Motion #01
SOC note: Record of Organisational Statements for SOC is in Appendix 4
To accept the following report (as amended, if amendments are agreed) and fast-tracking recommendations (as amended, if amendments are agreed).
Under Standing Orders, the SOC Report is to include: “(1) The Final Agenda and Ordering of Motions for Conference;
(2) a notification of how many motions and amendments have been ruled out of order and where these are published; (3) a report on SOC’s participation in the Agenda process including any motions or amendments that SOC is submitting to conference; (4) timetabling, chairing and other procedural matters affecting conference including elections to be held at conference, with the recommendations of SOC; (5) the report of the RO; (6) a report by SOC of any changes that they have adopted to their Standing Orders; (7) progress on Organisational Statements; (8) any other matters or recommendations that do not affect the running of conference; (9) rulings requested and made since the previous conference.”
Please report any errors found in the Final Agenda to soc@greenparty.org.uk.
The Green Party develop most of our policy by way of Voting Papers for chapters of policy in Policies for a Sustainable Society, as prepared by a Working Group following an Enabling Motion. These come to Conference either as B motions (for voting) or F motions (drafts for discussion) for part or whole chapters of policy. Small changes to chapters can be made by C motions, which are accredited by Policy Development Committee (PDC) as having met extended requirements for consultation. E motions are unaccredited motions and Enabling Motions. SOC held our First Agenda meeting on Zoom on 31st July 2022. The order of policy motions in section C was suggested by Policy Development Committee (PDC) in email correspondence received following this meeting on 3rd August 2022, and confirmed during subsequent meetings on 14th and 28th August 2022 (with some changes, see below). The order of these motions is given below. The motions proposed in the Final Agenda for this Annual General Meeting and Conference are: Section A Reports. The Constitution sets out variously that Autumn Conference requires A Reports from: Standing Orders Committee (SOC); Policy Development Committee (PDC); the Equality and Diversity (E&D) Coordinator; the Green Party Regional Council (GPRC); the Green Party Executive (GPEx); Conferences Committee; Campaigns Committee; and the Elections Coordinator. By the time of the First Agenda Meeting SOC had received reports from all relevant groups and committees save for the Leaders and Deputy Leader, PDC (which by practice submits closer to the Final Agenda deadline), and Campaigns Committee. These reports were subsequently received by: 1st; 2nd; 6th ; and 26th August respectively.
Amendments to section A: Amendments to motions A01 and A02 can be made from the floor of Conference. Three other A Motions had amendments proposed to them via the Amendment Forum: A11; A13; and A15. We recommend that all other A motions be fast-tracked. The order was determined on past practice and is as in the First Agenda. The Prioritisation Ballot for motions does not apply to Section A. Under Standing Orders, “c) The ballot shall not be used to prioritise items within Section A of the Agenda since these should all be considered.”
Section B Voting Papers on Chapters of Policies for a Sustainable Society: A Voting Paper on Land Use, previously presented at Spring Conference 2022 in Draft Form, was presented to this Conference as motion B01, which was received in advance of the First Agenda deadline. Three amendments were proposed to this Voting Paper, of which one had insufficient proposers to be considered. The remainder were in order. Section C Accredited Policy Motions. These policy motions were accredited after the First Agenda stage and had been listed as E motions in the Prioritisation Ballot. Accreditation by Policy Development Committee (PDC) does not mean that the Committee agrees with the policy content. It means that PDC has checked that the motion was adequately researched and consulted on, both internally and externally. It is also confirms that the motion is not in conflict with other policies passed in the last two years. The motions concern: emergency energy reduction for the UK; climate targets; accountability for climate damage; closer alignment with the EU; and updates to the Philosophical Basis concerning climate and the economy.
Amendments to section C. Of those motions that became part of section C, 3 had amendments proposed to them via the amendment forum. Of this total of 14 proposed amendments, 2 had insufficient co-proposers to be considered, and 1 was found to be out of order in its entirety. The remainder were in order, though some had parts that were out of order. The order of Section C as proposed by PDC was largely reflected in the Final Agenda. However, SOC members decided that they would be guided by the Prioritisation Ballot results to the extent that Motion C01 moved from second to first place.
| First Agenda | Final Agenda |
| E05 Climate Targets | C01 |
| E02 Emergency Energy Reduction for the UK | C02 |
| E06 Closer Alignment to the European Union | C03 |
| E18 Improving National Accountability for Climate Damage | C04 |
| E20 Philosophical Basis Climate and Economy Updates | C05 |
Section D. Amendments to section D. Of those motions that became part of section D, 9 had amendments proposed to them via the amendment forum. Of this total of 26 proposed amendments, 12 had insufficient co-proposers to be considered, and of those remaining none were found to be out of order. The ranking is as members voted in the Prioritisation Ballot using the Modified Borda Count system. Once this count had been run, we applied multipliers to motions which came to previous conferences but had not been heard. This resulted in two motions which had been brought to previous Conferences in Autumn 2021 and Spring 2022 (D14 and D21 in the First Agenda) moving from 3rd to 1st place and from 22nd to 4th place, respectively. We have exercised our discretion under SOCC under SOCC F2.6(c) to move D16, Remuneration for Wales leader, to third place in the agenda, given that it concerns the continued functioning of the Green Party of Wales.
