Party Funds
- This topic has 14 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I was hoping a member of the EC could come on to the forum and explain to the membership at large why they think it is appropriate for that an Assistant Treasurer (and current EC member) to “borrow” monies from the party, despite the fact that the member in question had asked the Treasurer and the General Secretary if a monetary grant could be given and was told that they did not have the authority to grant this money.
Furthermore, how can a Conference resolution, which states:
“This Conference instructs the EC to establish an annual bursary of
at least £2,000 for the purposes of helping members of limited means to attend party general meetings, the dispensation of which should be worked out, overseen an administrated by the EC.”can possibly be interpreted as justifying this action in any way, given that the resolutions states that the EC should set up a bursary, which I do not think has happened, and in any case the funds that were “borrowed” came from general funds and not from a bursary and also given that the resolution states that this bursary be “overseen and administered by the EC”.
Further more he resolution states very clearly that this bursary is to be used to help members attend “General Party Meetings”. As stated in the EC minutes the “borrowed” monies were used to attend summer school. Summer School is not a General Party Meeting
If the actions of the Assistant Treasurer can be justified by this resolution, how can the EC oversee something in retrospect?
The use and administration of the COMMONLY HELD resources of the party are a matter which the membership should be very concerned about.
That a member can be given guidance by the democratically elected members who have been given stewardship of the commonly held resources by the party as a whole and then effectively say “sod what they say, I’ll do what I want anyway” is not only a matter of concern for the whole party, it brings into question that member’s commitment to the democratic decision making structure of the party. Are these the actions of someone we want to act as part of the Executive Committee of our party, are they indeed the action of someone who understands the democratic principles of our party?
Matt
I will send an email to the EC, but I do think it is important that as many members as possible are aware of this situation, hence the use of this forum. I also think that if one or two members of the EC do use this forum, they should be brave enough to account for their action on a public forum. Democracy only works if information is available.
Tim,
You will get more members attention on spintcom. That is where internal matters such as this are usually done. There has been a bit of a hiatus due to changeover etc to the new lists but they are in general quite sufficient for the purpose.
Surely the EC will be meeting next Saturday 1 February as the first Saturday of the month (unless some decision was made at the January meeting we don’t yet know about)? In any event 7 February is a Friday. Also of course there is a new EC since January with a different composition.
Sure. I corrected the date but not quickly enough. The party’s business is taking too long to appear on spintcom and I am miffed at this as well as Tim. The new EC can still kick ass if needed and feedback to the branches.
“…why they think it is appropriate for an Assistant Treasurer (and current EC member) to “borrow” monies from the party…”
For clarification, BD: The member in question is no longer Assistant Treasurer or EC member.
It is the first time in my life and involved in this movement for many years, that I hear about a member borrowing money from the party funds. Something must be wrong
“It is the first time in my life and involved in this movement for many years, that I hear about a member borrowing money from the party funds. Something must be wrong”
I agree with you, if I had a suspicious mind, I might think that EC minutes had been deliberately made difficult to find, so that EC members wouldn’t have to account for their decisions. It’s a good job I haven’t got a suspicious mind. 😀
Dave Chesham – ”
“…why they think it is appropriate for an Assistant Treasurer (and current EC member) to “borrow” monies from the party…”
For clarification, BD: The member in question is no longer Assistant Treasurer or EC member.”
Apologies Dave, I had misread the ballot results. However it does not change the fact that a member has decided to act against the democratic processes of the Party and use money that was not allocated for the purpose, against the direct instruction of party officers.
I can see little difference between this member not following the democratic and procedural processes of the party and the Ashborne Court group’s flaunting of democratic processes. If that was action detrimental, surely this is as well.
For one of the two auditors to come up with the lame report that tries very unconvincingly to link this “borrowing” of money to a Conference Resolution, which demonstrably not linked (a bursary attend party general meetings is clearly NOT the same as funding a comrade to attend a Summer School) , is possibly even more concerning.
For the EC to then go on and state that the way forward is to ban alcohol at EC meetings, is the cherry on the cake. As a man who likes the more than occasional snifter, surely it’s not stopping the alcohol it’s stopping the EC member who is influenced by the alcohol.
