June 7, 2016 at 12:48 pm #120030
Who is answering my inquiry, Linda or Vin? I ask because the way the reply starts, suggests that Linda is replying with reference to her joining the NERB via an online meeting, "SP, It may have been when me or Joe joined.", yet is signed at the end, "Vin"Whoever you are, previously you said.lindanesocialist wrote:Yes true, but the EC pointed out that you were not a member until ratified by the EC and questioned decisions made that included your vote until you were. The branch disagreed of course but that's history
Now you say you may have been mistaken. Why state something to back up your argument, that branch action can only be carried out once ratified by the next meeting, without checking the accuracy? Are you trying to mislead the branch?June 7, 2016 at 9:00 pm #120031
I believe I owe Linda and Vin an apology. My previous post was made based on a misunderstanding in thinking Linda rejoined the Party via an online NERB meeting. After doing a bit of research I now know it was Vin who rejoined via a NERB online meeting several months after having resigned from the Party.I found this in the October 2014 EC minutes, that show it was indeed Vin who rejoined via a NERB online meeting.(a) Form A for Vin Maratty (North East Regional) The nomination was made in an electronic meeting of the North East Regional branch, the minutes of which were made available to the EC meeting. One EC member opposed this applicant being readmitted to the Party on the grounds of his behaviour on the Party online lists and forums when he was a member, and believed that if he were to rejoin the Party he would behave the same way again. Another member argued that he has learnt his lessons and would be a useful member. Other members support him coming back into the Party. Motion 1 – Mann and Wheeler moved that the application of Vin Maratty be rejected. Lost (2-4-2). Motion 2 – Craggs and Buick moved that the application of Vin Maratty be accepted. Carried (4-3-1).If this is the case, Vin and Linda, I have no problem admitting I got it wrong and offer a full apology for my previous post.June 8, 2016 at 10:10 am #120032lindanesocialistParticipant
No problem SP. To be able to admit you were wrong is an admirial quality. I appreciate your apology and accept .But this does not address the original question you asked. Regarding 'do decisions need to be ratified' The situation I was thinking of was facilitated and helped by YMS at the time perhaps he will remember the 'catch 22' I refer to and how it was circumventedI will, however, stop using Linda's account as it leads to confusion and may have 'come back' later by moderation and taken out of context as seems to be a common occurence. By the way the EC member Ed Mann who verbally abused members on the forum including NL and yourself ,I believe, has left the Party. signing off vinJune 8, 2016 at 2:16 pm #120033
Vin,It is a pity you yourself find it hard to admit when you have made errors. Perhaps then this mess the branch has found itself in could have been avoided weeks ago.Regarding the notion that democratic decisions taken by a branch need ratification before any action is taken, I would have thought the very act of coming to a democratic decision was enough ratification and authority of itself, to take the agreed upon action.The function of ratifying the minutes of the last meeting is to ensure the minutes drawn up are an accurate representation of the previous meeting, before they go on file.Yes Ed Mann has submitted his form F, I saw it on the agenda for the June EC. I made peace with Ed when the dust of the first round of the Moderation Wars had settled. But later I burnt the bridge I'd built with him, when I defended your attempts at rejoining. Something I now regret.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.