Motion #06
There have been no changes proposed or adopted to the existing Standing Orders for SOC since the last Conference.
Since the last update to the Record of Organisational Statements (RoOS) at Spring Conference 2023, SOC has undertaken the following:
The following matters in the RoOS remain outstanding:
Since Spring Conference 2023 SOC has made the following rulings:
On 24.03.2023 Emma Carton wrote:
‘Could I get a steer on how to deal with [case enclosed in forwarded email] please? My understanding was that I can’t assign members to a local party that they don’t live near…’
The forwarded email sets out a request to have a member’s details assigned to a local party of which they are a member according to its eligibility criteria, but in the residential area for which they apparently do not live.
SOC by majority rules that
How membership of a local party is decided is a matter for each individual local party. If a local party is satisfied that a prospective member is not excluded according to criteria set out in their own constitution, then that person may become a member of that local party.
The rationale being
Section 4(ii) of the Constitution sets out that:
‘Membership shall be of the smallest appropriate Party. Such membership shall automatically impart membership of The Green Party, and, in each of the Regions defined in Clause 5(ii) below, membership of the appropriate Regional Party, once the national proportion of the membership has been paid.’
The Constitution is silent on how membership of the ‘smallest appropriate Party’, such as a local party, is constituted. However, section 5(i) sets out that:
‘Local Parties may be formed by groups of members of The Green Party who shall determine their own constitution, in accordance with bye-laws to be approved from time to time by the Annual Conference. The general practice of the Party shall be to encourage the greatest possible autonomy of each Local Party in its pursuit of the Object of the Party.’ (emphases added)
The bye-laws referred to above do specify various things which must be included in a local party’s constitution, but is silent on the question of how membership should be constituted.
How membership of a local party is decided is therefore a matter for each individual local party. If a local party is satisfied that a prospective member is not excluded according to criteria set out in their own constitution, then that person may become a member of that local party.
The ‘smallest appropriate party’ shall be of a local party, self-determined by the member, provided that the relevant local party constitution permits them to be a member.
On the 30th November 2022 SN asked a group of questions
- If a Local Party Executive committee makes a properly minuted decision (brought, voted upon and unanimously agreed) can an EGM meeting override that?
- If an EGM deviates from the agreed agenda and makes decisions on off-topic matters, are those decisions binding?
- If an EGM deviates from an agreed agenda and descends into a “toxic” meeting with multiple breaches of the code of conduct, are those decisions binding or could they be argued to be under duress?
- Can an EGM insist on disclosures beyond those listed within the governance documentation of the local regional and national party?
- Where a meeting chair is subject to verbal attacks during the operation of that meeting, are decisions made binding or null and void?
- Can an EGM be turned into a de facto complaint hearing with multiple witnesses in favour of the aggrieved?
SOC rules that:
Much of this falls outside the remit of Standing Orders Committee. The key to the response lies in section 5(a) of the relevant local party constitution:
“Any 10 members, or 25% of the membership (whichever is fewer), may call an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM), by stating in writing (either a letter or an email) to the Executive Committee, with signatures appended, the business to be conducted.”
In particular in the words: “stating in writing .. the business to be conducted”
In relation to the questions asked it follows that:
1. An EGM as a meeting of the whole Party can override the decision of the Committee, just as Conference can override a decision of SOC, providing the call for the EGM states that as its purpose 2. The EGM cannot make decisions on any topics not included in the call for the EGM. 3-6. The same answer applies as to question 2 in relation to deviations from “the agreed agenda” – the issues of behaviour are not within the remit of SOC.
On 08.02.2023 Joseph Hudson-Small wrote:
‘Does DCRG (Disciplinary Complaints Referral Group) have the authority to reject a complaint which alleges that an earlier complaint is malicious or vexatious and therefore in breach of CoC (Code of Conduct) Rule 14 on the grounds that ‘complaints about complaints are not permissible’?’
SOC rules that
DCRG may dismiss complaints on the basis that it is not satisfied that a complaint has been brought on one of the grounds specified in SOPD 1.2. SOPD does not specifically comment on complaints about complaints.
