Party Video 2016
- This topic has 303 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The EC's move to rescind Vin's appointment to the AVC was precipitous and foolish. Once again the majority of those sitting on this important committee have demonstrated their incompetence and short-sightedness.
The Videos were produced and published while Vin was an officer of the NERB branch and nominated by KSRB on the AV committee; which is more that can be said for many other 'videos'
Vin wishes to make it clear that copyright was assured apart from music background which was pointed out to the EC would cost 2o$The video was never published in the Party's name.
I have to add my voice to the criticism of the EC on this issue, made by Gnome. He is quite correct in his observations. We have an enthusiastic member who wishes to contribute to the case for socialism by creating videos which the Party very much requires to improve its presence on the web but which the Party over the years has very much failed to accomplish. This legalistic argument that the EC was not consulted prior seems to me illegitimate since it ignores the fact that the whole process of producing the videos were posted on our forum over months by Vin for individual members to comment and contribute to. But just how many on the EC are regular visitors to our forum so to raise their worries in advance and avert this situation?This was no behind the back, covert production, comrades. Vin was fully transparent in what he was doing and he asked for and, indeed, heeded advice from other members. Rather than offer their own input and suggest tweaking the video to make it better, the EC has acted rather punitively. "Other concerns were also expressed."Well, let's hear those if they impacted upon the EC's decision and attitude. I'm sure if the EC expected perfection in the videos, we'd all like to hear about the short-comings they found in the content. As two members have already resigned from the A/V committee, and now that Cde. Vin is dismissed from it, if memory serves me right, we have one existing member who was co-opted to it with now even more of a burden to carry on behalf of the Party. For the sake of disclosure, i have previously posted the videos on our official blogs and so can be seen as also complicit in Vin's supposed transgression against Party rules. Can i now expect to receive an instruction from the EC to take them down?If so, you will be receiving my resignation from the blog sub-committee.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Can i now expect to receive an instruction from the EC to take them down?You may find the link doesn't work as the videos have gone 'private' and will be took down following the EC resolution.
No doubt this will be discussed – see EC minutes. I think it only fair that Vin's video is available https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo2v1fndQpw
Statement from V Maratty re EC Motion 9 2016 May EC The videos were produced openly and with full consultation with as many members as possible on the SPGB Forum and Facebook. All members that commented made positive comments and recommendations and at no point did I feel I was being underhanded.I stated clearly that I was seeking membership approval via the EC when the video was almost complete, which is why it was in front of the May EC.All through the process copyright issues were consideredAt that time I was social media officer for NERB with a mandate to produce Videos for consideration. I had also been nominated onto the AV committee.I cannot think of a more democratic way of producing a video.I regret that the EC has taken this attitude to my genuine intentions.To accommodate the EC regarding AV committee appointments, I suggested that I don’t need to be on a committee to make videos. Perhaps the EC has misunderstood and took the statement as an act of defiance. That was not my intention.I have the motivation, knowledge and equipment to produce videos free of charge, without payment. I hope the EC and membership reconsiders rejecting my offer.YFSV. Maratty
Quote:Statement from V Maratty re EC Motion 9 2016 May ECIt is vital that this statement finds its way to individual EC members in some way, shape or form, because, without going into any specific detail for much the same reasons the EC minutes were deliberately vague in some respects, it is quite apparent that due to most EC members' reluctance to visit the forum, confirmed by the absence of any contribution from them towards this thread in the eight weeks it had been running prior to the May EC meeting, they are inescapably and understandably labouring under certain misapprehensions. They need bona fide, unbiased information. Fast.
gnome wrote:Quote:Statement from V Maratty re EC Motion 9 2016 May ECIt is vital that this statement finds its way to individual EC members in some way, shape or form, because, without going into any specific detail for much the same reasons the EC minutes were deliberately vague in some respects, it is quite apparent that due to most EC members' reluctance to visit the forum, confirmed by the absence of any contribution from them towards this thread in the eight weeks it had been running prior to the May EC meeting, they are inescapably and understandably labouring under certain misapprehensions. They need bona fide, unbiased information. Fast.
Your call for urgency is unfounded. This statement will go to all EC members throught the usual channels and procedures for discussion at the EC table.
Brian wrote:gnome wrote:Quote:Statement from V Maratty re EC Motion 9 2016 May ECIt is vital that this statement finds its way to individual EC members in some way, shape or form, because, without going into any specific detail for much the same reasons the EC minutes were deliberately vague in some respects, it is quite apparent that due to most EC members' reluctance to visit the forum, confirmed by the absence of any contribution from them towards this thread in the eight weeks it had been running prior to the May EC meeting, they are inescapably and understandably labouring under certain misapprehensions. They need bona fide, unbiased information. Fast.
Your call for urgency is unfounded. This statement will go to all EC members throught the usual channels and procedures for discussion at the EC table.
Hi Brianif this forum is a "gossip chat room" can you explain EXPLICITLY what the "usual channels" are that this information will travel through to get to the EC. If we have some idea what these "usual channels" are then perhaps we can arrange for some dredgers to clear the channels, as they do not appear to be flowing particularly effectively at the moment. Yours for informed democracyTim
I think the usual channels is to e-mail the EC direct and have the content of your e-mail placed on the agenda for June EC meeting. Oliver Bond has to be commended for his diligence in that matter. He always tries to ensure members gets the attention of the EC. As for urgency, Brian, as some branches meet every two month and if timed wrong regards to meet the EC dead-line, that is another month gone by so some business if we are to follow the advice of some that insist that the branch is the unit of Party organising and we should go through that at all times so quarter of a year can go by to conduct everyday party affairs. As Tim suggests, we need the conduit for communication and information and decision-making to be made more efficient.It definitely seems as Gnome seems to imply…individual EC members won't break from the herd and voice independent opinion.Where is the gag order in our rule book?