However if it is the case that I am mistaken in my belief that Party funds should be managed and used as per the democratic decisions of the party in general, and that in fact the case is that party funds can be used in an irregular way, with the EC members making up reasons for it afterwards and stating that this is all ok, can I please “borrow” a couple of grand, I’ve got a tip on a horse in the 3.30 at Lingfield on Friday, and I’ll pay the money back out of my winnings.
Out of my sense of fairness, the case for the defence.
I do not (AFAIK) personally know the comrade, so i have no dog in this fight.
“She had had problems with her payments from the state and had asked for an advance of her expenses against future attendance and has been allowed this in July and August until the payments from the state were resumed.”
I think those members who are not subjected to these benefit problems should be a bit more sympathetic to members who suffer from them. I have been on benefits and fully aware of the stress it places on decisions and judgments.
“…she recorded this in the petty cash vouchers book at the time…”
There was no attempt at deceit or fraud, it seems.“..despite the fact that the member in question had asked the Treasurer and the General Secretary if a monetary grant could be given and was told that they did not have the authority to grant this money…”
I think there is a slight difference of degree in being refused point-blank and being told they have not got the power to authorise it.
“(a bursary attend party general meetings is clearly NOT the same as funding a comrade to attend a Summer School)”
Whether it was to attend general public meeting or the Summer School, I think is splitting hairs. The only subsidy i know for Summer School is a reduced accommodation fee but not travelling expenses, and perhaps that might be looked into at a future date.
Either carrying out duties or participating in Party activities come at a cost, either in time or money. The Party has always had a generous attitude towards members facing financial restraints to engage in either.
But we are rather cumbersome when it comes to procedures.
“Her application for the funds was made the day before the meeting, to the GS and the T but neither could agree to give permission. She applied after the meeting to the T and to the Campaigns member but neither could authorise it.”
Her actions are in no way compared with “…“borrow” a couple of grand, I’ve got a tip on a horse in the 3.30 at Lingfield on Friday, and I’ll pay the money back out of my winnings…”
The situation was investigated by the Party auditors and the comrade although reprimanded for “misapplied powers”, and have fallen upon the sword by resigning her Party positions, the auditors recommendations should be accepted and lets move on before we once more lose another comrade from membership.
As for the other accusation of Cde CA being “under the influence”, throwing wild accusations against another member, I certainly do not accept that ex-Cde DC was “shit” at his Party duties. On the contrary, he was most proficient, IMHO. Despite our occasional differences, I regret his resignation and merely say, the door is always open if he chooses to return.
But in recent times these internecine disputes are growing in frequency and i am left to wonder why this is.
Out of my sense of fairness, the case for the defence.
The implication being that anyone who disagrees is perhaps not fair?
I do not (AFAIK) personally know the comrade, so i have no dog in this fight.
I do not know the comrade, so I also “have no dog in this fight”
“She had had problems with her payments from the state and had asked for an advance of her expenses against future attendance and has been allowed this in July and August until the payments from the state were resumed.”
And this was a fair and appropriate thing to do, however it shows that the comrade in question was aware of and could use the proper channels in a situation such as the one she was in.
I think those members who are not subjected to these benefit problems should be a bit more sympathetic to members who suffer from them. I have been on benefits and fully aware of the stress it places on decisions and judgments.
a huge assumption being made there, Alan. I have spent 35 years on and off working as a Social Worker in some of the most deprived areas of the North East, I have also had first hand experience of the cack handedness of the benefit system as my partner had to be medically retired from work at the age of 41, which put her out of work and our family reliant on benefits as I needed to support her.
