Tuesday 31 January 2012

Rhoda comes tomorrow, and I am trying to train Dave to behave himself with her. He must not start firing off accusations, justifications or the sort of home truths they deserve, otherwise he will entrench their conviction that he is a lout, and he will never get the revenge he wants because Rogerson will always twist the truth to blunt whatever weapons Dave throws at him.
Instead I think he must keep asking the questions - insist it is impossible to move on until all sides understand the real reasons behind the suspension and inquiry; insist to Rhoda that CR's explanations are less than half the answer; insist she explains what really made all five of them abandon common sense, decency and rationality. Otherwise the whole debacle could happen again.
The central questions are:

• Why did they have those suspicions?
• Why didn’t they try to discuss them with you?

None of the explanations so far advanced adds up. The financial misappropriation one doesn't, because Dave wasn't misappropriating anything. The procedural irregularities one doesn't, because there were no procedures and the trustees had refused to discuss the ones Dave proposed. That leaves personal antagonism, basically, but he has to get her to realise and admit that for herself, and to suggest without telling her that they over-reacted disastrously to a disagreement. 

I tell him:

"If she admits that personal antagonism infected Bratt’s and Rogerson’s judgement, try and get her to identify when it started. Prompt her if necessary (eg ‘Do you think it was over the matter of the extra minutes secretary?’) but try not to put words into her mouth.

If she does say ‘Clarke objected to your allegations of dishonesty’, DON’T say ‘Yes, because he lied to me.’

DO counter it with ‘So you think he was answering them by making worse allegations, in public, even though these were about to wreck the running of the Society for the next 3 months?’

If she brings up the £25 issue, ask her if she had seen that email you sent Bratt, in which you explained why you needed it and offered to pay it yourself. Ask how anyone could have believed that came from someone intent on defrauding the Society. If she hadn’t seen it, you can stare [in disbelief] and ask ‘You mean he didn’t show you?’ but leave it at that. DON’T say ‘The bugger’ or pass any other judgement – let her draw the inference."

I don't know about discussing the future. I don't think Dave should let them assume he will resign as they want him to. They've got a whole lot of humble pie to eat first.