Do we have a valid Discipline Panel?

Anthony Butcher · 17-10-2005, 11:56 AM

I can't believe that we are having this discussion yet again. However, the party constitution states:

Quote:

14.3 The Discipline Committee shall comprise the Party Secretary and the delegates elected for this purpose at the Party Conference and shall be chaired by the Party Secretary.

Quote:

15 DISCIPLINE
15.1 The Party shall establish a Discipline Panel comprising the Party Secretary and up to twelve delegates approved by the annual conference. Specific hearings shall be conducted in accordance with the Rule Book, by the Party Secretary and a minimum of four members of the Discipline Panel. Serving members of the NEC may not be nominated for election to the Discipline Panel, and elected members of the Discipline Panel must resign if elected to the NEC.

In other words, the party conference must vote to approve the Discipline Panel. Does anyone remember voting on this issue?

Alex McKee · 17-10-2005, 12:05 PM

Do you remember that the time the Independence News was really late (Marks first one I think), it carried an announcement of the Party Business Meeting. This year the conference and business meeting were held separately against the constitution.

This is why we didn't vote on a Discipline Panel.

Alex

SponPlague · 17-10-2005, 12:08 PM

Why is the question being asked: Are we likely to see some business in the near future? :evil:

Alex McKee · 17-10-2005, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SponPlague

Why is the question being asked: Are we likely to see some business in the near future? :evil:

Yes probably Tony, Me and Matt Davies (at very least) for asking the difficult questions.

Anthony Butcher · 17-10-2005, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex McKee

Do you remember that the time the Independence News was really late (Marks first one I think), it carried an announcement of the Party Business Meeting. This year the conference and business meeting were held separately against the constitution.

This is why we didn't vote on a Discipline Panel.

Alex

Yes, but surely the Panel still has to be ratified by the conference, even if it is picked/elected else where?

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the Panel can be approved at a Business Meeting or AGM. I presume that this is for the very specific reason that hardly anyone attends those meetings, so they are completely inapproporiate for approving a Discipline Panel with significant powers.

Suppose, for example, that Mike Nattrass is put before the panel after the Petrina incident. Would you be happy with an unapproved group that none of us have seen handling such a delicate matter?

Roger Gough · 17-10-2005, 12:15 PM

This was debated on the Forum ad nauseum via Doug Denny. He was of the opinion that the constitution could be shaped, at will, by the NEC to suit their purposes if the need arose and the membership had to just grin and bear it. This need arose apparently in respect of the formation of the Disciplinary panel. It was interesting to note that on receiving my renewed Membership Card in August this year, the accompanying letter - which thanked me for my continued membership - also carried a warning to the effect that, as a member, one was required to abide by the consitution otherwise one would be in deep doo-doos. (Presumably meaning that the Discipline Panel would sit in judgment on me should I ignore any part of the constitution !!!!) :? :shock:

C_steam · 17-10-2005, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Suppose, for example, that Mike Nattrass is put before the panel after the Petrina incident. Would you be happy with an unapproved group that none of us have seen handling such a delicate matter?

I don't imagine Mr Nattrass would let it lie so easily either!

Anthony Butcher · 17-10-2005, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Gough

This was debated on the Forum ad nauseum via Doug Denny.

I remember, but I thought that they would have put the Panel before the conference. It would have taken two minutes to do.

Alex McKee · 17-10-2005, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony Butcher

Yes, but surely the Panel still has to be ratified by the conference, even if it is picked/elected else where?

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the Panel can be approved at a Business Meeting or AGM. I presume that this is for the very specific reason that hardly anyone attends those meetings, so they are completely inapproporiate for approving a Discipline Panel with significant powers.

Suppose, for example, that Mike Nattrass is put before the panel after the Petrina incident. Would you be happy with an unapproved group that none of us have seen handling such a delicate matter?

Of course. It should be directly selected by conference at the Party Business Meeting. However, the party chose to ignore the constitution and hold the business meeting apart from conference.

Quote:

6.2 The conference will be divided INTO phpbb_two sections: the Party Business Meeting and the Conference Proper.
6.3 The Party Business Meeting will be open only to paid up Party members. Its business will be to receive reports from the national officers; to elect members of the Discipline Committee and the Conference Steering Committee (see paragraphs 14.3 and 14.5); and to determine the membership fee.

Anthony Butcher · 17-10-2005, 12:36 PM

OK, that will do.

However, I still think that we need to put the panel in front of the conference in the future to give them a proper mandate.

17-10-2005, 12:05 PM	#2 (permalink)
Alex McKee Moderator Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Gloucester Posts: 6,666	Re: Do we have a valid Discipline Panel? Do you remember that the time the Independence News was really late (Marks first one I think), it carried an announcement of the Party Business Meeting. This year the conference and business meeting were held separately against the constitution. This is why we didn't vote on a Discipline Panel. Alex

17-10-2005, 12:08 PM	#3 (permalink)
SponPlague Uber Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Zurich Posts: 3,176	Discipline Why is the question being asked: Are we likely to see some business in the near future? :evil:

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

17-10-2005, 12:15 PM	#6 (permalink)
Roger Gough Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Hotel California Posts: 708	This was debated on the Forum ad nauseum via Doug Denny. He was of the opinion that the constitution could be shaped, at will, by the NEC to suit their purposes if the need arose and the membership had to just grin and bear it. This need arose apparently in respect of the formation of the Disciplinary panel. It was interesting to note that on receiving my renewed Membership Card in August this year, the accompanying letter - which thanked me for my continued membership - also carried a warning to the effect that, as a member, one was required to abide by the consitution otherwise one would be in deep doo-doos. (Presumably meaning that the Discipline Panel would sit in judgment on me should I ignore any part of the constitution !!!!) :? :shock:

17-10-2005, 12:36 PM	#10 (permalink)
Anthony Butcher Administrator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Long Ashton, Bristol Posts: 10,208 Party: None	OK, that will do. However, I still think that we need to put the panel in front of the conference in the future to give them a proper mandate.