The Forum and the EC
- This topic has 23 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Recently we have had a party member explaining that we do not conduct Party business via a "gossip chatroom" i.e. he means here
Another comrade has explained
"May I suggest that you satisfy your curiosity by raising your concerns directly with the EC – rather than call for its members to jump through your proffered hoop?"
I take this to mean that individual EC members are not obliged to respond to questions raised on this forum and, by inference, certainly not the EC itself, and being asked for an account of their voting is a "hurdle"
Am i the only one who is beginning to wonder that this just might have a consequence for accountability in the Party?
Is a few hours once a month sufficient to perform all the tasks of the EC?
Would it be suffice if everyone who has a question for the EC contacted the EC direct and filled their agenda by "raising their concerns directly with the EC" with perhaps many minor issues that could easily be addressed through this forum?
Surely, we now have modern means of communication that members of the EC can engage directly with the membership. We are not expecting decisions to be made via this "gossip chatroom" but it does help if we understand why the EC or certain individual EC members make particular decisions, not just the fact that they did.
Our EC meetings are open to full scrutiny if attended in person but, of course, most cannot avail themselves of that privilege.
Some members have taken issue before when i have said we have the capability of much more exact minutes (even verbatim) and insist that minutes should simply be left as a brief summary of decisions taken with minimum of description of the discussion that led to those decisions.
I'm not sure if that is the right course for a leader-free organisation like ourselves since to function as such, the members must have full access to the administrative process. Relying on procedures from the past which are now redundant with new technology may not be the best way forward to involve the Party as a whole in the practice of its participatory democratic practice. (We note in another thread, discussion on standing orders being changed to make online branch meetings more efficient)
I feel this particular section of the forum – dedicated to WSM matters – is a vital part of the forum. I find it unsettling that some members and some EC members decline to use it for Party business …and i don't mean for making decisions but to engage in discussion and debate and to gauge Party members opinions and views. This is called interaction. To avoid such is to make decisions in a self-imposed cocoon.
For sure, this forum is not the 100% answer, but making use of it more is an improvement upon requiring the EC to answer every query once month from a crammed agenda within the constraints of time imposed as members of the EC have travel connections and family commitments to meet.
I'd like to know if others share this unsettling feeling growing in me that we are not adjusting to new expectations.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Recently we have had a party member explaining that we do not conduct Party business via a "gossip chatroom" i.e. he means here.Quite forthright and kind of correct.
Quote:Another comrade has explained "May I suggest that you satisfy your curiosity by raising your concerns directly with the EC – rather than call for its members to jump through your proffered hoop?" I take this to mean that individual EC members are not obliged to respond to questions raised on this forum and, by inference, certainly not the EC itself, and being asked for an account of their voting is a "hurdle"Am i the only one who is beginning to wonder that this just might have a consequence for accountability in the Party?The branch is still the unit of organisation until this is changed at conference.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Another comrade has explained "May I suggest that you satisfy your curiosity by raising your concerns directly with the EC – rather than call for its members to jump through your proffered hoop?" I take this to mean that individual EC members are not obliged to respond to questions raised on this forum and, by inference, certainly not the EC itself, and being asked for an account of their voting is a "hurdle"Am i the only one who is beginning to wonder that this just might have a consequence for accountability in the Party?You may not be the only one, but it has not in the slightest. consequence for the party's accountability that disruptive manipulative behaviour can be seen for this, rather than as a failing of agreed democratic proceures.
Quote:Is a few hours once a month sufficient to perform all the tasks of the EC?Would it be suffice if everyone who has a question for the EC contacted the EC direct and filled their agenda by "raising their concerns directly with the EC" with perhaps many minor issues that could easily be addressed through this forum?The branch being the unit of organisation then issues can be prioritised by the branch majority seeking to raise concerns and 'trivial' issues seen for this. Even this reply to you, is taking up time I would better spend elsewhere.
