Since 2011 there has been speculation and rumour about my dismissal from the From the Legalise Cannabis Alliance [LCA] Management Committee’ on 11/3/201

Skin up this may take a while

At the meeting of the Legalise Cannabis Alliance [LCA] Management Committee on 11/3/2011 I made it clear from the start I was against name change because I was concerned it would result in the party’s ratings on search engine previous that LCA executive committees, individual LCA members and non-LCA affiliated organisations had worked so hard to achieve.

It would also break a raft of links from pro-cannabis and media websites pointing to and referencing the LCA.

After a heated discussion getting nowhere I informed the chair I wish to use my power of veto (1) on changes to the LCA name.

In my opinion this should have committed the committee to maintain the ‘status Quo’(2)

However that was not the case instead of following protocol the committee allegedly sacked me from the Committee – But allowed me to continue to take part and vote in the discussions!

After the meeting, speaking to Jan Wells on the journey across London, she said nothing had been decided about my sacking. I followed this up with a telephone call when she reiterated no vote had taken place

I also phoned Mark Palmer – who also said nothing, was decided whilst he was at the meeting (Mark left early)!

So you can imagine my surprise when I received an email from the next day from Peter Reynolds stating he proposed to say in the minutes I had resigned.

I emailed Peter Reynolds on the 13 march and advised him I did not resign - It was my intention to stay on board to oversee a smooth transition of the transfer to CLEAR and the minutes should reflect this (3)

Not receiving a reply from Peter Reynolds on 20 March I emailed Jan Wells, Mark Palmer and Stuart Warwick informing them of Peter Reynolds’ email, asking for their opinions on the events. (4)

I did not receive a reply from Mark Palmer or Stuart Warwick.

On 20 March Ms Wells (CLEAR Secretary) sent a letter to Peter Reynolds she proposed to send me for his approval (5)

On 20 March Peter Reynolds emailed Ms Wells on giving his approval for her to send me my formal dismissal notice with no edit (6)

On the 21 March 2011 Peter Reynolds emailed Don to clarify his position (7)

Don emailed Peter Reynolds reference matter raised in Ms Well’ letter (8)

1: veto, Latin for "I forbid", is the power of an officer to unilaterally stop an official action. In practice, a veto therefore conveys to its holder an ability to protect the

2: "status quo" is a Latin term meaning the current or existing state of affairs. In practice to keep the things the way they presently are.

3: Don’s email to Peter Reynolds: 13 March

Dear peter

To avoid any dubiety my position is:

‘I did not resign – As I understand it you proposed that I should be removed from the committee, tongue in cheek I pointed out as the chair it was not in your remit to move this. I am not sure what the result was. However, after speaking to Jan and Mark it would seem that nothing was formally decided.

It is my intention to stay on board (unless Formally removed) to discuss various changes that committee is to put to an extraordinary general meeting to ratify.

On reduced/scaled Membership fee (including introducing £1 concession for wrinkly’ and others on benefits/disabled etc ;).

I expressed concerns that any reduction to full membership currently £24 annually would result in us not having sufficient funds for leaflets and out of pocked expense for; Those attending Official LCA meetings. LCA spokespersons and others designate/co-opted by the committee to assist/advise the committee on specialist subjects.

I reluctantly accepted the recommendation subject to; a review in 12 moths which was accepted?

I made it clear that I support many of the changes you are minded to make including co–opting members to submit representations reports, briefings to ensure any data we produce is credible (referenced).

It would seem that the only areas we cannot come to a consensus/compromise on are:

Name change and/or the upgrading of website

I recall Jan was reluctant to drop the Legalise Cannabis, Stewart suggested we simply call it [LCA] I am not sure where Mark stands.

I suggest the record reads: Don was fundamentally against name change and believed changing the web pages link would result in the party’ ratings on Google and other search engine previous executive committees and many individuals have worked so hard on over the past 10years.

Don declare he would campaign for a no change of name and for the link to LCA web pages (subject to agreed changes) to remain our main point of contact for the public, media, logistical and historic reasons.

Don also expressed concern that the LCA would become part of the system losing us what little grass root support we have. As much of what we will say will be written by academics for academics.

I do not recall being offered Life Fellowship of the party. It is a nice thought but I can name a number of people much more worthy of a Life Fellowship (I am thinking here of those who made it possible for us to keep the LCA in the minds of the people over the years.

I hope you find this acceptable

Kr

Don

4: Dons email 20 Mar 2011 to:

slippery.mark@gmail.com; StuartWarwick@lca-uk.org; jans-fans@hotmail.com

I received a message from peter via his mothers email address advising me he intended to inform the membership I had resigned.

In response I sent the email below to peter on the 13 March 2011

*I HAVE YET TO RECEIVE A REPLY FROM PETER! I AM THEREFORE SUPPRISED THAT HE HAS STILL INCLUDED THIS IN DRAFT MINUTES.*

*For the record ….Can you please respond with your interpretation of events?*

*DON*

This is where the water becomes muddy.

5: Message From: *Jan Wells *to:*Peter Reynolds Sunday, March 20, 2011

Peter

I am showing you my intended answer to Dons email, I hope its ok with you, I kinda waffled on the phone last week trying to spare his feelings, but now he wants an answer from the rest of us.

I am happy with the minutes as they stand, if Don is, but I dont think he will go quietly, so I figure it would be better to tell him he was voted off and change the minutes to say so.

