Note 1: A PDF
version of this document suitable for printing is
available
on the Party's website.
Note: These minutes are not official until amendment and adoption by
the EC.
Present: Deutz, Browne (Chair), Miller (Assistant Secretary), Chesham,
Helps, Stair, White.
Apologies: Carter, Easton
Visitors: B Johnson, R Beat, J Lawrie, N Deutz, M Chesham, S Parker, G
Thomas (Treasurer), L Stevens (non-member)
The meeting was called to order at 13:16.
1. Election of Chair
Agreed at previous meeting: Browne
2. Minutes of the previous meeting, business arising therefrom and the
General Secretary’s rising of Notices of Motion and Business from
previous meetings
(a) Amendment of the 1 September 2007 meeting minutes
The meeting considered a letter from Carter (5 October) giving
apologies for non-attendance and suggesting two amendments to the
minutes.
Motion 1 (Chesham & Helps) That in Motion 8 of the September 2007
minutes, “in which is” be replaced with “which has”.
Agreed
Motion 2 (Chesham & Deutz) That in Motion 13 of the September 2007
minutes, “is” be replaced with “as”.
Agreed
Motion 3 (Chesham & Miller) That in Motion 14 of the September 2007
minutes, “affrims” be replaced with “affirms”.
Agreed
Motion 4 (Chesham & Miller) That in §8(a) of the September
2007 minutes, “letters” be replaced with “communications”.
Agreed
Motion 5 (Deutz & Stair) That in Motion 28 of the September 2007
minutes, “6–0–2” be
replaced with “6–0”.
Agreed
White arrived around this point.
Motion 6 (Miller & Deutz) That the September 2007 minutes be
amended to reflect the fact that Motion 28 was discussed and carried
after Deutz and Carter had left the meeting.
Agreed
Motion 7 (Deutz & Miller) That in Motion 8 of the September 2007
minutes, “also” be deleted from the discussion.
For: Deutz. Against: White, Chesham, Stair. Abstaining: Browne, Helps,
Miller.
Failed 1–3–3
Motion 8 (Miller & Deutz) That in Motion 10 of the September 2007
minutes, “matter” be replaced with“manner”.
Agreed
Motion 9 (Deutz & Miller) That in §4 of the September 2007
minutes, “None received” be replaced with “Committee vacant”.
Agreed
Stair said the EC spent too much time on trivial amendments.
(b) Adoption of the 1 September 2007 meeting minutes
Motion 10 (Helps & Stair) That the September 2007 minutes be
adopted as amended.
Agreed
(c) Matters arising from the 3 December 2005 meeting minutes
i. Re Motion 2.2.iii (review of arrangements regarding Miller’s visit)
Miller said that Cde P Lancaster had kindly drawn members’ attention to
this 2005 resolution which had been irregularly enforced. Chesham asked
what work Miller had actually done during his stay, with specific
reference to the projects listed in the December 2005 minutes. Miller
said that the digitisation of the Standard was underway, that the WSM
website had been redesigned, that the SPGB website redesign was nearly
done, that several publications had been (re)typeset and that several
more were in the works, that he had worked closely with the Research
Department to help them produce an electronic catalogue up until the
departure of Bill Martin, and that in addition to all those projects he
had served on the Executive Committee, Premises Committee, two ad-hoc
Committees, and as Assistant Secretary.
Stair and White said the electronic library catalogue was not necessary
and a waste of
resources.
Stair and Chesham said it was useful to have Miller on the premises,
particularly with
technical matters. Chesham said there was a suggestion that Miller had
cost the Party
over £4500 and that this meritted examination. Stair said Miller
claimed very little and that the Party should pay him. Miller said he
had not claimed anywhere near £4500.
Motion 11 (Helps & Stair) That the EC thanks Tristan Miller for all
the work he is doing
for the Party and welcomes his continued stay at Head Office until the
next review, and encourages him to claim the food allowance originally
agreed.
Carried 4–0–3
Miller said he would leave whenever so requested but would appreciate
some advance notice.
