To see the most recent content, please visit the homepage.
Motion #A01
Amendment passed
Amendment to Standing Orders Committee report regarding order of D12 and D13 by Disciplinary Committee
Under Amendments to section D.
“There have been 20 proposed amendments to motions in section D, of which we ruled 4 out of order and have proposed that 2 be basketed together.
The ranking is as in the Prioritisation Ballot, except for D01, in relation to which we exercised our discretion under Standing Orders for the Conduct of Conference, paragraph F2.6(c), to give special priority to any motion in section D which we consider to be urgent for the functioning of the party or any part of it.”
Insert after “except for D01” “D13 and D12,”
Insert a new paragraph “For D12, it is recommended that it be taken in parts so that only those revisions to Standing Orders for Party Discipline referring to increasing the size of the Disciplinary Committee are debated, all other revisions being proposed to be referred back.”
so that it reads
“There have been 20 proposed amendments to motions in section D, of which we ruled 4 out of order and have proposed that 2 be basketed together.
The ranking is as in the Prioritisation Ballot, except for D01, D13 and D12, in relation to which we exercised our discretion under Standing Orders for the Conduct of Conference, paragraph F2.6(c), to give special priority to any motion in section D which we consider to be urgent for the functioning of the party or any part of it.
For D12, it is recommended that it be taken in parts so that only those revisions to Standing Orders for Party Discipline referring to increasing the size of the Disciplinary Committee are debated, all other revisions being proposed to be referred back.”
Not yet debated
Vote of No Confidence in Standing Orders Committee Member
Synopsis
At the start of the week where Conference business began, the conduct of one SOC member became such that their fellow committee-members were compelled to amend their Standing Orders so as to issue a Vote of No Confidence in them, which is now commended to Conference.
Motion: On 28 February 2022, in the week when this Conference commenced, the conduct of one SOC member in relation to: the supervision of workshops; division of work; and public communications felt to be undermining the integrity of SOC overall; caused the Convenors to call an Emergency Meeting of SOC, with all members invited.
At this meeting, which was quorate and minuted, it was proposed that the Standing Orders of SOC be amended, in line with a document which had previously been seen an approved by a majority of members, so as to allow a Vote of No Confidence in this Committee Member to take place.
This passed with a majority of members of SOC supporting the amendments to the Standing Orders. SOC therefore commends to Conference the result of its Vote of No Confidence in the relevant member.
Since the Constitution does not currently give SOC the power to remove members of the Committee from their post of its own motion, SOC therefore recommends to Conference that the relevant member be removed from his position on Standing Orders Committee as of this Conference.
Amendment defeated
Maintaining integrity of GPEW’s internal democracy
Amendment to A01:
In the section “Late Motions”, insert at the end of the section:
Conference Addendum: maintaining the integrity of GPEW’s internal democracy
Conference notes that the inclusion of Motion G01 in the agenda has resulted in an unprecedented series of attacks on Standing Orders Committee. Instead of coming to Conference to debate the motion in good faith, some members have sadly chosen to accuse SOC of being ideologically driven, and are seeking to remove the motion from the agenda on the grounds that it should have been ruled Out of Order.
Members of SOC have had it insinuated to them that these members are willing to derail Conference altogether rather than allow Motion G01 to be heard.
Conference notes that at its meeting of 11th February 2022, SOC dedicated a formal meeting to considering Motion G01. At that time SOC agreed unanimously that the motion overall was in order, and agreed by majority to parts of the motion being Out of Order.
Conference understands that SOC uses the Standing Orders for Conduct of Conference (SOCC) to determine if a motion is in order, or partially or wholly Out of Order. SOC also uses SOCC to determine if a proposed Late Motion has met the criteria for a Late Motion.
In the interest of setting the record straight, Conference acknowledges SOC’s majority agreed analysis of the Late Motion against SOCC’s provisions as follows:
C2.2 Other than in exceptional circumstances, the topic of the Late Motion must have arisen or changed since the Pre-Agenda deadline. SOC will have discretion to judge whether there are exceptional circumstances which merit the waiving of the requirements of the standard timetable for motions to conference.
The pre-agenda deadline was 3rd December 2021. The synopsis of the Late Motion states: “GPEW accepts the damning results of the 25th January 2022 Council of Europe report “Combating rising hate against LGBTI people in Europe”. GPEW accepts that it has been subject to hard-line anti-trans activism for some time; issues cannot be tackled without understanding; and oppression of marginalised groups intersect.”
The date of the trigger event is after the pre-agenda deadline, giving SOC discretion to judge whether the circumstances warrant acceptance of the motion. It was the view of SOC that the combination of this trigger event and the rising conflict around transphobia within the Party warranted the hearing of a Late Motion on the matter.
Conference notes that SOC accepting a Late Motion does not constitute SOC’s approval or endorsement of that motion, only that SOC has applied the requirements of SOCC to the motion. Conference is satisfied that SOC’s analysis is valid, and that Motion G01 qualifies as a Late Motion.
