THE POPULAR FRONT FOR THE LIBERATION OF CPSA
FIGHTING ON IN OUR 45th YEAR BUT A BIT RETIRED NOW
FREEDOM! UNITY! SOCIALISM!
ONE CIVIL SERVICE UNION,
ONE GLORIOUS DESTINY!
REVOLUTION UNTIL VICTORY!
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT'S RESPONSE 27/05/02
2) CLAUDETTE HERBERT DISTANCES HERSELF FROM THE COUP
Colleagues
I have seen various reports of the events of 23rd May NEC meeting, none of
them entirely accurate. I have also been asked to explain my part in them.
I do not think it appropriate to use Departmental email facilities in this
way, but I am not going to hide behind that excuse.
I attach two papers: the first (NECrep2305) is my straightforward account of
what happened, which I am attempting to get issued to all members today.
The second (cmmnt2305) is a commentary about the issues that were decided at
the meeting.
I am sorry I am unable to respond specifically to the various questions that
have been asked of me: I have tried to answer them all in the attached.
See also letter in today's Guardian.
I have tried to act in good faith and within the Rules. On the General
Secretary issue, there has been no 'backstairs deal' done between the
National Moderate Group and either me, IR Group NEC members, or Membership
First generally.
Ted Euers
I want to report to members the events of the National Executive Committee
meeting on 23rd May, which I presided over. I apologise for the length of
this report, but I am aware that stories are already circulating, and all
PCS members ought to be able to know the facts, if they wish.
I have written this report on the train home from the meeting whilst events
are still fresh in my mind, and will attempt to detail the facts, and
nothing but the facts.
I am not the PCS President – I am the most senior of the four Vice
Presidents – so to Chair the first meeting of the new NEC is in itself an
exceptional event. The circumstances were as follows:
1. The PCS General Secretary (Barry Reamsbottom) called a meeting of the
NEC, as he is entitled to do under PCS Rule 7.19.
2. At the allotted time of 11.30am on 23rd May 2002, as far as I could make
out, 42 members (including the President and all four Vice Presidents) were
in attendance out of the 46 members elected to the 2002 – 2004 NEC. Four
members had submitted their apologies, being unavoidably detained on other
PCS business, on leave, or ill.
3. The President welcomed everyone to the PCS Boardroom but stated that a
meeting was not to be held. She made a statement, which included reading out
the text of a letter that she had sent to the General Secretary. In essence,
it said that she had Queens Counsel legal opinion that advised that the
meeting be improperly convened. A written copy of that opinion was not
presented.
4. In the absence of clear legal advice, and the refusal of the President to
formally open the meeting, Vice President McGowan asked for a show of hands
from elected NEC members indicating who present wanted a meeting to go
ahead. 26 members voted to go ahead with a meeting (I voted in favour, as I
considered that the Rule was clear, and nothing was being presented to me
that made me doubt my judgement).
5. Vice President McGowan further moved that, if the President refused to
abide by the will of a clear majority of the NEC, that the senior Vice
President present (myself) should Chair the meeting. 25 members voted in
favour (I abstained).
6. In respect of both votes, Vice President McGowan did not ask for those
voting against, or those abstaining, as there was a clear majority in
favour, and he was being subjected to heckling, shouting, and general
disruption.
7. I should say at this point, that throughout these proceedings, except
when the President was speaking, a number of NEC members were shouting “this
is not a meeting”, and generally heckling, continuously.
8. I stood up to Chair the meeting (the President occupied the raised chair
of the Chairperson and was clearly not prepared to relinquish it). The
President immediately warned me that I was acting unconstitutionally and
that I may be making myself liable to legal action. I said that in my
opinion the General Secretary had acted properly in calling the meeting, and
in the light of the expressed will of the majority of the NEC, I was
prepared for it to go ahead with me in the Chair. I was acting in good faith
and to the best of my ability in respect of the responsibilities given to me
by members in the election.
9. The President asked that I listen to her statement, and I did so. She
repeated much of what she had said before, with the addition that all
members of the NEC were making themselves liable to legal action if the
meeting went ahead. At this point all other members of the NEC were quiet.
Eventually she started repeating herself again, and I interrupted to say
that I was prepared to adjourn the meeting for her legal advice to be
provided to me and the rest of the Committee.
10. She said she would adjourn. I pointed out that if this wasn’t a meeting,
and she wasn’t in the Chair, there was nothing she could adjourn. But I
believed the meeting had started, and that I was Chairing it. I therefore
adjourned the meeting for 20 minutes, until 12 noon, for legal advice to be
provided.
11. The general Secretary had taken the precaution of having a Solicitor on
hand, so I sought legal advice in person. The advice I was to the effect
that both the General Secretary, and myself, had acted properly.
