Skip to Content

Steve Colborn's Form F

17 posts / 0 new
Last post
northern light
Offline
Joined: 06/09/2012
Steve Colborn's Form F

The E.C., at it's meeting in August, effectively closed down the North East Branch's activety, by passing a motion (motion 9 ) to lapse Steve Colborn, due to loss of contact AND documents relating to his election as a Seaham Community Party councillor be appended to his Form F.  [ VOTING 6 - 0 - 0 ]

 

Are there any North East Branch members frequenting this forum, who are prepared to attend a physical meeting to discuss the expulsion of Steve Colborn ?

 

joe davison

Major McPharter
Offline
Joined: 30/04/2016

I am prepared to attend a physical meeting, it would be nice to meet my old comrades from the north east branch face to face. I still remember the 1980s meetings at rock house community centre with a full room of comrades, the crack will stay with me forever. 

Let us all help to speed the day when this wonderful earth and its rich resources are held in common for the benefit of all humanity.

Vin
Offline
Joined: 03/12/2011

Joe

I'm not sure what could be achieved by such a meeting. But I believe you need to ask the secretary to call a special meeting and I would certainly be interested.

 

vin

northern light
Offline
Joined: 06/09/2012

Vin,

      You're not sure what can be achieved by such a meeting? Yet, at the last North East on-line meeting that you attended, you were all for correct procedure.

 

Comrade Steve Colborn deserves to be heard by his own branch. He has been lapsed through loss of contact, by the E.C. and not by his branch as per. the rules, yet, apart from a few enforced months, I have been in contact with him. In fact there are about eight N.E. branch members who, (as far as I know) have not been in contact for five years. Now that's what I call loss of contact!!

 

if we are to follow rules, then follow them. Rule 29 applies in this case. If not, then we might as well tear up the rule book and shut up shop.

 

joe davison

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

Three observations, Joe, on your post #4.

1) Rule 29 can only be implemented by a functioning branch.

Rule 29 wrote:
Charges against any member shall be submitted in writing to the Branch and a copy supplied to the member accused who shall be allowed 14 days to enter the defence. The Branch shall consider the matter at a specially summoned Meeting, and a majority of those voting shall have power to expel any member, subject to ratification by the Executive Committee. An expelled member shall have the right of appeal to Delegate Meeting or the Annual Conference.

2) As North East branch was not a functioning unit of the party the Executive Committee accepted the recommendation of its branch Secretary concerning ex-cde Colborn.

See June 2017 EC minutes: item 2 b) ii A.
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/june-2...

3) Had North East branch been a functioning unit of the party it would have, by now and in accordance with Rule 2, taken steps to lapse those members with whom contact had been lost.

northern light
Offline
Joined: 06/09/2012

Hello Dave,

welcome to the North East branch site. Let me answer your observations.

 

Observation No. 1  Rule 29 can only be implemented by a functioning branch.

 

From Jan. 2015 to August 2016 the N.E. branch held 8 meetings. On the 13th. of August 2016 our acting secretary posted proposed dates for forthcoming branch meetings. Unfortunatelly, in December 2016, cde. Stephen Davison died and I went into mourning, but at that time, there were still 4 active N.E.branch members who could have attended meetings, possibly 5 if another busy member (G.W.) could find time to attend. The four most likely to attend were, our acting branch secretary, Major Mcfarter (forum name), Colborn(E.), Colborn(S). By not following correct procedure in Rule 29, the E.C. made the branch inquorate.

 

Observation No. 2  As the N.E. branch was not a functioning unit of the party, the E.C. accepted the recommendation of it's branch Secretary concerning ex cde. Colborn

 

I have already shown that the N.E. branch is a functioning unit of the party

meeting and

Has the acting branch secretary got any special powers that I don't know of, that the E.C. act on his recommendations without referal to the branch? The correct procedure as ppper. rule 29 would be; Each member shall pay a voluntary amount annually to party funds. Amember MAY be lapsed BY A BRANCH following loss of contact, subject to E.C. ratification.

 

I say that lapsing a comrade through loss of contact should be an absolute last course of action. Once a socialist, always a socialist. We fight hard for members, we should not let them go idly.

 

with good will,

 

joe davison

northern light
Offline
Joined: 06/09/2012

Part of my #6 has not posted. It has vanished into the either. Might come back later and rewrite it.

Major McPharter
Offline
Joined: 30/04/2016

I must agree Joe Once a socialist always  a socialist. When the social blinkers are taken away there is no way back. We are to few on the ground to lose touch with each other, regardless of  a few differences, what we share in common is more important. I would love to meet up maybe later this year with the old comrades of north/east branch lets have a beer and a bit crack. To share a few hours with fellow workers who share a vision of a just society,  probably the closest i will ever get to that mythical place called heaven.

northern light
Offline
Joined: 06/09/2012

While replying to Gnome's post #6, a large chunk of my post (#6) failed to appear. I do not seem to have much luck posting on this Forum. I am unable to paste & copy, I can't preview my posts and sometimes the layout is disrupted. It has been suggested that it might have something to do with my internet security, but whatever the case, I hope to have more success with the new updated Forum due out, next month.

 

Gnome raised 3 observations and I have replied to Observation No. 1 in my post (#6 ).

 

Observation No. 2   Each member shall pay a voluntary amount annually to the Party funds. A member MAY  be lapsed  by a branch following loss of contact, subject to E.C. ratification [unquote]

 

I say that lapsing a comrade through loss of contact should be an absolute last course of agtion.

 

yours sincerely,

 

       joe davison

northern light
Offline
Joined: 06/09/2012

Moderator, I know I should be communicating privately, but I need this to be publicly known. This is the second time I have attempted to post on this subject and both times the bulk of my message has not appeared. I am pretty well pissed off.

Vin
Offline
Joined: 03/12/2011

Joe

What browser are you using? Try downloading and using a different one

comradely

Login or register to post comments