| First Agenda | Ballot | Final Agenda |
| D14 Reforming the party’s Annual General Meeting | 1 | D01 |
| D04 Change to the Constitution for Disciplinary Committee | 2 | D02 |
| D22 Wales Green Party Spokesperson Remuneration | 16 | D03 |
| D07 A toolkit for healing divisions in the Green Party | 3 | D04 |
| D21 Stonewall and Disaffiliation from Diversity Champions Scheme | 4 | D05 |
| D06 Changes to SOC | 5 | D06 |
| D10 Extending the term of elected policy development committee membership | 6 | D07 |
| D08 Ending new HIV Transmissions by 2030 part 1 | 7 | D08 |
| D09 Enhancing the complaints process | 8 | D09 |
| D11 General Election Candidate Selection - Update to Rules | 9 | D10 |
| D15 Changing eligibility to vote in GPEW internal elections | 10 | D11 |
| D02 Add Constitution Section on Spokespeople | 11 | D12 |
| D03 Adopt Proactive Stance for Standing in Elections | 12 | D13 |
| D12 Green Party committee reform and expansion | 13 | D14 |
| D16 Reopen Nominations to Avoid All Men and all White Internal Elections | 14 | D15 |
| D05 Changes to GPEx | 15 | D16 |
| D01 Abolish no-fault suspensions | D17 | D17 |
| D13 Pathfinder Motion | 18 | D18 |
| D17 SOC Motion - Constitutional amendment re leadership election | 19 | D19 |
| D19 SOC Motion - SOCC amendment for conference reform | 20 | D20 |
| D18 SOC Motion - Constitutional amendment re role of RON | 21 | D21 |
| D20 SOC Motion - SOCC amendment for separated motion submission deadlines | 22 | D22 |
Section E Unaccredited policy motions.
Amendments to section E. Of those motions that became part of section E, 4 had amendments proposed to them via the amendment forum. Of this total of 7 proposed amendments, 1 had insufficient co-proposers to be considered, and of those remaining none were found to be out of order (except in part). Order of motions: We used the same method to rank these motions as we did for D motions. This resulted in five motions which had been brought to a previous Conference in Spring 2022 (E12, E14, E17, E21 and E25 in the First Agenda) moving from: 25th to 13th place; 21st to 12th place; 24th to 17th; 16th to 4th place; and 13th to 2nd place, respectively. Motions E02, E05, E06, E18 and E20 were included in the Prioritisation Ballot but, as noted above, went on to be C motions.
| First Agenda | Ballot | Final Agenda |
| E25 Updates to the philosophical basis | 2 | E01 |
| E01 £15 Minimum Wage | 3 | E02 |
| E21 Restitution and Repatriation of Cultural Objects | 4 | E03 |
| E22 Stating opposition to anti-union and anti-strike laws | 5 | E04 |
| E04 Amending crime and justice policies | 8 | E05 |
| E10 Enabling Motion for the Disability Policy Chapter | 9 | E06 |
| E19 Moonshot to Retrofit Homes | 10 | E07 |
| E08 Enabling Motion for Marine and Coastal Policy Chapter | 11 | E08 |
| E14 Ensuring sex and gender are not conflated | 12 | E09 |
| E12 Enabling Motion for the Tourism and Heritage Policy | 13 | E10 |
| E23 Supporting workers taking strike action | 14 | E11 |
| E11 Enabling Motion for the Natural Resources and Waste | ||
| Management Policy Chapter | 16 | E12 |
| E17 GPEW is an Eco-socialist Party | 17 | E13 |
| E13 Ending new HIV transmissions by 2030 part 2 | 18 | E14 |
| E09 Enabling Motion to Rewrite the Education Policy Chapter of | ||
| Policies for a Sustainable Society | 19 | E15 |
| E03 Access to Fertility Treatment | 20 | E16 |
| E07 Enabling Motion for Culture and Media Policie | 21 | E17 |
| E15 EU100-111 Interim amendment to for Vision for Europe | 22 | E18 |
| E16 Fully Fund HS2 | 24 | E19 |
| E24 Dolphins and pilot whales in the Faroe Islands | 25 | E20 |
Section F Draft Voting Papers for revising substantial parts of PSS.
There are two Draft Voting Papers in section F to be given workshops at Conference ready for progression to the B motion stage. These concern revisions to two Chapters of Policies for a Sustainable Society (PfSS): ‘Peace & Defence’; and ‘Migration’. 3 Amendments were submitted to 1 of these papers via the amendment forums, but none of them received sufficient co-proposers to be considered further
Compositing
No motions were composited. It was decided that one motion, originally submitted as ‘Ending new HIV transmissions by 2030’, should be split into two motions, since it proposed courses of action which were both organisational and policy-oriented. These became motions D08/E13 in the First Agenda and D07/E14 in the Final Agenda (see above
Late Motions
The Late Motions Forum was open from the 27th August to 9th September 2022 at https://spaces.greenparty.org.uk/s/spring-2022-late-motion-forum/ for items that could not have been submitted by the First Agenda Deadline because they related to events taking place since then. A number of Late Motions were submitted but found to be Out of Order in their original form. Following advice from Standing Orders Committee, amended motions were re-submitted to bring them back in order. Considering the number of Late Motions needing last minute adjudication and Standing Orders for the Conduct of Conference not requiring late motions to be part of the Final Agenda, Late Motions for this Conference will follow the Final Agenda in a Supplementary Agenda.
Emergency Motions (EMs)
We opened the Emergency Motions Forum on 10th September 2022, but EMs are not part of the Final Agenda.
Summaries and synopses
Standing Orders for the Conduct of Conference states that all motions must have a synopsis of not more than 50 words, or 300 for a policy paper. In practice we do not reject motions without a synopsis although we reserve the right to do so. We cut overlong synopses at 50 words and note that this has happened.
