September 2016 EC Minutes
August 2024 › Forums › World Socialist Movement › September 2016 EC Minutes
- This topic has 13 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 11 months ago by
lindanesocialist.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 11, 2016 at 1:52 am #85057
lindanesocialist
Participant17382EC Minutes for September 2016
Expand Messages-
Socialist Party of Great BritainSep 10 3:49 PM
Dear Comrades,
Here are the minutes for the September 2016 EC meeting. The file (PDF) version can be found here –
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SPINTCOM/files/EC_Minutes/2016/
MINUTES OF THE 9th MEETING OF THE 113th EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
OF THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN HELD ON 3rd SEPTEMBER 2016.
(Note: These minutes are not official until adopted by the E.C.)
Meeting commenced at 13.05
PRESENT: K. Scholey, E. Craggs, D. McLellan, G. Thomas (minutes), R. Cox, M. Browne, C. Skelly (from 14.15)
APOLOGIES for absence: M. Foster (family commitments). E Craggs gave advance notice of absence from the October EC.
Resolution 1. (Browne & McLellan): “That cde Scholey be chair.” Agreed.
A.] MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING.
(1) Addendum: It was noted that cde Mclellan had left the previous meeting prior to the discussion of item 'K' (SS layout) and the business following.
(2) Speakers Test (item B. 2): There had been a verbal report and further updates had been posted on SPINTCOM.
Resolution 2. (McLellan and Craggs): “That the Minutes as amended be adopted.” Agreed.
B.] MATTERS ARISING FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS.
(1.) Party Video and Rule 17,
Resolution from South London Branch (27 August, carried 5–0–0):
“South London Branch considers that with regard to Rule 17 the word “literature” be interpreted to encompass written, audio-visual and other means of publicising the Party case. In the view of the branch the emphasis of Rule 17 lies in “publish and control” and not just in “literature”.”
Noted.
-
Private sharing of YouTube videos.
E-mail from Cde Poynton of the Internet Committee (17 Aug) re August EC Resolution 8 [“That the EC consult the Internet and Audio-Visual Committees on practical methods of making draft audio-visual material requiring EC approval available, which would avoid requiring members to open accounts with YouTube/Google, such as (1) establishing a protocol whereby items could clearly labeled [sic] a ‘draft’; (2) providing a file-sharing facility on Party-controlled websites or third party file sharing services.”].
Cde Poynton informed the EC that “Videos can already be privately shared on YouTube. Just upload them as “unlisted” then only people who the URL is passed on to can view the video. Titling the video “DRAFT” would make things doubly clear. That seems the most practical solution.”
Resolution 3. (Browne and Thomas):
“That cde Poynton be thanked and the contents of his e-mail be noted.” Agreed.
(3.) Order of business for remainder of this meeting taking account of pressure of business and the number of late submissions to the EC.
Resolution 4. (Thomas and Browne):
“That the chair be directed to take late submissions under correspondence from branches.” Agreed.
(4.) Notice of business. (Browne and Craggs) “That at the next meeting they will raise the matter of late items of business for EC meetings.”
(5.) Matters outstanding.
(a) Parliamentary Candidates Speakers Test. No progress.
(b) Party Speakers List. Now completed.
(c) HO computer (“Zorilla”). No further developments.
(d) O'Gorman Bequest. Treasurers verbal report. We have all the keys to the property. He has experienced some difficulty in obtaining empty property insurance. Mr Briggs (solicitor) had not been contacted as a member of South London Branch knows of an estate agent in the property area who might be willing to handle the matter of planning permission etc. thus saving on solicitors expenses.
(e) Party Wall. No further developments.
(f) Work to rear of HO. The further £200 refund promised by the contractor has not materialised. Cde Chesham has submitted a further demand (2nd September).
(g) Group in Turkey. No further information.
(h) Proposed Introductory Party Video and Rule 17. Possible copyright infringement of music, images, and Trade Marks were discussed. It was brought to the ECs attention that members were continuing to distribute the video despite requests not to do so. [August EC Resolution 7 (see below)]
Resolution 5 (Thomas and Browne): “That cde Scholey be asked to contact Gorachand Paramanik pointing out that the video he is circulating has not been endorsed by the EC.” Agreed.
(i) Fire Alarm. Due to a misunderstanding the minor fault had not been followed up. Cdes Scholey and Thomas to follow up. [Note: this a minor non-threatening fault which would not affect our insurance cover.]
