The money taken from BN in the form of loans not repaid seems quite 
small beer compared with the (it must be now approaching) quarter of a 
million pounds paid to the contractor Andrew Welch. Do members (whose 
money it is) feel that this is well spent?

It now seems time to revisit a warning I made that there were no 
controls to ensure that all BN's assets were used for BN's members' 
benefit alone or to prevent conflict of interest.
AW is contracting for BN at the same time as he appears to be running 
what is in effect a rival organisation to BN.  See 
Http://www.inaturistba.org/contact/

As I wrote in 2006 (http://noco.org.uk/):

"The potential for conflicts of interest is huge. Remember that any type 
of business that BN is involved in is underwritten with members’ money 
and they have unlimited liability.
...

The second is, I think, that he sees his own career as a marketing 
consultant developing in the travel, hospitality and related fields, and 
BN is allowing him to build up his network at no risk to himself. He is 
in effect building a business with BN members’ money. He may also 
think that he can use BN’s influence as the largest naturist 
organisation to take business from established naturist operators. And 
the only thing BN members can do is to trust RD and AW and their 
business associates, the main beneficiaries of this operation, to use 
the members’ money wisely in the interest of BN.

A knowledgeable and independent Treasurer, willing to look behind the 
figures, would be useful here. But we know that the Treasurer was 
actually excluded from important decisions in 2004/5, so how do we know 
it won’t happen again?

Even more, what happens when AW ceases to work for BN, as he will 
eventually whether voluntarily or not? Will there be a handover, and to 
whom? He can leave and take his business
contacts with him, because there would be no contractual or legal 
separation between his business and BN’s. BN could be left as a shell 
organisation while AW walks away, with or without others involved, 
entirely legally, with what is in effect a large amount of members’ 
money in his business. I am not saying this will happen or it is 
actually planned, but it could happen and with no safeguards it is 
foolish to allow these conflicts of interest to exist."


-- 
Richard Burnham----------------------------------------
Naturist Accommodation UK: http://naco.org.uk
The opinions expressed above are my own, and do not necessarily
represent the views of anyone else

"Richard Burnham"  wrote in message 
news:mR4ua6FVa+wIFw+D@not.disclosed...
> The money taken from BN in the form of loans not repaid seems quite small 
> beer compared with the (it must be now approaching) quarter of a million 
> pounds paid to the contractor Andrew Welch. Do members (whose money it is) 
> feel that this is well spent?
>
> It now seems time to revisit a warning I made that there were no controls 
> to ensure that all BN's assets were used for BN's members' benefit alone 
> or to prevent conflict of interest.
> AW is contracting for BN at the same time as he appears to be running what 
> is in effect a rival organisation to BN.  See 
> Http://www.inaturistba.org/contact/
>
> As I wrote in 2006 (http://noco.org.uk/):
>
> "The potential for conflicts of interest is huge. Remember that any type 
> of business that BN is involved in is underwritten with members’ money and 
> they have unlimited liability.
> ...
>
> The second is, I think, that he sees his own career as a marketing 
> consultant developing in the travel, hospitality and related fields, and 
> BN is allowing him to build up his network at no risk to himself. He is in 
> effect building a business with BN members’ money. He may also think that 
> he can use BN’s influence as the largest naturist organisation to take 
> business from established naturist operators. And the only thing BN 
> members can do is to trust RD and AW and their business associates, the 
> main beneficiaries of this operation, to use the members’ money wisely in 
> the interest of BN.
>
> A knowledgeable and independent Treasurer, willing to look behind the 
> figures, would be useful here. But we know that the Treasurer was actually 
> excluded from important decisions in 2004/5, so how do we know it won’t 
> happen again?
>
> Even more, what happens when AW ceases to work for BN, as he will 
> eventually whether voluntarily or not? Will there be a handover, and to 
> whom? He can leave and take his business
> contacts with him, because there would be no contractual or legal 
> separation between his business and BN’s. BN could be left as a shell 
> organisation while AW walks away, with or without others involved, 
> entirely legally, with what is in effect a large amount of members’ money 
> in his business. I am not saying this will happen or it is actually 
> planned, but it could happen and with no safeguards it is foolish to allow 
> these conflicts of interest to exist."
>
>
> -- 
> Richard Burnham----------------------------------------
> Naturist Accommodation UK: http://naco.org.uk
> The opinions expressed above are my own, and do not necessarily
> represent the views of anyone else
>
What seems more likely is that AW will have his contract re-established from 
January at an increased fee (£60k?). This is because the EC have not done 
any of the things some of us have been urging to prepare fro 1.1.09, when 
his current reduced contract ends, and they'll likely panic & just shout 
'Help us Andrew - at any price!' The Chairman elect certainly doesn't seem 
to have any plans - at least not that he's shared with me. He seems more 
interested in going to hear Mick Ayers speak at the INF conference in 
Brazil - on expenses of course.

Duncan Heenan wrote:

>>
> What seems more likely is that AW will have his contract re-established 
> from January at an increased fee (£60k?). This is because the EC have 
> not done any of the things some of us have been urging to prepare fro 
> 1.1.09, when his current reduced contract ends, and they'll likely panic 
> & just shout 'Help us Andrew - at any price!' The Chairman elect 
> certainly doesn't seem to have any plans - at least not that he's shared 
> with me. He seems more interested in going to hear Mick Ayers speak at 
> the INF conference in Brazil - on expenses of course.
> 
  Do the incomings match the outgoings, and if not when is 0 reached?

On Sep 7, 3:35 pm, Richard Burnham  wrote:
> The money taken from BN in the form of loans not repaid seems quite
> small beer compared with the (it must be now approaching) quarter of a
> million pounds paid to the contractor Andrew Welch. Do members (whose
> money it is) feel that this is well spent?
>
Funnily enough -- or perhaps not so funny at all -- it's exactly this
issue which made us decide not to have anything to do with BN.

The organisation may agonise over what strategies to pursue, how best
to further naturism, etc etc

But if can't even act wisely in the management of funds provided by
its membership, then there's not much chance of any wisdom informing
anything else it might seek to do.

That Mr Welch has by now earned enough from BN to help him go it
alone, if he so chooses, is good for Mr Welsh.

That BN's conduct has been such as to make potential members think
they'll let BN go it alone is anything but. Then again though, if
funding for BN dries up, there won't be any need to question how, why
and where it is spent.