: The
logistics of the secret ballot is addressed in the Ballot
Committee's report to ADM. (See §6(h).)
c. Matters arising from the 24 June 2007 special meeting
i. Motion 13 (Smith/political views): The meeting read and
noted a 12 August e-mail from West London Branch indicating
that Smith did not recall the exchange with Chesham, and
that he does not support the Communist Party of Iran.

d. Matters arising from the 7 July 2007 meeting
i. Motion 9 (Central Branch Forms F): The meeting read and
noted with thanks a 26 July e-mail from the Central Branch
Secretary outlining the lengthy process by which he
attempts to track down members before lapsing them.

It was agreed that the Head Office Organiser would check
with Treasurer about the status of the Bentleys' standing
orders.

ii. Motion 23 (Smith/personal attacks): The meeting read and
noted a 12 August e-mail from West London Branch indicating
that Smith had been reminded of the 1980 Conference
resolution regarding personal attacks.

iii. Motion 24 (charge against Martin)
A. Correspondence

The EC considered the following correspondence:
* Report from the Assistant Secretary

The report indicated that Branch secretaries had
been polled asking their members' preferences for
the date of a special Party meeting in the event a
poll is called. Seven branch secretaries indicated
a preference for holding such a meeting at ADM, two
indicated a preference for holding the meeting
before ADM, and two indicated no preference. Two
other branches could not be polled in this manner
owing to the absence of the secretary or to the
vacancy of the position.

* Poll requisition from West London Branch
(8 August): "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." (5-0, 1 subsequently consulted in favour)
* Poll requisition from Edinburgh Branch (9 August):
"That a Poll of the Party be called in accordance
with Rule 26 to revoke Resolution 24 of the meeting
of the EC of 7 July charging Comrade Martin and to
refer the matter to West London Branch." (3-0)
* Poll requisition from Manchester Branch
(22 August): "That the Branch support the West
London Branch motion, viz. '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.'." (5-1-2)
* Poll requisition from Lancaster Branch (16 August):
"It is clear from the August EC minutes that: a)
the EC is evenly divided on the question whether
Rule 31 was justly applied; b) West London Branch
were not aware of Cde Martin's online activities
until the matter was raised at the EC table; c) the
EC could have, but chose not to refer this matter
to West London Branch. Lancaster Branch is not
aware of any rule that says that once a complaint
is brought to the EC, Rule 29 can no longer be
applied, nor of any rule that obliges the EC to
refer the matter to the Branch. Thus there is an
ambiguity. However, taking note of Rule 7 ('The
Branch shall be the unit of organisation'),
Lancaster views the decision not to apply Rule 29
in the first instance as abuse of process. We
therefore support West London's call for a party
poll and urge other branches to do the same." (5-0)
* Poll requisition from John Bissett for North East
Branch (30 August): Bissett wrote that he had
polled the 15 members of North East Branch on the
requisition with a result of 4-0, and that this
result was acceptable under "the recently changed
Conference quoracy resolution".

* Poll requisition from Ron Cook for Birmingham
Branch (30 August): Cook wrote that he had polled 5
of 8 members of Birmingham Branch on the
requisition with a result of 5-0; the remaining
three members could not be contacted.

B. Discussion of requisitions from Cook and Bissett

Easton argued that the requisitions from Cook and
Bissett were invalid as they did not supply the wording
of the motion. Chesham argued that the requisition from
Bissett was invalid as he had already resigned
"effective immediately" on 5 August, and that the
resolution was not debated at a Branch meeting. Miller
located the 2003 Conference quoracy resolution and read
it out:

On matters of urgency, where branches have no
scheduled branch meeting before closing dates the
secretary shall be empowered to obtain the members'
support by post, phone, or e-mail. Such actions
must be ratified by the next branch meeting.
(101-6)

Miller then argued that neither requisition was valid
under the terms of the Conference resolution because
the matter was not "urgent" (there being nearly four
months to act between the laying of charges and issue
of ballot papers, in which time the Branch was required
by Rule 31 to summon a special meeting anyway), nor was
there a "closing date" (as poll requisitions do not
expire), nor were the requisitions obtained by the
Branch secretaries (Coggan being the secretary for
Birmingham Branch, and the position of North East
Branch secretary being vacant). He also noted that
these Branch polls were conducted arbitrarily, as no
such Branch poll was conducted in response to the
previous requisition for a Party poll in July 2006.
Helps said the requisitions were unfair because the
minutes and charge particulars are sent only to the
Branch secretaries in anticipation of their being read
at Branch meetings; members cannot make informed
decisions without access to this information. White
said that the 2003 Conference resolution was being
misapplied because it was intended to compensate for
inquorate or infrequent meetings, not moribund branches
which do not meet at all.

