Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It’s interesting that the proposal put forward that we have
“worker co-ops alongside conventional private and state capitalist workplaces.”
is actually quite similar to the economy of the Republic of Ireland.
The farmers’ co-ops have a large presence in rural areas, and retail co-ops are also quite well represented.
See the link to show this:
http://icos.ie/find-your-co-op/
There are state controlled industries (ERB one of the main electricity suppliers is 95% state and 5% worker owned) Bus Éireann, Dublin Bus and Iarnród Éireann/Irish Rail, are all state owned.
On top of this there is a welfare system which is probably more generous than the UK and a health care system, which although not as well developed as the UK, is quite substantial and per capita health spending is not a kick in the pants of the UK spending.
I often use this argument for the reluctant Labourists, who say, well I vote Labour, but only because they gave us the welfare state and the NHS.
If these things were not part of the ordinary development of capitalism and generally in the interests of capitalism, why have they developed in the ROI, which has never had a Labour and arguably which has never had even a left leaning government?
Forgot to add BD that there haven’t been dead flies in head office window for decades. When you saw one it must have been when you were down to see Newcastle last play in the Cup Final.
Last time I was down was Easter about three years ago, idiot that I am I forgot to check that conference was actually on on Easter weekend, which it wasn’t. Had hotel booked for two nights, non refundable, so went to see Kingstonians play at home (AFC Wimbledon play there so at least I got another one off the list of 92) and then got pissed on my jack in a Hotel in Kingston upon Thames!
“But these are only the draft minutes and so only of limited interest now, for academics and others interested in how our decision-making procedures work in practice.
What is relevant are the final minutes as amended and adopted. Only these are the official version of what took place and what was decided. These are the only ones that have any standing in terms of the Rulebook.”
So effectively those of us not in the know, i.e. not EC members or not in the London/SE area, we won’t get to know what was discussed until a month after it’s been discussed?
Surely it’s better to have the draft minutes available than no information at all?
There’s a great video on youtube of Ben Shapiro being interviewed by Andrew Neil. He actually accuses Neil of being a leftist!
To be fair Andrew Neil absolutely hammers him, makes you wonder about his politics, he says he’s a conservative, but on this video he is publicly owned 😀 😀
Regards Cde Maratty, I was one of the moderators on the forum and I assure you he was given plenty of leeway and had several opportunities to mend his ways on the forum. But his on-line behaviour was that of a recidivist.With all due respect, what Vincent did was as you describe, on line. I think there is a big difference to on line responses and direct in your face responses. As you say yourself, Vincent was given opportunities to mend his ways, however to mend your ways you must be made aware of the inappropriateness of that behaviour. The report from the EC makes no comment on the behaviour of Cde CA, if she hasn’t been told the error of her ways, how can she be told to amend them? There were many calls for Vincent to publicly apologise for his behaviour, which appears less noteworthy than the behaviour of Cde CA. One of my questions is why has this member been treated so differently from any other member, why has she not been brought to book for her behaviour?You are reluctant to do anything which might lead to another member leaving the party, why is this member so different of more important than the members who have left the party because of her actions?I also think the use of the term recidivist, is not particularly appropriate for a socialist to use in terms of a fellow socialist (despite your views on Vin’s behaviour I assume you accept his socialist credentials). Recidivism has a long history of use in some areas of psychiatry and criminology that I don’t think many of us would find palatable.A technical definition of recidivism is:RecidivismRecidivism is the act of a person repeating an undesirable behaviour after they have either experienced negative consequences of that behaviour, or have been trained to extinguish that behaviour. It is also used to refer to the percentage of former prisoners who are rearrested for a similar offence. The term is frequently used in conjunction with criminal behaviour and substance abuse.Out of my sense of fairness, the case for the defence.
The implication being that anyone who disagrees is perhaps not fair?
I do not (AFAIK) personally know the comrade, so i have no dog in this fight.