“…she recorded this in the petty cash vouchers book at the time…”
There was no attempt at deceit or fraud, it seems.If, and to me it appears it is a big if, from the differing accounts that have been given. In a letter to the EC dated 26th Oct 2019, which again has not been widely mentioned or distributed the Assistant General Secretary states the following
“To date the Auditors still have not agreed on a joint report. At my prodding, one of them has just submitted an individual written report to the November EC, but this is once again completely inadequate, lacking even the most basic explanations and contextual information. The Auditor writes that “I” (not “we”) “have investigated the complaint” (again, which one?) “and find that any monies” (what monies? how
much?) “advanced to the Comrade” (which Comrade? advanced for what purpose?) “have since” (when?) “been repaid”. The who, what, where, when, why, and how of the matter are almost entirely missing. Is the “complaint” being investigated about the misappropriation of Party funds or about the mismanagement of Party funds? That is, was the Auditor looking at the person who disbursed the Party funds
or the person who received them? Why was the money advanced, and was there anything improper about it? If there was something improper about it, was this a simple mistake made in good faith, a serious mistake made in negligence or recklessness, or a deliberate attempt to defraud the Party of funds? Would the money have been repaid if it had not been the subject of an investigation? Does the fact that the money
has been repaid now settle the matter, or is the Party at further financial risk? How was the investigation conducted, and what information did it consider? Which Comrades were invited to supply evidence?”“..despite the fact that the member in question had asked the Treasurer and the General Secretary if a monetary grant could be given and was told that they did not have the authority to grant this money…”
I think there is a slight difference of degree in being refused point-blank and being told they have not got the power to authorise it.
So being told by party officers that they don’t have the authority to hand over monies allows a member to take it anyway? I would have thought this was the clearest indication that this comrade ignored the democratically decided upon processes of the Party and chose to do what she wanted to do regardless. As I said, in essence, what is the difference between this action and the action of the Socialist Studies group, who were expelled en mass for not abiding by democratic party decisions.
“(a bursary attend party general meetings is clearly NOT the same as funding a comrade to attend a Summer School)”
Whether it was to attend general public meeting or the Summer School, I think is splitting hairs. The only subsidy i know for Summer School is a reduced accommodation fee but not travelling expenses, and perhaps that might be looked into at a future date.
So the only subsidy the party has is reduced accommodation but not travelling expenses, from your own words you have explained that this funding was not within the remit of the party. If we don’t have any rules about how monies are spent then it becomes a free for all. Again that it is looked at at a future date is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that these funds were not used appropriately.
Either carrying out duties or participating in Party activities come at a cost, either in time or money. The Party has always had a generous attitude towards members facing financial restraints to engage in either.
But we are rather cumbersome when it comes to procedures.
procedures are in place to protect the commonly held funds of the party, if these cumbersome procedures can be ignored by those in the know, what is the point of us having them.
“Her application for the funds was made the day before the meeting, to the GS and the T but neither could agree to give permission. She applied after the meeting to the T and to the Campaigns member but neither could authorise it.”
Her actions are in no way compared with “…“borrow” a couple of grand, I’ve got a tip on a horse in the 3.30 at Lingfield on Friday, and I’ll pay the money back out of my winnings…”
As you well know, my remarks about borrowing were flippant, however they illustrate the point, if it is possible for cdes with access to head office to “borrow” substantial amounts of funds, why should cdes in gneral not treat the party as some kind of interest free loan shop?
The situation was investigated by the Party auditors and the comrade although reprimanded for “misapplied powers”, and have fallen upon the sword by resigning her Party positions, the auditors recommendations should be accepted and lets move on before we once more lose another comrade from membership.
As evidenced by the Asst Gen Sec’s letter to the EC, the situation was not investigated by the party auditors, it was examined by one of the auditors, with little or no evidence of a thorough investigation, I won’t repeat the comments of the Asst Gen Sec, they appear to show a scant investigation and an unconvincing report to the EC. This is why I am bring the situation to the forum, so that it can be properly investigated with a credible resolution.
As for the other accusation of Cde CA being “under the influence”, throwing wild accusations against another member, I certainly do not accept that ex-Cde DC was “shit” at his Party duties. On the contrary, he was most proficient, IMHO.
So it is acceptable to make wild accusations against other party members with no action taken? this type of behaviour can be extremely intimidating, where was the call for Cde A to retract these accusations and apologise. I recall that cde Marratty was asked to carryout all kinds of mea culpas to regain admission to the party and that many on this message board were insistent that he should apologise for his actions repeatedly
Despite our occasional differences, I regret his resignation and merely say, the door is always open if he chooses to return.