(d) Matters arising from the 3 February 2007 meeting
i. Re §3e of 3 February and §4a of 3 March and §8b of 1
September (payment to John Briggs for services re the Pooley Estate)
The meeting considered the following correspondence:
• Report from Assistant Secretary summarising EC discussions to date
concerning the
Pooley estate
• Letter from Treasurer to John Briggs (27 July) correcting a previous
letter which asked
when Briggs intended to charge the Party for his services
• Letter from John Briggs with attachments (17 September) invoicing the
Party
£1014.89 for his services and offering to provide a free report
Stair objected to the wording of the Assistant Secretary’s report which
he felt implied that he had been surveilling the Treasurer. Stair said
that Cde D Lambert initially reported that Briggs, a friend of his, was
carrying out the work as a favour, and that the Party never had a
contract with Briggs; Lambert never informed the EC that the Party
would be billed.
Stair said that the Ad-hoc Committee and/or Treasurer had been advised
not to contact Briggs to offer to pay, and that by writing the letter
the Treasurer had simply opened the door for Briggs to charge the Party.
White recalled that Lambert said the first consultation would be free
and that if there
were any subsequent fees it would be discussed in advance. White said
that we need to speak with Lambert about what had been authorised, but
that we should pay the bill.
The Treasurer said he recalled that the first consultation would be
free but subsequent ones would be charged, and that the minutes show
that the EC had tacitly accepted that there was a contract with Briggs.
The Treasurer admitted that the Ad-hoc Committee was in error in not
producing a list of costs in advance, but noted that it had received no
instruction to agree upon the costs in advance. The Treasurer said that
on 30 September the EC instructed him to write to Briggs to enquire
about costs. The Treasurer suggested that the EC should give their
committees clearer instructions.
Browne said the EC acted quickly to ensure that the Socialist Studies
group did not get the Pooley legacy, obtained a free consultation from
Briggs, and instructed the Ad-hoc Committee to recover the legacy.
Helps said there was no other way out but to pay the bill and that the
charge was low for a solicitor.
Deutz said it was inevitable that we would be charged and that there
was no alternative but to pay.
Motion 12 (Helps & Deutz) That the EC instructs the Treasurer to
pay John Briggs, solicitor, for handling the estate of George Pooley.
For: Browne, Deutz, Miller, Chesham, Helps. Against: None. Abstaining:
White, Stair.
Carried 5–0–2
Chesham asked whether there were any monies outstanding from the
legacy. The Treasurer said that there were, but they probably amounted
to no more than £5000. He said there was also the possibility of
recovering Briggs’s fee from the executors. White suggested the Ad-hoc
Committee investigate recovery of the remainder of the monies. Stair
said that the Treasurer should be instructed specifically.
Motion 13 (Miller & Chesham) That the matter be deferred pending
the report Briggs
offered to provide for free in his 17 September letter.
Agreed
The Treasurer said that if the EC did not have confidence in him then
it always had
the option of delegating the matter someone else. Browne and Helps said
he had their confidence. Chesham said the EC should ask Lambert for his
comments, as his recollection was that Lambert had assured the Party
that the solicitor would work at no charge.
Motion 14 (Chesham & Stair) That the EC write to Lambert, informing
him of the
present state of affairs vis-`a-vis the Pooley Estate, and asking him
for his observations.
Carried 5–0–2
(e) Matters arising from the 2 June 2007 meeting
i. Re Motion 18 of 2 June and Motion 7 of 1 September (speakers’
classes): E-mail from Central Organiser (26 September) reporting that
six members had expressed interest in attending, and two in teaching,
and that education in knowledge of the Party case could be conducted
online.
Motion 15 (Miller & Helps) That the Central Organiser be asked to
make the necessary
arrangements for the speakers’ classes and to report back on same.
Carried 6–0–1
(f) Matters arising from the 7 July 2007 meeting
i. Re Motion 24 of 7 July (charge against Martin)
A. Resolution from East Anglian Regional Branch regarding Martin’s
defence circular
(22 September):
That the East Anglian Regional Branch, having perused the document “My
Reply
to the Charge Against Me” by Comrade Martin, and in particular in
respect of her
statement in paragraph 3 on page 2 of that document, namely, I admit to
being confused on this issue and swinging from one position to another.
As a socialist i know that a united ireland would be no solution for
the workers there as it would have to be capitalist in a capitalist
world. But then i sometimes think that as socialism could be a hundred
years away it would be better for an oppressed peeps to have their own
state even under capitalism cos this would at least free them from
national oppression and with this out of the way make it easier for
them to see that the real conflict is between capitalists and workers
inside the nation not between different
nations. [sic]
that this Branch is of the opinion that this statement overwhelmingly
reflects
Comrade Martin’s ever-changing position towards the Party’s case. (7–0)
Browne said this was new to him as he had not seen the charge against
Martin or her
defence circular.