Motion 8 (Chesham & Easton) BIRT members of
Birmingham and North East Branches be informed that
their requisitions in support of the West London Branch
call for a Party poll are invalid. This EC concurs with
the view expressed in the final sentence of the West
London Branch letter of 8 August, viz. "Needless to
say, such resolutions must be passed at quorate
meetings and append voting figures." 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. In the absence of the above criteria, crude
canvassing or outright lobbying are pale imitations of
democracy and have no place within the Socialist Party.

Helps said that Bissett and Buick knew of Martin's
activities long before the EC did, and shirked
their responsibilities as Party Officers by failing
to report it to her Branch. He said they have now
spent a month campaigning in support of her. Deutz
said that campaigning against Martin has also been
going on, citing Allen as an example. Easton
replied that Allen's campaigning was not done
without anticipation of a forthcoming meeting, and
that Birmingham and North East Branches ought to
have called a meeting.

For: White, Easton, Helps, Miller, Chesham. Against:
Carter. Abstaining: Deutz, Stair.
Carried 5-1-2

C. Discussion of requisition from Lancaster Branch

Miller, Deutz, and Chesham said that contrary to
Lancaster Branch's point (a), the EC was not "evenly
divided" on the charge, as it was carried 5-3 and
subsequently reaffirmed without opposition. Miller said
that contrary to the Branch's point (c), the majority
of the EC did not believe it had the right to refer the
matter to West London Branch. With respect to point
(b), Chesham and Helps said that at least one member of
West London Branch was aware of Martin's activities
long before the laying of charges. Miller countered
that the Branch cannot be held accountable for failing
to act on information withheld from them by one of its
members.

D. Discussion on calling a Party poll

White and Easton said it would be ridiculous for the EC
to call a poll now, and stressed that the laying of
charges does not mean that the EC is expelling Martin,
nor even asking that she be expelled, but rather asking
the membership to investigate, judge, and decide what
to do about her activities.

Chesham said that the EC acted in good faith in laying
the charge, in the manner they thought the membership
expected of them, but given the response it might be
best to allow the membership to abort the process, and
thereby give the membership a vote of confidence in the
EC. Referring the matter to the Branch, he said, would
give the membership a chance to observe and judge how
the Branch deals with it.

Stair and Miller expressed concern that the EC was
being maligned and verbally attacked on the Party
mailing lists for an action they had taken in good
faith. Miller said that if the poll is called now, it
should be made clear that it was not in response to
bullying and abuse, as that would set a dangerous
precedent.

Deutz argued that the EC shouldn't call for a poll
after just having told two Branches that their
requisitions were invalid, and that four requisitions
isn't strong enough.

Chesham said that this is a bigger issue than Martin;
the Party is more important than any individual member.
He repeated that calling a poll would allow the Party
to voice its view on whether this EC has acted
properly.

Easton noted that a poll is problematic either way, as
it will prolong things. If the poll fails, the matter
will be deferred and Martin will remain suspended until
Conference.

Carter said that the EC should have the courage of its
convictions and should allow the charge to proceed.

Lawrie argued that the EC should call the poll.

Motion 9 (Deutz & Easton) BIRT next business be
considered.
Agreed

iv. Motion 26 (image credits in the Standard)

Miller said the resolution was not yet being properly
implemented. Deutz said that this was of the utmost
importance, and that if the SSD can't secure and abide by
image licenses, the images should not be included.

Motion 10 (Deutz & Easton) BIRT the EC insists that the
Socialist Standard Department properly credit the photos
used in the Socialist Standard in the matter specified by
their authors.
Carried 7-0-1

v. Motions 33 and 35 (Campaigns Department report): See §6(e).
vi. Motion 34 (Campaigns Department nominations): No
nominations received. It was agreed to reissue the call.

vii. Motions 39 and 40 (Edinburgh Branch resolutions): The
meeting received an 11 August e-mail from Edinburgh Branch
(11 August) with the following resolution:

After a discussion on your Motion 39, at our 8 August
2007 meeting, the Branch agreed that we withdraw our
second motion.

