07.03.2002

Recognise members' rights

Statement from 'former' Bedfordshire Socialist Alliance officers to SA executive

The BSA annual general meeting and the December 1 national SA constitution 1. The effect of the December 1 national constitution was to make the original BSA constitution technically 'out of order' or 'unconstitutional'. 2. The 2001 AGM of the BSA was due to be held in November. It was delayed until December 9 so that the result of the December 1 conference could be taken into account. There were 26 out of 57 members at the AGM - or 48% of the total 2001 paid up membership. 3. The following officers were elected at the meeting - chair: SL (independent); secretary: RM (independent); vice-chair: BE (independent); membership: DT (RDG); treasurer: JC (independent); TU organiser: EK (independent); minutes secretary: MF (independent). 4. The new officers took up their responsibilities immediately following the December 9 election. They convened the meeting of January 27 and made all necessary preparations. The minutes of the AGM were agreed by a unanimous vote at the beginning of the January 27 meeting, confirming these officers had been democratically elected. 5. The AGM was quorate to standards set by the national SA constitution, but not to the standard set by the original BSA constitution, which was 50%. 6. Under the national constitution there was neither a democratic nor constitutional reason to hold another election until the next AGM in December 2002, unless an elected officer(s) resigned - for example, as a result of a vote of no confidence (ie, officers are accountable and recallable). A new constitution and a second election? 7. Whilst the result of the AGM was both democratic and constitutional under the terms of the national constitution, its outcome was not entirely satisfactory to the BSA officers because it did not 'reflect all political trends within the BSA' (ie, it did not include the SWP). 8. The BSA officers had recently made an offer on two occasions to coopt an SWP member onto the BSA officers committee. But these offers were refused. The SWP was not concerned to add new officers. They wished to get rid of certain existing officers. This meant that they wanted a 'second chance' to re-run the election, after they had signed up 27 new members. The nominations show that their aim was to get rid of the only RDG member on the officer group, and two comrades thought to be RDG sympathisers or allies. 9. In addition there was also some confusion or misunderstanding over what constitutional provisions prevailed. The BSA officers supported the original local constitution. But we endorsed the national constitution passed on December 1. Our own previous experience suggested there could be dangers to BSA democracy if there was no agreed local democratic constitutional framework. The officers considered that a new democratic local constitution was absolutely necessary to safeguard the democratic rights of both the majorities and minorities in the BSA. 10. In recognition of the difficult and transitional constitutional position, the newly elected BSA officers drafted a new local constitution, which was open for debate and amendment, which we considered to be 'constitutional' within the terms of the new national constitution. 11. Only a new local constitution would provide a democratic reason to hold new elections. These would take place under the provisions of the new constitution. This process could only be considered democratic if the SWP (previously a minority) was not forced to sacrifice democratic rights in order to secure their 'second chance' election. 12. This was not the case. Indeed the opposite was true. The new draft constitution offered recognised supporting organisations a seat on the officers committee in the event of their failing to win a seat in open elections. This was more rights than under either the original BSA constitution or the new national constitution. The new BSA constitution was designed to guarantee the inclusion of the SWP, not their exclusion. 13. The agenda was ordered to provide a democratic answer to those who wanted a local constitution, those who wanted a second chance election and those who objected to new elections because it was undemocratic to re-run an election immediately after the AGM, simply because the SWP did not get the result they wanted. 14. The correct democratic and constitutional position was therefore clear. If the new local constitution was defeated, there was no constitutional or democratic basis to re-run the AGM elections. Therefore the nominations would be out of order. On the other hand if a new local constitution was passed, fresh elections would be necessary and those nominations submitted would be voted on. Three possible reasons for closing the January 27 meeting 15. Ruling from the chair that the meeting had run out of time Notice had been given to members that it was due to finish at 3pm. The new local constitution was voted out at about 2.57pm. The chair could have ruled the meeting had to close on these grounds. To continue with the elections would have required at least a further half an hour because the new elections were obviously contentious. The consequence of this ruling would be that the meeting should be reconvened as soon as possible to complete the outstanding business. 16. Ruling from the chair that the elections were out of order With the defeat of the new local constitution, there was no reason to overturn or frustrate the democratic decisions of the AGM by re-running the elections until the 'right' result was secured. 17. Ruling from the chair that the meeting was closed (or suspended) whilst the elected BSA officers sought consultations, advice and guidance from the national executive This was a democratic means of avoiding a split. If all sides do not trust each other they may be prepared to trust the national executive (experience will show whether such trust is justified). Taking the issues for national advice and national assistance means bringing the real political issues to the wider national membership. It brings in the national democratic processes, rather than simply restricting it to local ones. It may be possible through this means to secure sufficient agreement on both sides to prevent a split and establish a democratic outcome which can be supported by both the majority and the minority. What happened at the end of the meeting of January 27? 18. Prior to the debate on the draft local constitution the chair stated that if no constitution was adopted then the BSA would be faced with a constitutional crisis and that the BSA officers would have to consider their position. 19. After the vote (26-22) against the constitution the chair seemed to close the meeting on the grounds that it had run out of time. But some officers disagreed with this. There seemed to be some confusion over the precise grounds for which the meeting was closed. Comrade McMahon, a national executive member and observer, suggested to those of us who had gone downstairs to the bar that the grounds for closing the meeting were unclear. 20. After some discussion it was agreed that the chair would go back into the meeting and a few of us would accompany her. The chair reopened the meeting and we listened to comments from the SWP members who remained. The chair then made it clear that the meeting was closed to avoid a split over the issue of a local constitution and that the national officers would be called in. A majority of those remaining then left the meeting in line with the ruling by the chair. 