To:

Mr T Mac Menamin and the Committee of the EOA.

Many years ago, I used to work for a man called Eric Bates. Eric was an old-fashioned gentleman. He commanded respect by treating everyone he dealt with in an honourable manner. He did not require legislation to force him to ‘do the right thing’ or to treat people with respect, including those he did not much like.

Some years later, I met another such man, Maurice Griffiths. A kind and humble man, Maurice commanded respect by the way he lived his life and the way he dealt with people. No book of rules, no legislation, just an inherent understanding of ‘what was right’.

I believed that somehow embodied in his designs was a little of that old-fashioned gentlemanliness that is sadly missing today. What drove him to design such boats was genuine desire to share his love of sailing with those less fortunate than himself - an honourable aim indeed.

I further believe that those who find his designs (and those of some other designers) attractive, are often of a similar ilk to Maurice himself - rose tinted spectacles, I hear you say, well, you could be right but after all, an Eventide or a Senior is not an Etap or a Sadler.

The point is, they are not just boats. Good, as no doubt a Sadlers and like are; they do not come with a heritage that is worth protecting.

What then does this have to do with what has happened over the last few months?

It is about honour and respect, sympathy and understanding and treating people as you would have them treat you. I have been fortunate in only having met other members very briefly. I say fortunate because they did not come with any “baggage”. Without exception, I have found all members I have met or spoken to, to be rather what I expected, polite, friendly and all containing a little bit of Maurice.

Do I imbue myself with these lofty principals? No! However, I can aspire to them, and in any case, I am not President, and therefore, custodian, of the EOA.

The position of President confers upon that person the need to behave in a manner designed to bring respect and honour to the association over which he or she presides.

As I sat at the back of the room at the AGM and listened with interest to the for and against arguments relating to Amendment 2, I knew, as did most others, that many of the speakers were predisposed one way or the other for a multiplicity of different reasons. I was particularly impressed with heart-felt speech given by Barry Hart, though why he could not give his invaluable advice as an associate member is beyond me.

You may remember that when I first put my comments on the web site the first statement I made was to register an interest, namely that John Williams is my brother in law, and, although this would undoubtedly diminish the impact of my point – it was the right thing to do.

Imagine my surprise when I discovered that the young man sitting in front of me, who had announced himself as a ‘builder’,(implicit in that statement was that he was building his own boat) and to whom I had given considerable credence as probably the most unbiased of speakers, turned out to be a relative (or soon to be relative) of the editor. To make matters worse, he is not building his own boat – a fact that you knew well. You obviously countenanced this deception.

You gave this young man the floor on no less than five occasions and at the time I considered this right as he was one of the few unbiased speakers in the room. Even though he was speaking against the proposal, given his unbiased status, his words would be a valuable contribution.

When I found out the truth, I was shocked that such a low trick could be perpetrated against his fellow members. A trick condoned by you and, through you, the Committee.

This ‘deception’ epitomizes all that is rotten in the EOA today, not, I hasten to mention, in the ordinary member, but in your stewardship of the EOA. I therefore suggest that in the light of your inability to ‘do what’s right’ you resign immediately.

The disgusting letter, which, by their silence (apart from one) I will take to be condoned by the Committee, is a travesty of all that Maurice Griffiths held to be ‘right’. Full of lies and innuendo this disgraceful document sought to soil my name to cover up the fact that the delay in getting the passwords for the site was entirely your fault by not sending reasonable authorization to me. I am still unaware why despite sending you three e-mails asking for a letter of authorization to be sent to me, you insisted in sending it to John Williams. Your deliberate failure to do ‘the right thing’ delayed things by about 6 weeks.

At the AGM I asked the Committee as a whole whether the letter signed by you and on EOA headed notepaper, only one member stated he had no knowledge of the letter, and I believe him. I now ask the rest of the Committee: Who was involved, condoned or saw the letter before it was sent out.

I was also concerned, rightly, as it turned out, that the new webmaster would be unable to maintain the site given that he is an amateur, but I passed over the passwords anyway.

It is worth noting that never at any time did I edit the site to remove unfavorable or erroneous comments placed on the site - ‘the right thing’ to do. You, however, deemed the words of the EOA members as ‘rubbish’ and instructed the new webmaster to delete or selectively edit the guest pages. This he singularly did achieve by screwing up the guest pages completely. Exactly as predicted would happen when an amateur tries editing a professional site.

It is an interesting thought that many other ‘Presidents’ have sought to silence the masses prior to putting out their own brand of the truth. This was a disgraceful act; you should be ashamed.

Next, it is time to deal with another bit of your disgusting innuendo. I would state now that I am not setting out to defend John at this point, however, I am the only one who knows the truth.