It was also agreed that the Branch request further
clarification, if any, on the EC's attitude to our
Motion A [That Edinburgh branch urges the EC, as a
matter of priority, to purchase for the Party audio and
video equipment to record Party activity--e. g.,
business meetings and special events.]. (3-0)

Miller said that recording meetings would encourage members
to think carefully before they speak, and would help
resolve disputes as to what was said at previous meetings.

Motion 11 (Deutz & Chesham) BIRT Edinburgh Branch be
thanked for their suggestion, but the EC does not consider
this to be feasible at this time.
Carried 5-1-2

viii. Motion 46 (reconciliation with World Socialist Party
(India)): The EC read and noted a 24 August e-mail from the
Central Organiser indicating that we do not yet have the
necessary information from the two Indian groups.

e. Matters arising from the 4 August 2007 meeting
i. §2.e.ii.B (General Secretary/Central London Branch)
A. Letter from Central London Branch (28 July) containing
the following motion: "BIRT Central London Branch
deplores the comments made by the General Secretary
regarding members of Central London Branch during the
EC meeting when concluding the business regarding
alleged personal abuses by party members." (5-0)

Agreed to note.

B. Circular from Central London Branch (24 August)
rebutting statements by the General Secretary and
others that they had caused the 6 June incident, had
called the 24 June special EC meeting, and were
responsible for the charge against Martin.

Deutz noted that it was three Central London Branch
members who brought the information leading to the
charge to the EC, even if it wasn't the Branch itself.
Chesham and Easton said that the Party should deplore
the Central Organiser's public remarks about members
"taking over" a Branch.

Motion 12 (Helps & Miller) BIRT the letter be noted
and that it be acknowledged that Central London Branch
itself did not lay the charges.

For: Helps, Chesham, Easton, Stair, Miller, White.
Against: Deutz. Abstaining: Carter.
Carried 6-1-1

C. §2.e.ii.A (Letter from West London Branch)

Refering to the vote for West London Branch's motion,
Chesham said it was improper practice to include voting
figures from two members consulted after the meeting,
as they were not party to the discussion and could not
be shown to have made a decision on the basis of the
same information as the members at the properly
constituted meeting.

White said that under the terms of the 2003 Conference
resolution, support from absent members must be
"ratified by the next branch meeting".

Easton asked why the Branch consulted Goodman and
Lambert but not other members.

Motion 13 (Chesham & Miller) BIRT West London Branch
be informed that, with respect to their letters of
27 July and 8 August, this EC regards the solicitation
of support for Branch resolutions from members not
present at Branch meetings (except as specified by the
2003 Conference resolution) is totally unacceptable.
BIFRT the Branch be referred to the reply to Birmingham
and North East Branches earlier in this meeting.

Deutz asked for clarification on why this practice
should be viewed as unacceptable. Miller and
Chesham said that apart from the reasons given in
Motion 8, this practice allows members to effect or
inflate a vote in their favour by consulting only
those absent members who they expect to vote a
certain way.

Carried 5-0-3

f. Notices of Motion and Business
i. Notice of Business 2 (Stair) from 2 June: The EC shall
discuss the purchase of a hearing induction loop.

Stair reported that he had received a rough estimate of
1500 for fitting the loop, but needed to get firmer quote.
It was agreed to defer the matter pending further
information.

ii. Notice of Motion 1 from 7 July

Motion 14 (White & Chesham) BIRT in view of the fact that
the Head Office computer has been used to access and view
websites of a pornographic nature, this EC affrims that the
Party's infrastructure is for the propagation of socialism
and the administration of the Party.

White said that some members' recreational use of the
Head Office computers was completely unacceptable.
Stair said that the problem is the accountability of
people who claim to come to the Head Office to do Party
work. Miller said that the viewing of pornography was a
comparatively minor infraction compared to the
disruptive activities engaged in by some other
visitors.

Amendment (Miller & Helps) Delete "in view of the fact
that the Head Office computer has been used to access
and view websites of a pornographic nature,".
Carried 6-0-2

Vote on motion as amended:
Carried 8-0

iii. Notice of Motion 2 from 7 July

Motion 15 (Chesham & Carter) BIRT the practice of
self-nomination to subcommittees be discontinued.

Chesham and Carter noted that members sometimes put
themselves forward for subcommittees and then do
nothing once appointed. They argued that getting the
approval of one's peers has a greater impact; nominees
should be able to convince their branch members or
others that they are willing and able to do the job.
Chesham noted the Central Branch Secretary's letter of
26 July expressing concern that this would make it more
difficult for members of Central Branch, but said that
such members could always seek the nomination of
another Branch by petitioning them in writing.