alanjjohnstone wrote:I think the usual channels is to e-mail the EC direct and have the content of your e-mail placed on the agenda for June EC meeting. Oliver Bond has to be commended for his diligence in that matter. He always tries to ensure members gets the attention of the EC. As for urgency, Brian, as some branches meet every two month and if timed wrong regards to meet the EC dead-line, that is another month gone by so some business if we are to follow the advice of some that insist that the branch is the unit of Party organising and we should go through that at all times so quarter of a year can go by to conduct everyday party affairs. As Tim suggests, we need the conduit for communication and information and decision-making to be made more efficient.It definitely seems as Gnome seems to imply…individual EC members won't break from the herd and voice independent opinion.Where is the gag order in our rule book?There is no "gag order in the rule book" for sending correspondence for the attention of the EC. It happens most months and in most cases the EC welcomes any correspondence which raises concerns on how it conducts its business.However, what is not welcome, by some of the membership, is when individual members go off and do their own thing without consulting with their branch or not informing the EC on this bright idea they may have before they even start putting it all together. In such cases when faced with a lack of previous consultation the EC have a duty to challenge the due diligence, or the lack thereof, taken with such ventures and if found to be wanting or it raises concerns of uncertainty on legalities have a further duty to disassociate itself and the party from such ventures.In short, the EC are mitigating the risks of the party facing possible prosecution by declaring non gratis on such ventures. And with some of the EC members looking in here and on facebook ignorance after the fact would be no defence.I agree that party procedures can be a long drawn out frustrating experience but that said it has a purpose in that in 99% it gets it right first time. And I suspect that eventually this little venture will be completed to everybody's satisfaction once Vin understands and agrees procedures, guidelines and rules need to be adhered to. In this respect his experience and his postings on this forum is not doing him any favours.
"There is no "gag order in the rule book" for sending correspondence for the attention of the EC. "You mis-read my post, Brian. I was referring to the fact that EC members are not tied to some sort of cabinet collective responsibility and can answer queries themselves on this forum as individuals to explain their own thoughts and acts. That they don't wish to suggests they deign to interact with other members in a popular Party discussion forum. But since we have increasing difficulty in getting EC volunteers and this exchange where i argue they have an obligation to respond to other members might discourage existing and potential future members of the EC from offering their services so it could be all a moot point in a few years time. "when individual members go off and do their own thing without consulting with their branch"i thought the maker of the video had, in fact, the permission of his branch for his venture."In such cases when faced with a lack of previous consultation the EC have a duty to challenge the due diligence, or the lack thereof, taken with such ventures and if found to be wanting or it raises concerns of uncertainty on legalities have a further duty to disassociate itself and the party from such ventures. The EC are mitigating the risks of the party facing possible prosecution by declaring non gratis on such ventures. And with some of the EC members looking in here and on facebook ignorance after the fact would be no defence." Once again the EC minutes do not reflect that concern and it your own interpretation for the reasons for their actions. The maker was indeed submitting the video for the approval of the EC i.e. he was consulting with it. Was he obliged to provide daily/weekly/monthly reports on its ongoing development?Perhaps you are 100% correct in your supposition, then the EC failed to report to the membership in an accurate manner and thus misled it. Or were the minutes submitted to our Party lawyers for legal advice before publishing them. As i pointed out , our blogs have them as posts and i still await an instruction to remove them so perhaps the EC's legalistic precautionary measures are mis-directed. Personally i think this is a downside of having substantial assets…we are always watching our backs to protect them. "I suspect that eventually this little venture will be completed to everybody's satisfaction once Vin understands and agrees procedures, guidelines and rules need to be adhered to."If the censure and reproach was seen in isolation i may accept your observation but accompanying one resolution was another expelling him from the A/V committee (now moribund) which any way you look at it was punitive rather than remedial and that makes me wonder about what you say.
Brian wrote:In this respect his experience and his postings on this forum is not doing him any favours.I posted it on this forum, it is a statement Vin has sent to the EC. The only posts vin has posted on the forum since receiving an indefinite ban have been on the NERB site to enable him to attend a branch meeting or where I have specified it was from him.
lindanesocialist wrote:Brian wrote:In this respect his experience and his postings on this forum is not doing him any favours.I posted it on this forum, it is a statement Vin has sent to the EC. The only posts vin has posted on the forum since receiving an indefinite ban have been on the NERB site to enable him to attend a branch meeting or where I have specified it was from him.
I was not referring to the statement by Vin to the EC, but to his general (mis)behaviour on this forum which to my recollection includes numerous warnings and three suspensions. One would expect such an experience to be a positive learning curve for Vin, sadly it had the opposite effect, for his several apologies for his behaviour amounted to zilch with no accompanying explanation.The statement does go someway of providing an explanation. However, I note it unfortunately omits to explain on the reasons why Vin or the branch failed to consult with the EC before embarking on this project. With hindsight the lessons are plainly:1. Initial onsultations with branch members on the idea. 2. Branch meeting advise member to sketch out project and summarise content. 3. Further discussion at branch level. 4. Branch inform EC of project and request signposting on possible pitfalls and of support from its sub-committees. 5. All practice runs on possible content are confined at a branch level. 6. Branch decides to include other interested party members in the content of the project, but with the caveat that all communications are conducted by email and there are no postings of practice runs on social medium.This process unfortunately did not occur and the reasons for this are Vin was aware that the online structure of the branch decision making process is cumbersome and decided to go his own way whilst the creative juices were in full flow.Resulting in the project is now facing a derailment! Problem now is how to get the project back on track and how to persuade Vin he needs to stay on track, otherwise the creative juices will tend to dry up?Hope this helps.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.