When I needed a credit card to pay for the web space (more on this later) it was John I turned to as he was the nearest. The only way to pay for the space was by credit card and the EOA does not have one. As we were using John’s card we had no choice but to use the address to which the card relates. For that reason John will be listed as the ‘owner’, he is in fact, the ‘registrant’ however what you do not know is that John registered the owner as the Eventide Owners Association.

Before spreading your filthy innuendo, you should have checked with Easyspace Ltd (the service Provider) who would have confirmed that John registered the owner as the Eventide Owners Association. It is unfortunate that when you seek ownership information from other sources you often get the Registrant rather than the owner. Nonetheless, you sought to defile his name in public without checking the facts, not ‘the right thing’ to do.

To move on to your (or was it the Committee’s) decision to introduce Proposal 1as a ‘spoiling’ tactic supposedly dreamed up by Chris Beazer. It was good to see the assembled members see right through this, maybe all is not lost.

Did John want to introduce Proposal 2? I doubt it, but legislation is often required when people fail to ‘the right thing’.

There are many other incidents, which suggest to me that you appear to want to dupe your readers. You stated (in writing) on or about March 2002 that it would be preferable that the President and Vice Presidents owned YM designs. When asked about this rather embarrassing statement by Brian West you sought to brush it aside as being of no significance. You then went on to attempt to justify the fact that you would no longer be an owner by claiming (twice) in the Bulletin that you were looking for a bigger YM design, why would you do this, if not to avoid unfavorable comment at the up-coming AGM. This ruse was soon seen for what it was by your own admission at the AGM that you were looking for a ‘plastic’ boat.

It is clear to me from the above and other antics that you are no Maurice Griffiths. Nor do you aspire to his ideals.

As for John Williams, and I know he won’t like me saying this, I have known him for 25 years and have never found him lacking when it comes to doing ‘the right thing’. You will find, if you bother to listen, that many members are of the same opinion. Blind loyalty! You obviously do not know me. Nothing infuriates me more than an injustice perpetrated on someone who is in no position to defend himself, particularly by someone who is not worthy to walk in his footsteps.

As you will now know, I have removed the web site before the two week deadline given at the AGM. When I advised you at some length, you assured me that the new webmaster was capable of maintaining such at site. I took a considerable gamble in handing over MY design to a complete unknown, however I took you at your word, I should have known better.

By the way, your editor’s lack of understanding of the internet became abundantly clear during the discussion on whether the Bulletin could be made available on the web. She quoted such rubbish as ‘long download times’ and the like. This is nonsense. The Bulletin could be available as a Zip file and be downloaded in a few seconds. For those who still wished it available in its existing format (first having been made aware of the cost to the EOA) it could easily and cheaply be produced on a home laser. Still, this is what happens when you choose to be ill advised.

Now the harsh reality. In your previous e-mail you stated you “understand why I feel a sense of ownership for the site”, this is very generous considering I do own it, it is my intellectual property. What the EOA owns and paid for, is the web space. The site is worth £3000 to £5000 and I am sure you will find some company who will create a new site and develop it over 5 years for that kind of figure – but I doubt it. The other alternative is to use one of the ready-made templates available but, apart from looking cheap and tacky, will still require many hundreds of hours of time to develop and support it over the years. In any case, you had better make it a good site or you will loose 90% of your income from plans.

It is obvious that you allowed the membership to believe I was being paid for the web site. Let me clarify this now. Not only have I never been paid but also its creation involved me in considerable expense.

I understand that my web site has been copied. I want all copies returned to me and I now formally forbid you to use any part of the design or any text written by me. I do not like plagiarism.

Finally:

I would like the Committee to publish a full retraction and apology relating to the letter sent out along with the Bulletin. I want this signed by the whole Committee excluding the gentleman who stood up and stated he did not know anything about it. (I do not know his name – but I’m sure you do) I want this distributed to all members after a proof copy has been sent to me first for my approval. As I imagine you used EOA funds to distribute the letter in the first place, I don’t want you compounding the problem by using more EOA funds to distribute a retraction, I want the Committee to personally pay all expenses relating to a retraction and to reimburse the EOA all expenses relating to the distribution of the original letter.

Will you publish a retraction? Given the above, I very much doubt it.

You quoted in you last e-mail “During a clear-out I came across the committee minute agreeing the site in 1997 and it is mentioned there as being your idea.” Call me a skeptic if you will, but I don’t believe you were having a ‘clear out’ the day after the AGM. I believe you were looking for any evidence that the site was not mine. Does you lack of ability to “do the right thing” know no bounds.

Regards

Barry Sturrock