Background Information
Where provided, we link to background information below the motion. SOCC requires background information to be in notes, not in the motion itself. Where background information is given in the submitted motion, SOC may remove it to a note.
Following the First Agenda meeting, 7 motions were found to be Out of Order, with reasons given.
The process of putting motions together for this Conference especially has highlighted the judgement that SOC members must exercise when determining whether or not a motion ‘substantially changes’ or ‘has complex implications for’ existing policy and has passed through the ‘agreed process of consultation’ (and what that means in each case), when determining whether or not it is Out of Order under SOCC E2(g)-(h). SOC members note that this would be an area that would benefit from some concerted attention going forward, possibly in consultation with members of Policy Development Committee, Conferences Committee and others.
Concerning those motions found to be Out of Order, all proposers were contacted following the First Agenda meeting with suggestions as to how, if at all, their motions could be amended back into order. There was initial engagement from a number of proposers who began the process of making such amendments to their motions as might persuade SOC to recommend to Conference that those motions be restored to order. Some of these subsequently diminished in their engagement.
Ultimately, SOC was able to consider amendments proposed to motions OoO1 and OoO4 from the First Agenda. We were not persuaded that these amendments were sufficient to remedy what we had originally identified as making them Out of Order.
Following the Final Agenda meeting, those amendments found to be Out of Order were noted, with reasons given, in the published minutes.
SOC and staff opened the Agenda Forum in June 2022 at Greenspaces (https://spaces.greenparty.org.uk/s/autumnconference-2022-agenda-forum/space/space/home) and a calendar of deadlines was posted there. An email was sent to all Party members to say that it had opened.
Attempting to build on the lessons learned from Spring Conference 2022 and continue what committee members regarded as good practice, SOC continued to try and hold meetings every two weeks wherever possible to manage the throughflow of work, and have continued to take advantage of a number of newly-introduced features to the ‘Trello’ platform to make deliberating and voting on rulings and advice easier.
SOC also continued its endeavours to make the process of submitting motions to Conference easier. After much positive feedback about the agenda website we created for Spring conference, we continued using it. This includes mentions from Conferences Committee as part of their report to this Conference, whose assistance we acknowledge gratefully. This allowed members to propose motions other than by emailing SOC, and we are pleased to note its continued, and apparently increased, use by members
Certainly, there are still some issues; in particular, numbers of co-proposers were not updated live but required manual work by volunteers. Given the sheer volume of participants involved this represented a considerable investment of time. We nevertheless hope that the continued adoption of this website model has made the overall work of engaging with Conference easier for all involved. We would not be surprised if this was at least somewhat reflected in the considerable volume of submissions, both in the way of motions and co-proposals, to this Conference Agenda. We welcome signs that engagement of the Party’s members with its democratic process is increasing.
As always, we urge members to place items on the Agenda Forum at an early stage so that you can consult, revise wording, attract co-proposers or support from a local party or working group. We also advise anybody interested in developing policy to contact Policy Development Committee early on in. This will help you to navigate what can be a confusing process.
This year, SOC also voted to separate out the deadlines for submitting the final wording of a motion and submitting valid co-proposals by one week. This created additional breathing-space for both members deciding which motions to co-propose and members of SOC collating those motions. We have submitted a motion to Conference which aims to solidify this change (see below). SOC will be mindful of this in considering how we might revise the Standing Orders for Conduct of Conference (SOCC) in future to allow for a more efficient use of time
SOC placed several items on the Pre-Agenda forum which became motions in the Final Agenda. These are entitled:
Constitutional Amendment re Leadership Election;
Clarifying the role of ‘re-open nominations’ (RON);
SOCC amendment for separated motion deadlines (see above);
An amendment to SOCC for wider Conference Reform.
The Prioritisation Ballot
Please note that we published the First Agenda with the D and E motions not strictly in the order required of them by the Constitution. We apologise for this. In any event, it does not appear to have had much effect on the ability of members to participate in the business of Conference.
Due to the confusion created by the removal of accredited motions from the E ballot for Spring Conference 2022, SOC decided on this occasion to place all policy motions in the Prioritisation Ballot. Even though this is not a strict requirement under SOCC, we felt that this would cause the least disruption and allow us to be guided, if necessary, by the results of the ballot.
For the same reasons, and owing to the sheer number of motions to be considered, we also made the decision not to add some motions to the Prioritisation Ballot. We did this if such motions were in the process of being amended to recommend that they be restored to order
The Prioritisation ballot ended on 26th August and we ran the STV results using a software programme developed for us by Phil Vabulas. We are grateful for his generous assistance which helped to alleviate what would otherwise have been hours of work by the relevant SOC volunteer.
This was the second Prioritisation Ballot run by SOC since the passage of a motion at Autumn Conference 2021 entitled ‘Prioritisation ballot for conference motions’, which required the use of a multiplier based on how many times the same motion had been proposed to preceding Conferences but not debated due to lack of time
This meant that we had to make two determinations:
i) How similar does a motion need to be from one Conference to the next in order for it to qualify? And ii) Which motions proposed to Spring Conference 2022 were therefore eligible?
Having deliberated, SOC decided that, as with amendments, textual changes to motions which do not substantially change the scope or meaning of the motion would be eligible. We therefore had to decide this case-by-case. We also decided that motions which were debated and referred back were not eligible for the modifier. The motion that created the modifier explicitly stated that it applies for motions that are not debated due to time constraints.
The application of the modifiers to the D and E motions is outlined in the paragraphs above.
In order to facilitate faster progress on the Agenda, at each conference SOC recommends motions for fast-tracking if we think they are uncontroversial and if they have no amendments
Any motions to be fast-tracked are taken to have been proposed and are voted on one by one immediately after the SOC Report has been passed and without any debate. If you have questions about motions proposed for fasttracking, make sure to ask them in a workshop.
