Dear NCH Member

As you may know, the NCH AGM is planned for 2 October. We are writing to give you some information that may help you in your decisions as to howto vote. You may not know who we are: Shaun Brookhouse was chair of the NCH from 2001-2005, was the founding chair of UKCHO and has been a fellow of the NCH since 1998. Fiona Biddle was a director from 1999-2008 and chair from 2006-2008. She is a former chair of UKCHO and has been a fellow of the NCH since 2002. Therefore we speak from a place of understanding of the organisation, and of love for it and all it stands for.

If you are not an NCH member, please forgive us for cluttering your inbox. We have asked the NCH to circulate this document and our request has received no response. Therefore we have had to use an old list that was created when email addresses were in the public domain. This means that new members and trainees will not get it, so if you can, please forward this to colleagues.

We would also ask you to consider posting on facebook. It’s a little over the twitter limit though!

We wish to stress that neither of us are re-standing for election: our time has come and gone: we believe that the NCH should be run by new blood, be taken forward and fully support change.... but that change needs to be for the benefit of all members of the NCH, not just a few. We do however recognise that there have been positive moves, such as the redesigned website and would like to single out the new Training and Accreditation Officer for her efficiency, clarity and politeness. But unfortunately we have a lot of other things that we need to highlight which are not so pleasant. We recognise, accept and even welcome that not all those reading this will agree with us. Debate is to be encouraged, not stifled.

Let’s start with the current AGM:

1. It is over two years since the last AGM (Jun 2008). While this is legal, it doesn’t seem to be within the spirit of a members’ co-operative. In other words YOU have had no opportunity to be elected in that time. There is currently only one elected director. All others have been co-opted (see 9 below).

2. An AGM was planned at the cancelled Jun 2010 extravaganza, but was only mentioned in the journal, no invitations were sent and so no opportunity was given to say one would attend or appoint a proxy. Therefore there could have been no information as to whether the AGM would have been quorate, so why was it cancelled?

3. A call was sent on 6 September for nominations and a deadline was given of 8 September. Two days is simply not sufficient for people to be able to make such a decision, nor does it comply with the Memorandum and Articles of Association, and Bye Laws, which say that nominations can be made up to 14 days before which would have been 18th. Several people (including us) informed the NCH of this mistake and the cut-off date was extended to 15th but this is still three days short. Interestingly the current journal contains a comment that the ASA’s request for a response in ten days was too little time, when the information required to respond should have been easily available. After all if you make claims in an advert you should not have to search for information to back it up after the event!

4. The call for nominations, and AGM notification was NOT sent to trainees until we notified the exec (on 17 Sept) that they had been missed out. Trainees DO have full voting rights so this was a major error. It seems likely that the Executive did not know the Bye Laws and no one had bothered to check. It is possible that this was simply a mistake and they DID know, but given that the original invitation said that only “full and active members were entitled to vote” this would seem odd. In essence the only people NOT entitled to vote are the small number of associate members who are not in practice. This error was discovered by us by coincidence and the exec were informed immediately. The exec then sent the AGM notification to them but they still all missed out on being able to stand for election.

5. The exec sent out an email praising their own work before other nominations were notified. This is unfair and biased. Also, in the published election addresses, that supplied by Donald Robertson is over twice the allowed length, at 428 words (the limit of 200 is stated in the Bye Laws). While talking about Mr Robertson’s address, he mentions working on the revision of the supervision qualification but we believe that he is not qualified as a supervisor.

6. The figures in the secretary’s report do not tally with those in the draft accounts. In the report it says that the turnover is £116553 with surplus of £21929. In the accounts these figures are £95943 and £5169 respectively. Considerably different!

7. We like the new online AGM form, but do not feel it is right to disallow changes. For example, it is possible that you have nominated a proxy and then, having read this, decided to change your mind about your votes. If this is the case we strongly recommend that you insist your change is accepted.

