PLEASE NOTE - THIS POSTING IS FOR THE INFORMATION OF EQUITY MEMBERS - IT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN TOTAL OR IN PART OR QUOTED FROM WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED PERMISSION OF DAVE EAGER.
Dave may be contacted by emailing: daveeagerequity@yahoo.co.uk
This is a copy (slightly amended for clarity as some information is obvious to General Secretary and President but maybe not to others) of POSSIBLE BREACH OF RULE notice sent to our President: Malcolm Sinclair and our General Secretary : Christine Payne.
The proposed new rule's influence on the PRIVATE lives of members is the most important aspect. As I have previously expressed I have sympathy for the concerns of the Minority Ethnic Members' Committee but I do not believe that other options which may be available to address their concerns and the full implications of the upcoming rule change referendum have been properly considered. In fact the evidence points to the fact that MEMBERS' views have been IGNORED to an extent that our rules have been breached.
I believe that the Council, when an Annual Representative Conference expresses a view, has a principled duty to act on the same. At the 2007 ARC a motion from the Minority Ethnic Members' Committee proposed a rule change which, if passed, would have resulted in the need for a similar referendum to the one which is now about to be conducted. THE ARC VOTED TO REMOVE THE RELEVANT CLAUSE IN THE MINORITY ETHNIC MEMBERS' COMMITTEE MOTION. Vice President Jean Rogers is on record as saying that the removal of the original Equity rule would be a "disaster to democracy and civil liberties". There is therefore established ARC policy that when the Representatives last voted on the issue, regarding the PRIVATE lives of members, they voted to retain the current Equity rule. The current rule "acknowledges the right of individual members to hold and express their personal, political and other beliefs both in their PRIVATE and PROFESSIONAL capacities".
At the 2010 ARC the motion from the Minority Ethnic Members' Committee had a similar "raison d'etre" and owing to the heated and divisive debate and the fact that Christine gave legal advice against the motion, it was remitted to Council. However this was in the knowledge that COUNCIL OPPOSED THE MOTION. Two councillors were appointed by the Council to speak in OPPOSITION on behalf of the Council.
The next time the issue, as far as my research shows, was brought to the Council was at the LAST meeting of the OLD Council in July 2010. The reference to the remitted Minority Ethnic Members' Committee motion was contained in a report "ARC Motions 2010 - Reports on Actions - Officer and Senior Management Team" - Agenda Item 6. You will be aware being a report, and also being the last meeting of the Council, things tend not to be scrutinised as fully as possible. I note that the subsequent minutes of this meeting makes no reference to the overwhelming majority of motions, including the one from the Minority Ethnic Members' Committee. The minutes only refer to Motions 10, 25 and 32. However the President and General Secretary have a DUTY UNDER OUR RULES TO ACT ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICIES AND DIRECTIONS OF THE COUNCIL. In order to comply with this, a recommendation on this motion, brought to the Council for endorsement MUST and MAY only be made on the basis that the Council opposed the ARC motion, in the knowledge that it was remitted and that when the ARC last voted on the issue they supported Council's policy of opposing. If the Officers and SMT recommendations were of a contrary view that I am of the opinion the Officers/SMT have a clear unequivocal duty to "flag this up". Otherwise how may we trust the Officer and SMT to act in accordance with Council policy and directions?
The is the basis of support for my contention that our membership; representatives, members and indeed councillors, have not been given a reasonable opportunity to consider the Council's "about face" on this matter.
A PARAGRAPH, ORGINALLY AT THIS POINT, HAS BEEN REMOVED ON THE 18th MARCH FOLLOWING RECEIPT OF AN EMAIL 18TH MARCH FROM THE GENERAL SECRETARY
The comment following in ordinary bold type was added Wednesday evening at 23.30.
I accept that the above statement is only an opinion based on the facts, that are currently known to me, which I believe to be true. A similar consideration applies to all of this posting.
Without any "flagging up" by the Officers and SMT it follows that the advice from the Equity solicitors could and should only have been obtained on the basis THAT COUNCIL WAS AGAINST the objectives of the Minority Ethnic Members' Committee's ARC 2010 motion. The reasons for this should have been conveyed to the Equity solicitors, when seeking their advice. Subsequently such advice should have been presented in manner which supported Council's view and also, I believe, that of the 2007 ARC decision which supports the 2010 Council decision to oppose the motion.
I accept that the Council may, at any time, put to referendum any issue they wish provided in the case of a protected rule, as this rule is, the subject matter has been debated within the last two years at an ARC or open meetings of members. In this respect the current referendum is possibly valid. This though is debatable as it begs the question of the Council expressing a view to OPPOSE AT THE 2010 ARC and then within a few months doing an "about face" without proper fair discussion. I FERVENTLY BELIEVE THAT THE PROCESS BY WHICH WE HAVE REACHED THIS POINT IS FLAWED AS IT IGNORES THE EXPRESSED VIEW OF ARC REPRESENTATIVES and Council ARC policy to a motion and furthermore has not allowed our membership to fully discuss this issue. SHOULD EQUITY CHANGE ITS RULES SO AS TO BE ABLE TO RESTRICT - ("ACT AS JUDGE AND JURY") - THE PRIVATE LIVES OF MEMBERS?
The process, resulting in the current situation, means that the referendum is UNFAIRLY SKEWED in favour of an approval vote.
A SENTENCE, ORIGINALLY AT THIS POINT, HAS BEEN REMOVED ON THE 18th MARCH FOLLOWING RECEIPT OF AN EMAIL 18th MARCH FROM THE GENERAL SECRETARY.
END OF SUBMISSION SENT TO THE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL SECRETARY
Please note: If requested by the General Secretary or the President I will publish their response in this blogspot EAGER4EQUITY. It should also be noted that the current President Malcolm Sinclair was elected as President AFTER the July meeting referred to in the above submission.
EQUITY-BACKSTAGE
EQUITY-BACKSTAGE