If any ten members object to fast-tracking then the motion is not fast-tracked. The ten objecting members must be in plenary. This does not include members who are voting remotely . If agreed for fast-tracking then after Conference passes the SOC Report, the vote on the fast-tracked motion will include members who are voting remotely
Policy Development Committee have recommended the following motions from the Final Agenda to SOC for fasttracking by Conference
E05; E17; E08; E15; E06; E12; E10; E04; and E11
We also recommend the following motions for fast-tracking:
A03 A04 A05 A06 A07 A08 A09 A10 A13 A14 A16
We held regular meetings with conference staff, conference committee and policy development committee throughout the year and more often in the run-up to conference. This enabled us to co-ordinate around the aims of maximum participation and smooth running of conference, by
The revised Standing Orders Section G5 allows all members to register for remote voting online. This does not grant any rights of participation other than watching the proceedings and voting remotely online. However, as of Spring Conference 2022 a motion proposed by SOC was passed to include remote attendance in quoracy at Conference. It is currently open to chairs to allow registered members to participate. Due to Covid-19 and other issues such participation may be requested by members who have been unable to attend Conference in person
Following the ‘hybrid’ model of Conference, involving both online and face-to-face participation, used at Autumn Conference 2021, SOC became aware of a great deal of positive feedback from Conference attendees. This appeared to indicate that, where it is viable to do so, the Green Party ought to use this model going forward as a means to facilitate greater participation in Conference business.
We will accept speaker slips in advance from those who hope to participate from a remote location at the chair’s discretion. We will take procedural motions in advance from remote locations for Reference Back and Taking in Parts and Minor Textual Amendments. We can only accept other procedural motions and speeches on them from the Conference floor at physical conference but remote attendees can vote on them
The timetable has been set to allow for all A motions, B motions and C motions to be taken. In addition we expect to take at least one D motion and one E motion, but this will be dependent on factors such as:
(i) fast-tracking of A, D and E motions
(ii) the additional time required by online voting processes
(iii) any additional time required by online participation processes.
We will hold hustings and elections for the following voluntary posts at Autumn Conference:
Standing Orders Committee (5 members);
Conferences Committee (5 members);
Campaigns Committee (5 members);
International Committee (5 members);
Green World Editorial Board (5 members);
Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee (5 members);
and Equality and Diversity Committee (5 members)
We notified Party members of these vacancies in advance. We will open online voting from the end of hustings until 1pm on Sunday 2nd of October and in-person voting from 10am to 1pm in the Conference venue. We hope to announce the results at the end of the Sunday plenary. For more information on voting please contact ero@greenparty.org.uk.
The positions of Elections Returning Officer and Deputy Elections Returning Officer (ERO and DERO) are vital for the national party and became vacant again following Autumn Conference 2021. Knowing this, we advertised the vacancy in November without a closing date, to allow for the greatest possible number of applicants. We had five expressions of interest which resulted in the appointment of Martin Hemingway as ERO and Alex Booth and Hamza Egal as DEROs on the 23rd December 2021. As of 6th February 2022 Alex Booth stepped back from this role leaving Hamza Egal as sole DERO.
It will be seen from the rulings below that, on 14th August 2022, SOC members held a Vote of No Confidence in the ERO, which resulted in his removal from that post and the appointment of Hamza Egal as Acting ERO. We are grateful for the work and assistance of Jon Eccles, who put himself forward to assist as, and was subsequently appointed, Acting DERO on 28th August 2022.
This report is based on our time as EROs, appointed on the 30th of August 2022.
Electronic & postal ballot:
One major concern was the number of members having difficulties with the electronic system. The majority of ERO email traffic has been on access, these were dealt with by Sara Dryden. Postal votes were fewer than 50, again Sara was able to receive them and process them as agreed. Unfortunately, one of the candidates for chair was left off the postal vote, but the EROs agreed that the number of votes would not have affected the outcome, so it was agreed to accept the result as it stood.
Zoom hustings:
This was conducted by the previous ERO. Hamza listened into a few during the exercise, and they were relatively orderly. Using zoom has enabled more people to engage with the candidates, however, several complaints have been made about the use of derogative and defamatory language. Part of the problem is identifying the individual/s when it is across a large group of participants. Moving forward if we are to continue using such mediums, it might be best to develop principles for meetings and look at stronger internal procedures specific to online hustings.
Election irregularities raised by members:
I received a few emails by members of the party, who were quite dissatisfied with the election process. I asked members to submit their concerns and coinciding evidence via email of which they did. Due to the robust nature of politics, it is clear emotions are running high and my aim was to understand the issues and consult previous ERO’s in confidence.
The previous ERO Martin left towards the end of the elections, and it was clear that he had concerns regarding the code of conduct of some candidates. Candidates were warned via emails; however, it is unclear whether the issues continued after the warning. Breaches of the code of conduct is always a concern for any free and fair elections. Looking into the allegations, the information submitted by the members did not meet the threshold of invalidating the results. However, as ERO I see the need for a review simply because of the importance of transparency and accountability in especially national election procedures. There is a significant enough time gap between the ERO’s dismissal and appointment to warrant a further look at the concerns raised by the members by the relevant party authorities.
(6) a report by SOC of any changes that they have adopted to their Standing Orders
Following a procedural motion to take the SOC Report in parts during Spring Conference 2022, the section of the report containing any changes to our Standing Orders was not passed, and so we do not report any changes to our Standing Orders prior to that Conference.