Conference notes that the rules determining a motion to be partially or wholly Out of Order are laid down in E2 of SOCC, and notes SOC’s majority agreed analysis for the motion against those criteria as follows:
a) contrary to the Constitution;
SOC found the line “Conference instructs GPRC to suspend signatories of the WHRC/Women’s Declaration International” to be Out of Order under this clause on the grounds that it directed GPRC (Green Party Regional Council) to use a power that SOC considered to be reserved to GPRC.
Some references have since been made to 4.ix of the Constitution: “As Green Party members we are committed to attempting, wherever possible, to resolve disagreement through mutual respect and discussion .. A diversity of opinions is likely to exist within any organisation, and political difference should not automatically be the basis for expulsion of a member”.
However, the motion as it stands does not allow for the automatic expulsion of a member on the grounds of political difference. If passed, it would remain for Disciplinary Committee (DC) to investigate claims of a member having signed the Declaration.
Furthermore, the existence of Disciplinary Committee, the Code of Conduct, and GPRC’s powers to suspend and expel members indicates that the constitution expects and allows for situations in which disagreements between members be settled through a disciplinary route.
“b) retrospective in their effect;”
The motion as it stands has two effects:
Neither of these effects attempts to overwrite something that happened in the past, and so cannot reasonably be described as retrospective in effect.
The objection has been raised that a member who signed the Declaration in 2020 could therefore be disciplined for something that was not against the Code of Conduct at the time. This is true, but is a decision for Disciplinary Committee.. Conference notes that Disciplinary Committee already applies the current Code of Conduct to complaints where a member’s action took place before it was sanctionable under the Code of Conduct.
In simple terms, it is a legitimate exercise of Disciplinary Committee to decide on the application of the Code of Conduct to a member’s past behaviour. But that is not an effect of this motion; the motion’s effect is merely to amend the Code of Conduct to make such a sanction possible.
“c) ambiguous;”
It was never argued that any part of the motion is ambiguous.
“d) vague;”
It was never argued that any part of the motion is vague.
“e) trivial;”
It was never argued that any part of this motion is trivial.
“f) requiring no consequential action by the Party;”
SOC agreed unanimously that the word “permanently” in the line “those members who do or have done so should be suspended from the party permanently” requires no consequential action by the Party, because a permanent suspension would be an expulsion without being clearly named.
“g) substantially changing policy areas without having passed through the agreed process of consultation;”
It was never argued that any part of this motion substantially changes policy areas without having passed through the agreed process of consultation.
“h) having complex implications for other areas of policy without having passed through the agreed process of consultation;”
It was never argued that any part of this motion has complex implicatons for other areas of policy.
“i) seeking to significantly amend the principles passed in a policy motion or Voting Paper less than one year and nine months previously;”
The motion is not a policy motion.
“j) seeking to re-present a policy proposal which has been debated and defeated at Conference less than one year and nine months previously (see Appendix A), except where it is proposed by GPRC and agreed by SOC that the specific exception to that requirement shall be made in respect of an area of Party Policy for which urgent need to update or clarify the policy outweighs the normal consideration of procedure;”
The motion is not a policy motion.
“k) seeking to overturn, or fundamentally amend, the result of a party-wide ballot held under the provisions of the Constitution, or to initiate a new party-wide ballot seeking to do so, within two years of the result of the original ballot being announced. An exception to this should be allowed if the motion is submitted by GPRC having been supported by a 2/3 majority vote at a properly convened meeting of GPRC, on the grounds that GPRC believe that exceptional circumstances render it necessary to revisit the original decision in order to protect the well-being of the Party.”
The motion does not concern a Party-wide ballot.
“l) with advice from PDC, a DVP or VP that is contrary to Appendix A”
The motion is not a VP (Voting Paper) or DVP (Draft Voting Paper).
“m) a VP that is contrary to the Philosophical Basis, and to existing policies in PSS, unless it contains proposals to amend them accordingly.”
The motion is not a VP.
In light of the above, Conference is satisfied that SOC’s majority analysis holds.
Conference also reaffirms the importance of the provision in the Party’s Code of Conduct for Members at section 7.1, that members ‘have a general duty to respect decisions made by the National Party, any local or Regional Party or any other Party body through the democratic process.’ Where there are, inevitably, disagreements with decisions made by SOC, they shall be aired and settled at Conference, in the appropriate forum and in a respectful spirit towards those volunteering their time and energy to help in the running of Conference business. Accusations that members of SOC, or any Party body, are acting in bad faith, or as partisans for a particular cause, or attempts to lobby members of SOC internally in order to change their minds with insults or innuendo, are corrosive to this principle. Conference refuses to countenance such behaviour within the Green Party.
Conference therefore invites all attendees to debate Motion G01 in good faith.
Amendment passed
Rule G01 OoO (CH Version)
Under the section of A01 titled Late Motions (page 9)
Replace: “We received one late motion which we have been able to include in the Final Agenda.” With : “ We received one late motion which we were NOT able to include in the Final Agenda as it didn’t meet the criteria for inclusion.”
