United Kingdom: ME Association governance issues

It's interesting, I think, that back in 2019 Riley got away with saying similar things in an article. We protested in forum discussion, but Riley was unrepentant, and clearly learned nothing from what our members explained. Now there are a letter with 1000 signatures, and 3 organisations that didn't exist back then putting on a lot more pressure. Surely the MEA will have to take action this time.
 
This damaging 'story' will be in the nationals next. The MEA should have reigned in Neil Riley in 2019. His childish arrogance and stupidity will just revive 'controversy' about exercise for ME. He has undermined NICE. And taunting sick people is the lowest behaviour. What is wrong with him?
 
Trish said:
Now there are a letter with 1000 signatures, and 3 organisations that didn't exist back then putting on a lot more pressure. Surely the MEA will have to take action this time.
Click to expand...
You would think so, but the longer this goes on without a meaningful response beyond his sorry, not sorry statement, the more this makes me picture a scene at the MEA offices; Riley frothing at the mouth shouting ‘I will not be cancelled by this woke, angry mob’ with spittle flying everywhere, whilst stamping his foot (which ironically causes PEM as a result of his movement). Meanwhile CS and other trustees aren’t calling 999 to get the fire brigade for the building that is burning around them.

Ok, my mind went a bit wild there, but, if the rest of the board was going to do anything about it they surely would have by now? Which is potentially even more damaging in many respects because it suggests some approval/agreement with what he wrote in both instances and wrt the statement this week. Or they simply don’t see the damage that is being done to their reputation.

I do feel for the staff who are not going to be immune to what is going on, their poor social media person must just see their notifications going ding ding ding all day knowing it's another angry person with ME shouting at them.
 
I imagine a much more subdued scene, with reassurances among Trustees that this social media froth will soon blow over, and staff keeping their mouths firmly shut and their heads down while feeling very uncomfortable. I'm guessing the trustees haven't even discussed it yet.

The rest of the trustees had no effect when he got away with it in 2019, and when he wrote his letter of confidence in Sarah Tyson to S4ME. I doubt they will do anything now.
 
I think the best approach would be to reach out to Charles and express patient concern and then go on to discuss the need to plan for succession.

But I also still think the solution to this is to find new trustees whom patients trust. Even if Riley is eventually forced out, who do we want to take over? Who do we want as new trustees in the next year or so?

And I also think that coming up with replacements could make a change much easier. There could be some face-saving way for Riley to go. I know some won't want that, but if it makes it easier to ease him out, then in my opinion it's a (small) price worth paying.
 
The MEA have closed down the comments facility on all but a couple of their FB and twitter/x posts. Bunker behaviour. People with ME don't shout at social media managers, part of whose job is inevitably handling any influx of comments relating to their employer's cock ups (whoever their employer is).
 
Sorry to keep harping on about this, but things are getting really tight for posting out notice of the 9 December AGM.

If the magazine plus AGM related materials does not arrive today, but arrives Monday, that will leave only 13 clear days' notice (it's meant to be 21 clear days).

If there is a postal ballot this year for trustee elections or for voting on resolutions:

"All postal votes must be received by the company at least seven clear days before the holding of an annual general meeting takes place. Any votes received after that time shall be deemed null and void."​


One year, the printers failed to mail out some of the magazines so an EGM arranged for 28th June 2005, which the board had called inviting members to vote on a number of proposed changes to the 2001 Articles of Association, had to be cancelled and rearranged for 3rd September. I hope no-one had already booked transport or made carer/escort arrangements.

Extract from 2005 letter to members:

2005-egm.png

The full rescheduling letter is here: https://dxrevisionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/mea-egm-letter-1.pdf

I have now raised several questions re this AGM on ME Association Twitter/X. I am not anticipating a response until next week - if at all.

From barely quorate AGMs held in difficult to get to locations to cock-ups with the printers and delays in sending out of notices, this board has form for poorly run meetings.
 
Last edited:
Lou B Lou said:
What is wrong with him?
Click to expand...

He appears to have no idea.

No idea how ME/CFS affects some people.

No idea what other, less privileged lives are like.

No idea how to communicate ideas.

No idea how to manage public relations.

No idea how precarious the moment is in the battle against BPS ideology.

No idea how many sacrifices people have made to get here.

No idea how easily the ground gained after an appalling tragedy and the efforts of a grieving family could be lost.

In other words, he appears to lack many of the key competences for the job.
 
Last edited:
JohnTheJack said:
I think the best approach would be to reach out to Charles and express patient concern and then go on to discuss the need to plan for succession.

But I also still think the solution to this is to find new trustees whom patients trust. Even if Riley is eventually forced out, who do we want to take over? Who do we want as new trustees in the next year or so?

