ADM 2015 Agenda and Timetable
- This topic has 16 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Autumn Delegate Meeting 2015
Saturday 24th October 10.30am – 5.30pm Sunday 25th October 2.15pm – 5.00pm
Workshop: Key Messages and a Communication Strategy
Sunday 25th October 10.30am – 1.00pm
Items and Order of Business
A Election of Chair, Deputy Chair and tellers by the delegates
B Fraternal Greetings from members, branches, companion parties
C Arrangement by delegates of the order for taking the items of business
D The 2015 EC and Party Officer’s Report to Autumn Delegate Meeting
E Items for discussion
F Any Other business
The suggested order for taking the items of business is:
Report of the acting General Secretary
2 Assistant Secretary’s Report
3 Item for Discussion Kent & Sussex R. Branch
“Which reasons, other than non-acceptance of the party’s object or contravention of the declaration of principles, may be deemed action detrimental to the interests of the party?”
4 Report of Membership Applications Committee
5 Item for Discussion Yorkshire R. Branch
“What can be done to retain members joining via the internet?”
6 Item for Discussion Kent & Sussex R. Branch
”How can we encourage members who join the party online via the Membership Applications Committee to become more directly involved in party activity?”
7 Item for Discussion Kent & Sussex R. Branch
“Other than providing clear terms of reference and (where stated) role descriptions, can more be done to ensure that those members who have been appointed or elected to party sub- committees or party office actually undertake their full responsibilities?”
8 Report of the Ballot Committee
9 Item for Discussion West London Branch
“Conference Voting Paper”
10 Report of the Advertising Committee
11 Report of the Enquiries Committee
LUNCH BREAK 1pm to 2.15 pm
12 Report of the Treasurer
13 Item for Discussion Yorkshire R Branch
“The Yorkshire Branch would like the ADM to consider changing the basis on which the division of Voluntary Contributions is made between Head Office and the Local Branch.”
14 Item for Discussion Yorkshire R. branch
“Should delegates at Conference and ADM be able to claim a contribution to accommodation expenses?”
15 Item for Discussion Kent & Sussex R Branch
“Did the party make a mistake in abolishing dues in favour of voluntary contributions?”
16 Item for Discussion South London Branch
“In the absence of annual budgets submitted by party committees should they be authorised to spend up to £250 (+VAT) on one-off expenditures.”
17 Report of the Election Committee and Report on 2015 General Election Campaign
18 Item for Discussion West London Branch
“The Daily Politics Election Broadcast”
19 Item for Discussion East Anglian R. Branch
“Is the amount of money spent on contesting elections worthwhile considering the results?”
ADM adjourns at 5.30 pm and resumes on Sunday at 2.15pm
20 Standing Orders Committee.
21 Report of the Central Organiser
22 Report of the Campaigns Committee
23 Item for Discussion West London Branch
“What is our approach to individuals on ‘the Left’?”
24 Report of Archives Committee
25 Report of Audio-Visual Committee
26 Report of the Blog Committee
27 Central Branch Secretary’s Report
28 Education Committee
29 Head Office Organiser’s Report
30 Item for Discussion Kent & Sussex R. Branch
“Should Head Office be posting a printed copy of the ADM agenda and EC report to every member (in addition to every member of Central branch, as required by the terms of the 1997 Conference resolution)?”
31 Item for Discussion South London Branch
“For the purposes of efficiency and economy should Party members with internet access be requested to receive Party information online rather than as hard copy through the post?”
32 Report of Premises Committee
33 Report of Internet Committee
34 Item for Discussion South London Branch
“Should the ‘Files’ section of Spintcom/Yahoo Groups be re-organised and transferred to the Party’s main website with the proviso that personal information be withheld?”
35 Report of Library Committee
36 Report of Media Committee
37 Report of Publications Committee
38 Item for Discussion North London Branch
“Literature pricing: is our literature priced too high?”
39 Report of Socialist Standard Production Committee
40 Summer School Report
41 Adoption of the Executive Committee’s and Party Officer’s reports to Autumn Delegate Meeting .
42 Any other business
ALL WELCOME
REFRESHMENTS (including lunch on each day) will be available throughout the sessions
Quote:Autumn Delegate Meeting 20153 Item for Discussion Kent & Sussex R. Branch . “Which reasons, other than non-acceptance of the party's object or contravention of the declaration of principles, may be deemed action detrimental to the interests of the party?” Earlier this year a member was obliged to offer his resignation from the party rather than face his branch's charge of 'action detrimental' bought against him because of alleged paedophilia. Criminal charges against this member consisted of 'taking long-distancep hotographs of young boys without their consent' and for 'storing indecent images on his computer'. The member did not receive any custodial sentences. At least three members of Kent & Sussex branch have criminal convictions, two of which resulted in custodial sentences while a third attracted a suspended custodial sentence. Should these offences have been deemed harmful to the party? Does the party need to decide which reasons are, other than the more obvious ones, genuinely detrimental to the interests of the party? There is clearly a misunderstanding . Clearly someone has misrepresented the facts to KSRB. He did not leave because we took offence to his photographs, that would be absurdThe member in question was referred to by the judge as a danger to children and it was pointed out that members of his paedophile ring had already been sent to prison for more very serious offences against children. The member is/was also a member of a paedophile pressure group with the aim of reforming capitalism by removing the age of consent and allowing children of any age to have sex with adults.KSRB only need to request details of the situation to avoid this confusion. I think the question raised by KSRB is important and I am surprised the branch didn't raise the matter when its members used a block vote on the EC to keep two ex-members from rejoining the party, without offering a reason.Debate on all the 16 Items for Discussion placed on the Agenda by branches of The Socialist Party will be conducted at the Autumn Delegate Meeting on Saturday, 24 October and on the afternoon of Sunday, 25 October.
