Steve Colborn’s Form F

Home Forums Regional Branches North East Steve Colborn’s Form F

This topic contains 15 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by  northern light 8 months, 1 week ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #85882

    The E.C., at it's meeting in August, effectively closed down the North East Branch's activety, by passing a motion (motion 9 ) to lapse Steve Colborn, due to loss of contact AND documents relating to his election as a Seaham Community Party councillor be appended to his Form F.  [ VOTING 6 – 0 – 0 ]

     

    Are there any North East Branch members frequenting this forum, who are prepared to attend a physical meeting to discuss the expulsion of Steve Colborn ?

     

    joe davison

    #130461

    I am prepared to attend a physical meeting, it would be nice to meet my old comrades from the north east branch face to face. I still remember the 1980s meetings at rock house community centre with a full room of comrades, the crack will stay with me forever. Let us all help to speed the day when this wonderful earth and its rich resources are held in common for the benefit of all humanity.

    #130462

    anonymous
    Member

    JoeI'm not sure what could be achieved by such a meeting. But I believe you need to ask the secretary to call a special meeting and I would certainly be interested. vin

    #130463

    Vin,      You're not sure what can be achieved by such a meeting? Yet, at the last North East on-line meeting that you attended, you were all for correct procedure. Comrade Steve Colborn deserves to be heard by his own branch. He has been lapsed through loss of contact, by the E.C. and not by his branch as per. the rules, yet, apart from a few enforced months, I have been in contact with him. In fact there are about eight N.E. branch members who, (as far as I know) have not been in contact for five years. Now that's what I call loss of contact!! if we are to follow rules, then follow them. Rule 29 applies in this case. If not, then we might as well tear up the rule book and shut up shop. joe davison

    #130464

    gnome
    Member

    Three observations, Joe, on your post #4.1) Rule 29 can only be implemented by a functioning branch.

    Rule 29 wrote:
    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.

    2) As North East branch was not a functioning unit of the party the Executive Committee accepted the recommendation of its branch Secretary concerning ex-cde Colborn.See June 2017 EC minutes: item 2 b) ii A.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/june-2017-ec-minutes3) Had North East branch been a functioning unit of the party it would have, by now and in accordance with Rule 2, taken steps to lapse those members with whom contact had been lost.

    #130465

    Hello Dave,welcome to the North East branch site. Let me answer your observations. Observation No. 1  Rule 29 can only be implemented by a functioning branch. From Jan. 2015 to August 2016 the N.E. branch held 8 meetings. On the 13th. of August 2016 our acting secretary posted proposed dates for forthcoming branch meetings. Unfortunatelly, in December 2016, cde. Stephen Davison died and I went into mourning, but at that time, there were still 4 active N.E.branch members who could have attended meetings, possibly 5 if another busy member (G.W.) could find time to attend. The four most likely to attend were, our acting branch secretary, Major Mcfarter (forum name), Colborn(E.), Colborn(S). By not following correct procedure in Rule 29, the E.C. made the branch inquorate.  Observation No. 2  As the N.E. branch was not a functioning unit of the party, the E.C. accepted the recommendation of it's branch Secretary concerning ex cde. Colborn I have already shown that the N.E. branch is a functioning unit of the partymeeting andHas the acting branch secretary got any special powers that I don't know of, that the E.C. act on his recommendations without referal to the branch? The correct procedure as ppper. rule 29 would be;

    Quote:
    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 the majority of those voting shall have the power to expel any member, subject to ratification by the E.C.  …..[unquote] In his e-mail to the E.C. the N. E. acting secretary said,

    Quote:
    It would seem there is little option but to ask him to resign, or expel him [unquote]  I have no doubt that the acting branch secretary was acting in good faith when presenting this e-mail to the E.C. but I may be excused for thinking that when dealing with a committed socialist, who has dedicated his whole adult life to the cause, who has had over 1,000 published letters, appeared on radio talk shows, is a speaker at public debates, and in elections, counted his votes by the hundreds, that we might be interested in what he might have to say on the matter. Observation No. 3  Had the N.E. branch been a functioning unit of the party, it would have by now and in accordance with Rule 2, taken steps to lapse those members with whom contact had been lost. Unless my Rule book is out of date, Rule 2 states that

    Quote:
    Each member shall pay a voluntary amount annually to party funds. Amember MAY be lapsed BY A BRANCH following loss of contact, subject to E.C. ratification. I say that lapsing a comrade through loss of contact should be an absolute last course of action. Once a socialist, always a socialist. We fight hard for members, we should not let them go idly. with good will, joe davison
    #130466

    Part of my #6 has not posted. It has vanished into the either. Might come back later and rewrite it.