Deutz said she didn't like the term "self-nomination"
as what members were actually doing was volunteering.

Miller noted that the way the Motion is worded, the
nomination needn't come from a Branch, but rather from
any member.

White argued that the nomination should be sought from
or approved by existing subcommittee members, to ensure
that the new member will work well with the others.

Easton argued that a nomination should be both proposed
and seconded by someone other than the nominee.

Carried 5-0-3

3. Forms A and F
a. C. W.

The Assistant Secretary reported that he had written to the
Membership Department concerning C. W.'s application, which the
EC had referred to them in hopes of resolving two problematic
questionnaire answers. Porter had replied that the Department
had received no communication from the General Secretary
advising them of this referral, so they had not contacted C. W.

The EC read a letter from C. W., dated 13 August, chastising
the Party for having failed to respond to his membership
application and stating that he wished to having nothing more
to do with the Party. The letter made several statements
indicating that he lacked a basic understanding of the Party
case. Enclosed with the letter was a copy of the last letter he
had received from the Membership Department, dated 29 May,
which informed him that they had "no hesitation in recommending
[his] acceptance" and that their decision "will be endorsed" by
the Executive Committee.

Deutz asked why the Membership Department didn't query him more
strongly given his dubious responses to the membership
questionnaire and the ignorance of the Party case evidenced in
his later letter.

White agreed that the Department acted too soon in recommending
the applicant for membership. He said that this is a
wider-ranging problem, as a longstanding member recently asked
whether socialism would come about through revolution, and
stated that we could support and join other political
organisations.

Miller related a further example showing that more vigilance
was needed; Porter had told him that this year the Department
had received an incoherent membership questionnaire from
someone. Rather than requesting clarification of his responses,
they simply corrected them and asked him whether he agreed with
the corrections. The applicant so affirmed, and the Department
recommended him to the EC for membership on that basis.

Motion 16 (Miller & Easton) BIRT the EC is perturbed by C.
W.'s letter and his responses to the questionnaire and asks the
Membership Department why they recommended so strongly his
acceptance into the Party. BIFRT the EC is concerned that the
Membership Department assured the prospective member that his
application would be accepted by the EC.
Carried 8-0

b. Form F for John Bissett (North East Branch, no reason given)

Miller said he and many others had tried to dissuade Bissett
from resigning but that he was adamant he wished to leave the
Party.

Motion 17 (Deutz & Easton) BIRT Bissett's Form F be accepted
with regret.

White said that Bissett resigned because he put himself in
an untenable position, and that it was despicable that he
was now scapegoating the EC for this. Chesham said Bissett
had threatened to resign twice in the past four months
(albeit over different issues) and may have been looking
for an excuse to leave the Party. Chesham said Bissett got
himself in a hole and wouldn't stop digging. Miller said
that whatever Bissett did, or whatever any other members
did to Bissett, wasn't worth resigning over.

Carried 8-0

Motion 18 (Easton & Miller) BIRT a call for nominations to
General Secretary be made with a deadline of the next EC
meeting.
Agreed

Motion 19 (Miller & Helps) BIRT a call for nominations to
vacant EC seat be made with a deadline of the next EC meeting.
Agreed

c. Form F for Tim Bourn (East Anglian Regional Branch, inactivity)

Miller argued that inactivity was no valid grounds for
resignation. Deutz and Stair said the Branch agreed and had
already tried to dissuade him but that he was adamant.

Motion 20 (Chesham & Helps) BIRT Bourn's Form F be accepted
with regret.
Carried 8-0

d. Form F for Gavin Sinclair (Manchester, deceased)

Motion 21 (Miller & Easton) BIRT Sinclair's Form F be
accepted.
Carried 7-0

4. Written report of the General Purposes Committee
* None received.

5. Accounts
* None received.

6. Reports of Party Officers, Party Appointees, Subcommittees, and
Departments; discussion of campaigns and The Socialist Standard
a. Report from the Internet Department (30 July)

The report noted the recent surge in activity on the Party's
mailing lists, and reported that Johnstone was now primarily
responsible for moderation. Culbert had received the funds for
the new computer. Miller was attempting liaise with M Miller of
the WSPUS. Freddi was visiting Head Office and was redoing the
Party's website.

