Motion #01

Standing Orders Committee (SOC) Report

Motion

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.”

Some of these have since been moved to the SOC report required by the Annual General Meeting, and where appropriate reference is made to those papers.

The Final Agenda and Ordering of Motions for Conference

Please report any errors found in the Final Agenda to soc@greenparty.org.uk.

The Green Party develop the vast majority 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 (for discussion) for part or whole chapters of policies containing many detailed policies. Small changes to chapters can be made by C motions, which are accredited by Policy Development Committee (PDC) as having met the basic Standing Orders requirements for consultation. E motions are unaccredited motions which have usually not met the Standing Order requirements for consultation or for gaining consensus within the Party, but Section E also includes Enabling Motions.

SOC held our First Agenda meeting on Zoom on 4th August 2023. The order of policy motions in sections F was determined by their alphabetical order, and between the First and Final Agenda meeting Policy Development Committee (PDC) made SOC aware that they now considered the old motion F02 could be put to Conference as a full voting paper. This motion was accordingly moved to section B and became B01, while the draft voting papers in section F were re-numbered.

The motions proposed in the Final Agenda for this Conference are:

Section A Reports.

SOC offers its report on the ordering of the Agenda, as well as a brief PDC Report and two reports, included in the interests of completeness, from the Code of Conduct Oversight Body Report and ‘Funding Our Biggest General Election Campaign Ever’ which presents a recommendation as part of a review mandated by the Constitution. These form the 4 reports to be voted on in section A.

Under section 11(iv) of the Constitution, reports from the leadership team, all elected committees within the party and all recognised internal groups are now received as part of the Annual General Meeting, which was held online on 9th September 2023. While all the reports on the Agenda were discussed and questions asked, the AGM did not achieve quoracy, and so could not vote to pass these reports.

SOC’s recommendation to Conference is that, as part of accepting this report, all those reports heard at the AGM are to be voted on ‘en bloc’ (ie. voting on all reports together at once), with the exceptions of the following which were the subject of particularly contentious discussion and should be voted on individually:
Item 9, the Equality and Diversity Committee report;
A single proposed amendment to the above item;
and Item 18, the Green Party Women report.

SOC refers members to the AGM Final Agenda [https://members.greenparty.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-08/AGM%20Final%20Agenda%20v1.4.pdf] for the texts of these reports.

Amendments to section A:

Amendments to motions A01 and A02 can be made from the floor of Conference, except in relation to that part of A01 concerned with the proceedings of the AGM where Standing Orders for Conduct of the AGM (SOCAGM) shall apply.

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:

Of the five draft voting papers on the First Agenda, one was recommended by Policy Development Committee for voting on as a B Motion at this Conference, from the Gypsy Roma Traveller Policy Working Group, updating part of the Rights and Responsibilities Chapter of PfSS.

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 accredit the policy content. It means that PDC has checked that the motion was adequately researched and consulted on and not in conflict with other policies passed in the last two years. The order of motions was determined by their place in the Prioritisation Ballot.

Amendments to section C.

A total of 7 amendments were proposed for the motions which ultimately became Section C. SOC took the view that all 5 of the amendments proposed to C09 could be basketed, ie. debated together and then voted on in sequence, one after the other, following the debate.

The order of Section C as agreed with PDC is:

Section D.

The ranking of these motions is as in the Prioritisation Ballot. SOC has discretion under SOCC F2.6(c) to give special priority to any motion in section D which it considers to be urgent for the functioning of the party or any part of it, but on this occasion declined to do so as no motions were considered to reach this threshold.

Amendments to section D.

A total of 33 amendments were proposed for the motions in Section D, 22 of which received sufficient co-proposers to be considered and one of which was determined to be Out of Order (see Appendix 3 for details).

Section E Unaccredited policy motions.

We have moved First Agenda motions E04, E06, E09, E10, E11, E12, E13, E18 and E24 to the C section. The remaining motions are ordered according to the Prioritisation Ballot.

Amendments to section E.

Of those amendments presented on the relevant Space in time to be considered, a total of 4 amendments were proposed for the motions in Section E, all of which received sufficient co-proposers and none of which were found to be Out of Order.

Section F Draft Voting Papers for revising substantial parts of PSS.

There are 4 Draft Voting Papers in section F to be given workshops at Conference ready for progression to the B motion stage, concerning the Economy, Health and Disability chapters of PfSS. An amendment was proposed to motion F04, which is included in this Agenda so as to better inform discussion of this DVP.