The rationale being
SOPD 1.6 says that
‘The Referral Group will consider whether a complaint has been brought on one of the grounds specified in 1.2 and decide on this basis whether it should be referred to the Committee, to another appropriate body or be dismissed.’ [emphases added]
The grounds specified in SOPD 1.2 include
‘The Committee will handle all complaints of a disciplinary nature which have not been resolved at Regional, Local Party or other party group level and which have been brought on one of the following grounds:
i) that a member has contravened the Constitution of the Party as interpreted by Standing Orders Committee (SOC);
ii) that a member has made a breach of one or more of the number of Standards in the Party’s Code of Conduct.’
SOPD 6.1 goes on to say that
‘To reach a decision on the complaint, the [Disciplinary Committee] needs to be persuaded on the balance of probabilities whether the ground of the complaint is established. If the Committee finds the ground of the complaint to not be established it shall dismiss the complaint.’
In noting this SOC reiterates the substance of a previous ruling on the dismissal of complaints: if DCRG is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that one or other of the grounds specified in SOPD 1.2 has been made out (for whatever reason), then it may dismiss the complaint.
SOPD 3.4 requires that in the event of a complaint being dismissed the complainant is informed of the reason. SOC is not in a position to rule on the confidential reasoning of DCRG.
On 25.02.2023 Simon Stafford-Townsend wrote:
‘The Green Party publicly prides itself on not whipping its elected representatives. This is often something we cite in election campaigns to set ourselves apart from the other parties. This position is set out in PSS as follows:
PA918. To make councils more responsive and effective, it will be necessary to encourage cross-party cooperation, and weaken the hold of dogmatic ideologies and factions. The Green Party will not operate a system of whipping councillors into line, and Green Councillors will call upon other parties to do the same
Bristol’s Green group of Councillors has no standing orders, and I have attached the local party constitution for reference.
Given the above, I would appreciate a SOC ruling on the following:
- what constitutes “a system of whipping councillors into line”? If we are proscribing this behaviour as a Party, then we need to be able to point out when it is happening.
- is the injunction in PA918 mandatory for Green groups of Councillors current and future, or a statement of what the Party would do if it were in Government and therefore currently optional?
- if PA918 is mandatory, then by what process(es) can it be enforced?
- if the leadership of a Councillor group engages in the whipping of its Councillors as per SOC’s answer to 1 above, would SOC view that whipping to amount to unconstitutional behaviour for violating one or more of the following elements of the Philosophical Basis:
PB401
The Green Party affirms the importance of individual freedom and self expression. We believe people should be free to make their own decisions on matters which do not adversely affect others. Its importance lies in valuing the opportunity people have to make their own decisions, accept responsibility for them and develop in their own way.
PB442
The Green Party does not believe there is an automatic moral obligation on all people to obey their governments. It seeks to maximise the extent to which obedience to laws is based on consent and minimise the need for conformity through deterrence. We believe there are occasions when individuals and groups in society may openly, and peacefully, protest at an unjust law or practice through civil disobedience.
PB443
We seek a society in which people are empowered and involved in making the decisions which affect them. We advocate participatory and democratic politics. Leadership should always be accountable, consensus-driven and moral. We reject the hierarchical structure of leaders and followers.
Core value 6
A healthy society is based on voluntary co-operation between empowered individuals in a democratic society, free from discrimination whether based on race, colour, gender, sexual orientation, religion, social origin or any other prejudice.’
SOC rules that:
If an elected member felt that unfair pressure to make them vote in a particular way had been applied to them individually, or a group of members shared that feeling, that would be grounds for a complaint under the code of conduct, but is not a breach of the constitution where there is no clause relating to whipping.
The rationale being:
SOC recognises that when Green groups come into formal existence on councils they require a ‘whip’ to carry out various formal functions: interacting with the ‘whips’ of other parties to discuss member working practices, order of business in meetings etc.
SOC further recognise that in other political parties the whip of a group has an internal disciplinary role which may be exercised through various sanctions both implicit and explicit that may affect the career or the activity of individual group members.
SOC note that the Green Party is different in policy, and we should assume is different in practice, and this is regarded as an important distinction between Green Party groups and other political parties that has been repeatedly highlighted in election campaigns and election materials. This is in line with the published policies of the party.