    #130467

    I must agree Joe Once a socialist always  a socialist. When the social blinkers are taken away there is no way back. We are to few on the ground to lose touch with each other, regardless of  a few differences, what we share in common is more important. I would love to meet up maybe later this year with the old comrades of north/east branch lets have a beer and a bit crack. To share a few hours with fellow workers who share a vision of a just society,  probably the closest i will ever get to that mythical place called heaven.

    #130468

    While replying to Gnome's post #6, a large chunk of my post (#6) failed to appear. I do not seem to have much luck posting on this Forum. I am unable to paste & copy, I can't preview my posts and sometimes the layout is disrupted. It has been suggested that it might have something to do with my internet security, but whatever the case, I hope to have more success with the new updated Forum due out, next month. Gnome raised 3 observations and I have replied to Observation No. 1 in my post (#6 ). Observation No. 2

    Quote:
    "As the N.E. branch was not a functioning unit of the Party, the E.C. .accepted the recommendation of it's Branch Secretary, concerning ex cde Colborn [unquote] I have already shown that the North East branch IS a functioning unit of the Party. Has the acting branch secretary got any special powers that I do not know of, that the E.C. act on his recommendation without referal to the branch ? The correct procedure as per. Rule 29 is;

    Quote:
    " Charges against a 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 the power to expel any member, subject to ratification by the Executive Committee. An expelled member shall have the right of appeal to Deligate Meeting, or the Annual Conference."[unquote] In his correspondence to the E.C. the N.E. branch acting secretary said,

    Quote:
    " It would seem there is little option but to ask him to resign, or expel him." [unquote]  The N.E.branch acting secretary may well thought that this was the only action left open to the Party, but I may be excused for thinking that, when dealing with someone who has committed his whole adult life to the socialist cause, who has had over 1,000 published letters, who appeared on radio talk shows and in elections counted his votes for Socialism in the hundreds, that we might be interested in what he has to say on this matter Observation No. 3

    Quote:
    Had the N.E.branch been a functioning unit of the Party, it would have by now and in accordance with Rule 2, take steps to lapse those members with whom contact had been lost. [ unquote] Unless my Rule book is out of date ( and if it iis, why have I not been furbished with a new one), Rule No. 2 states

    Quote:
      Each member shall pay a voluntary amount annually to the Party funds. A member MAY  be lapsed  by a branch following loss of contact, subject to E.C. ratification [unquote] I say that lapsing a comrade through loss of contact should be an absolute last course of agtion. yours sincerely,        joe davison
    #130469

    Moderator, I know I should be communicating privately, but I need this to be publicly known. This is the second time I have attempted to post on this subject and both times the bulk of my message has not appeared. I am pretty well pissed off.

    #130470

    anonymous
    Member

    JoeWhat browser are you using? Try downloading and using a different onecomradely

    #130471

    anonymous
    Member

    I don't know why the posts are all in bold. Probably something to do with Admin 

    #130472

    Hi Vin, Thanks for the advise. The browser I am using is Mozilla Firefox and I am lothe to change it, but I suppose if I have to, I will.  Does anyone else use Mozilla Firefox ?

    #130473

    gnome
    Member
    northern light wrote:
    Hi Vin, Thanks for the advise. The browser I am using is Mozilla Firefox and I am lothe to change it, but I suppose if I have to, I will.  Does anyone else use Mozilla Firefox ?

    Yes.

    #130474

    Thanks for the reply, Gnome. You are a regular contributor and you have no bother. It would seem that I can get away with short posts, but not long-winded posts. My router is temperamental, perhaps that might be the cause?

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.