8. We agree that changing the code of ethics to complement that of the CNHC is sensible. However, as this doesn’t specifically mention use of testimonials we suspect that this will be used to surreptitiously undermine this important clause. NB: at the 2008 AGM a motion was put to allow testimonials. 83 voted for the change and 345 voted against. This vote was reported as “close” by the journal editor and despite questioning this with him and the chair this was not corrected. NB: the UKCHO code of ethics specifically forbids testimonials so any member of the NCH who uses them would be breaking that code anyway, regardless of how the NCH choose to interpret a new code. Also, there is no reason why our code cannot be made tighter on areas which are of specific interest to us as a modality. Perhaps other modalities within the CNHC do not have all the factors against their use that we do. That is for them to determine. We, as the NCH, have a duty to protect both our members and the public. Allowing testimonials is a dereliction of that duty.We question the proposed change to the Grievance and Complaints procedure to NOT allow a complainant anonymity for the following reasons:
a. How this will be put into practice? Who is to determine the best interests of the NCH and on what basis?
b. What circumstances are there where this could be required?
c. The threat of publicising the name (and possibly other details) of a complainant could well put people off making the complaint. It is a difficult enough thing to do without feeling that it might become public knowledge.
We can only see that this might be of use if a complainant was being frivolous, but if this was a grievance then the process allows for the grievance to be dismissed on this basis, and if it is a complaint then the process is only activated if evidence of a breach of the code of ethics has been produced. If evidence has been supplied then this must be investigated to find out its validity, and if none is there then the process allows for the complaint to be dismissed before even getting to a level one hearing. On a posting on the discussion on the AGM webpage, the Company Secretary says “This has been done to reflect our policy for openness and transparency and has changed Confidentiality from an “opt out” to an “opt in” element”. We struggle to see how this matches the wording and no response to our question has been received.
Now onto other matters:

9. Some directors were co-opted without their roles being advertised: ie you didn’t have a chance to apply for the role. We cannot be sure of the exact number that this applies to but certainly Donald Robertson (co-opted early 2009) and Paul Howard (co-opted autumn 2008) were co-opted without advertising the roles. We do not recall seeing an advert for the role of Supervision Director. There are written procedures for all appointments

10. We have asked why the subs system was changed from standing order to paypal but received no response. Monthly payments were £5.50 and were free to process via the bank . They put these up to £6 and as they are probably using Paypal micropayments (https://www.paypal-business.co.uk/take-micropayments-with-paypal/index.htm ) which will be 5%+5p or 3.4%+20p - so the £6 per month will cost either33p for 1st option or 39p for option 2. Processing standing orders was a tedious but easy job: all you need to do is compare this month’s bank statement to lasts as with only slight variations the amounts come in in the same order. Fiona set up the standing order system and ran it for several years and it worked easily and smoothly.

11. When Fiona and Su left the executive in summer 2008 the conference for June 2009 was set but was cancelled soon after without consultation. The reason given was financial: this is mentioned in the Secretary’s report for this AGM. It states that they projected a loss of £14,000. This is simply impossible: the conference expenses are fixed and everyone who attends contributes something to the fixed costs. All hotel expenses are covered by their payments. Fixed costs for the 2008 conference were around £5000 so even if no one had attended that was the maximum loss. We do not have full figures as it would have broken data protection legislation if we had kept hold of data but we have explained this situation in person and in writing with the current chair and the only response received is, in essence, “we disagree” and “provide evidence” when we had already commented that we couldn’t give the figures but we provided fu ll evidence of the process! The exec did not even explain how they believed that our figures were wrong which, if we were, would presumably have been easy to do. We asked for this discussion to be made public in the journal but this was refused. We now see that a cost of over £6000 due to “conference cancellation” is in the accounts. Presuming that this relates to this conference why did the exec not choose to amend the format of the conference to save this fee, given that they put the extravaganza on the same weekend? Was it purely because it wasn’t in London? Or was it just a “not-thought-through” decision, or something else?