But in recent times these internecine disputes are growing in frequency and i am left to wonder why this is.
<b>It is a pity the same leniency and regard was not given to Cde Marratty, Vincent’s behaviour with regard to how he addressed some comrades. His behaviour at times was not acceptable, but it seems meek and mild compared to what has been happening recently. I would bring your further attention to the opaque minutes of the Jan EC meeting which allude to further shenanigans, I can’t remember Vincent behaving in this way on Party premises.</b>
“if it is possible for cdes with access to head office to “borrow” substantial amounts of funds,”
To reassure members who might get the wrong impression, it is not possible for “any” comrade with access to head office to also have access to the relatively small amount of petty cash kept there, let alone to “substantial amounts”. Only those who know a code and where a key is kept would be able to and that’s restricted. Cheques have to be signed by at least two designated persons. We can’t make payments by bacs and there’s a limit to how much can be withdrawn with the bank card ( which I am not sure is used anyway — at one point it was cut in half).
The Party’s financial controls are not that lax. In fact they are pretty strict.
Out of my sense of justice, I posted my remarks so that this was not a one-sided debate.
Please don’t put words in my mouth
“So it is acceptable to make wild accusations against other party members with no action taken? this type of behaviour can be extremely intimidating, where was the call for Cde A to retract these accusations and apologise.”
I never said it was acceptable, nor did I say no action should have been taken by the Party.
I certainly do not know the full ins and outs of why a good comrade such as DC was obliged to resign over the incident and how much was due to the treatment he received when he complained. EC minutes were scant on the details.
Previous drunkenness at HO (in particular by one intimidating Scottish member) led to the restrictions being placed upon all members being permitted to stay at HO. So I am very critical about it because of the consequences it had on all of us. I never treated the Party as a source of interest-free loans, but I did consider HO as free accommodation.
Regards Cde Maratty, I was one of the moderators on the forum and I assure you he was given plenty of leeway and had several opportunities to mend his ways on the forum. But his on-line behaviour was that of a recidivist.
I was also earlier a moderator on the Yahoo forums where we had members with mental health issues and the dividing line between moderating them when they were not fully lucid and deciding when they were behaving coherently was very difficult for me to make judgement calls on what should be posted and what should be moderated. Many members believed i was far too lenient and over-protective. Well, it is in my nature to try to be so. As in this case, albeit without knowing the complete details, i tried to present both sides of the case and raise reasons in mitigation.
But i am not objecting to you seeking further and more fuller clarification and justification for the EC reaction to this. We are a transparent organisation and nothing should be swept under the carpet, no matter how unpleasant or unflattering it may be.
Regards Cde Maratty, I was one of the moderators on the forum and I assure you he was given plenty of leeway and had several opportunities to mend his ways on the forum. But his on-line behaviour was that of a recidivist.With all due respect, what Vincent did was as you describe, on line. I think there is a big difference to on line responses and direct in your face responses. As you say yourself, Vincent was given opportunities to mend his ways, however to mend your ways you must be made aware of the inappropriateness of that behaviour. The report from the EC makes no comment on the behaviour of Cde CA, if she hasn’t been told the error of her ways, how can she be told to amend them? There were many calls for Vincent to publicly apologise for his behaviour, which appears less noteworthy than the behaviour of Cde CA. One of my questions is why has this member been treated so differently from any other member, why has she not been brought to book for her behaviour?You are reluctant to do anything which might lead to another member leaving the party, why is this member so different of more important than the members who have left the party because of her actions?I also think the use of the term recidivist, is not particularly appropriate for a socialist to use in terms of a fellow socialist (despite your views on Vin’s behaviour I assume you accept his socialist credentials). Recidivism has a long history of use in some areas of psychiatry and criminology that I don’t think many of us would find palatable.A technical definition of recidivism is:RecidivismRecidivism is the act of a person repeating an undesirable behaviour after they have either experienced negative consequences of that behaviour, or have been trained to extinguish that behaviour. It is also used to refer to the percentage of former prisoners who are rearrested for a similar offence. The term is frequently used in conjunction with criminal behaviour and substance abuse.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.