I do not know the comrade, so I also “have no dog in this fight”
“She had had problems with her payments from the state and had asked for an advance of her expenses against future attendance and has been allowed this in July and August until the payments from the state were resumed.”
And this was a fair and appropriate thing to do, however it shows that the comrade in question was aware of and could use the proper channels in a situation such as the one she was in.
I think those members who are not subjected to these benefit problems should be a bit more sympathetic to members who suffer from them. I have been on benefits and fully aware of the stress it places on decisions and judgments.
a huge assumption being made there, Alan. I have spent 35 years on and off working as a Social Worker in some of the most deprived areas of the North East, I have also had first hand experience of the cack handedness of the benefit system as my partner had to be medically retired from work at the age of 41, which put her out of work and our family reliant on benefits as I needed to support her.
“…she recorded this in the petty cash vouchers book at the time…”
There was no attempt at deceit or fraud, it seems.If, and to me it appears it is a big if, from the differing accounts that have been given. In a letter to the EC dated 26th Oct 2019, which again has not been widely mentioned or distributed the Assistant General Secretary states the following
“To date the Auditors still have not agreed on a joint report. At my prodding, one of them has just submitted an individual written report to the November EC, but this is once again completely inadequate, lacking even the most basic explanations and contextual information. The Auditor writes that “I” (not “we”) “have investigated the complaint” (again, which one?) “and find that any monies” (what monies? how
much?) “advanced to the Comrade” (which Comrade? advanced for what purpose?) “have since” (when?) “been repaid”. The who, what, where, when, why, and how of the matter are almost entirely missing. Is the “complaint” being investigated about the misappropriation of Party funds or about the mismanagement of Party funds? That is, was the Auditor looking at the person who disbursed the Party funds
or the person who received them? Why was the money advanced, and was there anything improper about it? If there was something improper about it, was this a simple mistake made in good faith, a serious mistake made in negligence or recklessness, or a deliberate attempt to defraud the Party of funds? Would the money have been repaid if it had not been the subject of an investigation? Does the fact that the money
has been repaid now settle the matter, or is the Party at further financial risk? How was the investigation conducted, and what information did it consider? Which Comrades were invited to supply evidence?”“..despite the fact that the member in question had asked the Treasurer and the General Secretary if a monetary grant could be given and was told that they did not have the authority to grant this money…”
I think there is a slight difference of degree in being refused point-blank and being told they have not got the power to authorise it.
So being told by party officers that they don’t have the authority to hand over monies allows a member to take it anyway? I would have thought this was the clearest indication that this comrade ignored the democratically decided upon processes of the Party and chose to do what she wanted to do regardless. As I said, in essence, what is the difference between this action and the action of the Socialist Studies group, who were expelled en mass for not abiding by democratic party decisions.
“(a bursary attend party general meetings is clearly NOT the same as funding a comrade to attend a Summer School)”
Whether it was to attend general public meeting or the Summer School, I think is splitting hairs. The only subsidy i know for Summer School is a reduced accommodation fee but not travelling expenses, and perhaps that might be looked into at a future date.
So the only subsidy the party has is reduced accommodation but not travelling expenses, from your own words you have explained that this funding was not within the remit of the party. If we don’t have any rules about how monies are spent then it becomes a free for all. Again that it is looked at at a future date is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that these funds were not used appropriately.
Either carrying out duties or participating in Party activities come at a cost, either in time or money. The Party has always had a generous attitude towards members facing financial restraints to engage in either.
But we are rather cumbersome when it comes to procedures.
procedures are in place to protect the commonly held funds of the party, if these cumbersome procedures can be ignored by those in the know, what is the point of us having them.
“Her application for the funds was made the day before the meeting, to the GS and the T but neither could agree to give permission. She applied after the meeting to the T and to the Campaigns member but neither could authorise it.”