Amendment passed
Rule G01 OoO (MH Version)
In section 1 of the SOC Report, in the section headed ‘Late Motions’ delete:
“We received one late motion which we have been able to include in the Final Agenda.”
And replace with:
One late motion was received that does not constitute a valid late motion in that:
The motion is concerned with the Women’s Independence Declaration which existed prior to the opening of the Late Motions Forum and not the Council of Europe Report published on the 25 th January 2022 which is used as the trigger event.
The Council of Europe report is referenced in the synopsis which does not form part of the motion. The Council of Europe report of 25 th January 2022 is not identified in the text of the motion. (The in text reference to a Council of Europe report since it does not identify the report should have been ruled Out of Order as ‘vague’).
The Council of Europe Report of 25 th January 2022 referred to in the synopsis does not reference the Women’s Independence Declaration which might have provided a link between the two. If the trigger event had been valid, then the motion should be ruled Out of Order as:
The motion is contrary to section 4(ix) of the Constitution of the GPEW: “As Green Party members we are committed to attempting, wherever possible, to resolve disagreement through mutual respect and discussion .. A diversity of opinions is likely to exist within any organisation, and political difference should not automatically be the basis for expulsion of a member..”
and to section 12.1 of the Members Code of Conduct:
“12.1 As the Green Party welcomes people from a wide range of backgrounds, members may encounter people who hold differing political or philosophical worldviews. Freedom of belief and the right to change that belief is a fundamental human right. Members should therefore show tolerance and respect towards people that hold political or philosophical worldviews that differ from their own..”
And will accordingly be removed from the agenda for this conference.
Not yet debated
Amendment to A1: Standing Order Committee (SOC) Report With respect to: Motion - Vote of No Confidence in SOC Member
This motion states that decisions were taken at an Emergency Meeting of Standing Orders Committee (SOC) to amend their Standing Orders, in order to enable them to call a Vote of No Confidence towards one of the committee’s members.
SOC Standing Orders state that changes to their Standing Orders can only be made at a Formal Meeting of SOC (4.c).
They also state (6) that emergency business requiring the Suspension of Standing Orders can only be discussed ‘if all members of SOC agree’, and that business discussed at an Emergency Meeting cannot include ‘any element of point for’ of the Standing Orders, which includes any amending of SOC Standing Orders.
The entire process was therefore clearly in breach of SOC Standing Orders.
SOC has no powers to amend its Standing Orders in the manner described in the motion.
SOC has no powers to suspend or expel members under its Standing Orders.
It is concerning that the body responsible for upholding the Constitution and Standing Orders of the Party should breach its own Standing Orders.
It is concerning to see SOC members reacting in such an extreme way to an entirely reasonable request to adjust SOC’s conference schedule to enable one of its members to participate in a particular session.
Conference instructs SOC to explore a more appropriate way to deal with internal disputes other than to seek the removal of its members from the committee.
Amendment passed
Rule Amendment 5 to D07 back in order
In Amendments to Section D, after sentence:
“There have been 20 proposed amendments to motions in section D, of which we ruled 4 out of order and have proposed that 2 be basketed together.”
Add sentence:
“Conference votes to rule OOO 05 in order.”
Not yet debated
Amendment to Reflect Changes to the Standing Orders
Delete the current text of section 6 and replace with:
‘SOC’s Standing Orders were changed by a majority vote of its members at a meeting on 28 February 2022, implementing changes first seen and discussed in a meeting of 6 February 2022.’
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 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 18th December 2021. The order of policy motions in sections F and C was pre-discussed at a routine SOC meeting with a member of Policy Development Committee (PDC) and agreed at a series of meetings discussing the Final Agenda on 23rd and 30th January 2022 when PDC also made recommendations on fast-tracking of policy motions. The order of these motions is given below. These were agreed by SOC on the 6th February 2022. The motions proposed in the Final Agenda for this Annual General Meeting and Conference are:
Under section 10(ii)(a) of the Constitution, Spring Conference requires A Reports only from Standing Orders Committee (SOC), Policy Development Committee (PDC) and Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee (ADRC). The report from ADRC was submitted in advance of the First Agenda deadline, and the remaining relevant groups and committees submitted their reports in advance of the Final Agenda Deadline on the 28th of January 2022.
Amendments to motions A01 and A02 can be made from the floor of Conference.
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 for Conduct of Conference (SOCC) F1c) “The ballot shall not be used to prioritise items within Section A of the Agenda since these should all be considered.”
No such motions have been brought to this Conference.
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 motions concern: addressing this government’s failure to support young refugees; petitioning the government to halt HS2 works damaging an aquifer; and eliminating fossil fuel assets from the financial sector.
No amendments have been proposed to any of the C section motions.
The order of Section C as agreed with Policy Development Committee is:
| First Agenda | Final Agenda |
| E05 | C01 |
| OoO1 | CO2 |
| E12 | C03 |
We accepted 15 organisational motions.
There have been 20 proposed amendments to motions in section D, of which we ruled 4 out of order and have proposed that 2 be basketed together.