Compositing

No motions were composited.

Late Motions

The Late Motions Forum was open from the 27th August to 14th September 2023 for items that could not have been submitted by the 8th July 2022 because they related to events taking place since then. As of the Final Agenda meeting no Late Motions had been uploaded. Discussion of them continued online in the final week leading up to publication. Standing Orders for the Conduct of Conference does not require late motions to be part of the Final Agenda.

Emergency Motions (EMs)

We opened the Emergency Motions Forum on 14th September 2023, but EMs are not part of the Final Agenda.

Summaries and synopses

SOCC 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.

A notification of how many motions and amendments have been ruled out of order and where these are published

Following the First Agenda meeting, 4 motions were initially found to be Out of Order, with reasons given in brief though it later transpired that one of those motions, which later became motion D16, had been found so in error and this was corrected). While SOC was then able to engage with some of the proposers to recommend how their motions might, or might not, be amended into order, SOC regrets that, given the volume of work undertaken in preparation for this Conference, it was not possible to engage as fully as we would wish with all the proposers of the OoO motions.

Ultimately SOC recommended that 1 motion be restored to order following consultation with members of the Policy Development Committee (PDC) and Tax and Fiscal Policy Working Group (PWG). This motion then became C09 on the Final Agenda.

SOC found a single proposed amendment to D02 to be out of order for being either retrospective in effect, or else for having no consequential effect since it proposed a course of action that would be secured by the motion regardless.

A report on SOC’s participation in the Agenda process including any motions or amendments that SOC is submitting to conference

SOC and staff opened the Agenda Forum following the end of Spring Conference 2023 in Greenspaces at [https://spaces.greenparty.org.uk/s/autumn-conference-2023-agenda-forum/home] and a calendar of deadlines was posted there. Emails were sent to all Party members to say that it had opened.

Attempting to build on the lessons learned from Conferences in 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 WhatsApp and 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 through the use of a separate website logging proposed motions, following some good feedback on this feature (including from Conferences Committee as part of their report to the AGM, 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 the members. However we do continue to experience a considerable ‘lag’ in updating numbers of co-proposers, since this process does not happen live but requires considerable manual time and input by volunteers. SOC nevertheless hopes that the continued adoption of this website model has made the overall work of engaging with Conference easier for all involved.

As always, we urge members to place items on the Agenda Forum at an early stage so that they can consult, revise wording, obtain supporting co-proposers or support from a local party or working group. We are happy to note, however, that members seem to be getting increasingly comfortable with this habit – all but a handful of motions and amendments were submitted in good time on the relevant Forums. For policy motions, we advise you to obtain accreditation from Policy Development Committee.

Continuing a practice innovated at Autumn Conference 2022, SOC also took advantage of an ambiguity in the Standing Orders for Conduct of Conference (SOCC) to separate out the deadlines for submitting the final wording of a motion and submitting valid co-proposals by one week, which seems to have created some additional breathing-space for both members deciding which motions to co-propose and also members of SOC collating those motions. Unfortunately SOC members did not manage to propose a motion at Conference to solidify this change, and 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. . The First Agenda meeting of SOC was held on 4th August 2023. Motions were ordered ready for the Prioritisation Ballot according to the rules given in Standing Orders for the Conduct of Conference (SOCC). The work of putting the First Agenda together was somewhat delayed, in part by the massive amount of volunteer time required to process the sheer quantity of motions into a usable form. To some extent the processes of SOC were “victims of their own success”, in that the fact so many members have been able to propose so many motions is encouraging from a democratic standpoint. However, SOC will need to consider how better to manage such a through-flow of motions going forward.

The Amendment Forum and the Late Motions Forum were opened by SOC in good time in Green Spaces on 28th July at [https://spaces.greenparty.org.uk/s/autumn-conference-2023-amendment-forum/]and [https://spaces.greenparty.org.uk/s/autumn-2023-late-motions-forum/] with links placed in the Agenda Forum.

The Prioritisation Ballot

There were no C motions for the Prioritisation Ballot. The order of these motions was decided in consultation with PDC at the Final Agenda meetings of 2nd and 5th September 2023.

The Prioritisation ballot ran from 18th August to 1st September 2023 following a slight delay caused by processing the glut of motions mentioned above, and we ran the STV results by hand using Excel and a calculator to obtain a Borda count.

