 
taken properly in accordance with the standing orders in place at the time?
7.    If the decision was taken improperly (eg without disclosure of 
interests, without following standing orders) can the money be recovered 
from the people who did not object to the writing off of debts?
8.    Have the auditors carried out their duties properly, and are they 
raising no concerns?

This has all been covered in previous URN postings, but the specific answers 
as far as I know them, interleaved below.

"J Powell"  wrote in message 
news:5I7wk.196244$_M4.19202@newsfe18.ams2...
> Re the many posts about loans to the former Chairman of BN.  I must have 
> missed something, can anybody enlighten me -
>
> 1.    Why was BN giving out loans in the first place? Who to?

Loans have been made to officers for as far back as I looked (1999). BN was 
giving loans out because the EC decided to, it never went to the AGM until I 
raised a question about it in 2005, at which Mick Ayers became very angry 
and evasive. Since 1999 loans have been made to Richard Daniels, Ron 
Twining, Mick Ayers (2) and Steve Thompson (2). Only Steve Thompson paid all 
his loans back on the terms of the agreements. The others all fell in to 
arrears but paid eventually, except mick Ayers, whose first loan was paid to 
terms, but the second was part paid in a late lump sum, with the majority 
being 'written off' in secret later.

> 2.    Who authorised the loans?  What were these loans for?  How much 
> money was involved?  Was interest payable or were they interest free? 
> When were they to be repaid by?

Most loans were authorised by the EC or the management committee, though the 
last loan to Mick Ayers considerably exceeded the authorised amount. The 
loans were all ostensibly for the purchase of computers (or in Steve 
Thompson's case camera equipment). Various sums were involved, roughly 
£1,000 each, but Mick Ayers last one was £1,791.42. they were all interest 
free. Mostly repayment was to be by 24 monthly instalments.
The Treasurer at the time Chris Beesley-Reynolds, did not know about the 
Ayers loan until after it had been advanced, as Ayres got Tracey Major to 
advance the money and sign up a loan agreement several days before Chris 
Beesley reynolds ever knew about it. The Loan Agreement was signed off for 
CCBN by the then Vice Chairman Derek Brixey, whose understanding of such 
matters was virtually nil. Chris Beesley-Reynolds was faced with a fait 
accompli days later and, though furious, countersigned the agreement for 
CCBN, in the hope that it would at least create a legally binding document 
covering the cash advance.

> 3.    What action was taken when payment defaulted?

Arrears on most loans were eventually collected, I'm not sure by exactly 
what action. In the case of Mick Ayers' last loan, there was no action as 
no-one knew he had defaulted except himself and Tracey Major (who took her 
orders from Mick Ayers). It is questionable whether Tracey Major understood 
the situation properly. During my investigation she claimed not to remember 
anything about it, and could therefore only answer questions insofaras 
records were available.

> 4.    Why were they written off?

Good question! None of the other loans was written off (as far as I know), 
only Mick Ayers' last loan. I have asked him why this was written off, but 
he has not given me an answer, which is one of the reasons i took it t the 
police. I tried to settle it by negotiation, but he would not communicate 
meaningfully - or at all, after a short while.

> 5.    Who, on the executive has voted for, abstained, or voted against 
> writing debts off?

That's the point, the write off was never taken to the EC. They didn't even 
know it had happened. it was done in secret, and the cost shown in the 
accounts under 'Repairs and Renewals', which of course did not raise any 
questions.

> 6.    Were the decisions to provide the loans and to write off the debts 
> taken properly in accordance with the standing orders in place at the 
> time?

No. There are no 'standing orders' covering this so far as I know. Mick 
Ayers, as Chairman, set the agenda and controlled meetings. But as I have 
said earlier, it never appeared in an EC meeting because neither Mick Ayers 
nor Tracey Major ever let anyone know it had happened.

> 7.    If the decision was taken improperly (eg without disclosure of 
> interests, without following standing orders) can the money be recovered 
> from the people who did not object to the writing off of debts?

I feel the decision was taken improperly, but by Mick Ayers, not by the EC 
as they were never even made aware of it. The decisions on how CCBN handles 
this are in the hands of the EC now, whose Chairman is Richard Daniels - who 
was the Treasurer at the time of the loan write-off and who claimed to have 
known nothing about it.