The ranking is as in the Prioritisation Ballot, except for D01, in relation to which we exercised our discretion under Standing Orders for the Conduct of Conference, paragraph F2.6(c), to give special priority to any motion in section D which we consider to be urgent for the functioning of the party or any part of it.
| First Agenda | Ballot Agenda | Final |
| D01 | 1 | D01 |
| D10 | 2 | D02 |
| D02 | 3 | D03 |
| D05 | 4 | D04 |
| D03 | 5 | D05 |
| D04 | 6 | D06 |
| D13 | 7 | D07 |
| D15 | 8 | D08 |
| D14 | 9 | D09 |
| D09 | 10 | D10 |
| D11 | 11 | D11 |
| D07 | 12 | D12 |
| D08 | 13 | D13 |
| D06 | 14 | D14 |
| D12 | 15 | D15 |
We accepted 17 policy motions in section E.
There were 7 proposed amendments to motions in section E, of which we ruled 1 out of order.
Order of motions: We have moved First Agenda motions OoO1, E12 and E05 to section C, accredited policy motions. The remaining motions are ordered according to the Prioritisation Ballot.
| First Agenda | Ballot Rank | Final Agenda |
| E14 | 1 | E01 |
| E07 | 2 | E02 |
| E02 | 3 | E03 |
| E03 | 4 | E04 |
| E01 | 5 | E05 |
| E15 | 6 | E06 |
| E11 | 7 | E07 |
| E06 | 8 | E08 |
| E04 | 9 | E09 |
| E18 | 10 | E10 |
| E10 | 11 | E11 |
| E16 | 12 | E12 |
| E17 | 13 | E13 |
| E08 | 14 | E14 |
| E13 | 15 | E15 |
| E09 | 16 | E16 |
| OoO3 | 17 | E17 |
There is a single Draft Voting Paper in section F to be given a workshop at Conference ready for progression to the B motion stage, concerning revisions to the Land Use Chapter of Policies for a Sustainable Society (PfSS). Amendments have been proposed and included in the interests of facilitating debate and highlighting areas for discussion
No motions were composited.
The Late Motions Forum was open from the 20th December 2021 to 11th February 2022 at https://spaces.greenparty.org.uk/s/spring-2022-late- motion-forum/ for items that could not have been submitted by the 17th December 2021 because they related to events taking place since then. Standing Orders for the Conduct of Conference does not require late motions to be part of the Final Agenda.
We received one late motion which we have been able to include in the Final Agenda.
We opened the Emergency Motions Forum on 11th February 2022, these are not part of the Final Agenda.
Standing Orders for the Conduct of Conference (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.
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, we may remove it to a note.
Following the First Agenda meeting, 3 motions were found to be Out of Order, with reasons given. A further policy motion, which became motion C02, was initially thought by SOC to be Out of Order as proposing significant changes to policy but without having passed through the agreed process of consultation. Following consultation with Policy Development Committee (PDC), we came to the view that this was an error on our part, and this motion had in fact never been Out of Order.
Concerning those motions found to be Out of Order, all proposers were contacted following the First Agenda meeting with suggestions as to how their motions could be amended back into order. Proposers for one motion, which became motion E17, made such amendments as we felt were necessary to recommend to Conference that this motion be ruled back in order as part of the Final Agenda, using our discretion under SOCC E7.3. We also decided to use our discretion under SOCC F1, concerning the running of the Prioritisation Ballot, to include this motion in the Prioritisation Ballot so as to provide a guide on where to recommend it be placed in the Final Agenda, were Conference minded to accept its recommendation. The process of putting together the Prioritisation Ballot is outlined further below.
SOC and staff opened the Agenda Forum shortly following the end of Autumn Conference 2021 in Greenspaces at https://spaces.greenparty.org.uk/s/spring-conference- 2022-agenda-forum/ and a calendar of deadlines was posted there. We sent an email to all Party members to say that it had opened.
There was something of a delay in the handover between the previous and current incarnations of SOC owing to difficulties in running the relevant ballots at the Autumn Conference 2021. This meant that several of the ballots, including for the election of SOC, had to be run again. The current incarnation of SOC were informed of the results by email on the 9th November 2021.
Additionally, to avoid creating work for volunteers or staff over the Christmas/Holiday period, the Pre-Agenda and First Agenda deadlines were brought forward by several weeks to 3rd and 17th December 2021 respectively. This created something of a ‘squeeze’ period for the newly- constituted SOC. We worked to ameliorate this through maintaining regular, general meetings to manage workflow on a fortnightly basis.
In addition to logging motions on the members’ website using the Stream on the forum, SOC endeavoured to make the process of submitting motions easier for this Conference. We did so by using a separate website logging proposed motions and providing links to a more accessible online form. In the preparation and refinement of this we are grateful to Conferences Committee and to our GPEx Equality and Diversity Coordinator. This allowed members to propose motions other than by emailing SOC and was more efficient. We added the submission form to the Agenda Forum on December 9th, 2021, slightly later than was initially hoped, but SOC continued to accept submissions of proposed motions by email during this period.