Following Spring Conference 2022, SOC has twice amended its Standing Orders: once at a meeting of 3rd April 2022; and thereafter at a meeting of 31st July 2022. On both occasions the amended Standing Orders were subsequently published online. The latest version of SOC’s Standing Orders are included as Appendix 5 to this Agenda , and will need to be added to the SOCC
(7) progress on Organisational Statements;
Our progress on our Organisational Statements in RoOS at https://spaces.greenparty.org.uk/s/roos/ and in Appendix 3 falls into three categories
Category 1 (Completed)
Category 2 (Not carried out or not completed)
Category 3 (Not applicable due to the circumstances not arising) To ensure with PDC that the Policy Process presentation at https://members.greenparty.org.uk/node/59 is updated if the member website changes (SOC Report Recommendation, A1 Autumn 2020).
(8) Any other matters or recommendations that do not affect the running of conference.
Following Spring Conference 2022, it was noted that while Conference business was still able to press ahead, members of SOC were among those who experienced an unacceptable degree of barracking and abusive behaviour from a number of those participating in Conference. The need to address this is, we may assume, reflected at least partially in some of the rulings we have embarked on since then. In particular we highlight the discretion enjoyed by – and respect that should rightly be shown to – Conference Chairs. We urge members to show respect to anyone else whose participation helps to keep the business of Conference running.
We are grateful for the expressions of solidarity and support which have come to us from ordinary members of the Party. We are heartened by both their faith in us and their determination to make the business of this Party effective.
As always, a huge thank-you to the staff who have assisted and supported us during the year especially Louisa Greenbaum and Cameron Bairstow of Conferences Committee and to Vix Lowthion and her colleagues on Policy Development Committee who have provided us with extremely useful input and advice.
(9) Rulings requested and made since the previous conference. SOC continues to receive weekly requests for rulings and advice between conferences. The workload has increased in recent years due to complaints processes. We hope that the use of regular, fortnightly meetings and the work-sharing website Trello has sped up some parts of this process, but progress remains variable. It can take just a day but sometimes months to research, draft, agree a ruling, despatch it and post it to the SOC space. It is not always clear at the start of the process whether a ruling or interpretation of words in a Party document is the right response. We may have problems in finding relevant documents or Party documents may be silent on an issue. The rulings or replies to requests for rulings as listed below are: Ruling on Green Party Women Constitution On 23.02.2022 Ani Stafford-Townsend wrote: ‘1. If a member of the committee is suspended, specifically a co-chair, is it constitutional to co-opt another person into their position? ………
Therefore, unless there is a resignation or disciplinary suspension / expulsion of the co-chair in question, it is not constitutional to co-opt another person into their position.
Ruling re Quoracy and Proxy Votes
On 22.02.2022 Louisa Greenbaum wrote:
‘The rules for quoracy in the SOCC are as follows:
c) The quorum for conference shall be calculated as one third of voting cards issued to attendees for that day at conference (excluding those registered to vote remotely), or for an online and telephone Extraordinary Conference as three hundred available to vote. A definition of the floor of conference shall be agreed in advance between SOC and Conferences Committee for any online and telephone Extraordinary Conference. For any decision on a motion or amendment but not for discussion on a motion or amendment the floor is required to be quorate.’ (emphases added)
SOC was asked for clarification on what ‘available to vote’ should be taken to mean in this context, and whether or not validly issued proxy votes would count towards quoracy.
SOC rules that
Standing Orders for Conduct of Conference H10 states
‘a) A member may appoint a proxy to vote at conference on their behalf in any ballot card votes. SOC shall issue the attending member a ballot card for each proxy for which they produce acceptable authority (e.g. a letter, email, proxy form provided by SOC or other electronic authorisation).
b) A member who is attending conference may represent up to five other members in this way.
c) Proxy votes can only be used in a ballot card vote. The holder of proxy ballot cards may cast the votes in different ways, if so mandated.
d) A vote using ballot cards shall be referred to as a ballot card vote or card vote. A ballot card vote is taken by collecting ballot cards of attending members and of those who have given proxies.
e) Such a vote shall be taken if requested by ten Green Party members holding up their daily voting cards. Additionally, a ballot card vote may be taken at the discretion of the Chairperson.
f) If ConfComm and SOC agree that there is suitable secure technology, ballot cards may be taken to mean or include ballot cards issued electronically.
g) If votes are taken in order, then votes of attendees shall be counted first, then votes of those registered to vote remotely, then votes by proxy.’
The questioner has already quoted SOCC section H9.1(c) above concerning quoracy rules for Conference.
While quoracy for an in-person Conference is explicitly defined as a third of voting cards issued, excluding those registered to vote remotely, there is an explicit distinction for a Conference in which all those involved are participating and voting remotely, as in an online Conference.
With that in mind, ‘available to vote’ in this case is taken to mean that the votes are available for use as part of a vote taken from the ‘floor’ of Conference. For the purposes of an online Conference, the ‘floor’ in this case is taken to mean the Zoom or other ‘room’ where members sign in to participate in Conference as it happens.
Proxy votes are only ‘available’ in this sense if and when ten Green Party members request one, or if and when the Chair of plenary exercises their discretion under SOCC H10(e) to call a card vote, in which case proxy votes can be utilised. This does not require the floor to be quorate already, since it is not a ‘decision on a motion or amendment’ per SOCC H9.1(c).
Therefore, any requirement for the floor to be quorate would require the presence of three hundred available votes, which would only include proxy votes if and when ten Green Party members called for one, or if and when the Chair of plenary exercised their discretion under the section given above.
