United Kingdom: ME Association governance issues

I've only looked at articles 4 and 28, but the new document, presented as the 2014 AoA, looks like the defunct 2013 AoA. With a twist, because it's not 100% the same document, it's different than the November 2013 AoA, both its draft- and approved version (to be found both on the MEAss site at the time and filed at Companies House).
Because it has an error, in Article 28 it mentions "the Trustee Act 2000" instead of "the 2000 Charity Act" like it should.

Lucibee pointed out to me that the Trustee Act 2000 actually is the correct Act to refer to. So the 2000 Charity Act was a mistake in the accepted Nov 2013 AoA

Trustee Act 2000 - Wikipedia

So now I wonder if the PDF that is currently put up was dated 5 Dec 2013 because that was corrected in the AoA document.
 
What’s the plan for the ME Association? They’ve clearly shown they aren’t willing to change.

But they aren’t too friendly to the GET crowd. I mean anyone completely brainwashed by the “anti-recovery activist” narrative is going to see the ME Association as part of the “biomedical side”.

And most people on the biomedical side now don’t take the ME Association seriously because of the drama and unwillingness to listen.

I doubt there is much middle ground?
Where do they expect to get their future funding from? Who do they expect to represent? I’m a little lost at what their strategy is.

Is this a case of Riley clinging on to power being more important to him than the success of the organisation?
I suspect they still hope they can ride it out.

Seeing the gushing comments on the Xmas card on FB, there are still many who aren’t aware of the shambles that is going on in the background and will support them unwaveringly, especially if they censor unsupportive posts there.

They will be happy being rid of a handful of disaffected agitators who can’t attend their next AGM or be part of elections.
 
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...le-companies-changing-your-governing-document

Changes that allow benefits to trustees, members, and people or organisations connected to them


The law allows certain payments and benefits to trustees, such as for:

  • their reasonable and legitimate expenses
  • providing goods and/or services in some circumstances
  • trustee indemnity insurance
If your governing document has a clause that prevents the benefits that are allowed by law, you can amend it to remove the clause.

You do not need the Commission’s authority to do this unless there is a conflict of interest you cannot manage, such as when:

  • the only members of your charity are its trustees, or
  • there are not enough members who are not also trustees to vote on the change
You must have Commission authority to make changes to your governing document that would allow benefits other than the above to trustees, members and people or organisations connected to them (‘connected persons’).

For example, to add a new or amend an existing clause that allows your charity to:

  • pay a trustee for doing their trustee role
  • employ a trustee, member or connected person
  • pay (or increase) interest to a trustee on a loan they provide to the charity
It is possible to add or amend a clause that says a benefit would only be allowed with the Commission’s authority. You must have the Commission’s authority to add or amend this type of clause.

It is also possible to add or amend a clause that allows benefits to people or organisations that do not fall in the category of ‘connected persons’ as defined in charity law. You will need the Commission’s authority if, when you decide to make these changes, there is a conflict of interest that you cannot manage.

Seek professional advice if you’re unsure about the right steps to follow or if you’re unsure whether someone is a connected person.

Be aware that some charities must report payments to trustees, members, and people or organisations connected to them in their accounts and annual return, which becomes publicly available information.

Before you make changes, you should read our guidance about:

Ask the Commission to authorise these types of changes. The Commission will only give authority if we are satisfied it is in the best interests of your charity. You will need to explain why you are making the change, including:

  • what your governing document currently says about benefits
  • the factors you considered when you made your decision
  • how you have managed the conflict of interest
 
Which is precisely why I asked the question. Because Riley is claiming:

"A review of the original Articles was carried out in 2013. A number of amendments were made at the time to reflect the changes in the Charity Commissions Model Articles and comply with Sections 185 and 186 of the Charities Act 2011.
The version of the Articles, which has previously appeared on our website, is not the 2014 version. The correct 2014 version of the Articles has now been uploaded. Human error can never be eliminated but we have put in operation a process to ensure this does not happen again.

The Charity Commission accepts the current 2014 version of the Articles. Companies House carries the full version."
The 2014 version, as published on Companies House, is not the version that the MEA has put on its site in the last couple of days.