Since Autumn Conference 2021 the Prioritisation Ballot has also had to make use of a modified Borda count method based on how many times the same motion had been proposed to preceding Conferences but not debated due to lack of time. This means that SOC has 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 Autumn Conference 2023 were therefore eligible?

Having deliberated, SOC reaffirmed at its Final Agenda Meetings of 2nd and 5th September 2023 that, as with amendments, textual changes to motions which do not substantially change the scope or meaning of the motion would be eligible, and this would necessarily need to be decided case-by-case (though it should be noted that this was initially not applied consistently to two motions, D03 and D05, for which the Co-Convenor offers their apologies). It was also decided that motions which were debated and referred back were not eligible for the modifier, as the motion that created the modifier explicitly stated that it applies for motions that are not debated due to time constraints.

As of 2023, SOC has also decided that this process does not apply to Late or Emergency Motions, since time constraints are not the primary limiting factor in whether or not these motions reach the floor of Conference – ultimately, whether they are debated at all is a matter for the Chair.

Accordingly, SOC decided to apply the modifiers as follows:

1. Stonewall and disaffiliation from the Diversity Champions Scheme (3x modifier)
2. Split SOC into two independent parts (2x modifier)
3. Ensure diversity of candidates in internal elections (2x modifier)
4. Eliminate external influence on GPEW internal elections (2x modifier)
5. Green rail strategy for the Midlands and the North (2x modifier)
6. Green World Motion (1.5x modifier)
7. A new deal for carers (1.5x modifier)
8. Allow two women to be co-leaders or deputy leaders (1.5x modifier)
9. Amend SOPD (1.5x modifier)
10. Enabling the Disability Group to fulfil its role in the party (1.5x modifier)
11. Fairer multiplier for the prioritisation ballot (1.5x modifier)
12. Remove ambiguity and improve consistency in trans rights (1.5x modifier)

Timetabling, chairing and other procedural matters affecting conference including elections to be held at conference, with the recommendations of SOC 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 fast-tracking, you should ask them in a workshop.

If any ten members object to fast-tracking during discussion of the SOC Report then the motion is not fast-tracked. The ten objecting members have to be on the floor of conference. 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.

The following motions are proposed for fast-tracking:

C01 ‘Land Use Policy Correction’;
C05 ‘Consolidating the Energy IPPs agreed at Spring Conference 2023’;
E05 ‘Heating homes: to remove mention of using hydrogen’; and
E07 ‘Solidarity with protesters in Iran’

At a Final Agenda meetings of 2nd and 5th September 2023 PDC also noted that they had originally considered what became motion E01 for fast-tracking, but were also mindful of how highly these motions had placed in the prioritisation ballot. Following discussion, SOC decided not to recommend this motion for fast-tracking, considering it had placed highest of all the E Motions and was therefore likely to be debated in any event.

Standing Orders for the Conduct of Conference (SOCC) as revised Spring 2021 allowed Out of Order motions to be revised and to be recommended to Conference as being ruled back in order as part of the Final Agenda, as happened with motion C09.

Members of the Committee held regular meetings with conference staff in the run-up to conference to ensure maximum participation and ease of access for Conference attendees.

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, though as of this Conference SOC has proposed a motion to include remote attendance in quoracy at Conference. It is currently open to chairs to allow registered members to participate and 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, and as indicated above the levels of participation at this Conference would appear to show that more members are engaging with the process, and more successfully, than at previous Conferences.

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, all B motions and all 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 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 posts at Autumn Conference:

Disciplinary Committee (1 member) Standing Orders Committee (5 members) Campaigns Committee (5 members) Conferences Committee (5 members) International Committee (5 members) Green World Editorial Board (5 members) Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee (2 members) Equality and Diversity Committee (5 members)

We advertised any vacancies in good time and we will open online voting from the end of hustings (on Saturday 7th of October in the evening) until 1pm on Sunday 8th September, and in-person voting from 10am to 1pm on Sunday 8th September 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 report of the Returning Officer (Ani Stafford-Townsend)

Standing Orders Committee (SOC) appointed the Election (ERO/DERO) team on 1 November 2022.

These were Election Returning Officer (ERO) Ani Stafford-Townsend and Deputy Returning Officers (DERO) Jon Eccles and Adrian Spurrell.

The Electoral regulations were sent to the ERO/DERO team in November 2022 upon appointment along with the ERO Handbook.

