I had not intended to revisit the evolving difficulties within the Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena (ASSAP), as they quickly became convoluted and probably of little interest to outsiders, revolving around technical issues such as the validity of Articles of Association and the knock-on effects for the organisation now. These are dry matters, but ones which have generated a great deal of hostility and been used as a vehicle to enable a small group, initially calling itself the Fellowship, to take control of the organisation. EGMs and an AGM have come and gone, and despite my feeling that the Fellowship would be held to account, a combination of canny operating and passivity among the bulk of the organisation has allowed it to emerge triumphant. In retrospect, I was over-optimistic that ASSAP’s mechanisms would neutralise them, because these can be turned to advantage if the Machiavellian impulse is strong enough.
There were genuine concerns with the
Articles and governance matters previous Executives had long failed to address,
but these should have been dealt with by the then Executive as a whole, rather
than a cabal – the Fellowship – operating within it. The reason for the secrecy was allegedly the
benign one to protect and not upset the chair and treasurer, as if going behind
their backs would not create upset, and unsurprisingly it failed; but whatever
the reason, this groupuscule morphed into a power base. As a consequence, over the last year or so
what amounts to a civil war has continued, with the Fellowship (a name causing
general derision, even more so the risible attempt to rebrand it “the concerned
majority”, a majority achieved by the attrition of the opposition) gradually
taking control by forcing out those members who disagreed with it.
Christian Jensen Romer, who as ex-chair of
ASSAP has been close to the situation, has written a number of posts on his
blog And Sometimes he’s so Nameless,
and there is little point in repeating his critique here. However, the organisation reached a
crossroads with the long-anticipated Annual General Meeting (16 June
2025). It saw the consolidation of the
Executive’s hold, and there are lessons to be learned in the way a small group mounted
a coup which would have seemed unlikely, perhaps even to them, at the outset of
the infighting. I thought it worth putting
down my observations of how the saga has unfolded.
In the following points I use the term
Executive rather than Fellowship, a term coined to suggest a small band
valiantly fighting a despotic adversary, but coming over as pretentious to the
point its members became fed up hearing it.
The current wider, largely co-opted, Executive may not have been party
to the initial schism, but the trajectory taken by the current Executive aligns
with the Fellowship’s intentions, and they are thus complicit with it even if
they protest they are acting in the best interests of ASSAP and only wish to
help it survive. It is a sign of the
hollowing out of the organisation’s talent through expulsion or resignation
that only eight Executive positions (of 12) were filled prior to the 2025 AGM.
The tactics employed by the Executive are
a textbook example of how to take over an organisation and bend it to one’s own
interest, even if contrary to the spirit of the founders. I have seen examples of all of them exposed
on the ‘Members of ASSAP (Unofficial)’ Facebook page, the main independent
forum to address the evolving situation, a page subject to much opprobrium by
the Executive; in effect it was cast as an outgroup of destructive agitators,
which allowed the Executive, in the pose of representing the ingroup, to
demonise it. Here, in no particular
order, are techniques useful in a power grab:
Obviously, control communication channels,
for example by using the website, the official ASSAP mailing list and Facebook
page for pro-Executive and anti-dissent propaganda, while not allowing critics
an unfettered voice. Work on the
principle that in the absence of counter-information, if a statement is made
frequently enough many people will come to believe it, irrespective of its
truth, or at least cease to care.
Make the Executive such an unfriendly
place to those fellow Executive members who disagree with the faction that they
feel it is not worth continuing and resign, giving the plotters a
majority. Bypass those remaining by
continuing private discussions.
Co-opt onto the Executive individuals who
feel the survival of the organisation is paramount, irrespective of who is in
charge and whatever the consequences.
This lowers the profile of the plotters and allows them to claim a wide
base of support for their actions (c.f. “useful idiot”). The drawback is the high turnover when
newcomers, who are mainly – although not always – acting from the best of
intentions realise the unenviable situation they have stumbled into. This revolving
door can be turned by account by arguing it results from the stresses of having
to deal with relentless external hostility, even if it is actually non-existent.
Scapegoat individuals who had previously
been in Executive roles, blaming them for current problems. Any difficulties are therefore someone else’s
fault because they were unhelpful or disruptive at best, corrupt at worst. Make it seem like recent post-holders have
failed in their obligations when it is clear different managements going back
decades have not acted efficiently, which includes some of those now in
control. Repeatedly say current
Executive members have been funding operations from their own pockets to show
how selfless they are, not like the other lot, even if banking problems are
largely of its own making. At the same
time stress successes, such as an alleged increase in membership, and the
maintenance of activities.