First Agenda preparation requires a large time commitment which is aggravated by members of the Party submitting reports and motions with complex formatting or as images. The use of a webform instead of email reduces the amount of reformatting needed. There were teething issues
While party members had entered just over 40 possible motions on the website by the time of the First Agenda deadline, we did have to make decisions about which of the motions on the Stream were appropriately formatted in line with the published guidelines. Some motions were only shared in their final form a few hours before the deadline, creating a sizeable amount of additional work for Committee members. 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. For policy motions, we advise you to obtain accreditation from Policy Development Committee. SOC will be mindful of this in considering how we might propose revisions of 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:
• Amendment to constitution proposed by Standing Orders Committee (this removes constitutional ambiguity regarding leadership terms); • Constitutional amendments clarifying the role of ‘re-open nominations’ (RON); • Including remote attendance in quorum for Conference; • Regulating the distribution of campaign literature at Conference.
The First Agenda meeting of Standing Orders Committee was held on 18th December 2021. Motions were ordered ready for the Prioritisation Ballot according to the rules given in Standing Orders for the Conduct of Conference. We opened the Amendment Forum and the Late Motions Forum in good time in Green Spaces on 20th December 2021 at https://spaces.greenparty.org.uk/s/spring-2022- amendment-forum/ and https://spaces.greenparty.org.uk/s/spring-2022-late- motion-forum/ with links placed in the Agenda Forum.
There were no C motions for the Prioritisation Ballot, notwithstanding that Policy Development Committee had been able to consider accreditations. The order of these motions was decided in consultation with PDC at an SOC meeting of 6th February 2022.
Owing to the removal of three motions from the ballot for E motions due to their being accredited, and consequently different numbering for the motions on the ballot and on the First Agenda, we did very occasionally receive communications from members who were confused by the absence of certain motions. However, in the context of the ballot as a whole these incidents were few, and in general most users seem to have navigated the ballot without issue.
Additionally, as described above, the motion which became E17 was added after the ballot had already begun, since it was only by then that the proposers had made amendments which SOC found would bring the motion back into order. This necessarily caused some disadvantage to that motion. Together with Conferences Committee we attempted to ameliorate by writing directly to those 44 users who had already voted by this time and asking where they would rank this motion. Between us we felt that this was the fairest, least disruptive way of remedying any unfair disadvantage to this motion. The Prioritisation ballot ended on 28th January and we ran the Single Transferable Vote (STV) results by hand using Excel and a calculator to obtain a Borda count. This took considerable time, representing hours of work on the part of the relevant SOC member.
Additionally, this was the first Prioritisation Ballot we have run since the passage of a motion at Autumn Conference 2021 entitled ‘Prioritisation ballot for conference motions’. This required the use of the Modified Borda Count method, with a multiplier added to represent how many times the same motion had been proposed to preceding Conferences but not debated due to lack of time. This meant that SOC 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, we decided 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 require us to decide on a case-by- case basis. We also decided that motions which were debated and referred back were not eligible for the multiplier, as the motion that created this new way of calculating results explicitly stated that it applies to motions that are not debated due to time constraints.
Accordingly, we decided to apply the multipliers as follows:
In order to facilitate faster progress on the Agenda, at each conference SOC recommend 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 then the motion is not fast-tracked. The ten objecting members have to be on the “floor” of conference (as regards online-only conferences, this means participating in Plenary). In an in- person conference, this would 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 to SOC for fast-tracking by Conference:
E03 Enabling motion for rewrite of Transport section of PfSS E04 Enabling Motion for the revision of Economy Chapter of ‘Policies for a Sustainable Society’ (PSS) E07 Fossil Fuel Non Proliferation Treaty E09 Regulating Political Party Donations from Limited Companies E14 Enabling Motion on Tourism and Heritage Policy
Standing Orders for the Conduct of Conference (SOCC) as revised Spring 2021 allowed Out of Order motions to be revised and for us to recommend to Conference that they are ruled back in order as part of the Final Agenda, as happened on this occasion with motion E17.
We held weekly meetings with conference staff in the run- up to conference. We also liaised with the Equalities and Diversity co-ordinators at key stages. These were to ensure that conference is run in an equitable and accessible manner, reducing workload for all concerned as far as possible.
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, we 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 virtual speaker slips in advance from those who hope to participate in conference plenary debate but these will be at the chair’s discretion. We will take procedural motions in advance 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. The timetable has been set to allow for all A and C motions to be taken. (There are no B motions this conference.) 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 voluntary posts at Spring Conference:
1 member of Campaigns Committee We notified Party members of these vacancies in advance. We will open online voting from the end of hustings until 1pm on Sunday 6th of March 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 Returning Officer and Deputy Returning Officer (RO and DRO) 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 RO and Alex Booth and Hamza Egal as DROs on the 23rd December 2021. As of 6th February 2022 Alex Booth stepped back, leaving Hamza Egal as sole DRO.
The results of committee elections at Autumn Conference 2021 can be accessed at: https://members.greenparty.org.uk/conference/autumn- 2021/committee-results
No changes to our Standing Orders before publication of the Final Agenda.
