- This topic has 259 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 4 months ago by Anonymous.
September 19, 2013 at 3:19 pm #82361
Any thoughts people?September 19, 2013 at 4:15 pm #96566SocialistPunkParticipant
Should be simple enough.What does the SPGB party rule book say on the issue?September 19, 2013 at 5:04 pm #96567Socialist Party Head OfficeParticipant
It is Rule 1 here on this site:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/party-rules-amended-conference-2009September 19, 2013 at 8:25 pm #96568rodshawParticipant
Rule 1 doesn't actually give reasons why an application may be rejected. In fact, it doesn't mention the questionnaire as such, it just refers to signing a form. I presume the form and the questionnaire are the same thing?September 20, 2013 at 8:39 am #96569AnonymousInactiverodshaw wrote:I presume the form and the questionnaire are the same thing?
Not exactly. The completion of the form 'A' follows the successful questioning of the applicant, based on the questionnaire, whether via a branch or by the Membership Application Committee. Reasons for rejection of the membership application can be manifold…September 20, 2013 at 5:32 pm #96570jondwhiteParticipant
Manifold? I thought reasons for rejection of membership are supposed to be very limited.September 20, 2013 at 5:59 pm #96571
Jon, I was also of the opinion that rejection of a membership application was for a very, very limited set of reasons! If one passes the Form A and is not a member of any other political organisation, then, there is no reason why membership should, or could, be withheld. "Manifold" reasons never entered my reasoning and if that is now the case, leaves acceptance, or otherwise of an application, at personal whim and prejudice! I certainly hope this is not the current position!YFSSteve Colborn.September 20, 2013 at 6:14 pm #96572AnonymousInactivejondwhite wrote:Manifold? I thought reasons for rejection of membership are supposed to be very limited.
I recommend you peruse the Membership Applications Committee's report to the forthcoming Autumn Delegate Meeting. If you dislike the word "manifold" feel free to use an alternate one to describe why out of the 30 applications received by the committee during the period under review, only 9 so far became members.As previously stated the raising of a Form 'A' follows the applicant's acceptance either by a branch, the MAC, or in rare circumstances, the EC.September 20, 2013 at 6:35 pm #96573
If one, and this is the crux, passes the Form A, ie proves an understanding and acceptance of the DofP of the SPGB and is "not" a member of any other political party, then there is no reason whatsoever, that an application should, or indeed could, be refused.The Membership Applications Committee report is, at this moment in time, pending. It has not been passed, accepted, nor even been debated by the wider membership. Moreover, the use of the term "manifold" would, in my opinion, be wholly inappropriate and could lead to acceptance, or otherwise, of an application to personal whim, prejudice, or indeed dislike of a prospective member. Surely this is not the way a democratic political party wants to operate?YFSSteve Colborn.September 20, 2013 at 8:05 pm #96574
I take it you are referring to this?2c.ii. Re Motion 10 (“That the EC refers BM’s application to the Membership Application Committee and ask them for a report back.”), report of the Membership Applications Committee (30 July):The Membership Applications Committee has discussed the application from BM which you passed on to us and asked us to deal with. Given the history of this ex-member and previous EC decisions on this matter, this is obviously a difficult case for us to deal with. However the view we take is that in considering his application it would not be appropriate for us to take into account past events and we would have to base any recommendation for membership purely on answers to the Party’s questionnaire (and/or discussion with the applicant following therefrom), as we do for all other applicants. If the EC wishes us to go ahead on this basis, we are happy to do so and therefore to contact the applicants and ask him to complete the questionnaire. However, if the EC takes the view that it must consider other factors, then we believe that the decision to accept or reject the application must be made directly by the EC. Motion 22 – Browne and Cox moved that the application be dealt with by the EC, and that the General Secretary send a Form A and a copy of the membership questionnaire to the applicant and inform the Membership Application Committee. Agreed.From the E.C. minutes. If you have further queries about this motion I suggest you address them to the E.C. or General Secretary directly. As the vast majority of people on the forum were not at the E.C. meeting may have even less information about this than you do so will not have the relevant information about why any course of action was taken and therefore will not be able to give you a proper answer.September 20, 2013 at 11:52 pm #96575
In actual fact Ed, I was not. I raised the item because things I have heard disturbed me and were disturbing. Having read the EC minutes on the morning of Fri 20th of Sept, it has in fact proved to be the case.It has been the case that for years, the Capitalist media and their oppo's pro-capitalist political parties, have used unsubstantiated, sweeping generalisations, as dubious backup, to spurious claims. Then I read this in the Sept EC minutes, "Motion 28 – Cox and Shannon moved that the EC thanks the applicant for his interest in rejoining the Party. However, in view of the circumstances of his resignation and the likely reaction from the membership, the EC considers that acceptance of such an application would not be appropriate. Carried (4-3-0). Division – For – Cox, Craggs, Foster and ShannonAgainst – Bond, Buick and Browne"Can anyone tell me where the evidence for "the likely reaction from the membership" has come from? other than from the personal opinion of individuals! Furthermore, what does the statement, "in view of the circumstances of his resignation" mean? Is it to mean that a persons "previous" is being taken into account? Not even Capitalist courts accept this! If a persons "previous" is, being taken into account, regardless of their presently avowed intent to restrain from any actions which may be deemed prejudicial to the Party, then I am afraid, ethically and morally, this is out of order.Does it mean a former member of Labour, CPGB, SWP, Tories etc etc would be denied membership because of their "previous" of wholeheartedly supporting Capitalism and opposing a democratic society? What of members of the SPGB today, who previously left the Party under, shall