Intimidate members of the organisation
with threats of expulsion/suspension to damp down critical voices. Do not shrink from hostile acts, for example
sending a leading critic and past member of the Executive a funeral display while
referring to her in a leaked email as a “bitch rottweiler” and then complaining
about a potential data breach rather than an unacceptable slur by one of its
own. Most people will not get involved
because they are there for the ghosts rather than the roasts and will not want
to endanger their membership. Simply
ignore complaints and votes of no confidence submitted by concerned members.
Rewrite history and gaslight critics, for
example pretending that hostile actions on the part of the Executive had not
happened, even though the evidence for the actions exists, such as pretending
the funeral display incident never occurred, despite the photographs. Vigorously deny a coup has happened, even
though one demonstrably has.
Suspend and expel critical members on
spurious grounds, such as claiming they have brought ASSAP into disrepute by
challenging the Executive’s methods, disallowing them from participating in
votes or proposing motions that might threaten those now in control. Citing “bringing the organisation into
disrepute” is a handy catch-all that conflates criticism of the way the
organisation is now being managed with the organisation itself. Characterise legitimate criticism as
destructive disruption, undermining the Association. This purge ensures sympathetic or neutral
members are eligible to vote in the Executive’s favour while critics are
excluded.
Claim victimhood by pretending Executive
members are being bullied and threatened, in fact subjected to a “hate
campaign” with detrimental effects on the Executive’s mental health; for
example by pretending derogatory T-shirts have been made, even though none was,
and counting humorous memes made at the expense of the Fellowship as a whole, rather
than any particular individual, as bullying.
State the treatment is so bad that posts on the official Facebook page
have to be made anonymously to protect Executive members, even though everybody
knows who they are and the act is performative.
Be cavalier about applying double standards.
Continue to say one Executive member was
pushed to the brink of suicide, even though the claim has been said to have
been grossly exaggerated and no evidence has ever been provided. State there is police involvement as a result
of the bullying, to stress the gravity of the situation, without being specific
or providing evidence, then use the assertion of police involvement as a pretext
for expulsions. In sum, give the
impression the Executive, acting from noble motives, is beleaguered by bad
actors who have malicious and self-serving reasons for attacking it, and it is thereby
deserving of sympathy.
Claim the endorsement of the Charity
Commission for the Executive’s actions, but provide no evidence (sceptics might
wonder at the CC’s sudden chattiness when previously they had shown a total
lack of interest in the matter, and were unwilling to intervene when concerns
were raised about the Executive’s behaviour, but what are the sceptics going to
do about it?).
Extend the time until the Executive has to
face the membership at an AGM as long as possible, to allow as many disgusted
members as possible to resign or allow their memberships to lapse, and to allow
time for pro-coup messages to disseminate among those members who are not
exposed to alternative viewpoints. For
example, the ASSAP AGM held in June 2025 should have taken place in 2024.
Control the agenda and motions for general
meetings. Pre-vet motions and disallow
those that are critical, or would affect the ability to administer unhampered, on
the grounds that they are not in the organisation’s interest to have them voted
on, rather than putting them to the membership for discussion, as would
normally be expected in a democratic body.
Feel free to add “the Executive’s view” paragraphs to motions to steer
voters in the right direction. Ignore
awkward questions, either prior to or at general meetings.
Be positive about the organisation’s
prospects. It’s a new dawn, etc., and no
one cares about those pointless malcontents who are always carping. With the bad old days behind us, past battles
forgotten, the future is bright with promise.
Stress that transparency, safeguarding and fairness will be core values
going forward. Remember to keep a
straight face. Having employed the
foregoing arsenal, one is ready for an AGM.
ASSAP’s long delayed one was held on 16
June 2025. Despite the crisis that has
engulfed ASSAP, only fifty people attended the online meeting, suggesting a
lack of interest by many members.
Maintaining the sense of a threat from ill-wishers by suggesting that
some might try to barge into the event, even though it was highly unlikely,
attendees were obliged to have names displayed and cameras on at all times, and
were frequently reminded to do so. Those
with camera issues were prevented from exercising their democratic rights, even
though there is no mention of this requirement in the Articles.