C.] FORMS 'A'
Two applications for membership received from James SOUTHERTON and Nial MURRAY via the Applications Committee with their acceptance recommendations.
Resolution 6. (Cox and Craggs): “That the recommendations be accepted.” Agreed
14.15 At this point cde Skelly arrived following rail travel delays.
D.] TREASURER AND ASSISTANT TREASURER
Cde Browne reported that he was working on the his report to ADM. Cde Thomas would complete the Notes and Coins Account in the next week.
NOTE: Branches are reminded that all Party accounts (including Branch Accounts) will be subject to external audit next year. It would be much appreciated if returns could be made timeously.
E.] COMMITTEE REPORTS TO ADM.
The following reports from committees were read:
Media Committee (with two updates)
Internet Committee (with a suggestion that Forum Rule 8 be amended by the addition of the following words at the end: “Do not use your acount to post messages on behalf of any suspended user, without prior permission from the moderators.”
Resolution 7. (Browne and Scholey):
“That the Internet Committee be permitted to carry out their suggested amandment to Forum Rules re improper use of registered user accounts.”
Carried 5 – 2
Head Office Organiser
Resolution 8. (Thomas and Scholey): “Delete the words 'as well as the unsavoury conditions in Head Office, which have contributed to the ill-health of the Treasurer' ” Carried 4 – 3
Resolution 9. (Cox and Craggs): “That the Premises Committee be asked to investigate the alleged unsavoury conditions at Head Office which were alleged to have contributed to the ill health of the Treasurer.” Lost 3 – 3 – 1 abstention
Media Committee
Premises Committee
Socialist Standard Production Committee
Universities and Colleges Committee
Advertising Committee
Standing Orders Report.
Enquiries Committee Report
(Two typos corrected – “Vis” to read “VIZ” and “Fortia” to read “Fortean”)
Publications Committee
(Cde Mandy Bruce added as a signatory to the report.)
Archives Committee
(Addendum from Cde John Davies re shelving which should be made of metal as the current shelving is a fire risk and gives off emissions that are possibly injurious to paper records.)
Resolution 8. (McLellan and Browne): “That the addendum be adopted.” Carried 7 – 0
Resolution 9. (Browne and Scholey): “That the Archivist seek further details of problems in the archive and report.” Carried 6 – 1
Library Report.
Campaigns Committee
Baallot Committee
Resolution 10. Cox and Scholey): “That the reports as amended be adopted.” Carried 7 – 0
F.] CORRESPONDENCE FROM BRANCHES etc
(1) Resolution re Socialist Standard articles from West Midlands Regional (carried 5 –1– 0; no meeting date given but correspondence received 12–13 July):
“WMRB wishes to express its concern about certain articles in the Socialist Standard (see email from M Tenner, dated 14 May). These articles although interesting failed to give any socialist comment or analysis and this should not be repeated in future editions.” Noted
-
“Live streaming” online of ADM 2016. Email from cde Whitehead (21 August) suggesting that this be tried as an experiment.
Resolution 11 (Cox and Scholey): “The EC considers that cde Whtehead has left the suggestion too late for this years ADM as this will require consultations with Branches ,delegates and attendees. The EC suggests the comrade submits a more detailed proposal for consideration for further occasions.” Carried 7 – 0
(3) E-mail from Cde Buick (26 August) asking the EC to consider authorising the ordering
of 100 copies of the WSP(I)’s pamphlet A History of Economics at a cost of about £56.
Resolution 12 (Thomas and Scholey):“That 100 copies of the pamphlet be ordered.”
Carried 6 – 0 (one member absent from the table.)
(4) Socialist Party of Canada Secretary's Report dated 1 August 2016. Noted
(5) World Socialist Party of India Executive Committee Minutes of July 2016 meeting.Noted.
-
-
At this point cde McLellan left the meeting in order to catch his train.
-
G.] ANY OTHER BUSINESS AND LATE SUBMITTED ITEMS.
(1) Call for Branch nominations for Party Officers, EC Members etc.
A call is made for nominations for theParty Officers and Executive Committee members for 2017. Nominations are required for the General Secretary, Assistant
Secretary, Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer, Central Organiser, two Auditors, two Trustees, and ten Executive Committee posts. Nominations should be made by
Branches on an official Form B (available online in the spintcom files section, or by post from Head Office) along with the written acceptance of the nominee.
A short factual supporting statement will be required for for those who have not stood for the post before, but it is optional for those who have. All accepted
nominations have to be at Head Office by Friday, 4 November 2016.