we say, less than salubrious circumstances! Do we dust of their past misdemeanors and cancel their rehabilitation as forthright Comrades and Socialists?That an individual potential member has been singled out for "special attention", is quite obvious from the following statement, that sums up the disquiet of the relevant committee,"The Membership Applications Committee has discussed the application from BM which you passed on to us and asked us to deal with. Given the history of this ex-member and previous EC decisions on this matter, this is obviously a difficult case for us to deal with. However the view we take is that in considering his application it would not be appropriate for us to take into account past events and we would have to base any recommendation for membership purely on answers to the Party’s questionnaire (and/or discussion with the applicant following therefrom), as we do for all other applicants. If the EC wishes us to go ahead on this basis, we are happy to do so and therefore to contact the applicants and ask him to complete the questionnaire. However, if the EC takes the view that it must consider other factors, then we believe that the decision to accept or reject the application must be made directly by the EC."In an earlier post on this thread, I stated that applications could be at the mercy of "personal whim, prejudice, or indeed dislike of a prospective member". Remembering, as I do, the atmosphere surrounding events on the forum, at that time and the polarised viewpoints of individuals, at that time, it would appear that my fears are justified.We could act like grown-ups and accept the statement of the applicant in this instance or, like "kids in the playground" state that, "that kids not using my footy, cos I don't like him". Vindictiveness for the sake of it, has never been a very appealing characteristic, please, I ask you, in all sincerity, do not let it happen here!YFSSteve Colborn.September 21, 2013 at 12:37 am #96576
Ah, I see, oops. Irregardless my point still stands. These are not the correct channels on which to raise this issue. It's probably best for the individual in question to raise these points with the E.C. directly. Especially as the division shows that none of the members voting in favour of the motion are regular forum members.On a side note I was going to raise a very similar issue at ADM but unfortunately missed the meeting where we were to submit motions. So sorry for that I will have to wait for conference. I do certainly think the rules could be tightened in some way to make sure there is no confusion over the potential of a member leaving in bad standing then re-applying only a few months later with a clean slate. It could be an easy way to avoid facing a charge of action detrimental. However, others think that the rules are already adequate for dealing with that kind of situation in that the E.C. does have the right to refuse anyone on a case by case basis.September 21, 2013 at 6:35 am #96577
Dear Ed, you asked me a question, I answered it. Furthermore, the heading of this thread is, "Why would membership of the SPGB be refused", in this regard and given the long history that the SPGB has, of free speech and debate, are you really saying the question posited is out of bounds?You state, "I do certainly think the rules could be tightened in some way to make sure there is no confusion over the potential of a member leaving in bad standing then re-applying only a few months later with a clean slate. It could be an easy way to avoid facing a charge of action detrimental". This statement is, to my mind is, not what happened at all, a perusal of facts and incidents from that period clearly shows this to be the case. Injudicious use of and disregard for forum rules, on occasion, I'll grant you. Action detrimental? in no way shape or form. A spat between individual members assuredly, with a bit of illiberal language thrown in for good measure, certainly but it was between adults, or such I thought at the time.Given the fact that assurances have been given, it is more than regretable that a reciprocal mindset is not visible from all.A hand has been offered in comradely good faith, a reciprocation would be fair and just and to the credit of all.YFS Steve Colborn.September 21, 2013 at 3:10 pm #96578
No I'm not saying you are not allowed to try to discuss it. I'm saying that you should persue it with the people who proposed and voted for the motion. None of which are here or are even likely to see this thread. It would seem that your best course of action would be to go to the source. Rather than asking people who were not privy to the discussion which preceded the motion and its vote.I have answered the question of the title of the thread which is that the E.C. has the right to refuse membership on a case by case basis.September 21, 2013 at 4:17 pm #96579
Ed, it was not I who brought up the question re the ex member you allude to. The thread evolved that way due to other contributors.. Having said that however, I must disagree with you. The EC is not a leadership, nor is it a "court", to pass this, or that, edict. The EC exists to "manage" and run the affairs of the Party. It is at all times doing this at the behest of the wider membership through decisions at conference. It has no "power" in or of itself. I will restate the rediculously obvious, it is not the remit of the EC to decide on the merits or demerits of individual membership applications. If an applicant meets the criteria of understanding and agreeing to the case put forward by the SPGB and they have no affiliation to any other political party, there is no reason not to permit membership. It is not, I repeat not, the remit of individual EC members, or the EC as a whole, to make personal "judgement" as to the character or past actions of applicants, or to use "value" judgements in any application.Gnome informs us there are manifold reasons for the rejection of a membership application, I totally disagree. Read the rule book and check for yourself. The SPGB is not the CPGB or SWP, where a central committee pass "edicts". The SPGB is a totally democratic party, perhaps the most democratic party one could come across. It is not run by personal opinion or prejudice, but by a rule book that has evolved, not devolved, over timeThat the form A for this applicant appears not to have been forwarded makes this, at this time, a moot point. What is not a moot point however, is that if and when the Form A is presented and given all the "assurances" the Form A will have no other recourse but to be passed. Any other decision would be undemocratic, prejudiced and wrong, ethically, morally and fraternally. YFSSteve Colborn.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.