Policy PA918 is explicit:
“PA918. To make councils more responsive and effective, it will be necessary to encourage cross-party cooperation, and weaken the hold of dogmatic ideologies and factions. The Green Party will not operate a system of whipping councillors into line, and Green Councillors will call upon other parties to do the same”.
GPEW Constitution s12(iv) states that:
“Elected members .. where they do not agree with Party policy and publicly state their own position, they should at the same time state and explain the position of the Green Party”
SOC is of the view that this applies to policies relating to issues that may be discussed politically, and would not apply to policies such as PA918. However SOC notes that this is a statement of policy and could be changed by a simple majority by a motion to Conference. It could also be included in the Constitution by a motion to Conference to that effect.
As noted above whipping in other parties can and does involve explicit and implicit sanctions that might for example involve expulsion or suspension of the whip, exclusion from posts etc. None of these occurred in the current instance. What then might whipping involve?
In the ruling request crucial phrase is:
“a great deal of pressure was put on Councillors, both collectively and individually, by the group Leader, deputy Leader and Whip, resulting in most Councillors being brought into line with the leadership’s position.”
This is a value statement – where does persuasion/argument become ‘pressure’? This highlights the difficulty of defining as ‘whipping’ something that does not have a clear element of sanction included.
SOC is of the view that if an elected member felt that unfair pressure to make them vote in a particular way had been applied to them individually, or a group of members shared that feeling, that would be grounds for a complaint under the code of conduct, but is not a breach of the constitution where there is no clause relating to whipping.
On 11.04.2023 Joseph Hudson-Small wrote:
‘I have a question/ruling request around an apparent ambiguity in SOPD (Standing Orders for Party Discipline).
The question is regarding the status of the initial sanctions in the event that the Appeals Committee refers a case back to Disciplinary Committee to be re-heard.
SOPD 7.9 states that DC’s decision (i.e. sanctions imposed) will be overruled if the (substantive) appeal (rather than the grounds) is upheld by Appeals Committee i.e. if Appeals dismiss the original complaint or choose to apply a different disciplinary measure.
If a case is referred back to DC (under SOPD 7.8), neither of these above conditions have been met and so my understanding would be that the original disciplinary measures continue to stand… at least until such time as the case is actually re-heard and new sanctions (if any) are applied or the case is otherwise dismissed by DC.
Is this the case, or are the original sanctions imposed by DC lifted until a new decision has been reached?’
SOC rules that
In the event of a case being referred back to Disciplinary Committee under SOPD 7.8 for a re-hearing, the sanctions originally imposed by Disciplinary Committee no longer apply.
The rationale being
SOPD sections 7.8 and 7.9 say:
‘7.8 If no ground of appeal is upheld by the Appeals Committee, it shall be dismissed. If new information is found to be relevant, reliable, and significant or if there were procedural errors then the case may be referred back to the Committee to be re-heard.
7.9 If the appeal is upheld by the Appeals Committee, then the Committee’s decision will be overruled and either the original complaint dismissed or an appropriate disciplinary measure imposed. This shall follow the same process in considering proportionality as in 6.12.’
If a matter is to be ‘re-heard’ by Disciplinary Committee owing to new information or procedural errors in the original hearing, then it shall be as if there was no original hearing, and therefore no sanctions are in place until such time as the Committee makes a decision to impose them afresh.
On 26.02.2023 Joseph Hudson-Small wrote:
‘If an individual has been suspended by GPRC under Article 4.8 of the Constitution, is such an individual still able to be disciplined under SOPD if a complaint were submitted about them:
Does the same apply to the powers of the Appeals Committee?
Would it be a conflict for GPRC Appeals Committee to be involved in an appeal in a situation where the original complaint were drafted by GPRC (or by some part of it, acting on the collective authority of GPRC)? Or if GPRC had earlier acted to suspend the respondent under Article 4.8, even if it did not author the complaint?
If it would be a conflict of interest, does this suggest that it might (be) improper for GPRC to refer a matter to D.C. in the first place, on account of this interacting with a member’s right to appeal against disciplinary action?
SOC rules that
A member who has been suspended, for whatever reason, can still be subject to investigation by the Disciplinary Committee, regardless of at what point in that member’s suspension a complaint is received.
Disciplinary Committee can impose whatever sanction it concludes is appropriate having investigated the matter, whether an expulsion or a lesser sanction. Any suspension would run concurrently with a suspension imposed by GPRC, not consecutively to it.