> 8.    Have the auditors carried out their duties properly, and are they 
> raising no concerns?

An email was sent to the Auditors asking for the accouts bookkeeping entries 
to write off computer equipment. The Auditors supplied the bookkeeping 
entries, but were unaware that it was a cash loan which was actually being 
written off, not computer equipment. They were misled by the information 
they were supplied by Tracey Major, on Mick Ayers' direction. I feel the 
Auditors made a mistake in not asking how 'computer equipment' could be in 
an Offciers Loan Account in the books, but they didn't. It does not reflect 
well on them either, though they were slack rather than complicit.

Duncan Heenan

"Duncan Heenan"  wrote in message
news:48c11949$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> This has all been covered in previous URN postings, but the specific
> answers as far as I know them, interleaved below.
>
> "J Powell"  wrote in message
> news:5I7wk.196244$_M4.19202@newsfe18.ams2...
>> Re the many posts about loans to the former Chairman of BN.  I must
>> have missed something, can anybody enlighten me -
>>
>> 1.    Why was BN giving out loans in the first place? Who to?
>
> Loans have been made to officers for as far back as I looked (1999).
> BN was giving loans out because the EC decided to, it never went to
> the AGM until I raised a question about it in 2005, at which Mick
> Ayers became very angry and evasive. Since 1999 loans have been made
> to Richard Daniels, Ron Twining, Mick Ayers (2) and Steve Thompson
> (2). Only Steve Thompson paid all his loans back on the terms of the
> agreements. The others all fell in to arrears but paid eventually,
> except mick Ayers, whose first loan was paid to terms, but the
> second was part paid in a late lump sum, with the majority being
> 'written off' in secret later.
>

Can you say *what* the loans were for, I suspect I know what at least
one of Steve Thompson's loans were for (connected with him becoming
the CRB checked official BN photographer), but what were the other 5
(or 4 if both the ST loans were for the same reason) for?
-- 
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...

Jerry wrote:

>>
> 
> Can you say *what* the loans were for, I suspect I know what at least
> one of Steve Thompson's loans were for (connected with him becoming
> the CRB checked official BN photographer), but what were the other 5
> (or 4 if both the ST loans were for the same reason) for?

Will you ever stop getting more stupid?  I would have thought that "The 
loans were all ostensibly for the purchase of computers (or in Steve 
Thompson's case camera equipment)." would have told you all you needed?

thanks for that Duncan

A lot of this sounds reasonable, ordinary members standing for voluntary 
posts and carrying out voluntary duties should not be out of pocket.  But, 
the EC has, as far as I can remember, never disclosed these arrangements to 
the wider membership.  Nor have they disclosed on the recovery of equipment 
bought by the organisation which should have been returned to it.  So the 
whole thing gives the appearance of something underhand going on.

The members should have been informed about the facilities available and 
whether or not an officer stuck to the terms agreed.

We may have chosen not to vote for an officer who failed to comply with the 
terms of a loan made to him by the membership.  Such failure puts their 
integrity in doubt.

Occasionally somebody might have been put off from being a candidate for 
election by the potential costs of carrying out duties, and any such 
expenses policy should be open and above board, and might have encouraged 
wider participation.

It sounds like the auditors have not been exercising due diligence in 
reviewing the accounts.  Surely they should at least have noted the 
irregularities in the accounts prepared.  And you would have thought that 
the various Treasurers and General Secretary would have not let the 
organisation be put into this position.

If the default on the loan was true default, and not covered by some 
circumstances we are not aware of, then writing it off was wrong, and leaves 
a sour taste.

On Sep 5, 1:34 pm, "Duncan Heenan"  wrote:
> This has all been covered in previous URN postings, but the specific answers
> as far as I know them, interleaved below.

