Skip to Content

Business for next branch meeting

19 posts / 0 new
Last post
gnome
gnome's picture
Offline
Joined: 14/10/2011

Anything you missed, Joe, can almost certainly be found in the EC's minutes.  You only have to look.  

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/spintcom/files/EC_Minutes/

Vin (not verified)

northern light wrote:

 You  were'nt "kicked off the project," as you said. 

Obviously - not literally - I am not saying someone took a foot to me, but I was effectively removed and I did not walk from the project when the EC awarded MY project to the Internet Committee beause the IC must have refused to appoint me ad hoc member to access the Youtube account and I cannot find reference to this refusal in recorded minutes. which is undemocratic.

The SPGB decisions should be open and democratic, in this case they were not. I would love to be proven wrong but the Internet Committee feels it does not have an obligation to explain its self to anyone.

Why would I walk, Joe? That wouldn't make sense. I would rejoin now if I could continue with my work. Would that prove to you who is being open here?

 

 

 

Vin (not verified)

gnome wrote:

Anything you missed, Joe, can almost certainly be found in the EC's minutes.  You only have to look.  

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/spintcom/files/EC_Minutes/

He won't find my reasons for resignation, nor the Internet Committee's decision to refuse to appoint me. I would still like to know.

 

gnome
gnome's picture
Offline
Joined: 14/10/2011

Vin wrote:

gnome wrote:

Anything you missed, Joe, can almost certainly be found in the EC's minutes.  You only have to look.  

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/spintcom/files/EC_Minutes/

nor the Internet Committee's decision to refuse to appoint me. I would still like to know.

The Internet Committee is not empowered to appoint.  Check out their Terms of Reference.  And while you're about it, remind yourself of the Audio/Visual's...

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/spintcom/files/Depts%20and%20Committ...

Vin (not verified)

gnome wrote:

 

The Internet Committee is not empowered to appoint.  Check out their Terms of Reference.  And while you're about it, remind yourself of the Audio/Visual's...

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/spintcom/files/Depts%20and%20Committ...

You raise a number of questions but I will deal with the obvious one.

I am surprised that you support what is at least 'a work to rule' to prohibit contributions from members. Are you saying that members can't contribute to the work of departments? Do you know who set up and ran the party's Youtube account for years? Was he an appointed member of the Internet Committee? No he was not.

Are you saying that as a member my activities are restricted by the terms of reference of the committee I belong to?

Is hostility and lack of cooperation between committees to be encouraged? Should the Executive Committee support this or express it's dis approval by encouraging members to cooperate???

It is a play on words to say that the IC is not empowered to appoint. OK they can 'recruit' and in this case they didn't                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Cross-departmental Terms of Reference                                                                                                                                                                                                          1. To recruit, support and train departmental apprentices.                                                                                                                                                                3. To work with other relevant departments where necessary.                                                                                                                     The Internet Committee failed on both counts and the EC did nothing. 

I am surprised because you and your branch have been very supportive of my activities

 

My apologies for formatting problems

 

ALB
Offline
Joined: 22/06/2011

The Internet Committee was not responsible for not allowing you, or rather the AV committee, direct access to our website. That was a decision taken by the EC implementing the practice that, in order to avoid crossed wires, it is best that only one committee have such access, the obvious one being the Internet Committee, and that all other committees wanting material published there should go through this committee (it's the same with the computers at Head Office: only one person is authorised to download new programs). Your subsequent behaviour on this forum shows that this was a wise decision from another point of view.

gnome
gnome's picture
Offline
Joined: 14/10/2011

ALB wrote:

The Internet Committee was not responsible for not allowing you, or rather the AV committee, direct access to our website. That was a decision taken by the EC implementing the practice that, in order to avoid crossed wires, it is best that only one committee have such access, the obvious one being the Internet Committee, and that all other committees wanting material published there should go through this committee.

September 2017 EC minutes wrote:
MOTION 9 (Browne & Chesham) “If the party’s terms of reference are referenced, the management of the social media accounts, including YouTube is the remit of the Internet Committee and that committee only. The remit of the Audio Visual Committee is just to produce material, to be distributed by other committees. There is nothing preventing material produced by the AV Committee being circulated, as the publication of the recent video evidences, all they have to do is pass it on to a member of the Internet Committee”. AGREED

Vin (not verified)

gnome wrote:

ALB wrote:

The Internet Committee was not responsible for not allowing you, or rather the AV committee, direct access to our website. That was a decision taken by the EC implementing the practice that, in order to avoid crossed wires, it is best that only one committee have such access, the obvious one being the Internet Committee, and that all other committees wanting material published there should go through this committee.

September 2017 EC minutes wrote:
MOTION 9 (Browne & Chesham) “If the party’s terms of reference are referenced, the management of the social media accounts, including YouTube is the remit of the Internet Committee and that committee only. The remit of the Audio Visual Committee is just to produce material, to be distributed by other committees. There is nothing preventing material produced by the AV Committee being circulated, as the publication of the recent video evidences, all they have to do is pass it on to a member of the Internet Committee”. AGREED

These two posts do not answer anything? Please read my post above I woulf appreciate a reply from you two EC members

 

You are simply saying that the EC supported the Internet Committee

I will ask again: Why did the Internet Committee and the Executive Committee not allow the me to advertise the video, after requesting a full report from the AVC? Why not ask the IC for a report? What changed your mind?

ALB what do you mean by crossed wires? And 'implementing practices'? There were no crossed wires when a non IC member ran the Youtube channel himself for years. Nor were ther any 'practices' implemented? What changed?

Why did the IC not simply recruit me to continue with the work. All I want is the REAL REASON. 

There is an elephant in the room and you both no it. As EC members you were probably keen to give me the job noone else wanted to do. Actually every member I have asked has said 'it is probably the history you have with the Internet Committe'  If this is true then this is grossly undemocratic and the EC should not have allowed it to happen.

Login or register to post comments