Stair noted that with the advent of moderation, there is no
record of abuse or attempted abuse on the mailing lists, and
that members are getting a one-sided view of otherwise abusive
members. Miller replied that Johnstone was keeping a record of
messages which did not pass moderation, along with his
responses, in case his work ever needed to come under review.

Stair said that the moderation rules were being inconsistently
applied; some posters were being warned or banned for
inappropriate messages while others made insults with imputiny.

Carter asked how the moderation process works. Miller explained
that by default, posts are immediately accepted by the mailing
list software and sent out to all subscribers. However, the
moderator has the power to put any poster on moderation, which
means that their posts are intercepted by the Internet
Department and then approved or rejected by the moderator once
he reads them. Thus there is a delay between the time the
message is posted and the time it appears on the mailing list
(or is rejected).

White questioned the practice of leaving everyone unmoderated
by default, as this makes it too easy to post abuse. He said
that by comparison, abusive letters wouldn't be automatically
published in the Standard. Easton explained that the Internet
is quite a different medium from print. Carter contrasted the
mailing lists to in-person Party meetings, where abusive
comrades would be asked to step away from the table.

b. Report on Actions Taken Pursuant to the 1995 Conference
Resolution Concerning the Protection of the Party's Identity
and Funds (July 2007)

The report indicated that a letter had appeared in The
Freethinker urging readers to contact the Party, but that it
provided a false address. The Assistant Secretary had written
to the magazine asking them to print a correction.

It was agreed to note the report and drop the issue of the
Baldwin leaflet.

c. Report from the Assistant Secretary

The report indicated that the sudden departure of the General
Secretary had caused delays in the handling of various
administrative work in August, and that this was aggravated by
the General Secretary having failed to issue much of the
correspondence arising from the July EC meeting. The company
fixing the Head Office electronic display was giving the Party
the runaround and so the manufacturer had been contacted for a
replacement.

The Assistant Secretary provided an oral update on the status
of the Standard scanning; the LSE had written on 30 August to
say that the digitisation is slated to begin in September.

d. Report on Actions Taken Pursuant to the 1995 Conference
Resolution Concerning the Protection of the Party's Identity
and Funds (August 2007)

The report noted that the Socialist Studies Group had announced
a "Socialist Party of Great Britain" autumn lecture series at
Conway Hall.

Motion 22 (White & Easton) BIRT the Assistant Secretary
contact Conway Hall to complain about the meetings.
Carried 6-0-2

e. Report from the Campaigns Department (four e-mails from
B Johnson and P Lancaster)

The report indicated that following the loss of Bissett,
Gardner was considering joining the Department and had taken
over administration of University Challenge. The Department had
planned the following additional activities: organisation of a
London day school on the theme of capitalism and mental health,
production of a Party calendar, purchasing stand-up banners and
promotional material, and an open day at Head Office. They
therefore revised their request from 500 to 3000, and
provided a budget which accounted for 1090.50 thereof. In
response to Motion 33 of the 7 July minutes, several poster
designs were provided. In response to Motion 35, the Department
said it currently had no time to contact other debating
societies.

Chesham, Deutz, White, Miller, and Easton remarked that the
Department's plans were not described in enough detail to
justify such a large expenditure, and that nearly two thirds of
the budget was unaccounted for. Miller expressed concern about
the views to be put forward at the day school given what he
believed to be wildly irrational comments on the subject
recently expressed by one member of the Department. Chesham
questioned whether the subject of mental health would attract
enough attendees and whether there were any socialist analyses
to draw upon to present a Party view.

Motion 23 (Miller & White) BIRT the EC ask for further
details on the venue for the London day school and the views to
be put forward, and that the EC ask the Campaigns Department to
justify the use of the party video and buffet thereat. BIFRT
the EC ask the Department to revise their budget to account for
the unallocated 1909.50.
Carried 7-1

With respect to the Department's response to Motion 33, Miller
noted the Department appeared to have incorporated other
artists' work into their posters.

Motion 24 (Cheshem & Miller) BIRT consideration of Campaign
Department's response to Motion 33 of the 7 July meeting be
deferred.
Carried 7-0-1

Motion 25 (Chesham & Deutz) BIRT the EC note the Campaign
Department's response to Motion 35 of the 7 July meeting.
Agreed

f. Report from the Election Department

The Department reported the possibility of a snap election and
recommended that authorisation to contest such an election in
Vauxhall be given.