Motion 16 (Miller & Deutz) That East Anglian Regional Branch’s
resolution be noted.
Agreed
B. E-mail from Sandy Easton (1 October) offering to present the EC’s
case against
Cde Martin at ADM.
Motion 17 (Miller & Stair) Easton present the EC’s case for the
charge at ADM.
For: Miller, Stair, White, Helps, Chesham. Against: None. Abstaining:
Browne.
Carried 5–0–1
Chesham asked who formulates the wording of the poll and what
information is circulated therewith. Deutz said that the only thing
that goes out after the ADM is
the ADM report. Browne said that the EC cannot circulate any further
information
about the charge even before ADM. Chesham said that there has been an
appalling
lack of informed opinion regarding the charge. Chesham and Miller said
that no rule
disallows the EC from issuing further documents relating to the charge
before ADM.
Motion 18 (Miller & Helps) That the EC issue a reminder that no
further circulation
of arguments regarding the charge is permitted after ADM.
Amendment (Chesham & Deutz) Append “including on the Party’s e-mail
lists”. Carried
5–0–2
Vote on motion as amended:
Carried 6–0–1
There ensued a discussion on how to implement this resolution, with
suggestions
that the all mailing list subscribers be put on moderation, or that the
mailing lists be
closed down entirely. In the absence of any instruction the
implementation is left to
the Internet Department.
ii. Re Motion 26 of 7 July and Motion 10 of 1 September (image credits
in the Standard).
Agreed to defer.
iii. Re Motion 33 (Campaigns Department posters): See §6b.
iv. Re Motion 34 (Campaigns Department nominations)
The meeting considered an e-mail from Central London Branch nominating
R Carr,
V Clanchy, B Gardner, and C McCormack (14 September), and an e-mail
from Gardner
accepting the nomination (19 September)
Motion 19 (Chesham & Stair) That B Gardner be appointed to the
Campaigns Department.
Agreed
(g) Matters arising from the 4 August 2007 meeting
i. Re Motion 19 (Library Department nominations)
A. Resolutions from East Anglian Regional Branch nominating N White and
R Beat
(22 September) and oral acceptances.
Motion 20 (Deutz & Browne) That White and R Beat be appointed to
the Library
Department.
Agreed
B. E-mail from West London Branch nominating S Wigley (29 September).
Noted.
(h) Matters arising from the 1 September 2007 meeting
i. Re §2(d)iii and Motion 8 (requisitions for a Party poll to
reverse the charge against M Martin and to refer the matter to West
London Branch)
A. Poll requisition from Swansea Branch (11 September): “That a Poll of
the Party be
called in accordance with Rule 26 to revoke Resolution 9 of the meeting
of the EC of
4 August charging Comrade Martin [confirmation of Resolution 24 of the
7 July EC
meeting] and to refer the matter to West London Branch. (4–1)”
Motion 21 (Miller & Chesham) That Swansea Branch’s requisition be
noted.
Agreed
B. Resolution from East Anglian Regional Branch regarding the poll
requisition
(22 September):
That further to the East Anglian Regional Branch Resolution of 28 July
2007
supporting the Executive Committee’s position in the matter of the
charge against
Comrade Martin, the East Anglian Regional Branch’s view is that West
London
Branch should not deal with this matter given their frivolous statement
dated
12 August 2007 addressed to the Executive Committee, namely,
Dear Comrades,
With reference to alleged infractions by Comrade Brady-Smith and EC
resolutions
arising therefrom (meetings of 24 June and 7 July), our member
advises us that he is not now, and never has been, a member or supporter
of the Komala (Communist Party of Iran) and does not recall ever
uttering
to Comrade Chesham words to the effect that “this is the way forward in
this part of the world”. Before he relocated to Great Yarmouth, we
referred
him to the 1980 Conference resolution on the abusing of members by other
members and recommended the local smoked herring.
