Conference Agenda Oct 2021 PRINT - Flipbook - Page 15
b. SOC Powerpoint Presentation on Chairing
Conference based on the above advice
–“CHALLENGES TO THE CHAIR. Very rare. This
procedural motion may challenge a single ruling,
or may be a vote of confidence. Ask SOC to explain
the procedure to Conference. In either case the
chair will need to step down for the vote and the
co-chair will need to take over.”
c. Procedural motions advice sheet handed out to
Conference participants on request –“Members
can move customary procedural motions during
the debate, usually on a ‘Point of Order’ (raise
card and say ‘Point of Order’ to the Chairperson).
If you do move one, then you may have to give a
short speech explaining why. If it is an appropriate
procedural motion, then someone else in the
plenary will often second it. For some procedural
motions there is a debate, others are put at once to
the vote. Procedural motions take priority over any
other business, unless someone is still speaking
or if a vote is in progress (unless it relates to that
vote). Some procedural motions do not curtail
debate. The proposer says, “I move”...“That
Conference has no confidence in the Chair” or “A
challenge to the Chair’s ruling”. Procedural motions
that do not curtail debate on a main motion do not
require debate.
3.
As the documents listed at (2) have no official
standing, a ruling on the meaning of relevant Party
constitutional/standing orders documents is not
possible.
4.
When the point of order was taken, then under
customary practice SOC should have taken conference
through the procedure and the first requirement
was to establish whether the motion was of general
confidence in the Chair or a challenge to a Chair’s
ruling. This SOC failed to do.
5.
There is no requirement for reasons to be stated
for a general no confidence motion. SOC notes say
“If you do move one, then you may have to give a
short speech explaining why”. Votes of Confidence
or No Confidence can customarily be taken without
a statement of reasons. As https://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Motion_of_no_confidence states “No confidence
motions may not require reasons to be specified.”
6.
For Challenges to a Chair’s Ruling it is customary
to require and allow a statement of reasons as
this is fundamentally an appeal against the Chair’s
ruling to the wider assembly and there needs to
be a discussion on whether the ruling was correct,
particularly if the ruling had been to curtail debate on
a substantive matter.
Disciplinary Cases, Reasonable Adjustment
and Anonymity
SA asked a series of questions in relation to process in an
investigation by DC.
1.
Are cases heard under the version of SOPD in force at
the time the complaint was made?
2.
Once Complainant and Respondent have been notified
of a hearing date is the Chair of DC empowered
to change it to allow for reasonable adjustments
requested by one party?
3.
Can the Chair of DC ask CRG (as it was at the time) to
review the request for anonymity previously granted
unless the Complainant agrees to waive their right to
anonymity?
SOC Reply:
1.
Changes to documents from the constitution
downwards (Constitution s.20(iii)) cannot be
retrospective in nature or effect. The requirements set
by the SOPD in force at the time of the complaint are
those that the Complainant has relied on in making
their complaint.
SOC are of the view that the version of SOPD in force at
the time the complaint is made is the one that will govern
the process followed. Accordingly section references below
apply to the SOPD in force at the time of the complaint
referred to by SA (in this case prior to Spring Conference
2021).
2.
SOPD 3.8 requires both Complainant and Respondent
to be asked if they require ‘reasonable adjustments’ to
be made to facilitate their involvement in the process.
Although this is placed at the start of the process,
it may be that one of the parties does not recognise
what may be involved at a later stage in the process
that might require their involvement to be assisted.
Equally an individual’s circumstances may change
during the time the case is progressing requiring
adjustments.
SOC is of the view that if there is a reasonable case made
for changing the date of a hearing then it is appropriate
for DC to make this decision and to have it communicated
to the parties concerned. The notification should not be
notified by the Chair of DC. SOPD at 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and
5.6 make it clear that the liaison with Complainant and
Respondent is managed by the Complaints Manager. If
there are reasons for delay the communication should be
from the Complaints Manager.
3.
SOPD 3.7, final sentence, is explicit that on request
from the respondent “the Referral Group shall review
a complainant’s anonymity”. Assuming the request
has come from the Respondent the Chair of DC is
15