Motion 26 (Helps & Miller) BIRT the EC authorises Central
London Branch or South London Branch to contest a snap election
in Vauxhall this year if applicable.
Agreed

g. Oral report from the Premises Committee

Stair reported that Head Office was burgled on 8 August and
again on 18 August. In the first incident, the burglar entered
through the roof hatch, which a member or visitor had left
unbolted, forced open the cash boxes and cabinets, and stolen
cash and the digital video camera. In the second incident, the
burglar entered by smashing a first-storey window and accosted
Miller in his sleep. Miller rang the police, who did not show
up for three hours, by which time the burglar had fled without
stealing anything. Further details are provided in the Premises
Committee's report to ADM. Stair outlined his plans for making
the building more secure, which involved replacing the windows
at a cost of some 4000. Stair also indicated that new flooring
was required on the upper storeys, which have long been bare.
He had sourced a quote from the same contractor who provided
the downstairs flooring.

Motion 27 (Chesham & White) BIRT the EC approves Premises
Committee's proposed expenditure on windows and also asks them
to investigate securing the roof hatch and to report back to
next EC meeting.
Carried 8-0

Motion 28 (Easton & Chesham) BIRT the EC grants the Premises
Committee up to 6000 for flooring.
Carried 6-0-2

h. Reports to ADM

The EC read the following reports:
* Report from the Advertising Department
* Report from the Audio Department
* Report from the Ballot Committee
* Report from the Campaigns Department
* Report from the Election Department
* Report from the Enquiries Department
* Report from the Head Office Organiser
* Report from the Premises Committee
* Report from the Public Access Committee
* Report from the Publications Department
* Report from the Socialist Standard Department
* Report from the Standing Orders Committee
* Report from the Video Production Department
* Report from the Membership Applications Department

The EC agreed to amend the Membership Applications Department
report to remove the names of the unsuccessful applicants. The
EC agreed to amend the Premises Committee Report such that it
listed the EC, not Conference, as implementing the smoking ban,
and such that the video camera was mentioned as being stolen.
The EC agreed that Miller should amend the Publications
Department report by adding some information which had appeared
in previous Departmental reports to the EC. It was then agreed
to adopt all the reports.

The following reports were yet to be received:
* Ad-hoc Committee Investigating the Circumstances
Surrounding the Estate of the Late George Pooley
* Ad-hoc Committee to Construct Alternative Models of Party
Decision-Making
* Archives Department
* Blog Department
* Internet Department
* Central Branch Organiser

Miller outlined the plans for the Internet Department report,
and it was agreed to adopt it on spec.

i. Discussion of campaigns. See §6(e).
j. Discussion of The Socialist Standard. See §2(d)iv.

7. Correspondence

Deutz and Carter left around this point.
a. Matters of urgency
b. Correspondence from or concerning Branches, the Party in
general, and members
i. Letter from Central Branch Secretary (2 July)
A. Self-nomination to Overseas Contacts Committee. Agreed
to defer.
B. Self-nomination to Overseas Group Secretary. Agreed to
defer.
C. Correspondence with Zambia group

The meeting noted that the Central Branch Secretary had
been sending money to the Zambia group, but his letter
did not specify whether this was Party money or done in
a personal capacity.

Motion 29 (White & Miller) BIRT the EC write to the
Central Branch Secretary asking the source of payments
to Zambia.
Agreed

It was agreed to defer the remainder of the
correspondence.

D. Letter from P Newell re Zambia group (23 July). Agreed
to defer.
ii. Letter from J Bissett regarding videos (30 August). Agreed
to defer.
c. Correspondence from Companion Parties and Groups
i. WSPNZ minutes for June 2007. Agreed to defer.
ii. SPC newsletter for July 2007. Agreed to defer.
iii. WSPNZ minutes for July 2007. Agreed to defer.
iv. SPC newsletter for August 2007. Agreed to defer.
d. All other correspondence
i. E-mail from Martin regarding alleged conflict of interest
(1 September). Agreed to note.

8. Any other business
a. Chesham, White, and Miller reported that they had received
various letters. It was agreed to defer consideration of them
to next month.

b. Stair reported he had found a letter from the Treasurer to John
Briggs and believed it contained or arose from a
mischaracterisation of the EC's instructions. It was agreed to
defer consideration of the letter to next month.

9. Nomination of Chair for the next meeting

Motion 30 (Miller & Helps) BIRT Browne be chair for the October
meeting.
Agreed

With no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at
20:16.