Quote:Surely, we now have modern means of communication that members of the EC can engage directly with the membership. We are not expecting decisions to be made via this "gossip chatroom" but it does help if we understand why the EC or certain individual EC members make particular decisions, not just the fact that they did.Our EC meetings are open to full scrutiny if attended in person but, of course, most cannot avail themselves of that privilege.Some members have taken issue before when i have said we have the capability of much more exact minutes (even verbatim) and insist that minutes should simply be left as a brief summary of decisions taken with minimum of description of the discussion that led to those decisions.All quite understandable, but we don't always have touch typists to take verbatim minutes.
Quote:I'm not sure if that is the right course for a leader-free organisation like ourselves since to function as such, the members must have full access to the administrative process. Relying on procedures from the past which are now redundant with new technology may not be the best way forward to involve the Party as a whole in the practice of its participatory democratic practice. (We note in another thread, discussion on standing orders being changed to make online branch meetings more efficient)I feel this particular section of the forum – dedicated to WSM matters – is a vital part of the forum. I find it unsettling that some members and some EC members decline to use it for Party business …and i don't mean for making decisions but to engage in discussion and debate and to gauge Party members opinions and views. This is called interaction. To avoid such is to make decisions in a self-imposed cocoon.Still a prejudiced reading of members adhering ot the existing rules of acountability.
alanjjohnstone wrote:For sure, this forum is not the 100% answer,It is not even a small part of the answer.
Quote:but making use of it more is an improvement upon requiring the EC to answer every query once month from a crammed agenda within the constraints of time imposed as members of the EC have travel connections and family commitments to meet.No it is not any improvement that EC member(s) be subjected to bullying intimidation.The E.C. makes joint considered decisions (I am as exasperated as anyone else at some of them) and are accountable to the members via the branches. If we take issue with those decisions we can challenge them very easily, rather than conduct guerilla attacks online seeking ot harrass their decisions, nor create new facts on the ground to supercede or circumvent them.
alanjjohnstone wrote:I'd like to know if others share this unsettling feeling growing in me that we are not adjusting to new expectations.What is most unsettling is members who do not adhere to procedures, when they are found against with decisions, seeking to gazump them, by using the discussions fora to disrupt them and sowing seeds of distrust in our procedures.It is perfectly legitimate to question and seek to change methods of accountability within the party via bona fide methods. The poster you quoted at the start is one such member, who has far reaching proposals for changing Party procedures, the difference, is until we do incorprate legitimate change he is quite correct when he says,
Quote:we do not conduct Party business via a "gossip chatroom"alanjjohnstone wrote:Recently we have had a party member explaining that we do not conduct Party business via a "gossip chatroom" i.e. he means hereAnother comrade has explained "May I suggest that you satisfy your curiosity by raising your concerns directly with the EC – rather than call for its members to jump through your proffered hoop?" I take this to mean that individual EC members are not obliged to respond to questions raised on this forum and, by inference, certainly not the EC itself, and being asked for an account of their voting is a "hurdle"Am i the only one who is beginning to wonder that this just might have a consequence for accountability in the Party? Is a few hours once a month sufficient to perform all the tasks of the EC?Would it be suffice if everyone who has a question for the EC contacted the EC direct and filled their agenda by "raising their concerns directly with the EC" with perhaps many minor issues that could easily be addressed through this forum? Surely, we now have modern means of communication that members of the EC can engage directly with the membership. We are not expecting decisions to be made via this "gossip chatroom" but it does help if we understand why the EC or certain individual EC members make particular decisions, not just the fact that they did.Our EC meetings are open to full scrutiny if attended in person but, of course, most cannot avail themselves of that privilege.Some members have taken issue before when i have said we have the capability of much more exact minutes (even verbatim) and insist that minutes should simply be left as a brief summary of decisions taken with minimum of description of the discussion that led to those decisions.I'm not sure if that is the right course for a leader-free organisation like ourselves since to function as such, the members must have full access to the administrative process. Relying on procedures from the past which are now redundant with new technology may not be the best way forward to involve the Party as a whole in the practice of its participatory democratic practice. (We note in another thread, discussion on standing orders being changed to make online branch meetings more efficient)I feel this particular section of the forum – dedicated to WSM matters – is a vital part of the forum. I find it unsettling that some members and some EC members decline to use it for Party business …and i don't mean for making decisions but to engage in discussion and debate and to gauge Party members opinions and views. This is called interaction. To avoid such is to make decisions in a self-imposed cocoon. For sure, this forum is not the 100% answer, but making use of it more is an improvement upon requiring the EC to answer every query once month from a crammed agenda within the constraints of time imposed as members of the EC have travel connections and family commitments to meet. I'd like to know if others share this unsettling feeling growing in me that we are not adjusting to new expectations.By way of information a lot more members attend this forum and facebok than attend Spopen, spintcom or any other collection of SPGB members, 'physical' or otherwise.