The ERO/DERO team accepted the previously used regulations and updated the dates and roles for Annual Ballot. The regulations as a substantive document remained as used in 2022. The electoral regulations and husting guidance were submitted to SOC immediately upon request.

The substantive work for the year has been the Annual Ballot. However the ERO/DERO team also ran ratification ballots at Spring Conference for the Conference Committee and International Co-ordinator. We also balloted an additional nationally elected Disciplinary Committee member. Hustings were held on Saturday evening at conference, with the ballot run via paper ballot and GreenVote from Saturday evening to Sunday at 1pm.

We have also been supporting local and regional parties to identify voting platforms which are constitutional when counting RON, and assisting the forthcoming roll out of GreenVote nationally for local and regional parties.

In August we assisted the North West GP by running a ballot for their regional DC seat, and are currently progressing DC and GPRC ballots for the South West, West Midlands and Wales.

The Internal Elections Working group met on May 11th where the Annual Ballot was discussed at length. In May Regional and Local parties were contacted alerting them to the opening of the annual ballot and inviting them to host husting events in July. Nominations for the Annual Ballot opened on June 1st. “ information events were held, an evening event on June 14th at 7.30pm and a day time session on June 19th 11am. These were attended by Head of Governance Sarah Santos, Party co-Leader Carla Denyer and outgoing GPEX member Vix Lowthion.

A total of 15 candidates or duos applied to be a candidate for GPEx, 12 for PDC. A total of 11 candidates or duos were successfully nominated for GPEx. 9 successful candidates for PDC, with 1 withdrawn candidate in July and 1 withdrawn in August. The order in which candidates appeared in communication were drawn from a hat with an observer present. The names appeared on the voting platform in an order randomized by the voting software. 2 election regulation briefings were held for candidates on July 4th at 11am & 6pm. Candidates were run through the rules, and specific attention was drawn to usages of internal mailing lists and official comms channels. It was explicitly asked if Special Interest Groups could promote candidates within their own memberships, it is not. It was clarified what was viewed as an official channel or whatsapp. An official communication is confirmed as membership lists as held by GPEW or SIGs, official facebook pages or twitter accounts, whatsapp groups run by local or regional parties of SiGs as methods of communicating with their members. Essentially any platform used for official party activity that all candidates do not have equal access to, should promote all candidates equally.

In July, SOC & ERO were included in an email discussion from a former GPEx member wanting to email recommendations to their local party as chair. They were strongly advised against doing so, including the data protection implications.

All regional parties and Special Interest Groups were emailed in May and then several more times inviting them to hold hustings and to encourage engagement in their sectors. We held 4 hustings at the end of July. We drew up hustings guidelines for host groups and regions, and invited questions in advance. Candidates were then provided the questions approximately 48 hours in advance to allow preparation time and for statements to be sent when candidates were unable to attend themselves. In these instances the statements and answers provided were read by myself and Jon Eccles on their behalf. Jewish Green sent a list of questions for candidates to answer instead of a hustings.

The hustings held were:

• East Midlands Region with some collaboration with neighbouring regions and chaired by Scott Robinson
• Green Party Women Hustings chaired by Zoe Hatch. Notably many of the candidates did not attend once the questions were received. Statements were sent instead by those candidates, which myself & Jon ensured were read in full
• Greens of Colour & LGBTQIA+ Greens joint husting Chaired by Marley KIng
• National Husting, chaired by myself and Jon with support from national staff team with submitted questions from the membership

The ballot opened on August 1st, members were notified and reminded via email weekly by emails from the ERO. Members responded well to a reminder sent in the name of Adrian Ramsey. We also contacted regions and Special Interest Groups (SiGs) to ask them to encourage their memberships. We also used social media such as facebook groups and twitter to promote the election. Some high profile members such as Zack Polanski tweeted several times to remind members to vote, without endorsing any candidates.