The Constitution is silent on how any sanctions imposed by these bodies interact with one another. This may be changed by a motion to Conference; members of the relevant Committees may wish to explore it further.
A conflict of interest would only arise in the event that those on Appeals Sub-Committee were also a party to the writing and/or bringing of the complaint. This can be managed appropriately by members of GPRC and its relevant sub-committees.
The rationale being
Article 4(viii) of the Constitution says:
‘The Green Party Regional Council [‘GPRC’]… shall have the power to expel or suspend any person from membership and/or refuse membership to any person for a specified period if in its opinion it is in the Party’s interest to do so. Where necessary to avoid or reduce the likelihood of further harm to the Party, a member under investigation may be suspended temporarily by decision of the Regional Council or those members of it empowered to act on its behalf while that takes place, but no member may be expelled without proper consideration. The Local Party shall not offer Associate Membership to any person who has been expelled from or refused membership of the Green Party. ‘
While it is therefore possible to suspend (or expel, with ‘proper consideration’) a member who has already been placed under investigation, the Constitution is silent on whether the reverse is the case – that someone who has been suspended or expelled can be made subject to a complaint and investigated.
If a complaint had been submitted prior to the start of any suspension, or even at the same time as the suspension is agreed by GPRC, then the Constitution would seem to allow that investigation into this complaint can continue. Given that SOC has previously found that membership of the party continues, albeit in s suspended form, while someone is subject to any sanction short of expulsion, there is no reason in principle why a complaint could not be investigated if brought while a member is subject to a suspension.
The Disciplinary Committee (‘DC’) is responsible under section 4(x) of the Constitution for ‘handling all complaints of a disciplinary nature’ not otherwise resolved at a local or regional level within the Party, and the sanctions which can be imposed by DC are set out in SOPD 6:12. Whether or not any sanction short of expulsion would have ‘meaningful effect’ while a suspension is in effect might be a relevant factor for DC to consider, but it is not for SOC to comment on how they exercise this power. The same applies to the powers of the Appeals Committee, whose power to either dismiss an appeal or uphold it and take a range of actions in response, are set out in sections 7.8-7.10 of SOPD.
The risk of a conflict of interest arising is one that would have to be borne in mind by members of the Appeals Subcommittee, since clearly if any of their membership were involved in the drafting of the original complaint then the conflict would be obvious. This can be managed appropriately by the members of GPRC and its relevant sub-committees.
On 14 January 2023 Paul Beswick asked on behalf of the Alternative Dispute Resolutions Committee (ADRC) whether:
“As the ADRC currently does not have either a Convenor/Chair or a Treasurer, we are hoping to omit any mention to either of these roles from our Standing Orders.”
PB noted that ADRC has revised its Standing Orders in January 2023 to remove mention of these roles and to allow ADRC to operate on any changes to standing orders required by the GPEW Constitution.
SOC rules that
until the revised Standing Orders of ADRC are accepted by Conference as required by section 19(iii) of the Constitution then they are bound by the Standing Orders agreed in 2021 except insofar as these have been amended by Conference, and cannot act under any revision proposed by themselves until the revisions are accepted by Conference.
The rationale being that
The Constitution s19(iii) requires that the Standing Orders of ADRC will be ‘agreed … by Conference’
“GPEW Constitution s19(iii) The role and organisation of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee shall be set out in the Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee Standing Orders agreed from time to time by Conference.”
Section 2 of the 2021 Standing orders of (A)DRC states that:
(A)DRC “must select a Co-ordinator and a Treasurer”
On 26.02.2023 Joseph Hudson-Small wrote:
‘I have a ruling request about GPRC potentially adopting a process document which makes it clear how GPRC may exercise its powers to suspend or expel members, and allows the process to be exercised by simple majority.
These powers of expulsion are granted to GPRC by way of Article 4.8 of the constitution of GPEW (C 4.8) and elaborated on in C 4.9
The question is primarily regarding the status of GPRC Standing Orders 3.13 (SO 3.13)
If there were a motion at GPRC to adopt a procedure document which states that GPRC may initiate the process to expel by simple majority, and this procedure were adopted by simple majority… would this be valid within the constitution and the standing orders, even if this new procedure were to be adopted without amending the standing orders?