Fraternally,
Melvin Tenner
Secretary
and their similarly worded statement to the Standing Orders Committee
dated
26 August 2007, namely,
Since the banishment of smokers from Head Office last year there has
been a
feast of compensatory vices on the premises, real and alleged,
including kava
tasting and the smoking of reefers, drugs parties, unwelcome approaches
to
females, carnal hanky-panky, the viewing of pornographic websites, binge
drinking, cock fights in the basement, and verbal and threatened
physical
abuse. Is it fair that the Head Office Organiser alone has
responsibility for
these recreational activities, and should we consider either evicting
current
residents or sharing the fun more widely among members? Alternatively,
can the Premises Committee construct a bicycle shed in the backyard,
behind
which all naughty goings-on could be conducted simultaneously and
unhindered?
(5–0–2)
Miller said that this resolution reprints a supporting statement which
had been rejected
by the Standing Orders Committee on the grounds that it would endanger
the
Party, and asked whether it should appear verbatim in the EC minutes.
Deutz said
it was not necessary to print the resolution in full. It was otherwise
agreed that the
resolution should appear as is.
Browne said the resolution does not concern the charge, that it
improperly reproduces unpublished material, and that Branches should
not attack each other for frivolous matters. Miller said there was no
question of impropriety as all Party documents (save the membership
list) are available to members.
Motion 22 (Chesham & Helps) That East Anglian Regional Branch’s
resolution be
noted.
Carried 5–0–2
C. E-mail from P Bennett (24 September) stating that as he had been
provided with no evidence for the claims of canvassing and lobbying,
this part of the resolution should be withdrawn and an apology offered
to the two Branches.
Motion 23 (Chesham & White) It should be blatantly obvious that the
phrase to
which Cde Bennett objects (“crude canvassing or outright lobbying”)
referred to the
two individuals conducting the straw polls in Birmingham and North East
Branches.
In the first instance, that individual was not the Branch secretary,
and in the second
that individual was not a member of the Party. Cde Bennett is again
referred to the
third and fourth sentences of Motion 8 of the 1 September 2007 EC
meeting: “For
socialists, democracy is much more than a mere counting of heads.
Casting the vote
comes at the conclusion of a process in which is seen the marshalling
of facts and the
presentation of opposing arguments with the decision being reached,
hopefully, on
the basis of informed opinion.”
Amendment (Miller & Stair) Change “was not a member of the Party”
to “had resigned
from the Party”. Carried 5–0–2
Chesham said that September’s Motion 8 was not meant to finger all the
Branches’ members and that this clarifies things. Deutz spoke in
opposition to
the resolution and said the EC should apologise. Chesham replied that
the motion
simply clarified facts. He said that soliciting or offering votes as a
personal
favour or in deference to a longstanding member is deplorable,
undemocratic behaviour of the worst kind. Browne and Miller said the
motion was inflammatory.
Amendment (Miller & Helps) Delete “It should be blatantly obvious
that”. Carried
5–0–2
Vote on motion as amended:
For: Stair, Chesham, Helps, White, Miller. Against: Browne, Deutz.
Abstaining: None.
Carried 5–2
The Chair referred members to the standing order on questioning the
socialist integrity of members. Chesham said that the Chair was not
applying that resolution
fairly. Stair apprised the Chair of comments made on the mailing list;
he said that
the EC was simply stating facts whereas some mailing list contributors
were using ad
hominem attacks.
D. Letter from Ron Cook/Birmingham Branch (undated) saying that a
recent decision
to make Central Branch a closed Branch had effectively disenfranchise
Birmingham
Branch, but that the EC tacitly accepted the existence of the Branch
(e. g., by sending correspondence and allowing it to conduct the Summer
School), and so must also accept their poll requisition.
Miller said he had sent a preliminary response to the letter. White and
Chesham
said that as neither Birmingham nor North East Branch had reported to
Conference
as per Rule 9 for several years, they could not be considered proper
functioning
branches. Deutz recalled a Conference discussion to wind up North East
and Birmingham Branches and that this move was defeated because of the
suggestion that they form regional branches. Browne and Miller said
that it was impossible to know what happened as the former General
Secretary had never submitted the Conference minutes.
Browne said that he recalled Swansea had submitted but later withdrawn
the
motion. Stair said that the Branch proper does not run Summer School;
rather it is a
couple individual members, and the EC has been slack in permitting them
to do this
without any oversight.
Motion 24 (Helps & Stair) That Cde Cook’s letter be noted.
Agreed
E. Report from the Assistant Secretary on the need for a protocol for
online democratic decision-making.