[Conference has voted not to take a vote on Section 6, and so this section has not been passed]
Progress on our Organisational Statements in RoOS at https://spaces.greenparty.org.uk/s/roos/ and in Appendix 3 falls into three categories:
• To update the Constitution in accordance with D01 Autumn Conference 2021 as passed with amendments 1, 2 and 3 and publish to members. • To update SOCC in accordance with D04 Autumn Conference 2021 and publish to members • To update and maintain the Record of Organisational Statements (RoOS) • To update SOPD in accordance with A10 Autumn Conference 2021 as amended by amendments 4 to 9, 11 and ensure it is published to members. • To improve the webform for submission of motions, whether using an outside provider or designed in-house (SOC Report Recommendation, A1 Autumn 2020) with the support of GPEx. Category 2 (Neither carried out nor completed) • To update SOC Standing Orders and/or Handbook to reflect various motions passed at Conferences viz: To ensure that the annual ballots for the Green Party Executive (GPEx) and the Policy Development Committee (PDC)
• To update SOC Standing Orders and/or Handbook to reflect various motions passed at Conferences viz: To ensure that the annual ballots for the Green Party Executive (GPEx) and the Policy Development Committee (PDC) are well publicised and fully engaged with by the membership, To ensure that its appointee to the role of ERO takes their role in overseeing the conduct of the elections seriously and takes an active role in responding to complaints and concerns raised about conduct during elections. • To reconsider the proxy system for online conferences and the 5-vote limit per members and to bring forward proposals to Conference to change this (SOC Report Recommendation, A1 Autumn 2020). • To carry out a full review of regulations for national elections [ERO Report, part of SOC Report Autumn 2020]. • To number motions in the Pre-Agenda process if all of the possible motions continue to be listed in one stream on the member website (SOC Report Recommendation, A1 Autumn 2020).
• To ensure with Policy Development Committee 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). • To insert three clauses passed in D01 Autumn 2018 ‘Facilitating Incorporation of the GPEW’ into the constitution “when the transfer happens”.
A huge thank-you to the staff who have assisted and supported us during the year especially Louisa Greenbaum and Cameron Bairstow. Thankyou also to our predecessors on SOC who have been generous with their time and energy in ensuring as smooth a handover as possible to the current incarnation of the Committee.
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:
On 01.11.2021 Vix Lowthion asked:
‘I’m just seeking clarification regarding our co-options onto PDC. We have 5 co-option slots on the committee according to the constitution. But we have an additional 3 vacancies due to uncontested elections in the summer. The full committee is 11 - we only have 3 elected (2 committee plus me) and one currently co-opted.
Q1 Am I correct in that it is SOC’s view that we can co-opt the 8 vacancies rather than call an election?
Q2 Would these 8 co-options have voting rights? This can be important when it comes to accreditation really.
Q3 And finally, does SOC have a view as to how long these co-options are for, and
Q4 What mechanisms if any are available to remove a cooptee due to absence?’
SOC rules that
Clause 13(i) of the Constitution says:
“The Policy Development Committee [PDC] shall include five members elected by ballot of the entire membership, usually at the same time as the ballot for the membership of the Executive is held. Up to an additional five non-voting members may be co-opted by the elected Committee. This co-option shall take place after an annual skills audit carried out immediately following the election of the elected members…”
Additionally, section 1.5 of the Standing Orders for PDC says:
‘Immediately after the election of new members a skills audit shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the constitution and a maximum of five new members shall be co-opted for a 2 year term. This will take place within one month of the election of new members.’
Assuming the current composition of the PDC to include the Policy Development Coordinator (elected in the annual ballot), two elected members and a single co-opted member, this means that:
PDC may co-opt four of the remaining vacancies; the remaining three vacancies must be filled by a ballot of the members. Since the Constitution says that these elections ‘usually’, though not always, take place at the same time as the annual ballot, PDC is therefore urged to hold such a ballot as soon as is practicable.
Only elected members of PDC may have voting rights; co-opted members do not.
Co-opted members will serve a term of two years, beginning from the election of committee members immediately preceding their co-option.
Neither the Constitution nor the Standing Orders for PDC currently contain any mechanism for removing co-opted members, and so SOC cannot give a conclusive answer to this question.
On 26.10.2021 Carla Denyer wrote:
‘…. I noticed that one of the amendments to the SOC report changed our leadership term from 2 years to 3 years. Can you please confirm to Adrian (in Cc) and me that this amendment and motion, since passed, are now binding?’
On 22.11.2021 SOC responded:
Clause 8 (xi) of the Constitution says:
‘If there are Co-leaders and one of the Co-Leaders resigns, there will be a byelection for both Co-Leaders…. They shall serve a term lasting as if they were starting following the result of the previous Annual Ballot, or if held after May, lasting as if it were starting following the result of the next Annual Ballot.’
It bears emphasising that no motion was passed at Conference which changed the Constitution so as to amend the terms of those serving in the Leadership. The question to be considered was what, for the purposes of this Clause, constituted the ‘next’ Annual Ballot at the time of the most recent Leadership by-election, given that the Annual Ballot of 2021 and the Leadership by-election took place at overlapping times.
