Why would membership of the SPGB be refused
- This topic has 259 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Vin Maratty wrote:I ask this because I intend to address the Annual Conference as an appeal against my rejected Form A but I do not know what I am defending myself against!
If this is the case it will be up to the Standing Orders to accept your request. Then it will be up to the delegates to agree to hear your appeal. Then it will be up to them to propose a floor resolution addressed to the EC recommending your application be accepted. And at each step of this process you will encounter resistance. If you are up to all that you deserve to be welcomed back into the party on the merit of determination alone!Sadly, you should have not have resigned in the first place. And if charges had been brought against you so what? A sincere apology at the special meeting would have sufficed and you would have made your point and still be a member.
Brian you have mentioned Action Detrimental before but as I pointed out the EC voted to delay acceptance of my Form F to give me time to reconsider my decision to leave; not once but twice. That does not appear to be the actions of an Executive Committee preparing to charge me under rul 31! I have suggested an amendment to Rule 1 of the party rule book." An applicant rejected by the the EC shall have the right of appeal to Delegate Meeting or the Annual Conference.” As Rule one goes at the moment the EC can decide who enters or re enters the party, without giving any reasons. An applicant has no right of appeal.In contrast a member who is actually expelled for action detrimental has the right of appeal to conference and ADM under Rule 29
Brian wrote:And at each step of this process you will encounter resistance.As I asked above. What am I defending myself against?
Sadly, you should have not have resigned in the first place. And if charges had been brought against you so what? A sincere apology at the special meeting would have sufficed and you would have made your point and still be a member.An apology for what Brian? Vin did naff all comrade! Should he apologise for that, "naff all". As Vin Maratty has already stated, he was asked to reconsider his Form F. Hardly would have happened, if the heinous nature, of his supposed "crime", had been a "fact".Let us cut to the chase here comrades, Vin is a Socialist, always was, always will be. He has shown, that the mytho-historical nature, of the legend that has grown up over "certain" accusations, is just that, myth. Let this man do what he has been doing for 36 years, put the case for Socialism, as a member of The Socialist Party and doing it very well!The ineluctable,Stevie C.
Vin Maratty wrote:Brian you have mentioned Action Detrimental before but as I pointed out the EC voted to delay acceptance of my Form F to give me time to reconsider my decision to leave; not once but twice. That does not appear to be the actions of an Executive Committee preparing to charge me under rul 31! I have suggested an amendment to Rule 1 of the party rule book." An applicant rejected by the the EC shall have the right of appeal to Delegate Meeting or the Annual Conference.” As Rule one goes at the moment the EC can decide who enters or re enters the party, without giving any reasons. An applicant has no right of appeal.In contrast a member who is actually expelled for action detrimental has the right of appeal to conference and ADM under Rule 29This suggestion is not technically an ammendment but an addition to Rule 1., in that it does not alter or amend the present text. However, if the right to appeal to Conference (not ADM) only applied to applications from former members it would admitedly make for a more democratic procedure. There is a problem with all applicants having the right to appeal to Conference in that it opens up the possibility of Conference business being taken up with day-to-day party administration. Which is not the business of Conference but of the EC.Under the present rules and conference decisions the EC would not have been able to bring charges against you of action detrimental. They are only allowed to bring charges against members of Central Branch and seeing you were not a member of Central Branch – but on paper a member of the N.E. Branch – any charges would have been a matter for the Branch. However, because the N.E. Branch is effectively only a paper branch unfortunately it means your present application to re-join is being dealt by the EC.A practical way out of this mess – from my point of view – is for the N.E. Branch to put itself back on the party map, and for you to re-apply through the Branch. If then the EC decides not to ratify your application the Branch can then turn to Conference and attempt to overturn the ruling through a Conference vote.Whatever action you decide to take you have my support in your endeavours. Indeed, I'm just has puzzled as your good self on the reasons for the rejection of your application to rejoin. This is a party mess and like all such messes it can only be sorted out by the membership.
Brian wrote:There is a problem with all applicants having the right to appeal to Conference in that it opens up the possibility of Conference business being taken up with day-to-day party administration. Which is not the business of Conference but of the EC.I agree. Perhaps: " An applicant rejected by the the EC but has otherwised displayed an understanding and acceptance of the object and declaration of priciples shall have the right of appeal to Delegate Meeting or the Annual Conference.” By the way, Brian, I was a member of central branch as I don't think NE branch was operational at the time of my application.