When the ballot opened, we emailed all candidates and reminded them of the election regulations and drew their attention to the specific ones regarding use of official communication channels. These were:

• 4.1 By submitting their online nomination forms, candidates agree to abide by these rules. If candidates, or their supporters acting with their approval, are found to have violated these rules the ERO and/or the Standing Orders Committee may make a formal report to the Regional Council. If the ERO considers any violation has materially affected the result (i.e. led to the election of one candidate rather than another) the election may be ruled void. The ERO regards it as an overriding concern that as far as possible a level playing field is maintained between candidates. Any publicity opportunities, except hustings organised by properly constituted groups in the Green Party, or otherwise approved by the ERO, and other materials specified as permitted, that will draw the attention of members beyond the candidates local party to a particular candidate will not be permitted. All candidates, and in particular members who are already in elected positions must consider themselves in ‘election period’ from the date that candidates names are published until the close of voting.
• 5.0 Candidates and their agents will be able to communicate statements and details to all members through official mailings (see section 5.3 on statements for more details). No other contact with members using the party membership lists will be permitted.
• 6.1 The ERO has no redress against members who are not candidates in the election. A candidate should not be disqualified due to the actions of another member, unless it is clear that member has acted with the approval of the candidate. However, if, in the opinion of the ERO, the actions of a third party may have materially affected the result of the election, the ERO may declare the election void. All members are therefore requested to abide by the following rules. Members agree to abide by the rules for regulated campaigning as outlined in 4 above.
• 6.4 There should be no direct advocacy of a person’s candidature in formal or informal party publications (for example Green World, Green Activist, the members’ internal email bulletin and the Party website), unless equal space or invitation is given to all Candidates for a particular post to express their own views. This does not include fair comment on the elections.

There were several breaches of the Election Regulations, which we have been investigating and responding to since August.

• In early August we became aware that a recommended voting list was being circulated within the party. After some investigation at the time, a potential author was identified as a member in Stroud. The ERO & DERO contacted the member believed to be the author, drew their attention to the election rules and requested that the circulating message was withdrawn. We raised particular concern that as a sitting member of GPEx within considerable standing in the national party, it would hold undue influence in the election. The member confirmed their authorship in response and declined to withdraw the circulating message.
• As a councilor attending the Association of Green Councillors monthly zoom catch up, I witnessed the message posted in the chat by a member in Lewes. They were advised that that as an official group meeting it was a rule breach, and the recommendations were immediately deleted from the chat,
• A candidate for PDC who is also a regional chair sent out a reminder email for the annual ballot in their name. This was reported to the ERO as unacceptable and the candidate apologised and sent all further encouragement in the name of another regional committee member.
• The ERO was not informed by a DERO that he was going to stand for a role in the annual ballot, so his name appeared on some internal staff guidance but his name and access to the share ERO inbox was immediately removed.
• A candidate used the organizing Whatsapp group of the SiG they are a high profile member of to promote their own candidacy only. This was reported to the ERO and the candidate was contacted and requested to remove it content and advised how to rectify it by posting a link to all candidate statements when promoting themself. The candidate declined to do so. We noted that this candidate asked during the regulation briefing if this was allowed and was told explicitly no. Notably, another candidate in the same ballot was also a member of the same SiG and did not abuse the communication channels.
• In late August the ERO received a copy of an email sent to a local party membership containing the circulating message. The ERO/DERO team proceeded to investigate this matter further.

The ballot closed on August 31st. We received 28 postal ballots, including 1 which we accepted via email and 1 sent to a former ERO instead. We received many emails as is always the case requesting assistance to vote. The staff team created an easy form to request lost codes, and we set up an automatic reply which linked to the form and also included information on how to solve the most common queries. We also provided new codes to those members who had somehow lost them. In addition, we called several members on the phone and assisted them through the voting code login process.

We were light on usage of staff team support as we’re a technically experienced duo. We were able to enter the postal ballots ourselves, and therefore saved a day of staff time and train travel to assist in person. As such, the Annual Ballot cost less to run than the budgeted amount. We also received £340.55 in donations.

The result was generated on 1st September via zoom with staff member Sara Dryden, ERO Ani Stafford-Townsend and DERO Jon Eccles.

With the breaches in mind, before we generated the result, we decided on pausing the results of any ballot within a 10% margin pending an investigation. We reached 10% as a margin for consideration as it’s the bench mark we use when considering a recount in local elections. The margin in the Equalities and Diversity Co-ordinator ballot was narrower than 5% and therefore the result of that ballot was paused pending an investigation by the ERO/DERO team. The ERO/DERO team were not minded to pause the results of the other ballots as the margin was wide between candidates based on the information held at the time. Whilst it was probable that the election breaches had influenced the size of the margin and we were also of the view that as the candidates in the majority of the ballots had abided by the election regulations and therefore voiding the results of the entire ballot was a disproportionate response. We were also mindful that all the candidates in the E&D ballot held protected characteristics, and held concern that the electoral regulation breaches were also potentially discriminatory in action.