(2) Revision of Form 'B' (Nominations)
The EC agreed that cde Cox revise Form 'B' so that returned forms go to the appropriate persons depending on whether the position is elected or appointed.
(3) Resolution from NERB (Email 30 August recording votes at a meeting of 15 August)
“Could the EC please clarify why Rule 17 has been taken literally in the case of the video produced by cde Maratty, when there have been many other instances of similar publishing of video and other materials by members of the party which have been tacitly accepted without being approved.” [Carried 4 – 0 four members present]
Resolution 13. (Thomas and Skelly):
“The EC cannot consider this motion because there is no supporting evidence for the allegations of the publishing of video and other materials by members of the party without approval by the EC where this is required” Carried 6 – 0
(4) Resolution from NERB [as (3) above] asking the EC to reconsider its decision regarding cde Maratty's video and allow the Audio Visual Committee to make such decisions:
“That this branch asks the EC to reconsider their decision with regards to the video produced by Cde V. Maratty and instead refer decisions about audio visual matters to the AV Committee,in a similar process to the one in which the SSPC are trusted to manage the production of the Socialist Standard.”
Due to time constraints the EC agreed that this matter be deferred to the next meeting so that further investigations may be made.
H.] MEETING ADJOURNED AT 17.10
Chair for next meeting – cde Thomas
Minute taker – cde Cox.
Please note: The EC calls for volunteers for the following:
Minute takers for the upcoming ADM are required. Volunteers please inform HO.
A call for nominations to fill the Audio Visual Committee vacancies are made. Branches please use Form 'B'
-
September 11, 2016 at 2:44 am #121679moderator2
ParticipantLinda, please note that your style of post may well contravene this rule6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).This is an informal piece of advice for you to consider in future postings and not a formal reminder.
September 11, 2016 at 2:58 am #121680lindanesocialist
ParticipantOnly using my democratic right to publish ec minutes and comment on them. if that is not allowed then I will desist
September 11, 2016 at 3:15 am #121681lindanesocialist
Participantvin saidDi ya naw this is a revolutionary forum ffs, cut the aggro marra. Free speech and all that — jesus! Which mod school did yea gann tee?Alan this EC is out of control
September 11, 2016 at 4:12 am #121682moderator2
ParticipantI tried to point out in a comradely way that several posts could have been quite easily combined into one post as per the rule which is there for the convenience of other forum users. There is no curtailment of your free speech but a suggestion that the messages are posted in accordance with the rules. It was a post intended to avoid any possible 'aggro', not create it. But as they say…the road to hell is paved by good intentions…. The moderators on this forum are solely concerned with this forum, and no other.It was not the IC nor the EC that proposed the rule amendment but the three moderators ourselves so that there should be no ambiguity on who is responsible. We are also in the process of deciding other future changes to the guidelines, as i think we have indicated in earlier posts. Some users had considered the guidelines not 'fit for purpose' and their concerns are being addressed but like everything within the Party, there is a proper procedure to follow. People would be rightly upset if we, the moderators, made up and applied our own rules without due process.
September 11, 2016 at 11:11 am #121683lindanesocialist
Participantmoderator2 wrote:I tried to point out in a comradely way that several posts could have been quite easily combined into one post as per the rule which is there for the convenience of other forum users.I apologise cde of course they should be in one post and I will do that. In retrospect I can see how silly it was to have so many posts. please delete the excessComradely
September 11, 2016 at 2:02 pm #121678lindanesocialist
ParticipantRe Resolution 5. Is this the video the EC wishes to prevent members from distributing?Because it is all over party sites and the EC should read the comments under it from our cdes in Companion Parties https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HemZYkiXz4
September 11, 2016 at 3:35 pm #121677Bijou Drains
ParticipantRe The EC Minutes:(3) Resolution from NERB (Email 30 August recording votes at a meeting of 15 August)“Could the EC please clarify why Rule 17 has been taken literally in the case of the video produced by cde Maratty, when there have been many other instances of similar publishing of video and other materials by members of the party which have been tacitly accepted without being approved.” [Carried 4 – 0 four members present]Resolution 13. (Thomas and Skelly):“The EC cannot consider this motion because there is no supporting evidence for the allegations of the publishing of video and other materials by members of the party without approval by the EC where this is required” Carried 6 – 0Perhaps if the EC walked up the stairs to the balcony at HO, they would find on the shelves to their right several copies of "Capitalism and Other Kid's Stuff". A video which does not have EC approval, but due to the fact that it is promoted on party website and is for sale in HO, could be said, in my humble opinion, to have tacit acceptance.AlsoReport from ……..Internet Committee (with a suggestion that Forum Rule 8 be amended by the addition of the following words at the end: “Do not use your account to post messages on behalf of any suspended user, without prior permission from the moderators.”Resolution 7. (Browne and Scholey):“That the Internet Committee be permitted to carry out their suggested amendment to Forum Rules re improper use of registered user accounts.”This seems to preempt the changes in moderation rules being proposed by the Moderators, as well as being unnecessary (and provocative?). Let's be straight, there is only one situation where a user is posting messages for a suspended user (Linda for Vin). As the moderators are aware of this, lets face it they are joining in discussions with Linda/Vin, surely that implies that there is prior permission. It raises the question why was the report sent and why was the resolution passed. I cannot see that it was designed to pour oil on troubled waters, unless it was oil of vitriol! It also appears to be a case of the internet committee attempting to do the job of the moderators, if the moderators had wanted this amendment to rule, surely they would have asked for it? As the moderators are the ones doing the moderation, surely they must be the ones best placed to take comments from users of the forum into account (as they have stated they are doing) and produce alterations to the Forum Rules?
