The Proposed Three-Strike Policy
- This topic has 9 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Item 7: Item for Discussion: Lancaster Branch
"Should the Party adopt a three-strike policy against persistent antisocial behaviour among members?"
Supporting statement: From time to time and for a variety of reasons, some Party member or other goes off the rails and behaves in a disruptive way which can have a large impact on the work of various committees and on EC time, as well has having a deleterious effect on morale among activists. What is particularly galling is that members inclined to behave in this way know very well that there is virtually no chance of them being called to account under the 'action detrimental' rule, even if they are blatantly guilty of it, because the Party has no stomach for a protracted process which involves special meetings and intensive investigations, probably a 'trial' at Conference, and a Party Poll. Anyone who does recall such painful proceedings in the past will balk at the prospect.
The upshot is that the Party is periodically riven by petty internal wrangling which swamps the Party's resources yet which emanates in most cases from just one or two attention-seeking members.
What are we to do with such members, who do not explicitly depart from the Party case and who take our inability to respond with firmness as carte blanche to continue their behaviour? How can we expect outsiders to take seriously our claim that socialism would be a self-correcting and cooperative system, when we can't even manage our own internal affairs nor prevent individuals from holding the Party to ransom?
We say it's time we got tough. Other organisations have a three-strike principle: two formal warnings, and then the third time booted out, with no protracted proceedings, enquiries, trials or polls.
Members will want to ask two obvious questions, first, what constitutes antisocial or disruptive behaviour worthy of a 'strike', and second, who issues the warning? Our tentative view is that the first question is a legalistic cul-de-sac. We can never definitively specify what disruptive behaviour is, and even if we did, disruptive people may be cunning enough to wheedle their way round the specific conditions. But everyone knows what disruptive behaviour looks like when they see it.
The second question is more practical. We don't think the power to issue warnings can reside with the EC. Instead we think it would be better to take the Rule 26 approach over polls, so that if 4 branches call for a warning, the EC is obliged to issue it. On the third occasion this happens, the member is automatically disbarred from membership.
This may sound severe, but it is less severe than a formal charge because it offers two opportunities to mend one's ways, and the fact that it is more likely to be used is equally more likely to discourage members from indulging in disruptive behaviour in the first place, meaning that in practice it may rarely be invoked. Lancaster Branch
Here is an interesting item for discussion rife with contradictions and a direct attack on one party member. It is clearly out of order?There is no charge against this member so there is no right to reply under Party Rule. The member cannot attend conference to counter these accusations. Yet it will be discussed at Conference without representation. What is even more revealing is the fact that the secretary of this branch can know nothing of what happens on this forum as by his own admission he does not frequent it. Where does he learn of this disruptive behaviour?The same branch also has a motion on the conference agenda to end the printing of the Socialist Standard and its secretary in relation to this motion took a hissy fit and put two fingures up to a cde when asked for the place, attendance and votes of the said meeting and resolution.Is this really acceptable?
I think you are right that you may well be the person they had in mind when drafting this conference discussion item, Vin, and i would be aggrieved if i was not able to respond directly during the course of the conference discussion to waht is being said. But that is something that cannot be fixed to the satisfaction of yourself, i am afraid. (did someone suggest we conduct our business via Skype?) I don't think we should re-enact the battles of the past – and you and i have had many – on here because it will only open old sores. But I do think that we need to raise the question of what to do when we have situations that spilled over on to the personal and the emotional and lead to disruption of normal party business and it cannot be denied that much time was spent involved in accusations and counter accusations. We have had some disputes long before your own experiences and the problem basically is the speed of the internet message board…we type and post quicker than we think and we use words and phrases that has no body language to show the real meaning of them. Irony and sarcasm (and even humour) simply does not carry over to be received well on the discussion list. We all have direct experience of how what we innocently post can be misconstrued. Hence the need sometimes for the use of the smiley We have to discuss the issue and find a proper response to possible problems.I think the weakness of the Lancaster motion is that it does not offer remedies for when and where acrimonious exchanges occur. And for all the criticism of the moderator duties – it is at that level we need intervention to resolve problems.BrianJ has genuinely done his best but he is is not endowed with the Wisdom of Solomon and as an ex-moderator, i suggest when he makes a judgement call…we are supportive and don't react like a football crowd calling fo the ref to get a pair of specs but wait a reasonable time for the video re-play, so to speak. Time enough for later post-mortems and no one outside exceptional circumstances should expect instant restitution. Hopefully, someone who does attend conference and hears something amiss being said will raise it with the chair at the time so it does not become a kangaroo court – which seriously i do not think is Lancaster's intent.
My point is that it is out of order and I will be preparing a note to the conference chair explaining how it is and I urge delegates to vote it out of order as there is a danger of setting a precedent and is in breach of basic fairnessIt bypasses the Rule book which is there for a reason and to ensure the fair and equal treatment of members 29. 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.Lancaster Branch has already made accusations. Their supporting statement is self righteous to the point of being sickly. There are more important issues than raking over old arguments. The Elections, Socialist Standard and Party Intro Video for example.
alanjjohnstone wrote:and i would be aggrieved if i was not able to respond directly during the course of the conference discussion to waht is being said.The point is the accusations should not be allowed an airing unless made under rule.
In my mind's eye I see Vin, steeped in "Broon", gate-crashing a Lancaster Branch business meeting: "Howay yabastaaz I'll t-t-take the f-f-fuckin' lorrayaz!
Note to the conference chair regarding Item 7I urge delegates to vote it out of order as there is a danger of setting a precedent and is in breach of basic fairness. I refer to the supporting stement.It bypasses the Rule book which is there for a reason and to ensure the fair and equal treatment of members 29. 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.Lancaster Branch has already made accusations in its supporting statement “The upshot is that the Party is periodically riven by petty internal wrangling which swamps the Party's resources yet which emanates in most cases from just one or two attention-seeking members. What are we to do with such members..”There is a clear implication here that a particular member has been found guilty of ‘disruptive behaviour’ . This is not fact but accusation and denied by the member but he has no right to reply as per Rule. The attack is counter productive and devisive. Members of Lancaster branch – by their own admission – do not frequent the party Forum, therefore their accusations are based on ignorance or hearsayVincent Maratty Central Branch
Just to be clear…this is the responsibility of the chair, whoever it is. And to act, he has to be aware of it.Email Gen Sec who sits alongside the Chair with a request that the Chair reads it out at the start of the conference during the fraternal greetings or when the item is reached . I doubt very much he will place the item out of order and move on to the next thing on the agenda. He will take his decision on the advisement of the Standing Order Committee ( and isn't Mike Browne, the most experienced one not going) or perhaps he will put it to the conference delegates whether it should be discussed. But some will consider this as yet another example of what the item is to debate.I am not at all sure of the actual whether it can under Standing Order rules be used in any other way other than a statement. But ultimately it is up to the discretion of the Chair to include it in the debate.Alternatively, you could ask someone who you know is a delegate attending to bring this message to the attention of conference. As we all know, a post on this forum is a guarantee of nothing. I'm not expert in procedures and others on this forum may well know more and have better advice.
Would sticking two fingers up at a comrade for requesting publication of minutes be considered 'disruptive' at conference I wonder?Or is it disruptive to remind members of it ?
alanjjohnstone wrote:But some will consider this as yet another example of what the item is to debate.And what is that???To suggest that a member is being disruptive by asking the chair to rule an item out of order is an embarrasment to any democratic organisation. I would counsel against such a silly move.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.