in Case you're NOT aware of what the 'AGM' and 'EC' and suchlike is -

EC = a collective of Naked men
AGM = an Annual meeting of Naked Men Collectives
BN = Naked men/woman
CCBN = a collective of naked Men

now Read on :-)

love From 14

>
> "J Powell"  wrote in message
>
> news:5I7wk.196244$_M4.19202@newsfe18.ams2...
>
> > Re the many posts about loans to the former Chairman of BN.  I must have
> > missed something, can anybody enlighten me -
>
> > 1.    Why was BN giving out loans in the first place? Who to?
>
> Loans have been made to officers for as far back as I looked (1999). BN was
> giving loans out because the EC decided to, it never went to the AGM until I
> raised a question about it in 2005, at which Mick Ayers became very angry
> and evasive. Since 1999 loans have been made to Richard Daniels, Ron
> Twining, Mick Ayers (2) and Steve Thompson (2). Only Steve Thompson paid all
> his loans back on the terms of the agreements. The others all fell in to
> arrears but paid eventually, except mick Ayers, whose first loan was paid to
> terms, but the second was part paid in a late lump sum, with the majority
> being 'written off' in secret later.
>
> > 2.    Who authorised the loans?  What were these loans for?  How much
> > money was involved?  Was interest payable or were they interest free?
> > When were they to be repaid by?
>
> Most loans were authorised by the EC or the management committee, though the
> last loan to Mick Ayers considerably exceeded the authorised amount. The
> loans were all ostensibly for the purchase of computers (or in Steve
> Thompson's case camera equipment). Various sums were involved, roughly
> £1,000 each, but Mick Ayers last one was £1,791.42. they were all interest
> free. Mostly repayment was to be by 24 monthly instalments.
> The Treasurer at the time Chris Beesley-Reynolds, did not know about the
> Ayers loan until after it had been advanced, as Ayres got Tracey Major to
> advance the money and sign up a loan agreement several days before Chris
> Beesley reynolds ever knew about it. The Loan Agreement was signed off for
> CCBN by the then Vice Chairman Derek Brixey, whose understanding of such
> matters was virtually nil. Chris Beesley-Reynolds was faced with a fait
> accompli days later and, though furious, countersigned the agreement for
> CCBN, in the hope that it would at least create a legally binding document
> covering the cash advance.
>
> > 3.    What action was taken when payment defaulted?
>
> Arrears on most loans were eventually collected, I'm not sure by exactly
> what action. In the case of Mick Ayers' last loan, there was no action as
> no-one knew he had defaulted except himself and Tracey Major (who took her
> orders from Mick Ayers). It is questionable whether Tracey Major understood
> the situation properly. During my investigation she claimed not to remember
> anything about it, and could therefore only answer questions insofaras
> records were available.
>
> > 4.    Why were they written off?
>
> Good question! None of the other loans was written off (as far as I know)> only Mick Ayers' last loan. I have asked him why this was written off, but
> he has not given me an answer, which is one of the reasons i took it t the
> police. I tried to settle it by negotiation, but he would not communicate
> meaningfully - or at all, after a short while.
>
> > 5.    Who, on the executive has voted for, abstained, or voted against
> > writing debts off?
>
> That's the point, the write off was never taken to the EC. They didn't even
> know it had happened. it was done in secret, and the cost shown in the
> accounts under 'Repairs and Renewals', which of course did not raise any
> questions.
>
> > 6.    Were the decisions to provide the loans and to write off the debts
> > taken properly in accordance with the standing orders in place at the
> > time?
>
> No. There are no 'standing orders' covering this so far as I know. Mick
> Ayers, as Chairman, set the agenda and controlled meetings. But as I have
> said earlier, it never appeared in an EC meeting because neither Mick Ayers
> nor Tracey Major ever let anyone know it had happened.
>
> > 7.    If the decision was taken improperly (eg without disclosure of
> > interests, without following standing orders) can the money be recovered
> > from the people who did not object to the writing off of debts?
>
> I feel the decision was taken improperly, but by Mick Ayers, not by the EC
> as they were never even made aware of it. The decisions on how CCBN handles
> this are in the hands of the EC now, whose Chairman is Richard Daniels - who
> was the Treasurer at the time of the loan write-off and who claimed to have
> known nothing about it.
>
> > 8.    Have the auditors carried out their duties properly, and are they
> > raising no concerns?
>
> An email was sent to the Auditors asking for the accouts bookkeeping entries
> to write off computer equipment. The Auditors supplied the bookkeeping
> entries, but were unaware that it was a cash loan which was actually being
> written off, not computer equipment. They were misled by the information
> they were supplied by Tracey Major, on Mick Ayers' direction. I feel the
> Auditors made a mistake in not asking how 'computer equipment' could be in
> an Offciers Loan Account in the books, but they didn't. It does not reflect
> well on them either, though they were slack rather than complicit.
>
> Duncan Heenan