The candidates were informed of the result of their ballots, and other ballot results were announced that evening to the party membership.

The overall turn out of the Annual Ballot was 7.3%, which is above the common 5% of a non leadership year turn out but less than we had hoped.

Finance Coordinator

Julian Cusack elected Finance Coordinator

Local Party Coordinator

Rosie Rawle elected Local Party Coordinator

Publications Coordinator

Edward Milford elected Publications Coordinator

Internal Communications Coordinator

Helen Geake is elected Internal Communications Coordinator

Policy Development Coordinator

Anne Gayfer Elected Policy Development Coordinator

Policy Development Committee

Counting votes for Policy Development Committee using STV. 8 candidates running for 5 seats.

Anne Gayfer withdrew from this election.

1st round

Threshold was 475, Vix Lowthian and Daisy Goodall reached the threshold. Candidates have surplus votes so surplus votes will be transferred for the next round

2nd round

Adrian Spurrell and Robbie Spence reached the threshold. Candidates have surplus votes so surplus votes will be transferred for the next round

3rd round

Count after transferring surplus votes from Daisy Goodall. Candidates have surplus votes so surplus votes will be transferred for the next round.

4th round

Surplus votes will be delayed and candidates eliminated and their votes transferred for the next round.

5th round

Winners are Daisy Goodall, Adrian Spurrell, Martin Blake, Vix Lowthion, and Robbie Spence.

Through our investigation in collaboration with the staff team, we have discovered that respected party members have requested and encouraged local parties to send the endorsed candidate list out to local members, thus breaking electoral regulations. Several local parties have sent the communication to their members, thus breaking regulations. Chairs of local parties involved are understandably concerned about having been encouraged to do so. A candidate in the E&D ballot used official communication channels to promote themselves, breaking election regulations. We noted that other candidates for the same ballot did not do so even when having the same access to do so. We noted that a candidate in the same ballot declined high profile opportunities in order to comply with electoral regulations. We also found that the voter turn out in parties know to have received the circulated endorsement was higher than the national average, indicating the impact of the endorsement circulating was not insignificant.

We have also discovered a number of data protection breaches as well as the electoral regulation breaches noted above. These have been reported to the Data Protection Officer for action. The breaches are being considered against 2 separate pieces of UK legislation.

This report has been submitted for the Final Agenda Deadline, and as such the full investigation is not yet concluded. At least 1 SiG is understood to also circulated the list to their membership, however the method of doing so is not yet known. A full, unredacted report of the ERO/DERO investigation will be provided to GPRC, GPEX, SOC and the Head of Governance when concluded for the relevant groups to take action. We thank those who have assisted us in these investigations

As ERO and DERO, we have concluded that we have no option other than to void the E&D ballot and rerun at the soonest opportunity. We are of the view that whilst 1 candidate has breached the regulations, that the actions of senior party members will have caused them to believe it was acceptable. Therefore we are not minded to disqualify or name that candidate, but to rerun the ballot with the same candidates afresh, with same information and the relevant clip of the hustings, and the same candidates will be eligible to stand again

It was requested that we reopened the ballot in the week immediately after pausing the result, in the week beginning the 4th September so that the Annual Ballot could be concluded by conference. We have requested to reopen the ballot several times since, however at the time of submitting this report, no agreement has been reached with the chair of GPEx to do so.

We do appreciate that this is a less than ideal outcome of the Annual Ballot, and a situation no one wished to be in. As a political party it is of the utmost importance that we ensure our own elections are fair and compliant with our regulations. We must hold ourselves to the highest standard in this area, and be clear that electoral regulations can not be broken and no member is above them.

A report by SOC of any changes that they have adopted to their Standing Orders;

SOC refers to its report included as part of the Annual General Meeting 2023.

Progress on Organisational Statements;

SOC refers to its report included as part of the Annual General Meeting 2023.

Any other matters or recommendations that do not affect the running of conference.

SOC extends its thanks to Louisa Greenbaum and the teams involved in organising Conference for their continued hard work, particularly in a year where adaptation to the new AGM format has made demands on all of us.

To the family and friends of Cameron Bairstow in particular, who tragically passed away shortly before the Final Agenda was published, SOC extends its deepest condolences. Cameron was a warm, tireless presence, who will be sorely missed by everyone whose time in the Green Party was lucky enough to intersect with his.

Rulings since the previous Conference

SOC refers to its report included as part of the Annual General Meeting 2023.