12. The current executive made a big deal of their successful extravaganza making a £5000 surplus, but the draft accounts published for this AGM show conference income as £11049 and expenditure of £10218 which gives £831 surplus. However, we don’t think events such as these should make a profit, they are a member benefit so in a sense the lower figure is good for those who attended!

13. The second planned extravaganza was announced with very short notice. Yes, some people book at the last minute but we heard from many people that it is just not possible to make
plans so late. We await with interest as to whether this one will work given that again notice was so short. This time there is the added effect that people are unwilling to book train/plane tickets as they fear losing the cost if it is cancelled again.

14. The current exec produced the “myth busting video”. The idea behind this is good (and was part of the plan before Fiona left the role of chair), but leaves a lot to be desired. The person
may be an actress, but it doesn’t say so. She is clearly a client of Paul Howard’s (it says so (he’s the interviewer)), and is far too close to being a testimonial. The intention for the video was to create a highly professional piece that explained our profession and helped those who are nervous of approaching to feel safe. We do not feel that these aims have been met. A complaint was made about this but no response was received. UKCHO recommended a change of wording, which was made, but members were not informed.

15. The current executive have made the decision to allow accredited schools to advertise their courses as CPD but fail to mention that they have cancelled the in house CPD programme which was a significant member service.

16. The advert placed in Natural Health magazine included a link to an audio download. There was no warning given on the site or on the audio about use (eg not to play while driving) and when we pointed this out they put a warning on the site, but did NOT amend the audio.

17. The current exec started a project to amend the HPD Learning Outcomes even though they knew that there was a planned revision of the NOS. The consultation has resulted in only minor
changes as the new Training and Accreditation Officer listened to the schools and did not allow herself to be distracted by minority views.

18. We are aware of four complaints which have been badly handled. We would like to emphasise that we do not believe this to be the fault of the current complaints officer as we have evidence to suggest that she was not fully trained by her predecessor (the current chair). We do not feel that it is a good idea to go into details of these complaints or the outcomes, especially as one of those complained about is no longer with us, but wish to highlight the following points:
a. In one instance a complaint was made against a member of the executive and despite the bye laws stating that if a complaint makes it to level one (ie if it is not dismissed on the basis of no evidence being presented) that the person in question be suspended, the person was NOT suspended. When this was questioned the response was that the procedure had been changed to say that suspension followed a stage one hearing (rather than preceded it). The executive is entitled to make this change but when a request was made to produce the minutes of the meeting at which this decision was made, nothing was produced. It may be that the decision was properly made and minuted, but if so, why would the executive not share this with us? It makes a mockery of their statement of being open and accountable.
b. In another complaint scenario, a level one hearing was held and the committee decided there was a case to answer. The level two hearing was convened and all parties travelled to meet at the designated venue. Only when there was it discovered that the subject of the complaint had not been dealt the appropriate forms (as the complaints officer did not know of their existence). Therefore the complaint, with the agreement of all, went back to the beginning. At that point the complaints officer, along with the new Executive Director, decided that the case would not be forwarded to a stage one committee on the basis that no evidence of a breach of the code of ethics had been produced. This is despite a previous stage one having examined this so-called non-existence evidence and deciding this evidence meant that the subject of the complaint had a case to answer. We understand this is complex, but basically it means that the first ti me round (when forms were not issued), the complaint went through two levels of the process without being dismissed (and fell at stage three due to procedural failings) and the second time it was dismissed at the very start of the procedure. A final point on this is that the evidence produced was in the public domain and so could not be validly discounted as not existing.

19. The previous executive had been working towards the production of a book on clinical governance to support the profession and all individual members and many chapters were completed. This has been scrapped. The current chair confirmed this when asked.

20. The NCH has ceased the sale of conference DVDs. We have asked why and received no reply. It seems odd to cut off an income stream and a useful member resource at the same time.

21. We’ve seen no evidence of an audit of CPD/Supervision since July 08

22. The monthly ebulletin has been discontinued. We feel this was a great way to keep in contact with the membership and was a simple and straightforward process so we cannot understand the thought behind its cessation.