Let me know what you think, I wont send it till I hear from you

See Letter: Annex 1

6: Email From Peter Reynolds To: Jan Wells Sunday, March 20, 2011

Well, I was so impressed with your email Jan. I thought it was courageous and honest. Well done!

Then I saw the email that Don supposedly sent to me. I've never seen it in my life!

Seriously, I've just been through my junk email too but then it wouldn't be in there because the address is in my contacts. I would have certainly discussed it with you, Mark and Stuart if I had received it.

In any event, I think your summation of events is spot on and reading Don's email just confirms it is the right decision.

7: Email *From:*Peter Reynolds *To:* Don Barnard 21 March 2011

Don,

I'm very sorry about the disagreement between us. I see this morning Alun is now trying to cause as much trouble as he can. It's very sad.

The first I had seen of your alleged email of 13th March was when Jan sent it to me yesterday. Believe me, if I had seen it I would have responded to you and I would have discussed it with the committee.

Anyway, I can't add to Jan's very eloquent and accurate response to you. She has said it all.

Please let me know whether you want to accept the Life Fellowship or not. It was a genuine and heartfelt mark of respect towards you.

SNIP

Kind regards,

Peter Reynolds

8 Don’ email: 13 March 2011

Dear Peter

I do not know why you did not receive my email of 13th March Peter as it was clearly sent the correct email address:

*From:*PR@lca-uk.org [mailto:PR@lca-uk.org], *Sent:* 13 March 2011 07:58,
*To:* 'peter@peter-reynolds.co.uk.'
*Subject:* RE: LCA Meeting
*Importance:* High

Your comment: ‘alleged email of 13th March’ suggest I am making it up (lying) requires clarification!

Cutting to the chase on other matters

In Jan’ email of Sun 20/03/201 she wrote:

Paragraph 3 “When you threatened to veto our decisions, we threatened to remove you from admin, this move was quickly seconded and passed by all of us, you didn’t want to acknowledge it and passed it off as a joke, it was hard to tell at some points whether things were said in jest or not, but the vote did happen.”

And

Penultimate Paragraph

"having someone threaten to veto and to bring us to a stalemate was not acceptable, so we took a majority decision to recommend the new name to members, the final decision to accept or not rests with the members."

Seems to suggest I was excommunicated because I threatened to use my power of veto on matters I did not approve.

I now draw your attention to this remarkable statement by Jan in Paragraph 2

“Stuart and Myself, who were both originally trying to keep some link with the LCA name, were so frustrated, that we changed our minds about wanting any link to the old and we decided to go for a fresh start with a new name. Mark said straight away that he was in favour of the name change, Peter hadn't decided, but you helped him to make up his mind too.”

As you are aware Peter in politics there is always some one of apposing ideology (some times called mavericks) prepared to rock the boat but I do not recall any politician to be moved by frustration rather than their convictions. It goes without saying I am not impressed that members of the LCA controlling committee should change their minds because one of the committee gets up their nose.

I now draw you attention to Jan’ email to you Sunday, March 20, 2011

“I am happy with the minutes as they stand, if Don is, but I dont think he will go quietly, so I figure it would be better to tell him he was voted off and change the minutes to say so.”

Since I had already suggested amendments to the proposed minutes it goes without saying I do not agree they are a correct record of the event.

You asked if I wished to accept the Life Fellowship or not. What does this mean!

SNIP

Finally for now: I was not impressed by Jan’s assumption I would not go quietly - For the record I was going to go quietly in fact I had/have two local papers lined up for interview to announce my moving on to

Pastures green with a cool introduction to the resurrection of the LCA as a political party. Including a quote from the LCA executive – However Due to the misunderstandings highlighted in this correspondence and associated webs and face book - I have put this on hold for now to Re-assess my options. I will keep you advised on this.

I look forward to your reply with interest

Kr

Don

End for now of communications -

Annex 1

Don

The reason I agreed to say you had resigned, was because you said that you wanted to resign, whether it was said jokingly or not was impossible to say, many things were said and it was hard to know if you were joking or not, but we all know how much time and effort you have put into the campaign and we wanted to spare your feelings, rather than refer to the vote to remove you from admin.

I felt that you made it very difficult for us to get through the work we needed to. You were asked *repeatedly* to stick to the current point and not drift off topic into long stories of what happened years ago.

You didn't listen to our requests, Stuart and Myself, who were both originally trying to keep some link with the LCA name, were so frustrated, that we changed our minds about wanting any link to the old and we decided to go for a fresh start with a new name. Mark said straight away that he was in favour of the name change, Peter hadnt decided, but you helped him to make up his mind too.

When you threatened to veto our decisions, we threatened to remove you from admin, this move was quickly seconded and passed by all of us, you didnt want to acknowledge it and passed it off as a joke, it was hard to tell at some points whether things were said in jest or not, but the vote did happen.

We wasted so much time on this that some topics never got discussed, as admin I think we need to be able to make decisions, this was our first proper meeting and we had important decisions that needed to be made in order to comply with members wishes to re-register, having someone threaten to veto and to bring us to a stalemate was not acceptable, so we took a majority decision to recommend the new name to members, the final decision to accept or not rests with the members.

I would be quite happy to ask Peter to amend the minutes to show that you objected to the name change decision and that you were voted off the admin group, if thats what you want.