Kent and Sussex Branch
- This topic has 269 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
J Surman wrote:Dave, Please give Marie my, and Alan’s, very best wishes for a speedy recovery and a pain-free convalescence.
Many thanks, Janet; much appreciated. Just returned from the hospital where Marie’s been for the past two weeks…..Thanks also to all those comrades who have either sent ‘get well’ cards or otherwise conveyed their best wishes.Any chance of you and Alan returning to Kent?
J Surman wrote:Any chance of you and Alan returning to Kent?Would we get appearance money?Seriously, even if we wanted to, and we don’t, couldn’t afford it – we’re economic migrants.But see you in July at Harborne.
J Surman wrote:But see you in July at Harborne.Look forward……….
Branch meets this coming Sunday (15th) at 3.00pm. Same place.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/event/kent-and-sussex-regional-branch…All welcome AGENDA1. Election of chair and new branch secretary.2. Adoption of previous meeting’s minutes (including proposed amendment to motion 5).3. Matters arising from previous minutes.i) Future of Branch (including proposal to change meeting date).ii) Head Office party sign.iii) Branch financial affairs.iv) Gillingham stall (report and future activity).4. Consideration of EC minutes.5. SS monthly order from HO.6. New members in Sussex.7. Future propaganda activities (including possible SPEW debate).8. HO propaganda meetings (including GLA electoral activity).9. Conference report and voting (special branch meeting).10. Summer School.11. Any other business (including notice of motion by Rob Cox)
Minutes of the 6th Meeting of the Kent & Sussex Regional branch of The SocialistParty of Great Britain held on 15th April 2012The meeting started at 3.00pm and was held at the Muggleton Inn, High Street, Maidstone, KentPresent: Dave Chesham (Literature Secretary), Marie Chesham, Rob Cox (Treasurer), Ed Mann (Chair)Apologies: Hannah Dutton, Paul Hope, Glenn Morris, DH.1. Emigration of branch secretaryMotion 1. Cox & Mann “That D.Chesham be appointed branch secretary pro tem and that Paul Hope be contacted and thanked for his past services as branch secretary”CARRIED 3-0-12. Minutes of the 5th Meeting dated 11th March 2012 were before the meetingRob Cox presented an amendment to Motion 5 “That as our appointed auditors comrades Mann and D.Chesham have checked the branch records and signed the completed Form ‘C’, it be adopted for submission to Head Office”Motion 2. D.Chesham & Mann “That the minutes, as amended above, be adopted”AGREED3. Matters arising from the previous minutesi) Future of Branch There was a proposal from a branch member not present to change the date of the monthly meetingMotion 3. D.Chesham & Mann “That the branch meet on the first Sunday of the month until further notice and that the next meeting be held on May 6th; same venue and time”AGREEDii) Head Office party sign – response from EC NOTED Motion 4. (to the EC) Cox & Mann “We welcome the quotes that comrade D.Lambert has obtained and request that the artwork for the proposed new sign be uploaded onto the website forum together with examples of the different types of signs being quoted for in order to facilitate feedback from branches.”AGREEDiii) Branch financial affairs All members dues are now accounted for NOTED iv) Gillingham Stall A report was given of the literature stall in Gillingham High Street on March 24 & 31. Some copies of the Socialist Standard and a couple of pamphlets were sold. Back numbers of the SS and leaflets were given away. Contact was made with two members from SPEWRob Cox volunteered to make a reconnaissance of suitable areas in Canterbury where a literature stall may be sited and to report back to the next branch meetingNOTED4. EC minutes of the 4th Meeting, 31st March 2012 NOTED5. SS monthly order from HOMotion 5. D.Chesham & Mann “That the branch’s monthly SS order be reduced to 10 copies”AGREED6. New members in SussexIt was brought to the branch’s attention that there had recently been two new members to the party who reside in Sussex. In the first case it appears that the member concerned was given a choice of joining either Kent and Sussex Regional branch or Central branch. The member chose the latter. In