Thanks for your views, Matt. If i approach a EC member and ask face-to-face why did you vote this or that way, is he entitled to say "i'm not telling you" or to say it is "none of your business how i vote at EC meetings" ? Is he able to dismiss any question about his or her reasons for a particular vote? Do i have to resort to a convoluted process to expect an answer from why an EC member made a decision in a particular way? Again, it seems you are adding certain prejudiced attitudes in your answer that arise from where i know not. Certainly not from my post, and definitely nor from my intentions upon raising this matter on this forum. "disruptive manipulative behaviour "… "EC member(s) be subjected to bullying intimidation."…"conduct guerilla attacks online seeking to harrass their decisions"…"seeking to gazump"…"using the discussions fora to disrupt them and sowing seeds of distrust in our procedures…"
Quote:It is perfectly legitimate to question and seek to change methods of accountability within the party via bona fide methods. The poster you quoted at the start is one such member, who has far reaching proposals for changing Party proceduresIs this part of the forum not a bona fide method to question and discuss our procedures? Is it not a bona fide place to ask the EC or individuals on the EC questions and expect answers? Perhaps, there should be a disclaimer added to qualify the content of "World Socialist Movement Discussion directly related to the business of the SPGB and its companion parties."[my emphasis]The poster i quoted declines to participate on this forum and only sporadically posts on Spintcom and rarely on Spopen therefore i am rather puzzled that he has put forward any far-reaching proposals for changing procedures that anyone is aware of. Perhaps it is through conference and his branch but i never noticed any such proposals. It is possible you can direct me to a link where he explains those? (or perhaps, it is simply that you misidentified the source of the quote?)So in conclusion i comradely disagree with the essence of your post, Matt.
Quote:Is this part of the forum not a bona fide method to question and discuss our procedures?Yes.
Quote:Is it not a bona fide place to ask the EC or individuals on the EC questions and expect answers?No. It is just a chat room.
I think AJ's OP addresses some interesting questions. It would be interesting to hear opinions on these rather than to see the thread derailed in this manner.
How do we deal with when a member of a committee is called a 'little hitler' because the individual he is trying to help by answering his questions has fallen out with the committee he is a member of . Thus,"You will probably not take this sincerely and thats is fair enough, but Vin has asked me to apologise if his comments appeared 'abusive'. and caused you upset. He is angry with the IC and ' the lttle hitler' remark was meant as a response to the committee's behaviour and you just happened to represent the committee."This kind of 'not apology' to excuse disruption through an individual's obsession with a department. So you would potentially subject EC or any other committee, to this behaviour and change our procedures as a consequence of them.I think not.It is a perfectly legitimate ot examine and discuss, if and how and where, we may improve our procedures, but lets us not pander to bullys in the process.
A difference in questioning stuff and using the forum to disrupt procedures. I'm not speaking of your posting, but the consequences of said disruption, is to have us consider our procedures so that the disrupter continues to get consideration when in essence they haven't used the appropriate mechanisms from the word off.This is changing facts on the ground and creating a smokescreen.This the abuse of procedures I refer to.A reward for bullying intimidation.The party has become like a battered spouse and now the abuser is all sweeetness and light . You are not on Alan.You can dig oot Lancaster branch previous your self. I am no' saying I agree with any of them . I just respect the fact when they are stuffed they accept the fact and live to fight them another day through agreed present procedures.