Browne suggested that the applicability of this report to Birmingham
Branch be raised
under Any Other Business. Chesham asked if Cook had seen the report.
Browne said
that all members of the Branch were on e-mail so they must be able to
see it. It was
agreed to defer the matter.
ii. Re Motion 13 (solicitation of support from members not present at
Branch meetings) A. E-mail from Eva Goodman (12 September) explaining
that she and Lambert were consulted by her Branch because they are
fully informed, and stating that nominations need not be on Forms B and
that Branches do not have accredited secretaries.
Motion 25 (Stair & Miller) That Cde Goodman’s e-mail be noted.
For: Deutz, Stair, Miller, Helps, White. Against: Browne, Chesham.
Abstaining: None.
Carried 5–2
B. E-mail fromWest London Branch (29 September 17:01) with the
following resolution:
This branch rejects the EC’s description of the consultation of members
who cannot
routinely attend our meetings as ‘totally unacceptable’ [September EC
minutes,
page 6]. Furthermore, we regard the attempts by this EC to disregard the
democratic decisions of members—of this and other branches—as improper
and
an abuse of the EC’s role within the Party.
Motion 26 (Miller & Chesham) That West London Branch be asked why
they did not
inform and consult all the other members not present at their meeting.
Deutz said that Goodman’s letter answers this. Helps asked whether the
Branch
informs and consults only those members who wish to be informed and
consulted.
Deutz said members have some responsibility to keep themselves informed
and participatory, and that Goodman is closely connected with the Branch
secretary. Chesham said that none of this is a substitute for members
attending in
person to participate in Branch discussions, and that presently those
who cannot
or will not participate are unfortunately disenfranchised.
Carried 5–1–1
C. E-mail from Central Organiser with attachments (30 September)
Miller said that this was best considered together with the Assistant
Secretary’s report.
Motion 27 (Miller & Chesham) That consideration of the Central
Organiser’s e-mail
be deferred.
Carried 3–1–3
iii. Re Motion 16 (Form A for C. W.): Letter from David Porter,
Membership Department (25 September)
Motion 28 (Miller & Browne) That consideration of Cde Porter’s
letter be deferred.
Agreed
iv. Re Motion 18 (nominations for General Secretary)
The following nominations were received but not accepted by the
nominees:
• E-mail from Central London Branch nominating M Tenner (14 September)
• East Anglian Regional Branch nomination of Miller (22 September)
• Letter from South London Branch nominating Carter and A Buick (6
October)
v. Re Motion 19 (nominations to Executive Committee): E-mail from
Central London Branch
nominating P Shannon, P McEwan, and H Roberts (14 September). None of
the nominees accepted.
vi. Re Motion 22 (spurious SPGB meetings at Conway Hall): The Assistant
Secretary reported that he had contacted Conway Hall and had received
their assurance that they would not allow the meetings to be held in
our name.
Motion 29 (Deutz & Browne) That the Assistant Secretary’s report be
noted.
Agreed
vii. Re Motion 23 (Campaigns Department budget): E-mail from Campaigns
Department (6 September). Also considered under this item was that part
of this month’s Campaigns Department report dealing with the proposed
day school on mental health and capitalism.
Miller asked if the speakers or artists would be paid. Johnson
(Campaigns Department)
said that they would be reimbursed travel expenses from around Britain,
and that £240 would be required for rental of stands for the
artwork. Deutz asked why the Department thought lack of facilities for
the disabled at Head Office was an issue, since the meeting concerned
the mentally disabled, not the physically disabled. She also asked if
the Department would consider an afternoon meeting rather than a day
school. Miller said that as the art and poetry is neither part of a
debate nor in furtherance of the Party case, it is simply an expensive
decoration for the meeting. Stair reported that Johnson told him that
the Department had requested two rooms because those interested in the
art will not be interested in our politics. Stair said that this isn’t
what the Party is about; we put on meetings for politics, not for art.
White asked why this London-based event is under the remit of the
Department instead of one of the London branches. Johnson said that it
is because it was already on the agenda before the departure of Bissett
and suspension of Martin. White said no buffet was needed.
Motion 30 (Miller & White) That the Campaigns Department be
authorised to hold their capitalism and mental health meeting at Head
Office and that advertising expenses and travelling expenses for
speakers be granted, but that no other expenses be granted.