It's so strange that they say this, as I can't see how that is true.
They uploaded the defunct November 2013 AoA. The replacement Nov 2014 AoA is very clear: three sections to Article 28, only section (c) applies and they did not adhere to those conditions if you look at the Charity Committee letter.

Nov14 AoA was registered at Companies House on 4 December 2014, and the accompanying note by the MEAss secretary clearly states that this is the document the Association voted on and approved.

You can't just add sections from old AoA's after voting and say that is the "full version" of your AoA.
 
Also that money from ME patients is being used to involve lawyers against an ME patient asking sensible questions, is an interesting choice…
I would be very surprised if they have paid for legal advice at this stage. If a lawyer was employed to write that statement, they should ask for a refund.

If the situation is not resolved, it is interesting to consider whether the Trustees would be permitted to use charity funds to defend themselves against any accusations of wrongdoing. I have no expertise but my guess is that in such circumstances they might need to satisfy the Charities Commission that any such expenditure would be in the best interests of the charity as whole.
 
Last edited:
None of these versions do:

articles-20132014current.png

No, but before November 2014 it would have been allowed under Article 28 section (a) of the Nov '13 AoA to make "Reasonable and proper payment to any officer or servant or director of the company for any services to the company", under certain conditions.

I think it would still have been debatable if hiring the private companies of directors fell under section (a), but since November 2014 that is a moot point, as the Nov13 AoA clause a was no longer in function.

I'm just gobsmacked that MEAss apparently is trying to make the point that their old AoA is actually the "full version" of the replacement, current one.
 
Last edited:
It's so strange that they say this, as I can't see how that is true.
They uploaded the defunct November 2013 AoA. The replacement Nov 2014 AoA is very clear: three sections to Article 28, only section (c) applies and they did not adhere to those conditions if you look at the Charity Committee letter.

Nov14 AoA was registered at Companies House on 4 December 2014, and the accompanying note by the MEAss secretary clearly states that this is the document the Association voted on and approved.

You can't just add sections from old AoA's after voting and say that is the "full version" of your AoA.


I know. I really don't understand what they think they are up to. And how convenient that they've only just decided that the 2014 document that has been on their site since at least May 2019 was not the "correct" document and needed to be replaced by with "correct" document (when it appears to date from 2013 and does not correlate with the current Articles on Companies House).

Even if they had been permitted to make changes to an existing current Articles without permission, then surely they would still need to lodge an amended document with Companies House?
 
It's so strange that they say this, as I can't see how that is true.
They uploaded the defunct November 2013 AoA. The replacement Nov 2014 AoA is very clear: three sections to Article 28, only section (c) applies and they did not adhere to those conditions if you look at the Charity Committee letter.

Nov14 AoA was registered at Companies House on 4 December 2014, and the accompanying note by the MEAss secretary clearly states that this is the document the Association voted on and approved.

You can't just add sections from old AoA's after voting and say that is the "full version" of your AoA.


And what do you suppose Riley means by "the current" 2014 version and what does he mean by the "full version" where he says:

"The Charity Commission accepts the current 2014 version of the Articles. Companies House carries the full version."

None of what he says is logical.
 
Even if they had been permitted to make changes to an existing current Articles without permission, then surely they would still need to lodge an amended document with Companies House?
Yes, I'd say so too.
If dutch law corresponds to the UK ones (and it seems to), they need to adhere to the fact that they are a charity AND an association. (So e.g. not a foundation.)

So it seems likely that one who is absolutely making the final decision on such changes are the members.

And indeed, the gov website you linked says:

Whenever you use the power of amendment, you must make sure that you use the power correctly. This means understanding the rules set out in law. It also means checking your governing document to see if it includes any extra rules you need to follow. You must follow any conditions or steps your governing document sets out.

For example, it may say that the change you want to make must be authorised by:

  • the Charity Commission
  • your charity’s founder
  • a higher than usual percentage of your charity’s members
When using the power of amendment, you must make decisions that are in the charity’s best interests.