Quote:You can dig oot Lancaster branch previous your self.So, Matt, it i not as i thought that it just might be the case of confusion of identity.No, Matt, you don't escape that easy. It is for you, who declared that the person who took issue with my opinion has provided some alternative solutions, to give me the link. I have not a scooby where it is. I have already admitted my ignorance. You, because you are fully aware of it, can tell me where to look and then i can see for myself how much Lancaster Br. ideas resolves the problems i judge that we have in decision-making and in the responsibilities of Party officers.
Quote:You are not on Alan.I will confess we have issues that you seem to be insistent upon trying to connect to this thread. But they are utterly unrelated. Myself, referred to the fact that the production of the video was not underhand, it was not presenting an alleged "fait accomplis" to the EC but it was a work in process reported on this forum that any member pf the EC could, if wished, contribute opinion and comments toward. They chose not to either because they disdain visiting this forum or they didn't consider it not worth their while to assist a comrade creating a propaganda tool for all of us to use. Another member on an entirely and completely different topic wondered why the EC made a decision that he considered contrary to Party rules and sought an explanation and was, for the want of a better word, fobbed off with – ask the EC officially – you aren't getting any answer here on the forum.Just what is the purpose of this WSM part of the forum if it i not to engage in serious discussion and debate about the business of the SPGB and WSM which expects party officers to treat it with the respect it is due. If not, simply delete it and return to Spintcom as the sole medium of internal exchanges and be done with false pretences. As i said in an earlier post we can expand our minutes. Conference proceedings was recorded, i believe, and minutes will be made from that. Why not post as an audio file?I have often said that EC meeting (and conference/ADM) can be "Skyped" so that we can see the proceedings even if we are blocked from participating in them. These are vital questions we need to address to involve more in the participation of the Party's interaction.
alanjjohnstone wrote:I will confess we have issues that you seem to be insistent upon trying to connect to this thread. But they are utterly unrelated.Alan does make some interesting points. One in particular is that digital communication, like it or not, is here to stay. So I don't see why a party committed to Direct Participatory Democracy can't use it to keep members more informed about decision making.For example in the May EC minutes regarding the AV committee and one members video work, we have a rather cryptic reference made, "Other concerns were also expressed.", found in the last paragraph before Motion 9.Any member without inside access to what was discussed at the EC meeting, is basically left in the dark as to this reference. Yet it was recorded as being part of the reasoning for Motions 9 and 10. We are left to make our own assumptions as to what the concerns are.Surely the wider SPGB membership have a right to know what information the EC bases its decisions on? In years gone by there was excuse enough that gaining access to such information was a cumbersome and time consuming process. But now we have the internet and instant online communication. Relevant questions could be asked and the information made available?Matt also is correct. The recent disruption driving this issue was completely out of order, given that there existed the most fundamental unit of party democracy, the branch, that the "injured party" could have used, appropriately, to address any concerns.
Quote:No, Matt, you don't escape that easy. It is for you, who declared that the person who took issue with my opinion has provided some alternative solutions, to give me the link. I have not a scooby where it is. I have already admitted my ignorance. You, because you are fully aware of it, can tell me where to look and then i can see for myself how much Lancaster Br. ideas resolves the problems i judge that we have in decision-making and in the responsibilities of Party officers.No I can't find them from over a decade ago. Besides the point. We are not against making and changing how the party functions and going online as a part of a decision making apparatus which has been resolved by the party as presently constituted.
Quote:I will confess we have issues that you seem to be insistent upon trying to connect to this thread. But they are utterly unrelated.No they are fully related. You are being most insistent that EC or other committtee members appear on here, when there is no requirement to do so and acrimonious accusations can be hurled at individual members in the absence of a full comittee.