Amendment (Stair & Helps) Replace “at Head Office and that
advertising expenses and” with “at Head Office, that a combined budget
of £150 pounds for advertising and food be granted, and that”
Carried 6–1
Vote on motion as amended:
Carried 6–1
viii. Re Motion 27 (roof hatch security): Oral report from Premises
Committee. Agreed to defer.
ix. Re Motion 29 (payments to Zambia): E-mail from Central Branch
Secretary
(6 September) asking where the EC thought the monies came from.
Agreed to note.
(i) Notices of Motion and Business
• None received.
3. Forms A and F
(a) Form A for J. S. from the Acting Secretary of Birmingham Branch,
which had been accepted by telephone and mail.
Miller noted that this application put the EC in the same position as
with the Birmingham poll requisition, and asked whether the application
should be referred to the Membership Department. Chesham said that the
application wasn’t properly conducted, but that referring the
application to the Membership Department will only confuse the
applicant. Chesham said that the Party needs to urgently sort out the
problem of Branches which do not meet. Stair said that the Party cannot
entrust a single member with the task of processing Forms A, and that
he was worried about a repeat of the C. W. application. Miller said
that the EC did not know how many members oversaw the application.
Motion 31 (Deutz & Miller) That J. S.’s application be referred
back to the Acting Secretary of Birmingham Branch to request
information on the application process (e. g., whether a membership
questionnaire was carried out).
Carried 6–0–1
Motion 32 (White & Stair) That the EC write to J. S. apologising
for the delay in processing his application.
Chesham questioned whether the motion should provide further
information. Deutz
noted that we don’t have any further details. Stair said that we
already know what the problem is: new members applying to a Branch
should be accepted only at quorate meetings, as per Rule 1.
Carried 7–0
(b) Form F for James Keohane (Central Branch, deceased)
Motion 33 (Deutz & Miller) That Cde Keohan’s Form F be accepted.
Agreed
4. Written report of the General Purposes Committee
• Committee vacant.
5. Accounts
(a) Accounts for April–June 2007. Agreed to defer.
6. Reports of Party Officers, Party Appointees, Subcommittees, and
Departments; discussion of campaigns
and The Socialist Standard
(a) Report from the Assistant Secretary
Motion 34 (Miller & Deutz) That the Assistant Secretary’s report be
deferred.
Failed 2–5
The report noted that the monitor for the Head Office window display
had been returned and that the manufacturer’s technicians now believe
the fault to lie with our video card rather than with the monitor.
Meanwhile the display is still usable and had been reinstalled. Stair
said the monitor is difficult to see in the sunlight or from an angle.
He said it would be better to have the window unobstructed so that the
public can see the activity in the building.
Miller said that the display had generated several enquiries from
passersby, that it was highly visible in the mornings and evenings and
at night, and that passersby would be able to see into the building
once the facade was unbricked and more windows installed.
Motion 35 (Chesham & Stair) That the Assistant Secretary be
instructed to purchase a new video card on Monday to determine the
problem with the display.
Carried 5–0–2
(b) Report from the Campaigns Department (August 2007). Agreed to defer.
(c) Report from the Campaigns Department (September 2007) Agreed to
defer.
(d) Oral report from the Standing Orders Committee. Agreed to defer.
(e) Autumn Delegate Meeting
It was agreed that arrangements for the ADM social would be discussed
at beginning of ADM.
The meeting received the following reports:
• Report from the Assistant Secretary
• Report from the Central Branch Secretary
• Report from the Ad-hoc Committee Investigating the Circumstances
Surrounding the Estate of the Late George Pooley
• Report from the Archives Department
• Report from the Central Organiser
No report had been received from the Ad-hoc Committee to Construct
Alternative Models of Party Decision-Making, the Blog Department, and
the Central Branch Organiser.
Motion 36 (Deutz & Chesham) That all outstanding ADM reports be
adopted.
Several members objected to certain claims or omissions from the
Archives Department report.
Amendment (Miller & Deutz) Insert “except the Archives Department
report” after “all outstanding ADM reports”. Carried 5–0–2
Vote on motion as amended:
Carried 7–0
Motion 37 (Chesham & Miller) That the meeting be adjourned.
Agreed
With several items remaining on the agenda, the meeting was adjourned
at 18:41.
|
|
|