Her actions are in no way compared with “…“borrow” a couple of grand, I’ve got a tip on a horse in the 3.30 at Lingfield on Friday, and I’ll pay the money back out of my winnings…”
As you well know, my remarks about borrowing were flippant, however they illustrate the point, if it is possible for cdes with access to head office to “borrow” substantial amounts of funds, why should cdes in gneral not treat the party as some kind of interest free loan shop?
The situation was investigated by the Party auditors and the comrade although reprimanded for “misapplied powers”, and have fallen upon the sword by resigning her Party positions, the auditors recommendations should be accepted and lets move on before we once more lose another comrade from membership.
As evidenced by the Asst Gen Sec’s letter to the EC, the situation was not investigated by the party auditors, it was examined by one of the auditors, with little or no evidence of a thorough investigation, I won’t repeat the comments of the Asst Gen Sec, they appear to show a scant investigation and an unconvincing report to the EC. This is why I am bring the situation to the forum, so that it can be properly investigated with a credible resolution.
As for the other accusation of Cde CA being “under the influence”, throwing wild accusations against another member, I certainly do not accept that ex-Cde DC was “shit” at his Party duties. On the contrary, he was most proficient, IMHO.
So it is acceptable to make wild accusations against other party members with no action taken? this type of behaviour can be extremely intimidating, where was the call for Cde A to retract these accusations and apologise. I recall that cde Marratty was asked to carryout all kinds of mea culpas to regain admission to the party and that many on this message board were insistent that he should apologise for his actions repeatedly
Despite our occasional differences, I regret his resignation and merely say, the door is always open if he chooses to return.
But in recent times these internecine disputes are growing in frequency and i am left to wonder why this is.
<b>It is a pity the same leniency and regard was not given to Cde Marratty, Vincent’s behaviour with regard to how he addressed some comrades. His behaviour at times was not acceptable, but it seems meek and mild compared to what has been happening recently. I would bring your further attention to the opaque minutes of the Jan EC meeting which allude to further shenanigans, I can’t remember Vincent behaving in this way on Party premises.</b>
Look on the bright side, at least David “National Treasure” Attenborough will be cheered up if half the world’s population die.
He talks about overpopulation, if he was sincere he could at least do the honourable thing and top himself. It might not solve the situation, bit at least it would give me a laugh.
Dave Chesham – ”
“…why they think it is appropriate for an Assistant Treasurer (and current EC member) to “borrow” monies from the party…”
For clarification, BD: The member in question is no longer Assistant Treasurer or EC member.”
Apologies Dave, I had misread the ballot results. However it does not change the fact that a member has decided to act against the democratic processes of the Party and use money that was not allocated for the purpose, against the direct instruction of party officers.
I can see little difference between this member not following the democratic and procedural processes of the party and the Ashborne Court group’s flaunting of democratic processes. If that was action detrimental, surely this is as well.
For one of the two auditors to come up with the lame report that tries very unconvincingly to link this “borrowing” of money to a Conference Resolution, which demonstrably not linked (a bursary attend party general meetings is clearly NOT the same as funding a comrade to attend a Summer School) , is possibly even more concerning.
For the EC to then go on and state that the way forward is to ban alcohol at EC meetings, is the cherry on the cake. As a man who likes the more than occasional snifter, surely it’s not stopping the alcohol it’s stopping the EC member who is influenced by the alcohol.
However if it is the case that I am mistaken in my belief that Party funds should be managed and used as per the democratic decisions of the party in general, and that in fact the case is that party funds can be used in an irregular way, with the EC members making up reasons for it afterwards and stating that this is all ok, can I please “borrow” a couple of grand, I’ve got a tip on a horse in the 3.30 at Lingfield on Friday, and I’ll pay the money back out of my winnings.
