Business for next branch meeting

August 2021 Forums Regional Branches North East Business for next branch meeting

Viewing 4 posts - 16 through 19 (of 19 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #130977
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    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%20Committees%20%20-%20ToR/

    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 

    #130978
    ALB
    Keymaster

    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.

    #130979
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    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
    #130980
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    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 CommitteeI 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.

Viewing 4 posts - 16 through 19 (of 19 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.