Advice on Affiliated Group Constitutions
On 12.01.2022 Teresa Ravenshaw wrote:
‘I’d like to request clarification as to whether liberation groups need to be constituted in some particular or specific fashion, and furthermore, whether liberation groups must enshrine in their constitutions, the admission of any and all party members?’
On 13.01.2022 Dylan Lewis-Creser wrote:
‘I am emailing both in my capacity as Secretary of the LGBTIQA+ Greens as well as an elected member of the GPEW Equality & Diversity Committee. We mentioned at a recent meeting that guidelines as to an ideal Liberation group constitution in the party would be helpful for us and future committees in ensuring that we stay within the bounds of the rules and there is not another situation like recently when the constitutionality of certain groups was called into question.
To help with this, would it be possible for us to have guidelines (such as membership requirements, etc.) as to how a Liberation Group within the party can be run according to the current rules; it would be extremely appreciated for all of your hard work.’
SOC advises that
Section 5(xii) of the Constitution states:
‘Members with interests in common may form a group subject to bye-laws approved from time to time by Conference. Members temporarily resident at an educational institution may also form a group. Such groups may be accorded some or all of the rights of a Local Party by mutual agreement with the Regional Council, subject to reference to the Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee in the event of any unresolved dispute.’
The bye-laws pertaining to this section in particular state:
‘1. Members may form groups concerned with specific issues in order to develop policy and pursue campaigns within the structure and strategy of the Green Party.
The Standing Orders of International Committee (IC) prior to 25.10.2021 say at section 3 that ‘The quorum shall be the International Co-ordinator, or one of the joint co-ordinators, plus two members of the elected committee.” Any meeting which took place without, at minimum, the Co-ordinator and two members of the elected committee was therefore inquorate, and thus not empowered to make changes to the IC Standing Orders. The same Standing Orders go on to say at section 10 that, ‘As the international committee is constitutionally defined as a committee of the Executive, these standing orders and any changes to them need to be agreed by the Executive.’ Therefore, while any changes made by IC must subsequently be approved by GPEx, it is also clear from the Constitution and Standing Orders of IC that GPEx has no power to amend the Standing Orders of its own motion. SOC has had sight of the minutes of the meeting at which the Standing Orders were purported to be changed on 25.10.2021, and can confirm that only a single member of the elected committee was in attendance, meaning that it was not quorate. Any such purported change is therefore invalid, whether or not approved by GPEx. SOC recognises that these Standing Orders were likely not drafted in anticipation of the prolonged absence or suspension of a Co-ordinator, which would then lead to a situation in which quorate meetings could not take place. It is recommended that, as and when it is possible, a quorate meeting of IC takes place to address this issue. This ruling is made notwithstanding any informal advice that GPEx may have received from previous members of SOC. Ruling on Green Spaces and Moderation On 22.03.2022 Vivien Lichtenstein wrote: ‘DC would like a ruling on the circumstances in which someone is responsible for moderation of Green Spaces posts and the definition of words used to describe those who undertake responsibility. We understand that overall responsibility for moderation lies with Internal Communications under GPex, however the question we need to answer is as follows and is required in order to define the different terms used - such as owner, creator, instigator, administrator and moderator. If the creator of a page posts that they are the owner of the page, and/or will monitor and remove any posts which do not conform to the Code of Conduct, and/or requests that posts which do not are flagged, have they have undertaken the role and responsibilities of moderator and, where this is the case, have the words above become synonymous? Obviously it is for DC to make decisions in individual cases but it would be of great help to us to have these words defined by SOC, where it would appear that a responsibility has been undertaken, so that there can be no argument over the role involved. Finally, who has the authority to delete a Space?’ SOC rules that Section 7 of the Constitution says that ‘(i)There shall be a Green Party Executive (hereinafter referred to as the Party Executive) which shall be responsible for the overall and day-to-day direction of the Party… …. (ii) The Party Executive shall consist of Leader plus Deputy Leader(s) or Co-Leaders, Wales Green Party Leader and additional members to the following functional positions, elected to serve for two years…. … (k) Internal Communications Co-ordinator….’ It is noted that the Internal Communications Co-ordinator (‘Internal Comms’) is acknowledged to retain overall responsibility for moderation of Spaces. There is considerable difficulty involved for SOC in answering this question, since a number of the terms used by the questioner simply do not appear in the Constitution or Standing Orders for the Conduct of Conference (SOCC), including ‘moderation/moderator’, ‘owner’, ‘creator’, ‘instigator’ or ‘administrator’. SOC notes that this presents a sizeable gap in the current procedure. SOC does not seek to set out exhaustive definitions of these terms for the purposes of this ruling, since that would risk taking SOC beyond its remit of interpreting the Party’s Constitutional documents. It is suggested that the creation of a working set of definitions, possibly by Internal Comms as part of their role on GPEx, would be an effective long-term remedy for this situation. That said, it is noted that in practice it effectively has become an ad-hoc rule that the creator/administrator of a page thereby assumes responsibility for monitoring it and checking conformity with the Code of Conduct, which might otherwise be regarded as the functions of a ‘moderator’. Certainly, SOC has taken this view in the monitoring of content on its own page and on, for example, the Conference Agenda Forums. It is also noted that members generally have a responsibility to abide by the Code of Conduct, particularly those organising or chairing events (which may be in-person or online), including when posting on a page or curating the contents of a page. The Internal Communications Coordinator also has the authority to delete a Space, as would the administrator of a space. Provisional Ruling re Scope of European Working Group Policies On 19.03.2022 Vix Lowthion wrote: ‘Dear SOC Please could we have a ruling about the scope of policy of GPEW especially in terms of devolution? This question has come about from the Europe PWG who are developing our new, post-Brexit Europe policies. They have queries about the status of our policy when it come to Wales and suggested the possible 5 scenarios. Which does SOC agree applies? Can and do Wales set policies which are in direct conflict with GPEW policies? And can GPEW set policies which apply to the UK as a whole - eg membership of the EU and its associates. Many thanks, Vix
