Committees and minutes
- This topic has 8 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
A misunderstanding appears to be creeping around. In all my years on various party committees, we've never produced 'minutes', the committees (or departments, or more accurately working groups) usually hold informal discussions, which achieve consensus (mostly via email, since we're usually groapgraphically separated, or at work, which means we don't have to find a 'meeting time'). The nearest thing to formal minutes is the reports to the EC where we set out decisions and ask for action, second to that is the reports to ADM or Conference.
Some committtees may well operate via HO, if their members happen to meet there (sometimes, for example, if there is a public meeting and the election dept are in the room, we might discuss some issue that needs our attention).
Whilst it might be possible to scare up correspondence between committee members, often emails will contain several topics.
Also, most often on committees, there is division of labour, certain members take on sopecific tasks, not done by the whole committee, but carried out under its auspices.
Young Master Smeet wrote:A misunderstanding appears to be creeping around.Could that be democracy?Where important decisions are concerned – the silencing of a comrade or the refusal to let a branch carry on its democratically decided propaganda then minutes should be produced.
If there are no meetings, there are no minutes, usually it'll be the decision of one member, and the agreement (usually express or sometimes on minor matters by silence). So, say, for moderation of the fora, a Moderator will take a personal decision, and it will stand, if any member of the committee calls it in it gets discussed, or they might all send an email concurring, if they can't agree, they write to the EC.Lets take another example. A branch wants to hold a meeeting, on, say, William Morris, and writes to the library committee asking for a copy of Well at Worlds end. A member of the library committee writes back, saying, no, the book is in too shabby a state to travel or be posted. Should there be minutes for that? A branch's democratic activity is being curtailed.The question is, do we want a stultifying bureaucracy where nothing happens unless we get three physical people into a room, whose primary task is writing minutes?Democracy is not just nose counting. The activity of the party is carried out by its members, and they are accountabkle through a whole range of structures.1) Informal discusson2) Resolution of a branch3) resolution to the EC4) Resolution of the EC5) Branch poll6) Floor resolution at ADM7)Floor resolution at cofnerence8) Instructed resolution to conference9) Party pollSo far, we're at 1.
Young Master Smeet wrote:So far, we're at 1.And as far as many comrades are concerned, Vin, (and I have contact with more than a few) we've been here at No.1 for far too long with this and other issues. As YMS says, there are well established party procedures designed to address alleged malfeasances; please use them as, take my word, you'll receive little or no support for your present strategy…
Also what would be the main differences with so-called 'democratic centralism' in terms of accountability?
In terms is SWP style Democratic Centralism, in contrast to our system, as well as getting shafted metaphorically they also get shafted literally (allegedly)
jondwhite wrote:Also what would be the main differences with so-called 'democratic centralism' in terms of accountability?Well, several layers. In DC conference delegates elect a central committee (on a slate, that is for or against the entire comittee, not a vote for individual members, this slate is normally put forward by the outgoing committee). The central committee can put motions to conference as well (our EC may not)."Subject to the sovereignty of Conference, decisions taken by the Central Committee (CC), National Committee (NC) and Party Council are binding on caucuses, districts and branches, and individual party members." Oh, and this beautiful line:"B r a n c h e s a n d / o r d i s t r i c t s e l e ct delegates to Conference on a basis proportional to their membership, as determined by the Central Committee."http://socialistunity.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/IB1sept2013.pdfThe CC appoints the full-time organisers.So:1) Our principle officers are directly elected (Gen Sec, treasurer, organiser)2) Our EC is directly elected3) All EC can only appoint people to a committee on the nomination of a branch4) So there is at most one layer between members and functionaries of the party.
Watch a clip from this video on accountability …which shows two members of a committee delivering their annual report to an empty room and sticking steadfast to procedural rules. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3saU5racsGE
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.