September 11, 2016 at 4:28 pm #121676lindanesocialist
ParticipantThese EC minutes need to be given serious consideration by the party membership Re 5 h Copyright of intro video. There are none. The music is paid for, I have the receipt, The rights to use background music obtained from its producer Andrew.The only 'problem' if it is a problem is the use of TV footage of Adam, Howard etc etc. But this was taken from the party's official Youtube site.https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFZgYrHuoQfjE0JBkd_h57gWhich is full of TV footage. So copyright has already been infringed Resolution 5 (Thomas and Browne): “That cde Scholey be asked to contact Gorachand Paramanik pointing out that the video he is circulating has not been endorsed by the EC.” Agreed. But cde Gorachand Paramanik obviously thinks workers should see the video. does our 'administrative' committee have the power to prevent him? Three Companion Parties have made very positive comments on the video as have at least two branches and many members. The EC has no authority telling these parties and members what they can post and what they cannot. Res 13SPGB Youtube channel, facebook pages, twitter accounts blogs etc etc G 1 cde Vin maratty was nominated by a branch and accepted by the EC and produced a video which the EC now say is not officialItem E I have been associated with the SPGB since the 70s and will post messages for Vin so long as they do not breach the rules and they havent. They have revealed the ignorance of some members but that is not against the rules.As for using other peoples accounts, there are many on spintcom with email addresses that confict with names and are associated with deceased members. Is the IC or EC concerned about them? This EC is extremely misinformed
September 11, 2016 at 5:29 pm #121684lindanesocialist
ParticipantTim Kilgallon wrote:Report from ……..Internet Committee (with a suggestion that Forum Rule 8 be amended by the addition of the following words at the end: “Do not use your account to post messages on behalf of any suspended user, without prior permission from the moderators.”Resolution 7. (Browne and Scholey):“That the Internet Committee be permitted to carry out their suggested amendment to Forum Rules re improper use of registered user accounts.”Does anyone have any idea how such a rule would be 'policed'IC members at our home?'without prior permission of the moderators leaving no doubt that it is aimed at this account.as I am sure cdes on spintcom who are presently using someone elses email will not be closed down'It is easy to understand why the EC and IC don't want Vin's opinion because he tends to highlight the short comings of both.But now that other members are doing the same eg Tim, Gnome and AJ and myself – there seems little point in banning him.
September 11, 2016 at 7:19 pm #121685moderator1
ParticipantTim Kilgallon wrote:Report from ……..Internet Committee (with a suggestion that Forum Rule 8 be amended by the addition of the following words at the end: “Do not use your account to post messages on behalf of any suspended user, without prior permission from the moderators.”Resolution 7. (Browne and Scholey):“That the Internet Committee be permitted to carry out their suggested amendment to Forum Rules re improper use of registered user accounts.”This seems to preempt the changes in moderation rules being proposed by the Moderators, as well as being unnecessary (and provocative?). Let's be straight, there is only one situation where a user is posting messages for a suspended user (Linda for Vin). As the moderators are aware of this, lets face it they are joining in discussions with Linda/Vin, surely that implies that there is prior permission. It raises the question why was the report sent and why was the resolution passed. I cannot see that it was designed to pour oil on troubled waters, unless it was oil of vitriol! It also appears to be a case of the internet committee attempting to do the job of the moderators, if the moderators had wanted this amendment to rule, surely they would have asked for it? As the moderators are the ones doing the moderation, surely they must be the ones best placed to take comments from users of the forum into account (as they have stated they are doing) and produce alterations to the Forum Rules?It would have been better for further discussion if this part of the message had been posted on the Website/Technical section. I shall duplicate this particular post and post it on the Website/Technical section under the title of 'Amendment of Rule 8.'.