21. It was rumoured that some members of the SWP and their allies stayed behind and chose new officers. The BSA officers or membership have not been informed of the names or what positions they claim to stand for. An email from Viv Smith, SWP local organiser, to Danny Thompson, BSA membership secretary on February 22 says: "The SWP recognises the new officers group as elected at the members meeting on January 27. We therefore do not recognise the previous group from last year, which as far as I can see you are acting on behalf of." 22. It should be noted that the last BSA election that was recognised by all members - and hence minuted, agreed and voted on - was the election of December 9, as agreed at the start of the January 27 meeting. These are the BSA elected officers who called in the national executive on behalf of the whole of the BSA. Any claim that a few people, mainly SWP members, can stay behind and 'elect' a second set officers was not and is not democratic and was either an attempted takeover or the beginning of a split. The decision to close or suspend the meeting 23. Continuing the elections after the defeat of the local constitution would have created a split between those who did not want a local constitution and those who had no trust or confidence in working without one. The split would have taken the form either of two BSAs or of a majority of independents leaving the BSA and it becoming simply the electoral wing of the SWP. The democratic processes would also have been open to the allegation from many independent members that elections were being gerrymandered to ensure a result acceptable to the SWP. 24. Therefore the decision to close the meeting and call for discussions with the national executive was not only the most democratic option, but also the best possible chance to prevent a split or significant resignations. 25. The national executive must give their opinion as to whether they endorse the actions of the BSA officers to close or suspend the meeting to seek discussion, advice and guidance from the national executive. Calling for discussions with the national executive 26. The BSA officers wrote to Liz Davies, the SA national chair. We sent a number of documents outlining some of the issues. However, Liz Davies refused to meet us. We had suspended the BSA meeting for the very reason of discussing the issues with the executive, as represented in the first instance by the national chair. 27. We believe that elected officers of any local Socialist Alliance have a right to request a meeting with representatives of the national executive. Local officers have a right to expect that such a request will be granted. The right for local officers to have such a meeting where there are clearly problems means local democracy can interact with the wider SA democracy. In the same way we would not expect local officers to refuse a request from national officers for a meeting. 28. It seems that the reason for this refusal to meet us comes from the fact that the chair does not want to recognise the BSA officers as BSA officers. It is our view that the chair has been pressurised by John Rees, an SWP member on the executive, to recognise the SWP 'officers'. In order to appear fair to both sides, the chair decided to recognise no officers. 29. This means that the national executive is refusing to recognise the December 9 BSA AGM elections, as ratified at the January 27 meeting. This should be of concern to all democrats. It is surely obvious that if this line of action was to be persisted with it would have serious and damaging consequences for any trust that non-SWP members could have in the SA. 30. Rather than actually meet with the BSA officers (and indeed anybody else with an interests in these matters) the national chair and membership secretary laid down some preconditions. The chair has said she would meet with three people who represented "both sides" for meditation. Apart from the fact that there are more than two 'sides' to this issue, it is important to know who is representing whom. Obviously we would not want to meet Liz Davies simply because she is Liz Davies, but because she is the SA chair and represents the executive. 31. The derecognition of the elected BSA officers is the first step on the road that will inevitably lead to takeover of the BSA by the national executive. Mediation 32. The BSA officers want to make it clear that we are in favour of mediation between the BSA officers and any group of members who have grievances and/or political differences with the BSA officers and/or other groups of members. We once again welcome assistance in this process from the national executive. What are the options and consequences for the SA executive? 33. Recognise the BSA officers who were democratically elected on December 9 and recognised to be BSA officers by all members until 3pm on January 27. Recognise that the BSA officers' call for national discussions, advice and support is a democratic demand on the national organisation. Hold a meeting with the elected BSA officers, as originally requested by the BSA officers from January 27. Make some national decisions about whether local rules/constitutions are acceptable and represent good practice. Begin a national discussion on the political issues involved. Begin a mediation process involving national executive members. (Recognition that an agreed new local constitution or rules would lead to new BSA elections and that this provides the route to a possible democratic solution). 34. Take over or 'nationalise' the BSA and place it under special national measures. This would mean overturning the election of the BSA at its AGM on December 9. This would be seen as a mechanism for handing over the BSA to the SWP and alienating all the non-SWP members of the BSA. A significant minority at the January meeting (46%) voted for a new local constitution and their views would not be recognised. The national executive would then be avoiding the political issues and be making a split much more likely. 35. Recognise the SWP officers and thereby recognise a non-election and a cavalier attitude to democracy. This would alienate all the independents and turn the BSA into the electoral arm of the SWP. What the BSA officers want from the national executive 36. Recognition that the BSA officers are the BSA officers because they were elected on December 9 by a majority of BSA members. This election was minuted and the minutes agreed at the start of the January 27 meeting. 37. Recognition that the BSA officers' appeal to the national executive on the divisive issue of local constitution was the correct course of action. So far there have been no splits. 38. Recognition that the BSA officers are in favour of mediation, but would like to discuss the issues with the national executive in line with the commitment given at the end of the January 27 meeting to all BSA members (we also have no problem with the executive meeting any other group of BSA members to seek their views on the situation). 39. Recognition that the issues concerning local SA constitutions are a national issue for all SA members and should be discussed openly. 40. Support the call from the BSA officers to all BSA members to cooperate and work together on the agreed 2002 perspectives, whilst the issues that divide us are resolved with the help of the national organisation, and structures therein, and the national membership.