Conference Agenda Oct 2021 PRINT - Flipbook - Page 18
to making a decision provided that rules on
confidentiality are observed and on this the
Complaints Manager can advise if required.
Attendance at GPEx meetings
On the 7th June 2021 Britta Goodman asked whether
GPEx members can attend the meetings of committees
established by GPEx of which they are not themselves
members. In the request BG indicated that the dates and
times of meetings were not publicised to members of GPEx
not on those committees.
SOC reply was as follows:
Section 5 of the Standing orders of GPEx is concerned
with committees established by GPEx. SOC note that
section 5.6 of the Standing Orders of GPEx includes
the sentence: “Meetings shall be open to Party
members and advertised”
And that Section 5.7 begins “Notice and minutes of
each committee meeting shall be circulated to all
members of GPEx.”
SOC are of the view that:
i) in conformity with section 5.6 of the GPEx
Standing Orders, members of GPEx, as well as any
other members of the Party can attend meetings
of GPEx committees except where attendance is
precluded under one of the criteria set out in GPEx
Standing Orders section 4.3 on Confidentiality
which is based on section 12(v) of the GPEW
constitution.
ii) in conformity with section 5.7 of the GPEx
Standing Orders, dates and times of meetings of
the committees of GPEx should be advertised,
including to other members of GPEx.
Regional vacancies on Disciplinary Committee
On the 10th June 2021 SR on behalf of the Regional
Committee of NW Regional GP asked whether a vacancy
to Disciplinary Committee occasioned by the resignation of
the member, could be filled by co-option, or would require
an election.
SOC reply was as follows:
SOC note that the GPEW constitution allows regions
to fill casual vacancies for regional representatives to
GPRC “according to its constitution” (s.6(v)). However
we also note that the same flexibility is not permitted
in relation to members of the Disciplinary Committee
(s.4(x))
The constitution of the NWGP reflects this distinction
in the national constitution in that s.6.13.1 refers to
18
the election of representatives to GPRC and to DC,
while s.6.13.4 refers only to the co-option of members
of GPRC to fill casual vacancies.
SOC are of the view that the post must be filled
by election.SR also comments that the regional
committee will seek to amend the regional
constitution to allow co-option to fill casual vacancies
on the Disciplinary Committee. In the light of the point
made in paragraph 2 above, this would be contrary to
the s.4(x) of the constitution of the GPEW.
Training for those in disciplinary process (2)
MJ asked for advice about SOPD 1.9 and whether
offering training to members involved in the complaints
process counted as their having ‘received’ it, and whether
complaints activity must cease until all relevant members
had been trained.
SOPD 1.9. says:
“It is a requirement that .... shall receive training...”
A previous ruling on a similar subject had been made
prior to Spring 2021 for Disciplinary Committee.
SOC reply was as follows:
“Received” means training has been received and
completed, not just offered. However, SOPD does not
state how much or what level of training, nor who
will supply the training or who is to ensure that it is
carried out. It does not say who will decide this, or pay
for it, or where these details will be written down. It
does not say that the received training has to be that
offered by the Party, and a member receiving even
minimal training elsewhere can say that they have
met the requirement as it does not say how receipt
of training will be certified, so self-certified would be
a default. It only says that members involved in party
discipline have to be able to say they have received
some kind of training at some time, of unknown
quantity or content.
SOPD says:
“It is a requirement” but does not explicitly state what
activities this is a requirement for. No timeline is given by
when the training has to be received.
We do not think that Conference, in passing the motion,
would have intended that all complaints activities cease
until the condition is met, as this would mean that the
timelines in SOPD could not be adhered to.
Also, DC have no right under SOPD to remove a committee
member involved in the complaints process because they
have not received any training from any source, although
any appointees by GPEx can be removed if their terms of
appointment say this. We advise that SOPD is amended to