Conference Agenda Oct 2021 PRINT - Flipbook - Page 17
specifically this: “They shall serve a term lasting as if
they were starting following the result of the previous
Annual Ballot, or if held after May, lasting as if it were
starting following the result of the next Annual Ballot.”
My reading of this suggests that an election which takes
place before the end of the year would be for a term of
almost three years - essentially adding on all the time
between that election and next September (when the new
leader would normally take up their position) to the two
However, if the election were to take place after January
1st 2022, then the term would be deemed to have started
from September 2021, so would last until September 2023
and shift the timings of our leadership elections from their
current position in odd years to taking place in even years.
With the exception of one of the deputy leader role which
would take place in the even years as it does now.
Could you confirm what the SOC interpretation of this
clause in the constitution is in this situation.
On 11 July 2021 Carla Denyer made the following request:
I am not sure who the ERO for the leadership elections
will be, but assuming that it will either be an SOC
member, or at least that you know who it is and could
pass this on, I have some questions:
What is the nomination/election timeline is exactly?
How long would the newly elected leader(s) and/or
deputy/ies hold the role for? Until 2022 or 2024?
Is there any possibility of postponing the election
until after Autumn conference? I gather than the
plan was to select before then and announce at
conference and understand why that would be
preferable, but just thinking that after conference
would helpfully allow the party to fix two
constitutional issues we’re currently facing:
Will a deputy election be happening at same time?
Or only co-leaders?
The problem that the constitution doesn’t give
exact instruction for how a by-election runs in this
Allows us to debate the motion on gender balance
submitted that was submitted but not heard at
the last two conferences. Given the significant
impact of the fact that this motion has not yet been
debated on who can stand in the election, and that
this would have ramifications for up to 3 years, it
strikes me that it would be preferable to allow the
motion to be debated before the internal election if
Since both of these requests dealt with the same or similar
questions, SOC decided to treat them together.
SOC by majority ruled as follows:
Taking Section 8 Clause XI of the Constitution to mean
that an election taking place ‘after May’ (as this one
is) will result in the winners serving a term lasting as
if they were starting following the result of the ‘next
Annual Ballot’. At time of submission this is taken to
mean the next Annual Ballot after May i.e. to be held
in Autumn of 2021.
Under Section 8 Clause V the elections for Leaders/
Co-Leaders shall take place every 2 years. The term
of those Leaders or Co-Leaders elected in the 2021
by-election will therefore last until Autumn of 2023.
SOC also ruled unanimously as follows:
The above ruling does not affect the timing of
elections or terms for Deputy Leaders. The timing
and conduct of elections for both Leaders and Deputy
Leaders is in the hands of the ERO and DERO.
SOC recognises that this creates the possibility
of elections becoming staggered yearly between
Leaders and Deputy Leaders, which is undesirable for
administrative, financial and other reasons.
SOC therefore proposes that appropriate motions
be made by SOC to amend the relevant portion of
the Constitution which can then be voted on by
Conference, in order to re-align the elections for
Leaders and Deputy Leaders and to clarify the
situation for any future byelections.
Martha James as GPRC co-chair asked:
In the case where DCRG believes a complaint
maybe vexatious, we believe that DCRG can make
the decision a complaint is vexatious. Under SOPD
1.6, DCRG have the power to dismiss a complaint.
DCRG want though to seek the advice of the deputy
chair of DC and GPRC on-calls, but the decision itself
would remain with DCRG. Can SOC confirm that
this proposed process meets SOPD and the code of
SOC reply was as follows:
Code of Conduct 15 states as unacceptable behaviour
by members: “Making a clearly vexatious or malicious
complaint; using a complaint as part of a pattern of
harassment; clearly abusing the complaint system
to attack a personal enemy or political opponent or
another person within the Green Party.” SOPD itself
does not reference vexatious complaints.
SOC cannot find anything in SOPD that precludes
members of DCRG from seeking advice prior