the second case it appears that the member concerned was allocated to Kent & Sussex without being offered a choice. Both members live about 40 miles from the venue where K&S meet.Motion 6. (to the EC) Cox & Mann “This branch welcomes the discussion that took place at Conference regarding the processing of membership applications via HO and the method of allocation of new members to branches. We look forward to more and earlier consultation with branches regarding individual applications. If choice is offered to new members regarding the branch they be allocated to, that such choice be an informed one”AGREED7. Future propaganda activitiesFollowing our encounter with two members of SPEW in Gillingham Ed Mann agreed to approach the organisation with a view to arranging a possible debate. He also volunteered to contact various anarchist groups. Rob Cox said he would enquire about meeting rooms at the University of Kent in Canterbury. There then followed a general discussion about possible other activities.8. Head Office propaganda meetingsFor your information the following meetings will take place at The Socialist Party of Great Britain’s premises at 52 Clapham High Street, London SW4 7UN over the next couple of months.Saturday 28 April, 4.00pmGLA ELECTION RALLYCome and meet and question our candidates to the Greater London AssemblySunday 13 May, 3.00pmMARXISM, PHYSICS AND PHILOSOPHYSpeaker: Mike FosterSunday 27 May, 3.00pmBRITISH TROTSKYISM: SONS OF THE PROPHETSpeaker: Keith ScholeySunday 10 June, 3.00pmWAR: ITS CAUSE AND CURESpeaker: Gwynn ThomasSunday 24 June, 3.00pmTHE SECRETS OF THE INCAS: HOW THEY RELATE TO TODAY’S PROBLEMSSpeaker: Bill MartinPlease note the day and earlier starting time for the May and June meetings9. Conference report and votingIt was agreed that the next branch meeting on May 6th be deemed a specially summoned meeting to discuss Conference items for discussion and amendments to rules prior to voting on sameAGREED10. Summer SchoolIt was reported that three branch members and one supporter had booked for the Summer School in Birmingham this year; the theme being ‘Protest’.NOTED11. Any other businessNotice of motion regarding members’ dues – Rob CoxSupporting Statement for the motion below:- “It came to the notice of branch officers in the last few weeks that an amendment of rule concerning the remittance of dues to Head Office had been made early in 2011. Although intended to change the proportion of dues to be remitted from 80% to 100%, due to the wording of the amendment, the effect was to remove from the rules any automatic obligation on branches to emit any dues to Head Office, Subsequently, the EC asked branches to (continue) to remit 80%, and a motion was tabled at this year’s Conference which, if carried, will formalise that. If the latter is voted down there will be continued uncertainty. It is my opinion that unless either Conference, ADM or the EC suggest otherwise, we should agree to what I consider to be the reasonable suggestion of the EC that 80% be remitted, and should the remaining funds available to the branch be insufficient to meet our agreed activities, we ask the EC for assistance.”MOTION 7. Cox & D.Chesham”That, irrespective of the vote on 2012 Conference motion 21, until further consideration the branch Treasurer shall remit 80% of all dues collected to Head Office, in accordance with the suggestion of the Executive Committee (motion 14, 2 July 2011)”AGREEDMeeting adjourned at 6.00pm
Branch meets this coming Sunday (May 6th). Same time and place.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/event/kent-and-sussex-regional-branch-maidstone-1All welcome AGENDAElection of chairElection of Branch SecretaryAdoption of minutes of previous meetingConsideration of Conference motions and amendments to rules prior to the ballotMatters arising from minutes:-Future of BranchSPEW debate? and other contacts made (Ed)Socialist Party stall in Canterbury (Rob)EC minutesBranch propaganda meetings HO propaganda meetingsSummer school in BirminghamWorkshop weekend in LancasterAny other business
jondwhite wrote:Could the full names in the minutes above be changed to initials please?Why? Does your name appear anywhere in them?
jondwhite wrote:–I’ll take that to be a ‘No’ then……..