“It is the first time in my life and involved in this movement for many years, that I hear about a member borrowing money from the party funds. Something must be wrong”
I agree with you, if I had a suspicious mind, I might think that EC minutes had been deliberately made difficult to find, so that EC members wouldn’t have to account for their decisions. It’s a good job I haven’t got a suspicious mind. 😀
Matt
I will send an email to the EC, but I do think it is important that as many members as possible are aware of this situation, hence the use of this forum. I also think that if one or two members of the EC do use this forum, they should be brave enough to account for their action on a public forum. Democracy only works if information is available.
MINUTES OF THE 12TH MEETING OF THE 116TH EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN
HEAD OFFICE, SATURDAY 7TH DECEMBER 2019
Present: S.Kennedy, M.Foster, M.Browne, C.Dee , P.Shannon, T.Hart, L.Stevens
Apologies: G.Thomas, C.Alvarenga
Chair: P.Shannon
Meeting opened at 1:20pm
1. Election of Chair: P. Shannon
Browne/Foster – Agreed
2. Amendment and adoption of the previous meeting minutes (p. 7)
(a) Re §4(k)i (Report of the Election Committee, 24 October), note from the Assistant Secretary: Under
this item it is minuted that the EC resolved “That the Swansea and Folkestone election manifestos be
adopted”, but the Election Committee report of 24 October does not mention any manifesto for Folkestone.
Presumably under this item the EC also considered the Election Committee’s subsequent report of 1
November, in which case I recommend that the minutes be amended to reflect same.
– The minutes should reflect that the election manifestos were only available on the day.
– Minutes to be amended to reflect that Comrade Browne submitted a draft Auditors report which was to
be discussed during the December meeting.
RESOLUTION: Browne/Foster – “That the minutes and their amendments be adopted.”
(Agreed)
3. Matters arising from previous minutes
(a) Matters arising from the August 2018 meeting minutes
i. Re §2(d)i (“That Cde Hart be thanked for his extremely comprehensive report and he be asked to liaise
with the Internet Committee, Treasurer and Head Office Organiser in order to implement the
recommendations.”)
RESOLUTION: Browne/Foster – “Move that no action be taken with regards to the parties emails for 4
months unless or until the IC has been able to transfer the emails to a secure archive.”
(Carried 5-1-1)
(b) Matters arising from the May 2019 meeting minutes
i. Re §2(b)iv (“That Comrades Shenfields and Robin Cox be advised we are supportive of the suggestion of
duel membership for Comrades residing in the States, will confer with the MAC about their willingness to
process members applications, and is willing to provide financial support, subject to clarification on the
legalities and a break down of expenditure.”), Cde Bennett of the Membership Applications Committee
reports (2 December) that Cde Shenfield and the Membership Applications Committee have agreed that
the latter will process membership requests on behalf of the WSPUS, and that the WSPUS website now
informs enquirers of same.
– Noted
(c) Matters arising from the October 2019 meeting minutes
i. Re §3(a)ii (General Secretary to enquire of the Head Office Organiser as to the progress made in
obtaining a supplier and quotation for the cleaning contract), no report received
– Comrade Hutton is making inquires into a deep clean twice yearly, with other Comrades volunteering for
more frequent cleaning duties.
ii. Re §4(s) (“That Cde Shannon arrange for the production of a newly revised Party Handbook, hard copy
and soft copy format) in liaison with Publications Committee and other interested parties”), e-mail from
Cde Foster (27 November):
RESOLUTION: Browne/Dee – “The the Draft be agreed, anf the title be SPGB Members Handbook.”
(Carried 7-0-0)
RESOLUTION: Foster/Browne – “As well as an online version, 350 copies of the members handbook are to be
printed and distributed to all members with the 2020 final Conference agenda.”