gnome wrote:Debate on all the 16 Items for Discussion placed on the Agenda by branches of The Socialist Party will be conducted at the Autumn Delegate Meeting on Saturday, 24 October and on the afternoon of Sunday, 25 October.This is all very well if you can afford to live in London for three days but some members of the working class are that desperate that they have to beg food from food banks. So why restrict democracy to those that can afford to live in London? When capitalism provides a cheaper alternative. Like here!Discussion in London will hardly be representative so how can the outcome have anything to do with democracy?
Quote:Debate on all the 16 Items for Discussion placed on the Agenda by branches of The Socialist Party will be conducted at the Autumn Delegate Meeting on Saturday, 24 October and on the afternoon of Sunday, 25 October.I think there is little harm for those unable or unwilling to be at ADM in person once the agenda is available to express their views in advance of ADM so perhaps his or her points might well be raised by someone attending and also i think all members are entitled to comment upon the proceedings once a report of it is posted especially if a party poll is taking place.And to put my money where my mouth is —-
Quote:“Which reasons, other than non-acceptance of the party's object or contravention of the declaration of principles, may be deemed action detrimental to the interests of the party?”I think myself public expressions of sexism, including homophobia or discrimination against transgender, racism and support for nationalism and professing belief for a particular religion may well be valid reasons for expulsionOur D of P are a little vague on these grounds even though our explanation on the website elaborates somewhat. And it will lead to some issues. For example, what is sexism…for instance what about if a married member was divorced for "mental cruelty"…hence my caveat that it should be public expression rather than based on private behaviour. When it comes to criminal convictions i think it is a huge grey area. I can't comment on NERB experience since i have very limited information to the actual situation but for the branch the nature of the crime determined much of their actions. And i think that may well be the situation that all branches will face. Many specific crimes are of particular revulsion to members, while others much less so (which i think KSRB are drawing our attention to.) But it does lead us into various dilemmas of the Party deeming itself judge and jury and what if the crime is a past one and within the scope of the Rehabilitation of Offenders that he or she need not declare it but somehow, it becomes known to the Party. Do we hold their past actions against prospective or existing members and that a person cannot change and punishment ever-lasting.The issue for ADM is a very difficult one, full of blurred lines (and dare i use the word morality) that i don't think it can be clearly designated by fixed rules. I think it has to be judged case by case and for common sense to prevail. What we have to avoid apart from being seen condone certain anti-social actions is to have lynch-mob and mob justice decide membership criteria.
I think it is generally agreed that racism and sexism would not and should not be tolerated by the party,but why is that?Why should paedophillia be accepted? I am not talking about the age of consent, that is a bit of a smoke screen. Two 15 year olds having sex is not paedophillia. Paedophillia is an adult abusing a child and we have to decide if socialists should tolerate it, Because it is feasable that we may be asked at an election in the NE "Why do you allow paedophilles in your party but expel Christians and those who vote for the Socialist labour party?
alanjjohnstone wrote:I think there is little harm for those unable or unwilling to be at ADM in person once the agenda is available to express their views in advance of ADM so perhaps his or her points might well be raised by someone attending and also i think all members are entitled to comment upon the proceedings once a report of it is posted especially if a party poll is taking place.I agree. It is logical. The more input and contributions, the more legitimacy. Why the reluctance? Is there a fear of discussing item more broadly and openly? We have nothing to hide.We are the most open and democratic party in existence. Aren't we?
The operant rule is rule 29 (which, incidentally, makes no mention of action detrimental):
Rulebook wrote:29. 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.It will be observed:The branch has no discretion over laying a charge. This means that a letter saying: "I want to complain that Comrade Weasel passed the port the wrong way at dinner" would have to be dealt with by following the procedure laid out in rule. The only discretion the branch has is over deciding whether something is or is not a complaint (and I would suggest there is very little leeway on that score).That complaints against members should not be taken to any other forum than a members branch, per rule 29, if you have a complaint, you must make it in writing to a branch.The rule does not demand expulsion, merely permit it.The rule does not set out grounds for exercising the option to expel, merely that members of the branch, the EC, or ADM/conference delegates* will have to decide whether that is warranted.What is not written is that this is judicable, and so is subject fairness and equity in law should someone decide to take the party to court.Now, in that light I'd suggest that the following factors apply (in order of precidence):Law of the landThe object of the partyThe declaration of principlesThe rulebookResolutions of conferenceResolutions of the ECResolutions of the branchPrecedentAny decision to expel should be rationally relatable to these factors. So, a branch would have no grounds to expel Comrade Weasel for passing the port the wrong way.I'll make no comment on the case raised by Kent and Sussex Branch's supporting statement, save that in my opinion it comes perilously close to a breech of rule 29 by taking a case that has not been heard by a branch direct to delegates at ADM. I hope that their delegate will concentrate on the concerns of their branch members when they open this item, rather than turn the item into a discussion of a case in which the accused member and their branch cannot meaningfully defend themselves.*The rule is unclear as to whether it is delegates at conference or the whole party voting that would decide the case, I suspect this is due to the rule not being updated as conference's structure has been sucessively altered. It may be as well to establish what the prcoedure is. I'd be inclined to making it the work of delegates, teh alternative to is exercise rule 26, so if a case is taken to ADM delegates convert it to a party poll, so there is always a vote of members. Since the rulebook is unclear, it could be the job of the EC to rule on such a matter.
A more recent case cited in the Monument from the 50s was a couple, both members, who were exposed by the News of the World of running a call-girl agency. They were not expelled but some members did try to ostracise them when they turned up at conference.Now the law of the land said that they committed a crime, but was it contravening party principles? Were they exploiting unwilling women or assisting women who were not forced into such a business and merely taking a cut?We all know that there are two views on prostitution that are prevalent…one is that it is vile (an anagram of evil), another is that it is a job like so many others where people sell their bodies and labour-power. The IWW has an industrial union for sex-workers, for instance.Is the party equipped to make a decision on such topics or as YMS says restrict ourselves simply to what impact it has on our ability to advocate socialism and judege only from that perspective. It means of course around the world socialists will take differing viewpoints depending on the local attitudes there is to those involved in the sex industry. But i think as i suggested in my previous comment, the Party may well take a moralistic attitude based on the opinions of people at particular moment in history when it comes to trying to differentiate between crimes.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Law of the landThe object of the partyThe declaration of principlesThe rulebookResolutions of conferenceResolutions of the ECResolutions of the branchPrecedentJust to add a couple more thoughts. That above list applies, obviously, to any decision the party takes at any level. How does this course of action advance our object? Is it compatable with our declaration of principles? Does it conform to rule? Has conference, the EC, our branch had something to say on such matters in the past? How was this dealt with last time (if it ever has: for example, there is a case from the '30s of a member who worked at the local co-op and organised a lock-out of strikers, he resigned when charged, there's nothing in the rules that should definitively mandate that outcome).Charge and expulsion are not 'punishments' but methods of trying to continue to achieve our objects, and to maintain our existence as a functioning organisation dedicated to achieving our objects.
Further clarification: Law of the land. I didn't mean, necessarily criminal law, but more like we need to be aware that we cn be taken to court, or, in a hypothetical sense, the stae could regulate political parties more in the way they do trade unions: regulation offices, restrictions on membrship, etc. yes, we'd have the choice to 'go illegal' but that would still have to be a choice in the light of law of the land.
gnome wrote:Debate on all the 16 Items for Discussion placed on the Agenda by branches of The Socialist Party will be conducted at the Autumn Delegate Meeting on Saturday, 24 October and on the afternoon of Sunday, 25 October.I think that is understood. So what is the point of your post. Do you suggest discussion on the agenda should be prevented here?
Vin wrote:gnome wrote:Debate on all the 16 Items for Discussion placed on the Agenda by branches of The Socialist Party will be conducted at the Autumn Delegate Meeting on Saturday, 24 October and on the afternoon of Sunday, 25 October.I think that is understood. So what is the point of your post. Do you suggest discussion on the agenda should be prevented here?
Nope, but it'll only be a discussion involving the same tiny handful of contributors. Hardly democratic, eh? Wanna a real discussion on the agenda? Then stop making excuses and come to ADM…
Of course I am pissing against the wind if members are not willing to use 'new' technology to communicate and instead allow only those that can afford to live in London make all the decisions.Of course we could just assume that we can trust our comrades who can get to London to act in our interests. Then we could just abolish elections and leave it to those more capable. Or we could use technology??? and take control
May I express my disgust at your comment Gnome. If you think a handful of members making decisions on distorted truth in London passes for democracy then you are living in the 19th century. The real discussions are happening in the 21st century using 21st century communications. You are clearly misrepresenting the position of democratic decisions made by Nerb members in possession of all the facts. Do you think you are going to control us socialists 'remotely'? From London where most of us cannot access?Do you fear the more open discussion of the digital arena? Wake up! Ideas do not spread nor does democracy happen in pubs.What exactly is your motive? You push sympathisers away and you push socialists away at every opportunity. If we are not comrades fighting for the same thing thing then what the fuck are we? Why the shit stirring? You happy with sectarianism? You want to be the only socialist in the village??
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.