In its original report to Autumn Conference in 2021, SOC advanced a majority ruling to the effect that the ‘next’ Annual Ballot, for these purposes, meant the Annual Ballot of Autumn 2021, meaning that the term of those elected in the Leadership by-election would run until Autumn 2023.
Subsequently, an amendment from the floor was passed which interpreted the ‘next’ Annual Ballot, for these purposes, to mean the Annual Ballot of Autumn 2022, meaning that the term of those elected in the Leadership by-election would run until Autumn 2024.
SOC sees no reason to go behind the decision of Conference on this point. Moreover, SOC in its current incarnation would, given the opportunity to consider the question afresh, reach the same conclusion by majority.
Those elected at the Leadership by-election will therefore serve terms running until Autumn 2024.
On 11.11.2021 Marisa Johnson of ADRC wrote:
‘… could you please let me know whether it would be in order for the Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee to appoint two more members by cooption, to complete the committee, which can now have seven members?’
SOC rules that
Clause 18(ii) of the Constitution says:
‘The Committee shall consist of seven members elected for a two-year term of office, for a maximum consecutive term of six years, at each Annual Party Conference, with vacancies to be filled by election, or by co-options to be ratified, at an intervention Conference.’
ADRC therefore has the power to appoint two more members by co-option, with those co-options to be ratified at the next Conference, which at time of writing will be Spring Conference 2022.
On 9.11.2021 Nate Higgins asked:
‘Please may I request a ruling on the meaning, and how it relates to local parties, of rule 5.XX of the constitution (as passed at Spring 2021), which states:
“No member may be elected to the same post or sit on the same body for more than 5 terms consecutively, nor be a member of the Green Party Regional Council for more than 3 terms consecutively”
1.Does the rule apply to elected local party officer roles required by the national constitution, i.e, Treasurer or Nominating Officer?
2.Does the rule apply to elected local party officer roles not required by the national constitution, i.e, a local party’s elected Election Agent?
3.Does the rule apply to bodies of local parties, i.e, an Executive Committee of the local party?
4.Are partial terms in which a member is co-opted mid way through a term count as one of the 5 terms a member may serve?
5.Are partial terms in which a member is elected mid way through a term count as one of the 5 terms a member may serve?
6.Whose role in a local party is it to enforce this clause of the constitution?’
[Numbering of questions added by SOC]
SOC rules that
Clause 5(i) of the Constitution says:
“5. i) 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.”
It is clear from context that the provision in Clause 5(xx) is intended to refer to those national-level party bodies outlined in the Constitution (including GPEx) and to members of GPRC specifically, rather than to local parties who shall be encouraged to have the greatest possible autonomy, notwithstanding that their local party constitutions shall themselves be determined according to the bye-laws approved from time to time by Conference.
The term-limits and number of terms of consecutive terms of service for local party officers (including those roles required by the GPEW Constitution) would be a matter for local parties to decide using their own local party constitutions.
As at Q1 above, the term-limits and number of terms of consecutive terms of service for local party officers (including those roles not required by the GPEW Constitution) would be a matter for local parties to decide using their own local party constitutions.
As at Qs 1 and 2 above, the rules governing term limits on the bodies of local parties would be a matter for local parties to decide using their own local party constitutions.
So far as those national-level party bodies outlined in the Constitution, including GPRC, are concerned, the wording of Clause 5(xx) includes both being ‘elected to’ a body and ‘sit[ting] on the same body’ within its prescription of the 5 year/3 year limit. It is therefore clear that co-opted members, who ‘sit on the same body’ though they are not elected, would also be subject to these provisions. So far as local parties are concerned, as at Qs 1-3 above, this would be a matter for local parties to decide using their own local party constitutions.
The wording of Clause 5(xx) does not refer to time served on a party body or in a position, only to elected terms. It is therefore clear that, so far as those national-level party bodies outlined in the Constitution, including GPRC, are concerned, a partial term on which a member is co-opted part way through, would count as one of the determined number of terms that member may serve. So far as local parties are concerned, as at Qs 1-4 above, this would be a matter for local parties to decide using their own local party constitutions.
The Constitution and bye-laws are silent on whose role it is to enforce the terms of Clause 5(xx), and in any event as at Qs 1-5 above do not apply to local party constitutions in the same way. Therefore the question of whose role this is cannot be determined by SOC using these provisions. Ruling re Status of Emergency Motions On 19.11.2021 Andi Mohr asked: “Hope you can help - the co-leaders would like to request your advice about the extent to which any emergency motion that is passed by Conference can be considered to have changed party policy more broadly. Could you outline the limits that exist, if any, on what emergency motions can change vs full motions?”
SOC rules that
The Constitution says:
“13.vii) Conference may make elaborations of previously agreed policy as Topical Motions and Emergency Motions.”