September 11, 2016 at 8:17 pm #121686Bijou Drains
Participantmoderator1 wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:Report from ……..Internet Committee (with a suggestion that Forum Rule 8 be amended by the addition of the following words at the end: “Do not use your account to post messages on behalf of any suspended user, without prior permission from the moderators.”Resolution 7. (Browne and Scholey):“That the Internet Committee be permitted to carry out their suggested amendment to Forum Rules re improper use of registered user accounts.”This seems to preempt the changes in moderation rules being proposed by the Moderators, as well as being unnecessary (and provocative?). Let's be straight, there is only one situation where a user is posting messages for a suspended user (Linda for Vin). As the moderators are aware of this, lets face it they are joining in discussions with Linda/Vin, surely that implies that there is prior permission. It raises the question why was the report sent and why was the resolution passed. I cannot see that it was designed to pour oil on troubled waters, unless it was oil of vitriol! It also appears to be a case of the internet committee attempting to do the job of the moderators, if the moderators had wanted this amendment to rule, surely they would have asked for it? As the moderators are the ones doing the moderation, surely they must be the ones best placed to take comments from users of the forum into account (as they have stated they are doing) and produce alterations to the Forum Rules?It would have been better for further discussion if this part of the message had been posted on the Website/Technical section. I shall duplicate this particular post and post it on the Website/Technical section under the title of 'Amendment of Rule 8.'.
Mod 1 I completely disagree with you, further discussion should take place under this heading, as it relates to the functioning of the EC. This post is about the minutes of the EC. The Executive Committee is part of the democratic functioning of the Party. it is important that this is not seen as a technical issue about the website, it is about the function of The Executive Committee (and the sub committees of the Party). I would encourage members of the Party who have comments about decisions made by the EC to post their comments on this thread, rather than being sidetracked on to other threads. I have posted a link to the comments I have made to your comments on the thread that you created rather than posting them here. I did not want to be thought of as posting multiple threads:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/website-technical/amendment-rule-8
September 11, 2016 at 8:20 pm #121687lindanesocialist
ParticipantTim Kilgallon wrote:Mod 1 I completely disagree with you, further discussion should take place under this heading, as it relates to the functioning of the EC. This post is about the minutes of the EC. The Executive Committee is part of the democratic functioning of the Party. it is important that this is not seen as a technical issue about the website, it is about the function of The Executive Committee (and the sub committees of the Party). I would encourage members of the Party who have comments about decisions made by the EC to post their comments on this thread, rather than being sidetracked on to other threads. I have posted a link to the comments I have made to your comments on the thread that you created rather than posting them here. I did not want to be thought of as posting multiple threads:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/website-technical/amendment-rule-8Couldn't agree more.
September 11, 2016 at 9:26 pm #121688lindanesocialist
Participantmoderator2 wrote: Tim said "It also appears to be a case of the internet committee attempting to do the job of the moderators, if the moderators had wanted this amendment to rule, surely they would have asked for it?"Perhaps, you overlooked this message of mine, Tim, that i posted."It was not the IC nor the EC that proposed the rule amendment but the three moderators ourselves so that there should be no ambiguity on who is responsible. We are also in the process of deciding other future changes to the guidelines, as i think we have indicated in earlier posts." And indeed we did purposefully include that a suspended user could post a message via another party (which could well be ourselves) with agreement of the moderators so that important party business or information would not be hindered by a suspension of posting privileges. If you want to have specifics, Tim, Cde. Vin's response to his video's rejection would fall under the criteria as being an exception to the suspension and would have been authorised by the moderators. Some of his other messages via Cde. Linda would have fallen outside that and would have resulted in our sanctions procedures. As will now happen in the future if the path the moderators have created is not followed. How is it to be policed? Simply by applying common sense in reading any suspect posts. You don't need to be Rumpole of the Bailey to spot the Rule being breached. Linda wroteIt seems you are changing the rules to deal with one member and appear to have already decided that this member will never be allowed to express his opinions again on this forum. And as Tim has already indicated members of any other group whether left fascist or right fascists are free to express their opinions at any time.Why would you or indeed any socialist do that?
-
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.