23. Why has the chair of the organisation not bothered to upgrade his own membership from Lic? Surely this implies some disregard for the structure of the organisation that he claims to
represent. Paul White and Paul Howard’s bios on the SICH site refers to them as the chair and Marketing Director of “the industry’s national governing body” – um there isn’t one is there? And “industry” rather than “profession”?

24. The current chair has, at least twice, referred to “introducing financial controls” as if there were none before. There were! All accounts were published and all questions about any financial questions answered. No one ever got any jollies from being part of the NCH executive! This statement can only have been made to cast unwarranted doubt on our administrations.
25. In the recent Journal the supervision director states that the new supervision course can be run by any accredited school. He does not state whether the trainers need themselves to be qualified supervisors, and in any case the qualification has always been open, in the same way that the HPD is, to any accredited school. The new course has incidentally been cut from 6 days to 4 which we believe will jeopardise its depth but await to see the detail.

26. When Trevor Silvester (the current Supervision director) stood down as journal editor (in 2007) we, as the exec, were upset to be losing his expertise and an idea was formed that we could have a Fellows Advisory Board (FAB) which comprised all the fellows of the organisation with the exception of those who had roles with other hypno-bodies. They were there to offer advice (when asked) and Trevor attended exec meetings on behalf of FAB. Since Fiona left office (and joined FAB) there have been no communications with FAB from the exec. Many of the errors made could have been avoided by asking/checking. We have always said that we are available, and are perfectly happy with the role of some sort of dotty aunt or uncle in the corner who may or may not be listened to but who just may have the odd nugget of wisdom to share.

27. The exec made the Journal Editor a Director. The purpose of the Journal Editor being an Ex-Officio was to ensure that he fulfilled his obligation to the NCH (as a defacto paid employee) and that the Editor could retain independence in his/her editorials. This position (of being independent) had previously been rigorously upheld by both the current editor and his predecessor (the current supervision director).

28. We feel that the Help for Heroes campaign was misguided. Offering one session free to people with potentially serious psychological problems is disingenuous. We also feel that it was putting members who are not routinely trained in working with PTSD in a potentially difficult situation. This has been discussed in the journal and we accept that it was not the intention, but it could have been more clearly thought through.
29. The chair stated that there was a considerable saving on telephone costs from 2008 to 2009 and yet the accounts published in the Winter 2009 issue shows an increase in phone expenditure of 240%

30. The accounts show the following membership income over the last three years:
Year Membership income N members @ £65
2010 74238 1142
2009 68974 1061
2008 73055 1123
These figures are not brilliant, but we accept that these are difficult financial times and so to keep the number level is fine. However, what we question is Paul White’s comment to the ASA that we have approximately 2000 members. That would mean approximately 47 current students per school which we think is highly unlikely!

So, who should you vote for? It is entirely up to you! We encourage you to read the election addresses carefully and then decide. Incidentally, you may attend the AGM without attending the extravaganza at all. You can, if you wish, nominate either of us as your proxy and we will vote in exactly the way you tell us. For your interest we will be voting against both the motions proposed for the reasons expressed above. It is compulsory to rank all the contenders for directorships. You cannot simply select a certain number to vote for.Given that we have to rank them, the top four will be Mo Ferrington, Neil Foster, Chris Gelder and Andrew Hill. We have listed them here in alphabetical order but have no preference between them. We will rank them randomly when we complete the form. We know all four very well and fully recommend them as excellent representatives for you, the membership.

The next block will be Gina Davy , Sophie Fletcher, and Lorah Towns (again stated here in alphabetical order), and the remaining candidates (as the long standing representatives responsible for the negatives that we have highlighted) will follow.

Finally, we wish to say how tremendously sad we are to have to produce this document. We both wished to sail off into the proverbial sunset on our retirement from office leaving the NCH in safe hands. We now, however, offer this to you in the spirit of encouraging all of you to act to take the NCH back for the members as the true co-operative professional body that is run by you and for you.

Yours sincerely
Shaun Brookhouse FNCH and Fiona Biddle FNCH