SOC also recommends to GPEx that, in the event that this part of the Ballot cannot be re-run in advance of Autumn Conference, a co-option be made to the relevant position until the conclusion of the re-run ballot. Ruling on Closing of Complaints and Appeals On 20.06.2022 Andrew Bradbury wrote: ‘Does the decision available to the Disciplinary Committee in SOPD 3.9 to close a complaint because of a remedy, without hearing it, have an associated right to appeal that decision to the Appeals subcommittee as understood by Section 7 of SOPD? If there is not a right to appeal an SOPD 3.9 decision of the Disciplinary Committee to the Appeals subcommittee where should a member of the Party take a grievance with the decision if they have one? If there is a right to take a potential appeal against an SOPD 3.9 decision to the Appeals subcommittee, under what criteria should the Appeals subcommittee consider whether it is a valid appeal under SOPD 7.4 when the prescribed grounds of appeal in SOPD 7.3 i) -iv) appear to refer to complaints which have been heard in accordance with SOPD Section 6 rather than to complaints which have been closed with a remedy acceptable to the Disciplinary Committee? Please also be cognisant that a hearing by the Appeals subcommittee, if so decided, with potential to reopen a complaint closed by application of SOPD 3.9 has the potential for recusal of individual members of the Appeals subcommittee in accordance with SOPD 1.10 should a complaint reopened by the Appeals subcommittee later lead to appeals against decisions of the Disciplinary Committee on the substantive case previously closed.’ SOC rules that: SOC rules a default position that a complaint which has been ‘closed’ by action under section 3.9 cannot be appealed under one of the grounds given in section 7.3. However, SOC is mindful that there could be contextual reasons for concluding differently in specific cases. If the rationale given below does not fit the context the questioner has in mind then please provide all relevant context and SOC will re-visit the ruling. The rationale being: Standing Orders for Party Discipline (SOPD) 3.9 says that: ‘In the case of 3.7 and 3.8 the Respondent shall be asked to review the alleged breaches and be offered the opportunity to correct their action(s) and/or recognise that their behaviour was inappropriate, and then apologise to the Complainant and any other relevant parties to the complaint. DC will consider if this is sufficient to remedy the complaint and, if so, will close the complaint.’ SOPD 7.3 goes on to list a number of situations in which the outcome of a Complaint may be appealed, and on what basis: ‘Appeals may only be pursued on one or more of the following grounds [emphases added]: i) That from the information presented before the Committee it was unreasonable for the Committee to find the ground of the complaint to be established or dismissed. ii) That there is relevant, reliable, and significant information that was not been presented before the Committee and which would have been likely to cause the Committee to find that the ground of the complaint was or was not established. iii) That the Committee’s consideration of the complaint was procedurally unfair to the member. iv) That from the information presented before the Committee it was unreasonable for the Committee to award the sanction or sanctions it has imposed, or that the sanction(s) was (were) disproportionate.’
It is apparent from the wording of section 7.3 (the use of the word ‘only’) that a restrictive reading of this section is implied. Unless a complaint has been either ‘established’ or ‘dismissed’ in the manner envisioned by section 7.3, there are no grounds for appeal. It is therefore necessary to decide whether or not a complaint being closed or resolved by an apology under SOPD 3.9 constitutes the complaint being either ‘established’ or ‘dismissed’. A majority of SOC members decided it would not. Precis of Vote of No Confidence in the Returning Officer, 14.08.2022 At its 14th August 2022 meeting, SOC held a vote of no confidence in the Electoral Returning Officer. The vote carried by 3 votes to 1, with one member recused from voting on account of being a candidate in the Annual Ballot. On Friday 5th August 2022, the ERO wrote to SOC as follows: “My apologies for the delay in responding to your e-mail. I have had to carefully consider the relevant sections of the constitution. I have also taken advice from former convenors of SOC on whether the view I am taking is unreasonable or not. I cannot persuade myself that re-running the election for International Co-ordinator falls within the constitution as it applies to the timetable for election of members of GPEx. The two I have consulted agree with me. I would feel compromised if I accepted the suggestion that the election be run before conference when this ruling will form part of your report. You suggest that as an alternative the election be re-run after Conference when there may be a new SOC and ERO and that may be the best compromise under the circumstances. I accept of course that SOC can replace me and ask another ERO to proceed using the alternative dates, but it is important that the candidates are informed as soon as possible, so would be grateful if we could go with the compromise suggested above.” This was in response to SOC’s ruling and guidance on re-running the International Co-Ordinator election (available here: https://spaces.greenparty.org.uk/content/perma?id=104565). SOC is of the opinion that it can not accept the ERO undermining SOC’s standing as the final authority on the interpretation of the constitution in this way. SOC’s legitimacy stems from the election of its members at and by Conference, whereas the ERO is an appointment made by SOC. SOC’s authority is derived from the constitution itself, which states in 10.iii: “Standing Orders Committee. Conference shall elect a Standing Orders Committee (SOC) which shall be the final authority for the interpretation of the Constitution and Standing Orders, and be responsible for the order in which resolutions are taken during the conference, subject to the approval of Conference.” There is no clause stating that SOC rulings may be invalidated by consultation with previous Co-Convenors of SOC. The final say on SOC rulings is made at and by Conference. SOC’s rulings on the constitution are subject to approval by Conference via the SOC Report, and any attendee may submit an amendment asking Conference to over-rule a particular SOC decision. Consequently, SOC’s view is that it can not retain confidence in an ERO who declares its interpretation of the constitution invalid on the basis of consultation with previous SOC Co-Convenors. SOC would like to emphasise that the current ERO has contributed a great deal to the Party, and SOC respects the work he has done during his own terms on SOC. It is with regret that this vote was called and carried, but SOC can not retain confidence in an ERO who declares its interpretations to be unconstitutional.