And I also think that coming up with replacements could make a change much easier. There could be some face-saving way for Riley to go. I know some won't want that, but if it makes it easier to ease him out, then in my opinion it's a (small) price worth paying.
Click to expand...
Agreeed. And as part of this looking at the way the trustee role is designed vs other norms. It should perhaps be operating primarily as scrutiny and checks/balances and therefore include those who know the ins and outs of ME and the issues and thereby shouldn’t be a bigger load than for normal trustee roles as that just makes recruitment based only on the wrong things (people who’ve enough heakth time snd finance to offer all that)

I’m also wary of the ‘doing’ bit always being something that adds or makes life easier for staff vs normal trustee role vs staff set up.

plus of course whilst you don’t want to go too far the other way there is a worth/respect thing being set of pwme and charities having to be run on a lot of people who can give goodwill (and often you get some saints but also such goodwill often comes with caveats of what to them it looks like of what they want to ‘offer) . We need patient voice to being backed up by solid staff with enough energy and clout to do so not everyone being exhausted doing their best with a shoe string - the points about the situation changing in the motion are relevant.
 
Kitty said:
He appears to have no idea.

No idea how ME/CFS affects some people.

No idea what other, less privileged lives are like.

No idea how to communicate ideas.

No idea how to manage public relations.

No idea how precarious the moment is in the battle against BPS ideology.

No idea how many sacrifices people have made to get here.

No idea how easily the ground gained after an appalling tragedy and the efforts of a grieving family could be lost.

In other words, he appears to lack many of the key competences for the job.
Click to expand...
And for those even worse you could potentially replace the word idea with the word ‘interest’ for each of them which makes it more concerning about who is then being served.
 
Sly Saint said:
there are several threads with discussions on possible mergers, problems with the existing charities, and this fairly recent one on governance issues particularly relating to MEA (see also tag 'mea').
Members only - Governance issues with UK ME/CFS charities | Science for ME
Click to expand...
I don’t think that now is the time as a merger if it ever happened would need to be done once you’ve got some sort of sorting out done re who is in charge and representing each in order to maintain what needs to be and have sensible discussions that make the best of any assets or obligations etc

Ie bith need to have a sensible voice for it to be equal and things being in disarray fir one could make things hard to make work and have affects on the process
 
bobbler said:
I don’t think that now is the time as a merger if it ever happened would need to be done once you’ve got some sort of sorting out done re who is in charge and representing each in order to maintain what needs to be and have sensible discussions that make the best of any assets or obligations etc
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. The time may come, but it'll probably be clear when it does. For instance, if charities need to join up because there's a treatment or a service they could offer if they consolidated their resources.

At the moment, it's more about advice, advocacy, and fending off the crap. There are differing opinions on what needs doing and how best to do it, and perhaps we are better with more than one approach. Especially as it leaves us with options if one goes bad.
 
Dx Revision Watch said:
Would they care, though, if even a few hundred members were to give notice to the MEA that they want their £18 a year subscriptions cancelled?
…
I'm not saying members shouldn't cancel their subscriptions or not renew their subscriptions (and they will lose their vote if they do). I would do it myself, if I were a member, but it may not bother the board that much. There will still be many members oblivious to this issue and who weren't concerned enough to complain directly or publicly when the Autumn issue first came out several months ago.
Click to expand...
Has the ME Association just become a glossy magazine subscription to help people with ME pass the time and ‘feel’ supported?

Like “Caravan Owners Weekly” or something?

What would it take for a significant part of their 5,000 members, and where are these members anyway? None on here (prepared to admit it ) so it would seem.
 
SteveFifield said:
Has the ME Association just become a glossy magazine subscription to help people with ME pass the time and ‘feel’ supported?

Like “Caravan Owners Weekly” or something?

What would it take for a significant part of their 5,000 members, and where are these members anyway? None on here (prepared to admit it ) so it would seem.
Click to expand...
Just to get my head around it

it’s only 5000 actual members x say £20/yr? Which is £100k

but of course their role is more than that as some donations - which I’d guess is a bigger income line - might be from members or for them (either close family/friends or just ‘the idea of members’) . So fir this the members are pretty key

but then there might be donations based on just brand and assumptions from pwme and those who don’t have me/cfs

I’m trying to think if it needs to be limited to members to flag issues .. really . And I’m trying to understand if indeed the membership is sold at all as having a stake/vote or indeed people see it as you’ve said more like buying a subscription for services

I think there is some muddiness

because if people were buying a subscription the ‘customer input’ would be there because eg a commercial company would be worried about people stopping buying the magazine

but if people are buying something else ie are they ‘keeping it going because of the pr to others’ or support that used to be offered ir because they think they could shape it as an org then where is that mechanism given most would need to do it as it happens by email and not a travel to an AGM in person

how does this org actually work these days/what is its model re the member thing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom