March 2017 EC minutes
- This topic has 46 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
MINUTES OF THE 3rd MEETING OF THE 114th EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
OF THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN
HELD AT HEAD OFFICE on Saturday 4th March 2017 at 13.10
[Note: These are draft minutes only and are not official until adopted by the EC]
Present : M. Browne, D. Chesham, R. Cox, M. Foster, D. McLellan, J. Shodeke, M. Tenner,
G. Thomas (minutes), S. Wicks.
Apologies: D. Williams.
Visitor: Ruslan (and two others for part of the meeting.)
Chair: S. Wicks (as agreed at the February meeting.)
A.] MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING were agreed and adopted on a motion of Foster and McLellan.
B.] MATTERS ARISING from February and December EC meetings.
(1.) “Whiteboard” videos.
Report from the Audio Visual Committee into the feasibility of using “Whiteboard” video presentations of Party material.
Motion 1. (Chesham and Foster): “That the Audio Visual Committee be asked to submit a draft for a whiteboard video of up to three minutes with a quote to outsource the final edit in time for Conference 2017.”
Amendment (Browne and McLellan): “That three minutes be amended to 90 seconds.”
Voting on the amendment – 3 for, 4 against, 1 abstain. Lost.
Voting on motion unamended – 7 for, 1 against, 1 abstain. Carried.
(2.) Head Office Organiser appointment and HO admin arrangements.
Email from cde D. Poynton (31.01.17) advising that he might be able to attend at HO two or possibly three days a week to deal with urgent administrative tasks.
A verbal report from cde M. Browne. It appeared that cde Poynton could now attend HO for one day a week only due to his other urgent commitments.
It was pointed out that the EC seemed now to have conflicting information before it.
Motion 2. (Foster and Browne): “Defer the matter till after Conference.”
Voting – 3 for, 5 against, 1 abstain. Lost
Cde Cox then volunteered to phone cde Poynton seeking clarification and left the table.
[Further developments are recorded below. G.T.]
(3.) Party Officers and Committees.
Motion 3 (Browne and Foster): “That the Blog Committee be Johnstone, Culbert and Stafford”
Agreed nem con.
The following were also appointed nem con:
Election Cttee: B. Martin
Internet Cttee: D. Poynton, M. Culbert, B. Johnson, M. Lansbury, T. Miller, R. Stafford
Library: R. Beat
Membership Applications Cttee: P. Bennett, R. Botterill, H. Moss.
Premises Cttee: J. Helps.
Motion 4. (Chesham and Wicks): “That a further call be made to fill the following vacancies:
Central Branch Secretary,
General Secretary,
Education Cttee,
Premises Cttee,
Campaigns Cttee,
Ballott Cttee,
Head Office Organiser,
Universities and Colleges Cttee.”
Agreed nem con.
(4.) Report from cde Chesham re BT remote access telephone service.
Motion 5. (Cox and McLellan):
“That a call for volunteers to join a rota to remotely check and deal with telephone messages be made as soon as possible including a volunteer to coordinate this. Further that consideration be made at the next EC for organising a rota of members to answer calls remotely.”
Voting – 2 for, 6 against, 1 abstain. Lost.
Cde Chesham volunteered to take remote messages and pass on urgent relevant information.
Motion 6. (Thomas and Wicks): “That the offer made by cde Chesham be accepted.”
Agreed nem con.
(5.) 2017 Local Government Elections.
(a) Emails from Kent and Sussex Regional Branch (12th and 23rd February) seeking EC permission to contest [up to] four seats.
Motion 6 (Foster and Wicks): “That the EC agrees to Kent and Sussex Branch contesting elections in Folkstone (North East), Folkstone (South), and Lewes for which a grant of £2,000 be paid to fund leaflet printing and distribution.”
Agreed nem con.
(b) Email from West London Branch (04.03.17) seeking approval to contest a seat in the Guildford constituency on 4th May.
Motion 7 (Browne and McLellan): “That approval be granted.”
Agreed nem con.
C.] NOTICES OF BUSINESS
(1.) M. Tenner: Advertising the Party and our case.
Cde Tenner was concerned that we make greater efforts to raise an awareness of the Party by the public generally. He suggested we adopt a campaign of inserts in journals to which readers subscribe rather than buy off the shelf. Insertions could be area restricted. To this end drafts of about 400 words suitably “slanted” should be produced for insertion in the following suggested journals (as examples only):
Journal – Cost per 1000 – Circulation – Total Cost
New Statesman £35 per K: 19,000 £665
New Scientist £22 per K: 48,000 £1,056
Times Higher Ed Supplement £55 per K: 15,000 £825
The Week £30 per K: 120,000 £3,600
Guardian Weekly £300 per K: 7,500 £2,250
History Today £55 per K: 12,000 £660
British Medical Journal £100 per K: 12,000 £1,200
Private Eye £75 per K: 120,000 £9,000 (minimum one third)
Third Age Matters £58 per K: 30,000 £1,740
London Review of Books £64 per K: 27,000 £1,728
Motion 8. (Chesham and Wicks):
“That cde Tenner be thanked for his comprehensive report and that he be asked to formulate a plan of action and approach members to write text for promotional material.”
Agreed nem con.
Comrade Tenner then introduce Ruslan who is involved in the production of internet videos and the EC agreed to hear his views of possible approaches to maximising our impact in this field.
[BUSINESS TAKEN OUT OF ORDER]
Head Office Administration (further information following on from B] (2) above)
Cde Cox reported on his telephone conversation with cde Poynton . Cde Poynton will now be available one day a week only.
Motion 9. (Foster and Chesham):
“Following the phone conversation with cde Poynton on 4th March 2017 the EC thanks him for being available to attend Head Office one day a week to carry out main admin tasks, and to assist with Socialist Standard distribution one day a month.”
Agreed nem con.
[REVERT TO PREVIOUS ORDER OF BUSINESS]
C.](2) D. Chesham: Revised Terms of Reference for the Audio Visual Committee.
Cde Chesham thought the EC should be consistent in its application of their ruling regarding the use in videos of material that was possibly subject to copyright – for example those currently posted on the Party website and on the SPGB 1904 YouTube site.
Motion 10. (Thomas and Chesham):
“That the Internet Committee and the Audio Visual Committee be asked to remove temporarily the videos currently displayed on YouTube and the Party website and that the matter be reconsidered again at the April EC.”Voting – 3 for, 5 against, I member absent. Lost
Division called for.
For — Thomas, Chesham, WicksAgainst – Foster, Browne, Tenner, Cox, McLellan.
Absent from the table – Shodeke.
D.] TREASURERS REPORTS
Assistant Treasurer raised the possibility of increasing the rate of subsistence allowance for members attending HO on Party business from £15 to £20 per eight hour day. Suggestion failed to gain a seconder. No further action.
E.] PARTY OFFICERS, COMMITTEES, APPOINTEES, DEPARTMENTS ETC. REPORTS TO CONFERENCE.
There were several lengthy reports before the EC and several members had not had time to read and absorb them all.
Motion 11. (Thomas and Chesham): “That the reports be circulated to the party unapproved by the EC.”
Agreed nem con.
F.] OTHER REPORTS
(1) Publications Committee Report (15.02.17) to the EC. Re booklet on Martov.
Motion 12. (Thomas and Chesham): “That consideration of the Publications Committee report be deferred one month.”
Voting – 4 for, 2 against. Motion Carried.
(2) Election Committee Report (19.02.17) to the EC. Re Party registration.
Motion 13.(Cox and Wicks): “Defer to January 2018 EC”
Agreed nem con.
(3) Investment Committee Progress Report (20.02.17) to the EC re opening a Nominee Account.
Motion 14. (Browne and Cox): “That the Investment Committee Report be deferred.”
Agreed nem con.
(4) Socialist Standard Production Committee Report (26.02.17) re Standard layout training for two volunteers.
Motion 15. (Cox and Bowne): “That the Report be noted and that the Report be added to the Reports to Conference.”
Agreed nem con.
[At this point (16.30) cdes McLellan and Foster left to catch their trains.]
G.] CORRESPONDENCE.
(1) Kent and Sussex Branch Resolution (11.12.16) re review of Party structure.
Resolution duplicates Conference Item for Discussion.
Noted and removed from the agenda. [Mover and seconder not recorded. My apologies. G.T.]
(2) Acting General Secretary Report on Forms 'C' received.
Noted with thanks. [Mover and seconder not recorded. My apologies. G.T.]
(3) Report from cde Cox (Email 24.02.17) on the condition of the HP Office Jet 7612 printer purchased in January 2015. The hinge cover had been broken and an error message is displayed which is preventing operation. Preliminary investigation carried out.
Further consideration deferred. [Mover and seconder not recorded. My apologies. G.T.]
(4) Letter from cdes F. Anderson, D. Williams, and J. Brandon (25.02.17) re their moderation and administration of the SPGB facebook site and correspondence from cde Chesham re cde Maratty's alleged behaviour and his reinstatement.
Motion 16. (Tenner and Thomas): “That the matter be deferred.”
Agreed nem con.
(5) Socialist Party of Canada online reports and publications.
Several pages had been circulated by the Assistant Gen Sec. Some members of the EC thought it sufficient in future to provide a web link only to this material. [No resolution was moved. G.T.]
H.] NEXT MEETING
Chair: M. Tenner. Agreed.
Minutes: S. Wicks. Agreed.
gnome wrote:MINUTES OF THE 3rd MEETING OF THE 114th EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN HELD AT HEAD OFFICE on Saturday 4th March 2017 at 13.10 [REVERT TO PREVIOUS ORDER OF BUSINESS] C.](2) D. Chesham: Revised Terms of Reference for the Audio Visual Committee. Cde Chesham thought the EC should be consistent in its application of their ruling regarding the use in videos of material that was possibly subject to copyright – for example those currently posted on the Party website and on the SPGB 1904 YouTube site. Motion 10. (Thomas and Chesham):“That the Internet Committee and the Audio Visual Committee be asked to remove temporarily the videos currently displayed on YouTube and the Party website and that the matter be reconsidered again at the April EC.”Voting – 3 for, 5 against, I member absent. Lost Division called for.For — Thomas, Chesham, WicksAgainst – Foster, Browne, Tenner, Cox, McLellan.Absent from the table – Shodeke.As a member of the Audio Visual Committee it is my duty to refer the EC to the terms of reference of the AVC committee AVC Terms of Reference 2. To ensure that any copyright protected third-party content used in A/V productions is publically licensed for such use or is used with the permission or license of the copyright holder, or is used in accordance with legally-defined exceptions to copyright, and is appropriately acknowledged. As an appointed officer of the party I therefore feel it is my responsibility to make it clear that the material sanctioned by the March EC is in breach of copyright. My recommendation is that it be removed immediately.
M. Tenner: Advertising the Party and our caseThis is a move i heartily endorse but would perhaps add a caveat on the selection of his target journals and periodicals. However, that is nit-picking.What i would wish to add to the venture is that each branch is charged by the EC to investigate their own local and community press for the potential of placing appropriate ads and to report back estimated costs.
It is a good idea. Alan and a very encouraging developement. Perhaps it could be extended to (willing) individuals or groups.Yourself perhaps
Vin wrote:gnome wrote:Cde Chesham thought the EC should be consistent in its application of their ruling regarding the use in videos of material that was possibly subject to copyright – for example those currently posted on the Party website and on the SPGB 1904 YouTube site. Motion 10. (Thomas and Chesham):“That the Internet Committee and the Audio Visual Committee be asked to remove temporarily the videos currently displayed on YouTube and the Party website and that the matter be reconsidered again at the April EC.”Voting – 3 for, 5 against, I member absent. LostMy recommendation is that it be removed immediately.
I concur particularly as that was the main reason last year's EC requested that your video be taken down.The AVC should also consider forwarding to the EC the BBC directive you received last October.
jondwhite wrote:What was the SSPC report?SSPC wrote:Socialist Standard Mail Out – February 2017Type No. Cost Total CostInland Singles 501 0.75 375.75Inland Multiples 2/3 8 1.20 9.60Inland Multiples 4-6 12 1.54 18.48Inland Multiples 8-10 5 2.09 10.45Inland Multiples 11-20 6 2.85 17.10Airmail Europe Singles 19 2.45 46.55Airmail Europe Multiples 2 1 3.70 3.70Airmail Zone 1 Singles 35 3.15 110.25Airmail Zone 1 Multiples 3 1 4.75 4.75Airmail Zone 2 Singles 2 3.30 6.60Airmail Zone 2 Multiples 6 1 7.90 7.90Surface Mail Singles 17 2.40 40.80Surface Mail Multiples 2/3 4 3.65 14.60Surface Mail Multiples 5 5 5.51 27.55Surface Mail Multiples 12 1 8.20 8.20Surface Mail Multiples 30 2 13.25 26.50Total sent through post: 911 (previous year: 925)Total postage bill: £694.28 (previous year: £843.22)Over the past year, the number of free single copies sent overseas has been reduced from 85 to 17, resulting in a saving of approximately £160 on this rate of postage. The number distributed to libraries has also fallen (from 129 to 114). To balance this, 127 free copies are being sent to new inland destinations (92 to recent contacts and 35 to recent members).There have been difficulties in acquiring postage stamps and in despatching mail. Clapham Common Post Office and the local Royal Mail have been repeatedly obstructive and unhelpful, at times to the point of rudeness. New ways of dealing with the despatch of the Socialist Standard are urgently required.jondwhite wrote:Sorry I meant the 26/2 one mentioned in respect of layoutMea Culpa…
Quote:Report of the Socialist Standard Production Committee (Layout) to the EC (26 February) Report of Standard layout training weekend, February 11–13, 2017 After the discussions of last year regarding the future of the Standard layout role, two volunteers came forward to learn the job. Neither had any familiarity with the layout software while one had no experience of image editing software either. Attempts at training via email proved inefficient, time-consuming and frustrating for all parties, so the EC agreed to support a training session over one weekend in Lancaster. Accordingly the two trainees came up and stayed for two nights at the local Travelodge. Two computers were set up side by side and the trainees went through an intensive two days getting hands-on experience, with help and advice at every step. The workshop was lively and fun, and the learning pace was stepped up considerably. The trainees gained a lot of expertise and confidence in the task, as well as having the chance to meet and develop a good working relationship, which was an additional benefit. The EC had approved a budget of £500 for the weekend, and the cost came to roughly £400. We would say that the workshop weekend was an unqualified success and a positive experience for all involved.The upshot is that the future of Standard layout is looking a lot more secure than it did a few months back. The trainees are now co-producing the Standard and in the next few months will certainly be in a position to take on most or indeed all of it.Based on this experience, it is tempting to wonder whether there are other essential Party functions, currently getting no volunteers, which might benefit from this ‘hotel and hands-on’ approach. The cost in travel and accommodation is relatively modest considering what the Party stands to gain, and it’s even possible that offering such structured training weekends might encourage more novice members to step forward in the first place. The question of ‘investing’ in our members might be a fruitful one to explore when next the scarcity of volunteers is being discussed.Quote:Based on this experience, it is tempting to wonder whether there are other essential Party functions, currently getting no volunteers, which might benefit from this ‘hotel and hands-on’ approach. The cost in travel and accommodation is relatively modest considering what the Party stands to gain, and it’s even possible that offering such structured training weekends might encourage more novice members to step forward in the first place. The question of ‘investing’ in our members might be a fruitful one to explore when next the scarcity of volunteers is being discussed.This i think is a very good use of our funds and as you say we should try and expand upon it. AVC and audio uploading comes to mind but even the more mundane tasks of treasurer needs tuition and if we don't require a new one right now, I am sure Gwyn will be happy to know we have one in reserve so he can indulge in his unfulfilled desire for extreme sports.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qF_fzEI4wU If the party wishes to pay the airfare to Thailand and hotel/food and drinks expenses for any comrade seeking advice on blogging, i will be a happy to share the limited knowledge i possess .
I learned how to use Video, Photo editing software and Whiteboard Animation tools using the thousands of free, easy to use instructional videos on youtube.eghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP_Q9_YZWHUhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFyOznL9UvAI can join you in giving advice on these subjects but not sure about Thailand
gnome wrote:I concur particularly as that was the main reason last year's EC requested that your video be taken down.The AVC should also consider forwarding to the EC the BBC directive you received last October.The last EC acted on misinformation “At our branch meeting of 11th September we discussed the ongoing matter of the video which has been produced by Vincent Maratty and strongly endorsed by some members on Spintcom and elsewhere (though not by the EC). Having viewed the latest version of this video on 11th September, we were concerned that it appears to use a large number of still photos and at least one animation without any obvious licence or permission. More alarmingly, the video also uses uncredited BBC interview footage. The only 'credit' given at the end is for the background music. As all members will be aware, the Socialist Standard is required by the EC to reproduce licensing details for any images used. This is a sensible precaution because with today's communications technology, copyright infringements are very easy to root out and prosecute. Members need to understand that the internet is no longer a Wild West where anything goes, and using images, video or animations without permission is likely to result in action by the copyright holder. Worryingly, this video displays official Party emblems which make it look like an official SPGB video, thus inviting court action against the Party by licence holders including the BBC. Since we don't make a secret of our considerable financial assets, such action may be deemed attractive and worth pursuing. In view of these factors, we feel that uploading this video to a public channel on YouTube was the height of irresponsibility, and we urge the EC to take immediate steps to have it taken offline, pending an investigation into what permissions have and have not been acquired, and what sort of guidelines need to be in place for any future video projects. Yours fraternally, Paddy Shannon, Lancaster Branch Secretary”.Oct 2016 EC Minutes.consequently the EC resolved:MOTION 7 (Skelly/McClellan): “That Cde V. Maratty be requested to remove the video from You Tube and that its circulation is ceased immediately.” AGREED 6-1-0.(all images were checked)I informed both the EC and Secretary of Lancaster branch (via spintcom and an email to the EC), that this information is inaccurate. (which was completely ignored) and the only threat to party funds was from previously uploaded material as I had been informed by the BBC:"However, the BBC has a very strict editorial policy whereby it does not allow individuals or organisations to use its recorded material to endorse or promote any product service or organisation and so it is highly unlikely that the BBC would allow the reuse of your interview on social media or internet platforms."Email from BBC As to my own video in which I removed BBC logo of Adam's interview the BBC replied: "Our BBC research team can’t find any mention of this interview in the news library database. It might be something that just hasn’t been kept"and when they did find it:"We have approval from BBC News to licence the footage on the following proviso-If they remove the straps and do not reference the BBC it should be fine to licence."Email from BBCI write this as an individual but as I am now a member of a Party Committee charged with preventing prosecution for the use of copyright material, I feel it my duty to point this out to the membership.Terms of Reference No 2“To ensure that any copyright protected third-party content used in A/V productions is publically licensed for such use or is used with the permission or license of the copyright holder, or is used in accordance with legally-defined exceptions to copyright, and is appropriately acknowledged.”
Vin wrote:gnome wrote:I concur particularly as that was the main reason last year's EC requested that your video be taken down.The AVC should also consider forwarding to the EC the BBC directive you received last October.The last EC acted on misinformation I informed both the EC and Secretary of Lancaster branch (via spintcom and an email to the EC), that this information is inaccurate. (which was completely ignored) and the only threat to party funds was from previously uploaded material as I had been informed by the BBC:"However, the BBC has a very strict editorial policy whereby it does not allow individuals or organisations to use its recorded material to endorse or promote any product service or organisation and so it is highly unlikely that the BBC would allow the reuse of your interview on social media or internet platforms."Email from BBCAs to my own video in which I removed BBC logo of Adam's interview the BBC replied:"Our BBC research team can’t find any mention of this interview in the news library database. It might be something that just hasn’t been kept"and when they did find it:"We have approval from BBC News to licence the footage on the following proviso – If they remove the straps and do not reference the BBC it should be fine to licence."Email from BBCI write this as an individual but as I am now a member of a Party Committee charged with preventing prosecution for the use of copyright material, I feel it my duty to point this out to the membership.
Which you now have, at least to those who view this thread. However, the EC needs to be apprised of these facts, particularly seeing that most EC members are among those who do not visit the website forum.
Quote:the BBC replied:"Our BBC research team can’t find any mention of this interview in the news library database. It might be something that just hasn’t been kept"and when they did find it:"We have approval from BBC News to licence the footage on the following proviso – If they remove the straps and do not reference the BBC it should be fine to licence."There are two things I don't undersatand here.1. Is the second quote a direct quote from someone at the BBC? If so, who is the "We" who have approval?2. Have or have we not got a licence? If we have, why the need to take the video down? All we would need to do is remove all references to the BBC.
Hi ALB,The original interview is definitely a no-no, (or almost) not even if we paid for it. so it is highly unlikely that the BBC would allow the reuse of your interview on social media or internet platforms."Email from BBC However, my edited version/clip is permissible but a licence would cost money as they requested my address for 'invoice'I however, made it clear that circumstances had changed and the licence was no longer required.The point is, the video was safe. Even the BBC could not identify your interview or the other interviews after my edits. However the videos currently up are strictly against BBC copyright and need to be removed and replaced with edited versions. Or replaced by bits and peices of various interviews and made into one video without copyright logos. However such a video has been taken off line and disowned by the Party.In short, the party has allowed itself to be misled, IMHO…. for some reason.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.