Amendment passed
In section 1 of A01, ‘Final Agenda etc.’
Following the paragraph ‘Section A Reports:’
Add at the end the following text: ‘The Treasurer’s report and audited accounts were submitted by the first agenda deadline but were unfortunately omitted from the final agenda. It is therefore proposed to insert this report after Item A12 (Chair of GPEx report) and the audited accounts as appendix 7.’
Amendment passed
In section 1 of A01, ‘Final Agenda etc.’
To the section marked ‘Amendments to section E’
Insert the following text:
‘It was noted following publication of the Final Agenda that there may potentially be a conflict, hitherto unnoticed, between a part of Motion E19 and [Motion X] passed at Spring Conference 2022, where Conference had supported a halt to HS2 works on the [Relevant Chalk Aquifer].
As of 25 September 2022 SOC determined that, having reviewed the motions, this meant that the words ‘in full’ should be removed from motion E19 as OoO, being in conflict with a motion passed at a Conference immediately preceding this one. The remainder of the motion remained in order.’
Amendment passed
Ordering of Interim amendment to Vision for Europe motion:
In section 1 of A01, ‘Final Agenda etc.’
“In the table showing order of motions for section E, move motion ‘EU100-111 Interim amendment to Vision for Europe’ from E18 to E07 and renumber subsequent motions accordingly.”
Amendment passed
In section 1 of A01, ‘Final Agenda etc.’
To the section marked ‘Late Motions’
Add the following text:
‘SOCC permits members of SOC only to provide a mechanism by which Conference can indicate its preference for voting on a particular motion/s, and historically this has been done by simply tallying the number of co-proposers for each motion. Following discussion at a meeting of 25 September 2022, where a number of members raised concerns about whether or not this process could be refined further, it was suggested that a separate post should be added to the Late Motions Forum, which would also be consistently advertised by Workshop Facilitators, which would allow Conference attendees to simply ‘like’ motions (with no limit on the number which an individual member could ‘like’) and that as of 1 hour before the relevant Plenary this would provide SOC with a guide to which motions Conference had indicated a preference for.’
Amendment passed
In section 4 of A01, ‘Timetabling, chairing and other procedural matters etc.’
To add to the list of positions following ‘We will hold hustings and elections for the following positions etc.’
The words, ‘Disciplinary Committee (1 member)’
Amendment passed
In section 4 of A01, ‘Timetabling, chairing and other procedural matters etc.’
To the bullet point beginning ‘Looking at how to protect’,
Add at the end the following text:
‘To that end, having received concrete information suggesting that a substantial number of proxy votes had been improperly harvested and registered during Spring Conference 2022 only after the publication of the Final Agenda, the Co-Convenors of SOC decided to implement a system of photographic proof of being a nominated proxy-holder in order to more effectively safeguard Conference votes. A majority of SOC indicated its support for this measure as of 25 September 2022, but SOC nevertheless regrets that this caused some increased difficulty in using the proxy voting system, and would have supported the extension of the deadline if this were practically feasible.’
Amendment passed
To insert the following outstanding rulings from SOC (albeit published as SOC rulings in the usual places) into section 9 of A01, at their appropriate chronological points:
Ruling on Negative Voting
Ruling on Card Votes
Amendment passed
In section 9 of A01, at heading ‘Ruling re Quoracy and Proxy Votes’
Insert before the introduction to the ruling the words:
‘SOC decided to give a ruling on this subject even though it was a hypothetical question, because the issue had arisen at a previous Emergency Conference.’
Amendment passed
Precis of Vote of No Confidence in the Returning Officer, 14.08.2022
Below
‘There is no clause stating that SOC rulings may be invalidated by consultation with previous Co-Convenors of SOC. The final say on SOC rulings is made at and by Conference. SOC’s rulings on the constitution are subject to approval by Conference via the SOC Report, and any attendee may submit an amendment asking Conference to over-rule a particular SOC decision.
Consequently, SOC’s view is that it can not retain confidence in an ERO who declares its interpretation of the constitution invalid on the basis of consultation with previous SOC Co-Convenors.’
Insert an ADDENDUM from the former ERO:
‘This misunderstands what I said. I had my own perception as to the understanding of the constitution, however being cautious I checked that my understanding was the same as other former members of SOC, people also familiar with the constitution and its interpretation. Once that understanding was confirmed I did not seek to ‘invalidate’ the SOC decision, I informed them in a private e-mail that my own conscience could not allow me to follow their ruling, but that since they had made a proposal that would not compromise my conscience that option was available to them. They chose not to follow that option but to sack me instead, rather a nuclear option at that stage in the election.’
Delete
‘SOC would like to emphasise that the current ERO has contributed a great deal to the Party, and SOC respects the work he has done during his own terms on SOC. It is with regret that this vote was called and carried, but SOC can not retain confidence in an ERO who declares its interpretations to be unconstitutional.’
Sentence 1 is patronising and I do not want it, sentence 2 repeats the misunderstanding in the previous two paragraphs.