In the Newsletter Dorey asserts many things, among which are: that she can’t get the magazine out on time because, well, she is so busy (which is no excuse for continuing to sell subscriptions to a product she cannot provide); that she has not had “one AVN member or subscriber complain about the delays in the magazine production” (which is demonstrably untrue. There are a few).
Here’s one from February 2011 (the magazine, Issue 8 came out six months later):
Here is another satisfied customer from November 2011 (Issue 8 came out three months previous):
These are just the public ones. There are others. The lack of response is a very common complaint. This is a certainty.
But, that’s not the main point I want to address. What I really want to question is the appearance of a new definition for annual magazine subscription which has bobbed up in the Newsletter:
Before I continue I want to highlight this post from antivaxxers.com: The AVN Magazine Money-Making Machine. The post clearly sets out the trouble into which Dorey has landed herself and her Committee. This is not going to end well. If I was one the Committee members of the AVN, I would be seeking representation.
As an example, in a newsletter from December 12 2010, Dorey clearly states that the “gift subscription” contains “our magazine 6 times in the next year”: when you follow the link to here, you find out that it is “digital editions” you will be receiving (this doesn’t matter; only one of these has ever come out. Maybe you get the same edition six times in the same year?)
So, the promise of six online editions is false. But what about, for instance, the 3 Year Subscription at the bargain price of $180.oo? At the rate this magazine is coming out, if you figure on past performance, you will be forking out $60.00 per magazine, for a three-year subscription, for three magazines. Six issues will take six years to fulfil your subscription. Where will any of us be in six years? Where will the AVN be in two years?
“AHA!”, I hear you say. Dorey says it in red ink, that the AVN will still supply all magazines offered, no matter how long it takes for this to happen (I certainly wouldn’t be taking a big breath and holding it whilst counting magazines as you try and doze off). The big question Dorey needs to answer for everyone right now is, “how long do you think is appropriate to keep forestalling on promised goods?” Another question is, “do you think it is appropriate to quietly reinterpret the English definition of annual subscription“?
Let’s forget the problems regarding the non-delivery of a product, and consumer law, for the moment. This is well covered in the blog post linked above.
What really grabs my attention right now is Dorey’s red line of text, “any loss is borne by the AVN”.
Well, frankly, I’m not sure that any loss can be borne by the AVN right now, or in the future; considering that the AVN’s last Financial Statement shows that the AVN’s liabilities are only a couple of thousand dollars (but; money accrued from subscriptions, unfulfilled, would count as a liability, would it not?). Look again at the approximated amount of money Dorey owes her creditors (the unfulfilled subscriptions). This is just one question of many questions which have been raised as to the continued operation of the Australian Vaccination Network as a solvent entity. Trading whilst insolvent would be a surprising, extra please explain for the Committee (who could be personally liable to creditors) to put to the President/Treasurer/Spokesperson.
More questions will definitely be asked of the Australian Vaccination Network. We can be certain of that. They may well be happening as we speak.
There is one thing that the AVN (an incorporated association) should keep in mind, as pointed out to me by a friend:
the Commissioner for Fair Trading can apply to a court for the winding-up of an incorporated association. It is an offence for an association to trade whilst insolvent.
ASSOCIATIONS INCORPORATION ACT 2009 – SECT 68
(1) If an association incurs a debt and:
(a) immediately before the debt is incurred:
(i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the association is or will become insolvent, or
(ii) there are reasonable grounds to expect that, if the association incurs the debt, the association will become insolvent, and
(b) the association is or becomes an association to which this Division applies,
any person who was a committee member of the association at the time the debt was incurred is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units or imprisonment for 1 year, or both.
(2) The association and any person who was a committee member of the association at the time the debt was incurred are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the debt.