Quote:Myself, referred to the fact that the production of the video was not underhand, it was not presenting an alleged "fait accomplis" to the EC but it was a work in process reported on this forum that any member pf the EC could, if wished, contribute opinion and comments toward. They chose not to either because they disdain visiting this forum or they didn't consider it not worth their while to assist a comrade creating a propaganda tool for all of us to use.Your conclusion is loaded.No one should feel compelled to work with a bully regardless.
Quote:Another member on an entirely and completely different topic wondered why the EC made a decision that he considered contrary to Party rules and sought an explanation and was, for the want of a better word, fobbed off with – ask the EC officially – you aren't getting any answer here on the forum.This is not the place for such answers.It is correct. So how is it a fob off?
Quote:Just what is the purpose of this WSM part of the forum if it i not to engage in serious discussion and debate about the business of the SPGB and WSM which expects party officers to treat it with the respect it is due. If not, simply delete it and return to Spintcom as the sole medium of internal exchanges and be done with false pretences. [/unquote]Discussion. Party officers do treat it with respect. They do not use the forum to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). They do not respond to such messages.Quote:As i said in an earlier post we can expand our minutes. Conference proceedings was recorded, i believe, and minutes will be made from that. Why not post as an audio file?I have often said that EC meeting (and conference/ADM) can be "Skyped" so that we can see the proceedings even if we are blocked from participating in them. These are vital questions we need to address to involve more in the participation of the Party's interaction.No problem with any of that as a discussion. Howevwer any action would have to be via branch, ADM, conference etc routes. No problem either with updating decision making in a rational manner to take account of available info tech resources.This forum however is not designed for that purpose.
No problem, SocialistPunk but it needs done appropriately, effectively, incorporating safeguards and via present organisational structures, (an ADM discussion paper, Conference decision even wider party mail-outs) in order that full democratic adherence is seen to be achieved. What we can't end up with is interminable wrangling over and between EC meetings with committee members having to write screeds in reply. Sometimes there isn't a short pithy answer.I have my own views as to a recent ec decision which is more along the lines of them trying to 'pour oil on troubled waters' which ended up bursting into flames, as it was taken as them not taking serious concerns, seriously enough and ended up satisfying no-one. But I am inclined to take the view, it was done for good reasons.
Quote:No I can't find them from over a decade ago.my emphasis "The poster you quoted at the start is one such member, who has far reaching proposals for changing Party procedures"Umm… very telling that those "far-reaching proposals for changing Party procedures" were from a decade ago, so, i suppose it is little wonder that they have gotten lost in the mists of time. As i think someone once said of the Party (was it Gnome?), we act and change at a speed of a glacier…Maybe another decade will transpire before these far-reaching proposals come into effect …but, meanwhile, the world moves on and we fall further behind it. "Your conclusion is loaded"Umm…bit of a pot calling kettle, isn't that? Once more your own post has its own loaded assumptions. "acrimonious accusations can be hurled at individual members …"…"No one should feel compelled to work with a bully …"You seem to be continually conflating other issues with this thread which is about Party officer accountability and the means and methods to achieve that. You are correct about this section of our forum – that it is not designed to function fully to conduct Party business and i did concede that it was not .But i still suggest it can be put to better use rather than to be relegated to the status of "gossip chatroom." After all, we have companion parties and branches using it to relay information about their business.I think if a branch posts its minutes here then any member should be permitted to comment and expect to receive a reply, if one is required.Likewise, i expect the EC and its members to respond to questions put to them, regardless of whether it is at a formal EC meeting, face-to-face or through a Party-authorised discussion forums that is described as for conducting SPGB business. As well you and others know, i always push for full and proper consultation of the party as a whole calling repeatedly for a special conference to examine the Party's positions and practice to combat what i perceive is a growing malaise within our organisation.I don't have the patience to wait another decade or two for meaningful far-reaching change and i doubt the Party has that luxury of time, either.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.