A number of resolutions were on the
agenda, but the major, and most concerning, one was the first, which proposed
the revocation of ASSAP’s charitable status, with the protections and benefits
that entails. The effect would be to
allow the Association to be turned into a private commercial company. No clarity on the reasoning for this dramatic
move was given, but the text noted the Charity Commission had not provided
useful guidance (despite claiming elsewhere that the Charity Commission was
fully supportive of the new Executive), and acting within its constraints was
pointless:
“...ASSAP has little benefit from its
charitable status but has instead been hand bound (sic) by red tape and
regulations intended to protect the needs of charities far bigger than
ourselves. Moreover, whenever we have sought help and guidance from the CC it
has been much lacking and of little real help.”
“Accordingly, we propose that with effect
from October 1st 2025 ASSAP revoke its charitable status. From that date it is
proposed that it operate as an Association of paying Members. It is further
proposed that it be overseen by an Executive Council that will be elected every
two years…”
I think all can agree the Charity
Commission has proved toothless, though perhaps its indifference has worked to
the Executive’s advantage as the Commission has allowed the present situation
to unfold without hindrance. The
resolution was short on detail, in particular the relationship of this
Executive Council to the membership, and what democratic mechanisms would exist
(the suspicion is – minimal). In the
event, at the AGM it was immediately withdrawn without explanation. So why was it put forward? Presumably the move would have allowed the
expansion of commercial activities, though there are implications in abandoning
its charitable status, such as the tax advantages and what happens to the old
organisation’s assets. But it would remove
the Charity Commission’s pesky oversight, which even if weak still has to be a
consideration for those registered with it.
Naturally the withdrawal led to puzzlement
on the part of outsiders, but one explanation is that the Executive felt it was
too soon for such a radical step, while it was consolidating its position. It is therefore possible the resolution will
be brought back at some future point, once the Executive can be assured of its
success. Despite the drawbacks, turning
ASSAP into a commercial organisation would have benefits, such as allowing the
payment of salaries to the Executive Council.
Training modules could be licenced to other organisations and
merchandising expanded. The downside
would be the change to the organisation’s ethos, which is strengthened by its
charitable status.
The rest of the meeting largely went the
Executive’s way, although there was some muted criticism of the way matters had
been handled by the Executive, and scepticism when the meeting chair said the
process for expulsions had been a difficult one, because it looked like
individuals had been expelled with considerable ease. The assertion that those being considered for
expulsion had been given the benefit of the doubt whenever possible was greeted
with surprise by some, as that was not how it had seemed. The cull of opposition members prior to the
AGM was a coincidence, we were assured.
Dramatically, right at the end of the meeting one of the new Executive
members, who had survived the rigorous weeding-out process of candidates, laid
into the Executive’s behaviour and promptly resigned, leaving only seven
Executive members in what was an already considerably underpowered group (it
was a sign of the success of the efforts to marginalise the dissidents that
whereas at the previous AGM there were more candidates than positions,
necessitating hustings, now there were fewer candidates, meaning no need for
elections).
When the new executive positions were
announced shortly after the AGM, Steve Parsons, someone who had denied there
was ever a coup, emerged as the new chair.
His ascent did bear out my prediction early on that of the original
Fellowship he would be the one most likely to survive, but I never thought the
plotters would prove so successful in subverting a democratically-elected executive;
pushing out those who did not align with their aims and taking over; tightening
their hold at the AGM; and packing the new administration with simpatico individuals. It was ruthless, but it worked. Other organisations which tell themselves it
couldn’t happen to them should take note: complacency is dangerous.
So, what now for ASSAP? Like any new regime with shaky legitimacy,
the Executive will continue to tighten its grip, marginalise its opponents, trumpet
its successes and minimise its failures.
Perhaps it will make a success of ASSAP, and the way the Fellowship went
from plotters to dominance will be largely forgotten. The stakes are high, and the Executive will
need to be able to demonstrate, rather than merely assert, that ASSAP has
become stronger under its watch. If it manages
to do so, and if there are truly democratic elections in future (not a given)
at which they are returned to office, then they will have succeeded, despite
the upset and anger caused by the shoddy way they went about the business. But for those left bloodied and bruised along
the way, the price will have been a high one.
Acknowledgement: The image is courtesy of Gemini, using the prompt “a group of scruffily-dressed men and women plotting around a table.” Without the amplification I was given a group of sharply-dressed men, and I wanted it to look more realistic.