And I expect that change should have been then registered at Companies House as the current AoA.
(As MEA claims the 2014-but-actually-2013 AoA was registered with CH in 2014, that means it should have been registered in the last three weeks of 2014, after the Dec 8 registration of the Nov14 replacement AoA.)
 
And what do you suppose Riley means by "the current" 2014 version and what does he mean by the "full version" where he says:

"The Charity Commission accepts the current 2014 version of the Articles. Companies House carries the full version."

None of what he says is logical.
I can't see into his head, so what he truly means is a mystery.

To me it appears like he either did some creative explaining so he [edited to add: and the other trustees]would not have to face the fact that he messed up when allowing big payments to director's companies in 2023 (and 2022 I think), we've seen the past weeks that quite some MEAss effort seems to go in Making Sure Riley Is Not Wrong.

Or he's just honestly lost in this and thinks it works that way.

(Or, always an option to keep open, I'm missing something.)

He does seem to be competing in a competition to step on as many lawn rakes as possible the last weeks.

The thing is, if they had immediately said: "Argh, we make a mistake, we should never have done this, we honestly thought we were operating within the AoA." then I might have understood it. Or if they had given a solid explanation.

But it's the avoiding of Peter White's questions and then chest-pounding, info juggling and threatening in the statement that makes this so problematic for me.
 
Last edited:
To me it appears like he either did some creative explaining so he would not have to face the fact that he messed up when allowing big payments to director's companies in 2023 (and 2022 I think), we've seen the past weeks that quite some MEAss effort seems to go in Making Sure Riley Is Not Wrong.

We are definitely seeing over the last six months or longer, on the part of the MEA, disrespect for people with ME and now their own constitution/articles of association. Upholding the current board’s power/prestige seems more important than getting things right.
 
From the Nov14 AoA, Alteration of the articles.

They can only be changed by special resolution passed at a member meeting, and those regarding direction or restriction of money use (like Article 28) can only be changed with the Charity Commission's prior written approval.


Schermafbeelding 2024-12-18 195454.png
 
I would be very surprised if they have paid for legal advice at this stage. If a lawyer was employed to write that statement, they should ask for a refund.

If the situation is not resolved, it is interesting to consider whether the Trustees would be permitted to use charity funds to defend themselves against any accusations of wrongdoing. I have no expertise but my guess is that in such circumstances they might need to satisfy the Charities Commission that any such expenditure would be in the best interests of the charity as whole.
Neil Riley is a lawyer
 
It ought to be a legal requirement that all Articles carry the date (not just the page(s) of resolutions that are sent with an updated/amended document to Companies House).
It seems bonkers that it isn’t. Maybe it is just so obviously good practice, particularly when making an amendment, that it was overlooked when the Act was written. Imagine revising a will without dating it or stating which document it was replacing.
 
From the Nov14 AoA, Alteration of the articles.

They can only be changed by special resolution passed at a member meeting, and those regarding direction or restriction of money use (like Article 28) can only be changed with the Charity Commission's prior written approval.

To the best of my knowledge, there have been no special resolutions passed since the 18 November 2014 General Meeting resolution.
 
I can't see into his head, so what he truly means is a mystery.

To me it appears like he either did some creative explaining so he [edited to add: and the other trustees]would not have to face the fact that he messed up when allowing big payments to director's companies in 2023 (and 2022 I think), we've seen the past weeks that quite some MEAss effort seems to go in Making Sure Riley Is Not Wrong.

Or he's just honestly lost in this and thinks it works that way.

(Or, always an option to keep open, I'm missing something.)

He does seem to be competing in a competition to step on as many lawn rakes as possible the last weeks.

The thing is, if they had immediately said: "Argh, we make a mistake, we should never have done this, we honestly thought we were operating within the AoA." then I might have understood it. Or if they had given a solid explanation.

But it's the avoiding of Peter White's questions and then chest-pounding, info juggling and threatening in the statement that makes this so problematic for me.
The wording is a bit Weasel words.

“the charities commission “accepts” the current version.
 
Back
Top Bottom