(Carried 7-0-0)
iii. Re §4(s) (“That Cde. Shannon approach the Membership Applications Committee on its views
concerning the merits of producing a FAQ leaflet. (in hard copy and soft copy format)”), no report
received
– Ongoing
(d) Matters arising from the November 2019 meeting minutes
i. Re §3(b)ii (resolutions that “the EC asks the auditors to complete their investigation of the allegations
regarding use of party funds, including statements from all individuals involved. A report is to be
prepared for the December EC meeting” and that “recognising the seriousness of the matter, the EC
requests statements from Comrades Alvarenga, Chesham, and any witnesses to the events referred to in
Comrade Cheshams email of 17/10/19. And that the General Secretary along with EC members Shannon
and Dee, investigate the matter and report to the December EC meeting”)
A. Auditors Report:
Dave Chesham accused C A of misappropriation of party funds in an email letter sent August 11th to the EC
and some party branches, i.e. SW Regional, Glasgow, maybe North London but not to Lancaster, West
London and others. This is a serious accusation so having received an accusation from DC I must check and
report to the EC and to the party on this. My opinion is that while C A may have misapplied her powers as
Assistant Treasurer but as she recorded this in the petty cash vouchers book at the time did not
misappropriate any party funds nor was she intending to do so.
On the reason as to why Comrade C A did “borrow” the funds, it was so as to travel to the summer school,
the party’s annual meeting of talks and discussion which has been running for several decades and also the
fact that following a resolution carried by conference 2018 re setting up a bursary for the purposes of
helping members of limited means to attend party general meetings, she appeared to be entitled to the
cost of travel. Her application for the funds was made the day before the meeting, to the GS and the T but
neither could agree to give permission. She applied after the meeting to the T and to the Campaigns
member but neither could authorise it.
She had attended HO since January 2018 on a regular basis to record cheques and cash received and
prepare cheques for payment of invoices. She had had problems with her payments from the state and had
asked for an advance of her expenses against future attendance and has been allowed this in July and
August until the payments from the state were resumed.
Text of the 2018 conference resolution: “This Conference instructs the EC to establish an annual bursary of
at least £2,000 for the purposes of helping members of limited means to attend party general meetings, the
dispensation of which should be worked out, overseen an administrated by the EC.”
My opinion is that: 1/ she was entitled to the travel,
2/ Any application for funds from the bursary should, in future, come to the EC for approval which can be
made before or after the event.
RESOLUTION: Stevens/Dee – “That the auditors report be adopted.”
(Carried 5-0-2)
B. Report on Comrade Cheshams email of 17/10/19
Dave Chesham – The latest of a series of unprovoked verbal attacks on myself by a drunken ‘cde’ Alvarenga
occurred at Head Office today. Among the most recent accusations made was that I had done a “shit” job
on the Advertising & Enquiries Committee and that she hoped I wouldn’t be re-appointed. My socialist
credentials were also called into question and as such I should either resign from the Party or be expelled.
Cibele Alvarenga – No response given, preferring to speak with other senior standing members before
giving an account. Though one was given verbally at the previous EC meeting on the fly. The account
indicated that Cibele did not deny the accusations as stated previously by Dave as having happened.
Mark Hutton – I was at my desk above the main hall processing pamphlets and Socialist Standards when
Cibele arrived and proceeded to say rather loudly that i was to appoint a new cleaner she was under the
influence of drink . After sometime John Helps and i left and after that i imagine she might well have had a
go at Dave who was in the building doing some work. It stems from the new franking machine and a new
table which Cibele opposed.
Roy Beat – Didn’t see much or hear who was shouting as I was upstairs most of the time. Would preferably
not get involved in the whole affair.
John Helps – Unable to get in contact.
It is my conclusion that the events that transpired on the date in question did occur as stated by Comrade
Chesham.
C. Resolution from Kent & Sussex (10 November, carried 3–0–0): In view of the reported behaviour
against a member of KSRB and similar behaviour previously observed, KSRB demands that the EC
excludes Comrade Alvarenga from head office indefinitely and considers whether her behaviour warrants
a formal charge under rule 31.
Additionally, the resignation letter as sent by Comrade Chesham was read out detailing reasons for leaving,
and a list of allegations against C.A.