Brian wrote:Under the present rules and conference decisions the EC would not have been able to bring charges against you of action detrimental. They are only allowed to bring charges against members of Central Branch and seeing you were not a member of Central Branch – but on paper a member of the N.E. Branch – any charges would have been a matter for the Branch.Not sure where you got this idea from, Brian. Rule 31 is quite explicit on the matter and makes no reference at all to Central Branch or members of it:31. A Branch or member acting in a manner deemed by the EC to be an infringement of the Principles or Rules, or detrimental to the interests of the Party shall be immediately suspended by the EC from all Party business except the matter in dispute. The EC shall forthwith submit particulars of the charge to all Branches and at the same time communicate the charges in writing to the accused and enclose a copy of this rule. Branches shall hold at least one specially summoned meeting to discuss the charge. The Delegates at the next Delegate Meeting or Annual Conference shall hear the case of the EC and of the accused; after which no further circulation of arguments for or against the charge may take place. The Delegates shall submit their findings to a Party Poll and the result of the Party Poll shall apply as from the date of suspension. No parties to the charge or dispute shall be allowed to sit as Delegates or Chair at Conference, ADM or any EC meeting where the case is being reviewed. Vin's interpretation of rule 31 is quite correct.
Vin Maratty wrote:Brian wrote:There is a problem with all applicants having the right to appeal to Conference in that it opens up the possibility of Conference business being taken up with day-to-day party administration. Which is not the business of Conference but of the EC.I agree. Perhaps: " An applicant rejected by the the EC but has otherwised displayed an understanding and acceptance of the object and declaration of priciples shall have the right of appeal to Delegate Meeting or the Annual Conference.” By the way, Brian, I was a member of central branch as I don't think NE branch was operational at the time of my application.
I've already thought of that but only in relation to former members. Presently, under a Conference decision former members do not have to re-apply through the questionnaire. Their application is based on the acceptance of the object and declaration of principles.Which is why I'm puzzled on your rejection, and can only mean your rejection must be based on your past behaviour. And like I've stated previously, there have been quite a few members who like myself have left the party under a cloud of possibly facing charges of action detrimental. But after a period of years re-applied with few if any objections being raised. On top of this there is the confusion caused by the EC asking you twice to re-consider and now rejecting your application. Where is the logic in this was put to Swansea Branch and they overwhelmingly agreed there is none and promptly informed the EC.OK even if you did apply to join Central Branch my suggestion to get the N.E. Branch back on the party map still stands.
Hopefully Brian, the advent of the reformation of N.E. Branch, is not far away. Myself and Eileen, as I have told Bill are prepared to get involved and as I have also told Bill, we wish to place in any mailout to N.E.Br members, interested in a new N.E. Br, that we propose and second Comrade Vin Marattys readmission into The Socialist Party. We believe he would be an invaluable asset in making the N.E. a vibrant affair, once again. We have had some impressive members over the years, Bobby Gleg, John Bissett, Pat and Vin, Stevie Davison, the list goes on. Hopefully we will get back to that!So let's crack on!!!! Yours For Socialism,Stevie Colborn
In reference to #97 my mistake, and thanks Dave. I stand corrected. In reference to #99 the sooner this comes about the better for all concerned. For this relatively small step will eventually mean bringing this matter to a head.
I thought I might regret rereaising this matter but I am pleasantly suprised and appreciate the positive attitides. I have applied to rejoin NE branch of which I was previously a member.
Vin Maratty wrote:I thought I might regret rereaising this matter but I am pleasantly suprised and appreciate the positive attitides. I have applied to rejoin NE branch of which I was previously a member.Good on you. If you all put your skates on and get it sorted before Conference it will be welcomed by the delegates and hopefully promote a lively discussion on the resolution calling for the EC to officially close the Branch, albeit at some time in the future.Obviously questions will be asked that its purely to get you back in the party. So be ready with a 'Statement of Intent' which clearly states that the N.E. Branch is back on the party map with a written program of activity planned for the months ahead.
steve colborn wrote:Hopefully Brian, the advent of the reformation of N.E. Branch, is not far away.A sympathiser from Seaham has applied for membership online and has asked for the date and venue of the next meeting
Whilst it is, indeed, good news that the N.E. Br is attempting to reform, I cannot see anyone being cynical enough to suggest, or imply, that this is being done, "purely to get" Vin "back in the party". Moreover, I do not think any, "Statement of Intent", is necessary or needful, nor is a written program of planned activity for the months ahead necessary. Let is walk before we can run.It should be remembered, that even when the branch was "inactive", Socialists continued to be seen in the N.E. letters pages and contested elections, even if the final time, it was as a non-member, but a non-member who was, nonetheless, still remembered as a Socialist in the area he contested.As for the item at conference, calling for the EC to officially close the branch, whether in the future or not, I would hope that with the intention to attempt to restart the br, this would be defered, until the outcome is seen!YFSSteven Colborn.
Brian wrote:Obviously questions will be asked that its purely to get you back in the party.How flattering But seriously, no one should question the integrity of an other member. (indeed in this case a whole branch.)I would hope that such a suggestion at the conference would be ruled out of order.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.