12. Shortly before 12 noon, I approached the President and asked if I could
have a copy of the legal advice she had earlier referred to. Without turning
to me or looking at me, she said that she would respond in due course to the
General Secretary’s request to see the advice.
13. I then re-opened the meeting and the shouting and heckling recommenced.
14. In the absence of the NEC having yet agreed Standing Orders (or
prodedures for debate and conduct of meetings), I said I would follow the
standard meetings procedures (“Citrine”, a copy of which I had in front of
me).
15. I asked for the disruption to cease. I asked those people heckling to
sit down and be quiet. I asked them to leave the room. None of these
requests worked, so I adjourned the meeting to another room along the
corridor.
16. Some of those creating the disruption were amongst the first to enter
the room. The others soon arrived, which I thought peculiar since they were
maintaining that “there is no meeting”.
17. I looked around so see if the President was in attendance (with
difficulty, as the room was in chaos). I had intended asking her to
reconsider and hold the meeting, as the majority of the NEC clearly desired,
and to Chair the meeting. PCS Rule 7.12 states “In the President’s absence
the senior Vice President shall preside, and act with the authority of the
President.” Being unable to see or approach the President, I felt I had no
choice but to abide by that Rule.
18. As soon as I stood up, the disruption recommenced. I repeated my
requests for order and decorum; I asked again that those heckling desist, or
leave the room. Nothing worked. In fact it got worse, with some people
coming to stand right next to me, and directly in front of me, bellowing
“this is not a meeting”, abuse, and similar comments. At one point, someone
shouted in my ear “I hope your house is in someone else’s name, because we’
ll get it off you” (or words to that effect).
19. I then announced to the meeting that reasoned debate on the issues
before us would clearly be impossible. However, everyone had the relevant
papers before them which they could read (and had already read, I believed,
on the basis of personal observation), so I proposed to put each paper, in
turn, to the Committee to vote.
20. At this point I should explain to you that there are certain issues
which the first meeting of a new NEC is obliged to do: agree it’s Standing
Orders; and determine the membership of a number of sub-committees. These
issues were the subject of the first two papers before the Committee. A
third paper had been laid before the NEC by the General Secretary which
included written legal advice from Queens Counsel to the effect that the
General Secretary election held in October 2000 was unlawful and in breach
of PCS Rules. Whether or not that paper would be taken was dependent on the
NEC Standing Orders, which incorporates procedures for ‘late papers’ and
items to be discussed.
21. I therefore put to the meeting the paper which included the proposed
Standing Orders for the PCS NEC 2002 to 2004. I moved a minor amendment from
the Chair (shouting, at the top of my voice in an attempt to be heard) which
was carried on a show of hands.
22. I then put the paper, as amended, to the vote. For the avoidance of
doubt, and to try to give everyone a clear and obvious opportunity to cast
his or her vote, I conducted a ‘roll call’. This involves reading out the
name of each elected member, in turn, and giving them an opportunity to call
out: ‘For’, ‘Against’, or ‘Abstain’.
23. At one point when I was conducting one of the three ‘roll call’ votes,
an individual attempted to snatch the paper (which listed names and my note
of each person’s vote) from my hands. I turned to him and said “If you try
that again I will consider it to be assault”.
24. By now, as you can imagine, with more than fifty people in the room (the
elected members, staff, and a further group of members from a room next door
who had been told ‘this is not a meeting’, so had ‘gatecrashed’ and were
stood directly behind me also heckling), it was becoming very difficult to
hear for some people.
25. I shouted out each name of the elected members slowly and as clearly as
I could. I personally recorded four Apologies for absence, and 26 votes in
favour. I was unable to elicit a response from the other 16 members (some
may have been absent, others I was told later couldn’t hear, and others – I
presume – chose not to respond).
26. As there was a clear majority of the NEC in favour, I declared the
Standing Orders adopted.
27. I repeated the procedure for the paper that listed each NEC
sub-committee, working group, forum etc., and proposed membership.
28. Again by recorded vote, there were 4 apologies, 26 votes in favour, and
16 non-responses. I declared as carried the paper relating to
sub-committees, etc.
29. I then asked the General Secretary to introduce the third paper (the
Standing Orders enable the General Secretary to admit late papers to an NEC
Agenda).
30. He attempted to explain the necessity of debating the issues contained
in the paper, but was barely able to be heard above the tumult. He was
standing about a metre away from me and I could barely hear him. He said he
had no choice but to put the paper to the meeting, as I had done with the
earlier two papers. All the papers were properly and formally moved and
seconded.
31. Again, I followed the voting procedure as outlined above. This time
there were 4 apologies, 25 votes in favour, one against and 16
non-responses. Nevertheless, this was still a clear majority in favour, and
I declared as carried the recommendations contained in the paper.
32. The Standing Orders, agreed earlier, included as an Appendix a calendar
of meetings for the 2002 –2004 NEC. In accordance with that calendar, I
declared the NEC adjourned until Wednesday 19th June 2002.