RESOLUTION: Foster/Dee – “The EC regrets the animosity between some members in recent months, and
recognises that changes to procedures and practices have been required. The EC has considered the
allegations against Comrade C A and accepts that there is substance to some of these, but does not accept
that overall they warrant a charge under rule 31. Nor does the EC have any authority to exclude members
from Head Office indefinitely. While more could have been done by the EC to prevent that matter escalating,
steps taken during the year to prevent future similar incidents involve:
• Barring the use of alcohol at EC meetings.
• Reiterating that contributors at EC meetings go through the chair and that members should not talk
over each other.
• Clarifying acceptable conduct in the revised members handbook.
• Reiterating 2009 conference resolution – “That this conference views with displeasure the abusing of
members by other members. Further, this conference urges members to take the available effective
action necessary to redress grievances: informal resolution; motion at branch; resolution to the EC;
motion of the EC; charge at branch; charge at EC; branch poll; party poll or special conference all of
which exist for the purpose of allowing comradely and democratic resolution of disputes.”
(Carried 6-1-0)
Division Requested by Comrade Browne –
FOR M.Foster, M.Browne, C.Dee , P.Shannon, T.Hart, L.Stevens
AGAINST S.Kennedy
Meeting adjourned for break: 2:50pm
Meeting resumed at: 3:11pm
ii. Re §4(r) (roof exit hatch and cracks in the library wall), e-mail from Cde Cox (30 November):
– Noted, Hutton called out surveyor, awaiting.
iii. Re §4(s)i (call for a Party Poll on Amazon Advantage by Kent & Sussex), e-mail from West London (6
November):
– Noted
iv. Notice of Business (Hart): Lockers to be purchased for personal items
– Assembled and available in basement.
4. Reports of and new matters relating to Party Officers, Party Appointees, and Subcommittees
(a) Advertising and Enquiries
(b) Assistant Secretary
(c) Audio Visual
(d) Auditors
i. E-mail from Cde Hart (3 November): “This is to advise you that I have resigned from the Audit
Committee. . . with immediate effect.”
RESOLUTION: Kennedy/Stevens – “The EC accepts the resignation of Comrade Hart with regret and thanks
them for their efforts.”
(Agreed)
(e) Ballot
(f) Blog
(g) Campaigns and Media
RESOLUTION: Foster/Dee – “The EC agrees to a maximum subsidy of £110 per attendee at summer school,
as per previous years.”
(Agreed)
(h) Central Branch Secretary
(i) Central Organiser
i. Report of the Central Organiser (22 November): I have checked the membership database at Head Office
with the records held by branches and the position, up to the November EC Meeting, is as follows. Total
membership is 311 broken down as follows:
19 North London
18 South London
19 West London
6 Edinburgh
20 Glasgow
17 Kent & Sussex Regional
13 Lancaster 31 Manchester
15 North East
17 South Wales
21 South West Regional
16 West Midlands Regional
57 Central (UK)
42 Central (Overseas)
So, nearly a third of the membership (32%) is in Central Branch. The Delegate Meeting again raised the
question of non-functioning North East Branch. Members of this branch do take part in party votes in the
same proportion as members of other branches. 4 If the branch is wound and all its members go into
central branch, this would increase the number there to 114 (36 Does the EC wish me to proceed to wind
up the North East branch and ask its members which branch they would like to transfer to?
RESOLUTION: Browne/Kennedy- “The EC asks the CO to ask North East branch if they wish to disband and
which branches they wish to join.”
(Agreed)
(j) Education
(k) Election
i. Report of the Election Committee (22 November):
RESOLUTION: Foster/Dee – “That the election committee be thanked for their report.”
(Agreed)
ii. Electoral Commission returns
– Noted
(l) General Secretary
i. Minutes of the 2019 Autumn Delegate Meeting (p. 15)
RESOLUTION: Browne/Shannon – “That the General Secretary be thanked for their report.”