In particular… at present, SO 3.13 reads:
3.13 If, in the opinion of both Co-chairs and at least two On-Call Councillors, there is a need to suspend or expel a Party member, or refuse membership of the Party, even where no complaint has been made, this decision must be considered by a full meeting of GPRC (which may be called as an emergency meeting); the decision will carry by simple majority. A copy of the minutes of this meeting must be lodged within the Party’s records of disciplinary processes.
…
[Questions are also asked as to the meaning of various words used in the Constitutional provisions, including ‘opinion’, ‘proper consideration’, ‘wherever possible’ or ‘automatically’, as well as whether or not there is some version of a ‘double jeopardy’ rule against complainants being considered twice for expulsion of separate occasions, noting that the Constitution is silent on this point.]
…
Finally, is there any constitutional mechanism for an expulsion to be removed?
SOC rules that
The Constitution specifies situations in which a two-thirds majority of GPRC is required to make a decision, but is otherwise silent, including in this case.
GPRC may, if it wishes, adopt more detailed internal procedures in its Standing Orders setting out the process for making such a decision, or amend the Constitution, either or both of which would require the agreement of Conference.
SOC does not propose to provide further input on the meaning of the words ‘opinion’, ‘proper consideration’, ‘wherever possible’ or ‘automatically’, as in context it considers these questions to be hypothetical.
The Constitution is silent on both the proposed ‘double jeopardy’ rule and on reversing or removing an expulsion, and so SOC does not propose to rule on these.
The rationale being
Articles 4(viii) of the Constitution says:
‘The Green Party Regional Council [‘GPRC’]… shall have the power to expel or suspend any person from membership and/or refuse membership to any person for a specified period if in its opinion it is in the Party’s interest to do so. Where necessary to avoid or reduce the likelihood of further harm to the Party, a member under investigation may be suspended temporarily by decision of the Regional Council or those members of it empowered to act on its behalf while that takes place, but no member may be expelled without proper consideration. The Local Party shall not offer Associate Membership to any person who has been expelled from or refused membership of the Green Party.
Elsewhere in the Constitution there are specifications as to certain situations, such as 6(ix), where GPRC may only exercise their discretion to, for example, suspend a member of GPRC from office following a 2/3 majority vote. There is no such specification in Articles 4(viii) and 4(ix).
The Constitution takes precedence over the Standing Orders of GPRC.
Therefore, absent any other specification, the decision of GPRC to exercise its power to suspend or expel a member, to refuse membership or to issue a temporary suspension may currently be exercised by a simple majority.
If GPRC or any members regard this as an unhelpful gap in the Constitution then GPRC may, if it wishes, adopt more detailed internal procedures in its Standing Orders setting out the process for making such a decision, or amend the Constitution, either or both of which would need to be approved by Conference.
SOC does not propose to provide further input on the meaning of the words ‘opinion’, ‘proper consideration’, ‘wherever possible’ or ‘automatically’, as in context it considers these questions to be hypothetical.
The Constitution is silent on both the proposed ‘double jeopardy’ rule and on reversing or removing an expulsion, and so SOC does not propose to rule on these.
On 30.06.2023 Nicole Haydock wrote:
‘Can you please confirm that a formal complaint against a Special Interest Group - such as Greens of Colour, the Seniors Greens or LGBTIQA+ Greens - is inadmissible.’
SOC rules that
At present, Complaints can only be brought against named, specified members.
The Constitution is otherwise silent on whether or not there is an upper limit to the number of individuals who can be subject to complaints. Changing this would require a Constitutional amendment.
It is for Disciplinary Committee to decide whether or not the grounds for each complaint is otherwise made out.
The rationale being
Section 4(xi) of the Constitution says:
‘Complaints will be considered on the following grounds:
a) that a member has contravened the Constitution of the Party as interpreted by Standing Orders Committee (SOC)
b) that a member has made a breach of one or more of the number of Standards in the Party’s Code of Conduct.’
The member complained against is referred to in the Standing Orders for Party Discipline (SOPD) as the ‘Respondent’. It is clear that this must be, at least, a named individual who is a member of the Party, and not a group such as Green Seniors etc.
Last updated on 2023-10-21 at 11:41