I must apologise to all PCS members for the unsatisfactory nature of the
deliberations of your elected representatives in attempting to conduct the
legitimate business of the National Executive Committee. I have already
apologised to the PCS staff in attendance for having to put up and
experience such behaviour from their employer. I am sorry that I could not
prevent it.
Whatever the decisions of the NEC, right or wrong, we should conduct
ourselves with decorum and professionalism. I will do all in my power to try
to ensure that is the case in future.
TED EUERS
Senior Vice President
cmmnt2305
The central question is: was the NEC on 23rd May 2002 constitutional?
Rule 7.19 says (in full):
“The NEC shall meet not fewer than 4 times each year, and at such other
times as either (a) the President or General Secretary considers necessary,
or (b) a majority of NEC members request in writing (in such a case only to
deal with the matters specified), or (c) the NEC decides under its standing
orders. The quorum of the NEC or its Committees (except for the National
Disputes Committee) shall be a majority of the voting members.”
Rule 8.3 says:
“The General Secretary may:
(a) convene (after consulting the President) meetings of the NEC and its
Committees.
(b) Attend any meeting of the Union …..” etc: remainder not relevant.
The President is relying on her perceived lack of consultation with her.
Whether or not that took place (and the General Secretary is arguing it
did), the Rule does not allow the President the power of veto over the
General Secretary’s decision on this issue. In addition, 7.19 says “the NEC
shall meet … as … the … General Secretary considers necessary …”, wheras 8.3
says “The General Secretary may: convene (after consulting the President)
meetings of the NEC …”.
It was and is my belief (confirmed by legal advice) that the meeting on 23rd
May was properly convened and was constitutional.
In any event, a clear majority of the NEC (cf 7.19(b)) indicated they wanted
the meeting to go ahead.
Rule 7.12 states “In the President’s absence the senior Vice President shall
preside, and act with the authority of the President.” Given the refusal of
the President to open or Chair a meeting, she was effectvely making herself
‘absent’. I therefore abided by the Rules and presided over the meeting.
Going on to the politics of the issue.
Standing Orders:
I believe that it is a nonsense that the SOs of the old NEC are binding on
the new. There are many newly-elected members.
However, even if they are, the old SOs explicitly say “adoption of these
Standing Orders shall be the first item of business for the NEC at its first
post-election meeting.” So the paper that was in front of the NEC on 23rd
May was open for debate, amendment, and decision. It was based on the old
SOs, with several amendments.
In fact I tried to initiate debate by moving an amendment from the Chair. It
proved impossible to hold a debate, as I have explained elsewhere, and both
the amendment and substantive paper was put to the vote.
Sub-Committees, etc.
Again, this needed to be determined at the first meeting. I had been
negotiating with the National Moderate Group on behalf of Membership First
regarding sub-committee representation since (if I recall correctly) the
Tuesday of Conference week. When I learnt that they were intending not to
leave any spaces for any member of Left Unity, I argued strongly against
this. They would not accept one particular MF member, either. I argued
repeatedly against this course of action as, amongst other things, I
considered it to be tactically inept. I got nowhere.
I was not, however, prepared to sacrifice MF membership of sub-committees to
this point of principle. When MF had an absolute majority, we were careful
to try to avoid giving LU or NMG any strategically important places or
majorities on committees. It is a matter of degree. I would rather we were
in the tent, than outside the tent.
General Secretary
This was the key paper, and it is entirely the responsibility of LU that
debate did not take place. I, and I am sure other IR Group NEC members,
wanted a proper debate. We wanted to question the basis of the legal advice
laid in front of us, and to compare and contrast with the legal advice and
earlier papers taken by the 98-00 and 00-02 NECs.
LU prevented us from doing so.
I can only speak for myself in how I voted: I was placed in the position of
having some pretty clear legal advice in front of me which in effect said
that the earlier NECs had acted illegally. In the absence of any other
information, I decided to take it at face value. I therefore decided to
support the recommendations it contained.
Ted Euers
MESSAGE FROM CLAUDETTE HERBERT 27/05/02
Dear all,
I have received emails, telephone calls and faxes regarding the NEC meeting
in Clapham on Thursday 23 May 2002.
I would like to make the following statement:
Although I did not vote for Mark as General Secretary or for Janice as
President, I respect democracy. I believe that they have the right to run
the union as befits their mandate and with the will of the membership. They
have my full support.
I believe in justice and fair play and I abhor the bullying and harassment
that Janice was being subjected to on Thursday.
I wasn't and never will be party to that sort of dictatorship.
The whole meeting was unethical, unpleasant, despicable and distasteful. It
was chaotic and a complete shamble.
I did not vote with the Moderates in any shape or form.
My conscience is clear.
Claudette Herbert
National Executive Committee
Inland Revenue Group