(Agreed)
(m) Head Office Organiser
(n) Internet
i. The Internet Committee reports (30 November) that it has migrated spintcom and spopen to Groups.io
per the November EC’s resolution.
– Noted with thanks
(o) Investment
(p) Library and Archives
(q) Membership Applications
i. Forms A
A. Form A for Aiden Luiting (via Membership Applications Committee, who indicate that the application is
“presumably” for the WSPUS)
For A for WSPUS accepted
ii. Forms F
A. Form F for Dave Chesham (via K&S Regional)
– Deferred
RESOLUTION: Foster/Hart – “The EC recognises that Comrade Chesham has been a valued member of the
party and urges him to reconsider his decision to leave.”
(Carried 6-0-1)
(r) Premises
i. Head Office boiler
RESOLUTION: Browne/Dee – “That only a certified gas safe engineer be authorised to repair or service the
boiler in accordance with gas safety regulations.”
(Carried 7-0-0)
(s) Publications
i. E-mail from Cde Surman (1 December): This is to inform you that Alan (Fenn) and I, for personal reasons
and severe internet challenges, are standing down from the Publications Committee with immediate
effect.
– Noted with thanks for their work.
ii. Resolution from Kent & Sussex (10 November, carried 3–0–0): KSRB requests that the EC produces a
printed version of Jordan Levi’s “Revolution not Reform” essay for sale in UK at head office and literature
stalls. Making use of the pdf file at http://www.wspus.org/wp-content/ uploads/2019/09/Jordan-LeviRevolution-Not-Reform.pdf.
RESOLUTION: Foster/Hart – “The EC is in favour of the ‘Revolution not Reform’ pamphlet being available
online and as a print version. To be coordinated by K&S Regional. The Branch to obtain quotes for costings
and numbers printed, and also consider an alternative design and a short paragraph clarifying it was
already published by the WSPUS.”
(Carried 7-0-0)
(t) Socialist Standard
(u) Standing Orders
i. E-mail from Cde Hart (3 November): “This is to advise you that I have resigned from. . . the Standing
Orders Committee with immediate effect.”
– Noted
(v) Treasurer/Assistant Treasurer
(w) Trustees
5. Correspondence
(a) Matters of urgency
(b) Correspondence from or concerning Branches, the Party in general, and members
(c) Correspondence from Companion Parties and Groups
i. Socialist Party of Canada Secretary’s Report, 1 November 2019 (p. 26)
-Noted
ii. Socialist Party of Canada Secretary’s Report, 1 December 2019 (p. 30)
-Noted
(d) All other correspondence
6. Notices of Motion
I. Reorder of EC agenda with regards to Treasurers report
ii. Plumber – report and action needed
7. Notices of Business
8. Any other business
9. Nomination of Chair for the next meeting
Meeting adjourned at: 5:20pmI was appointed by the branch shortly before the branch imploded. I was aware of the EC decision to look at closure of the branch.
I am not saying that EC minutes are not available, the point is that they are not READILY available and easy to access.
There is a danger of assuming that all members are tech literate and have access to all things tech.
We need to make sure that all aspects of the party decision making process are open to scrutiny.
I have accessed the spintcom files.
I will from now on publish the EC minutes on this forum as and when they are produced.
“Most EC members are from the provinces. Only two live in London.”
Aye, that might be the case, but they don’t live in the province I live in. Where they live is irrelevant, it is about ensuring that members know what is going on and how their EC is voting, behaving, etc.
The point is that to have full democratic processes in all members need to have all the information. Without that info how are we supposed to vote on the membership of the EC?
“Once they are done they are sent to branch secretaries”
I am branch sec of NE Branch and I have never received them.
If I can be sent a work copy of the EC minutes, I will post them on here.
It appears to me that there is an awful lot of things going on with this current EC that members outside of situation are unaware of.