I think perhaps it maybe taken as frustration. Adam has raised this issue, I have raised this issue and now John has raised this issue.Attending a meeting, open to the public it may be, does not imply consent to have personal details such as full names published in minutes on the internet on an open forum. It is also unusual anway as most minutes I have read and written, during meetings in both professional and personal/hobby groups have nearly always merely recorded initials.I do think it is something we need to think about seriously as we work hard at encouraging attendance at meetings and events but if people are aware their names are to be recorded and published maybe off-putting to some and an actual bar to attending for others. We should not dismiss out of hand or underestimate the social pressures people are under on a day to day basis.Perhaps it is appropriate that the EC publishes guidance for Branch Secretaries on such matters so we are all adhereing to the same principles and practices.Other members views please……
SussexSocialist wrote:I think perhaps it maybe taken as frustration. Adam has raised this issue, I have raised this issue and now John has raised this issue.So three people have “raised this issue” – so what? At the March meeting of Kent & Sussex this issue was discussed by the four members present and none of them had the slightest objection to their full names being published. A further three absent members who are fully aware of the practice have not become exercised either. That’s “the tyranny of the majority” as somebody once described democracy. But as one member aptly put it:-“We’re revolutionaries; what have we got to hide? We’ve nothing to lose but our chains………and our anonymity!”This really has become something of a hobby-horse in relation to K&SRB and yet two other branches also publish their minutes online complete with full names of those present and those apologising for their absence. Not heard any objection from you or the others though. Neither also about the EC minutes, published online with full names of those present and absent and again when divisions are called. Nor too are there any qualms about Conference or ADM minutes containing full names of those contributing to the discussion.I’ll say it again – for the final time; those in K&SRB who object to their names being published in full are free to be referred to by their initials only. Only one member has thus far elected this option but paradoxically that same person has no problem with their full name appearing at the foot of Socialist Standard articles………
Please try and be more tolerant and less abrasive in your replies……I am only offering an opinion, it’s not personal although it comes across as you taking it so.Maybe others haven’t objected, I don’t know. All I am saying is that for some, having their names put out in meetings and minutes on a publicly accessable forum is something they may find uncomfortable, that’s all.I have mentioned it here purely because that’s where the discussion is, it is not in particular relation to the K&SB, but a Party wide issue – perhaps it deserves it’s own thread instead?I don’t think it is a massive deal, but I do think it is a valid point and perhaps something that could be off-putting for some people. As the name of the game is trying to attract people into the fold, why start by taking a course of action that instantly makes people wary of us in the first place?If I went along out of interest to any meeting about anything, I don’t think I would be comfortable about my name being taken and then placed in the public domain, it just feels uncomfortable and I am sure others would agree, not nessecarily those already attending.I don’t mind my name appearing in the Standard or internal documents or Party literature etc., as generally one would assume this is being accessed by those of an interested and sympathetic nature. However, I am more concerned about it appearing in this context which is accessible by all and searchable by Google far more readily than other internet pages based on my name alone.As I said, it’s not a big deal, but it could be and could put people off. And given the fact that we struggle like hell to attract members as it is, is it worth the argument?Are other comrades reading this thread – what are your opinions then?
SussexSocialist wrote:Please try and be more tolerant and less abrasive in your replies……I am only offering an opinion, it’s not personal although it comes across as you taking it so.Nah, that’s not me you’re talking about, Sussex :)Now, this is the real me:-“Gnome, you crack me up! I’m glad you’re warming to me and it’s likewise. The SPGB must use you and your charming ways to recruit new members.”http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/id-moneyless-system-see-couple-flaws-need-fixing?page=1#comment-959Spot on !
LOL! Perhaps, again we agree to disagree, although clearly you have (a) fan……! ;-)I reckon ten years ago I’d have been every bit as ‘abrasive’ as you appear to me now and would have heartily agreed with the revolutionary and ‘screw’ the consequences attitude to a tee. However, bitter experience has taught me that subtelty and tact go further and more smoothly and have fewer dire consequences. But each to their own path I say, so long as we are going to the same destination…..
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.