The Standing Orders for the Conduct of Conference (SOCC) says:
“H13.8 Emergency Motions shall only be accepted provided:
i) the issue has arisen, or has substantially changed, since the deadline for Late Motions; an explicit commentary must be provided by the lead proposer which explains why this issue is an emergency, including evidence that the issue that has arisen or has substantially changed since the deadline;
ii) the motion is consistent with the PSS and neither changes nor adds to the text of the PSS;
Iii) the motion has been proposed by a minimum of 50 individual members
iv) the motion is no longer than 250 words
v) the motion does not commit the Party to expenditure of more than one hundred pounds without the approval of the relevant budget holders
vi) the motion does not significantly alter the Party’s agreed political strategy.”
This suggests the Constitution considers Emergency Motions to have the same status as other motions; it is simply a motion that has been submitted outside of the regular timeframe.
But for the fact that they are accepted outside of a specified timetable and cannot change policy more broadly (since, per the SOCC they must be consistent with the text of PSS and must not significantly alter the Party’s agreed political strategy) the Constitution and SOCC otherwise make no distinction between Emergency Motions and full motions. Emergency Motions, in effect, are full motions, but full motions that have been accepted outside of a specified timetable so that the Party can respond to a specific development.
Emergency Motions may elaborate policy for a specific development, but they cannot be considered to have changed party policy more broadly.
On 22.11.2021 Vix Lowthion wrote:
Clause 13(i) of the Constitution says:
“The Policy Development Committee [PDC] shall include five members elected by ballot of the entire membership, usually at the same time as the ballot for the membership of the Executive is held. Up to an additional five non-voting members may be co-opted by the elected Committee. This co-option shall take place after an annual skills audit carried out immediately following the election of the elected members…”
As GPEX members are elected for 2 year terms, in halves with 50% up for relection each year, and PDC are to be elected at the same time as GPEX and the term of office of elected PDC members is not specified… could we please have confirmation from SOC that PDC elected members are in line with GPEX and PDCordinator and elected for two year terms rather than every year? It is unclear in the constitution and annual elections means that there is a lack of stability and consistency and support for the policy working groups to get policy through from start to finish which can be 2 years.’
SOC rules that:
Since the Constitution specifies that PDC elections will ‘usually’ take place at the same time as the Annual Ballot, but does not specify the length of terms served by members of PDC, the Committee is driven to the conclusion that members of PDC will serve a term of one year, with annual elections.
It is acknowledged that members of GPEx serve for terms of two years, and only 50% of its membership stands for election in any given cycle of the Annual Ballot. However this comes from a specific Constitutional provision at Clause 7(iii):
’Elections for the GPEx Chair and Co-ordinator posts shall be by a postal ballot of all members of the party with voting included within the Annual Ballot. Half of these posts shall be elected in one year and half in the next, so that their two year terms are staggered.’
If PDC wish to change this, they would need to do so via an amendment to the Constitution to specify the length of terms served by members of PDC.
On 13.12.2021 Lois Davis wrote:
‘I have submitted a marker motion on ‘Defence of the NHS’ but made an error when posting on the pre-agenda forum in that I submitted it in my name (Lois Davis) when it was intended to be on behalf of Green Left. We are now ready to post the final version of the motion and seek co-proposers and I would like to know whether it will be possible to propose the motion as a group (the group being Green Left ) rather than as an individual and if so whether SOC will require 4 co-proposers or 12.’
SOC advises that
Standing Orders for Conduct of Conference (SOCC) B2.2 only makes provision for: local or Regional parties; constituted national Committees; Working Groups approved by Conference; or else groups recognised under the bye laws by Policy Development Committee or Campaigns Committee to be counted as ‘groups’ for these purposes. Clause 5(xii) of the Constitution sets out that common interest groups (like Green Left) ‘may be accorded some or all of the rights of a local or regional party by mutual agreement with [GPRC]’, which should then allow them to propose motions as a group, but only in that case.
We would recommend talking with GPRC and Campaigns Committee to verify your status, but if you are not sure we would advise that you treat this as an individual proposal.
On 14.12.2021 Shahrar Ali wrote:
‘I would appreciate a ruling and/or advice on a specific situation.
I have been asked to address the SSMG, but the Chair has been deliberately excluding one of the members of the Group. The Terms of Reference are attached and detail its membership, approved by GPEx on 31 July 2021, which includes “Leadership representative”.
However, our serving Co-leaders are being left out of meetings and the general business of this Group for weeks on end. On 15 Oct, the explanation given by the Chair was, “The slot for a leadership representative is vacant while Adrian and Carla find their feet.” On 13 Dec, a similar explanation was given that they were, “still being inducted into their many and varied roles according to priority”. It is not that they have been invited or included and are unavailable on a case by case basis, but rather they are deemed to be not ready to join or to be inducted, despite coming into post on 1 Oct. I have the following questions:
Is it compliant with these Terms of Reference that our Co-Leaders should be exempted from business for these sorts of reasons?
In any business which got escalated to GPEx by SSMG, would our Co-Leaders be permitted to input into deliberations at that stage even though they had forgone the opportunity at SSMG?
How is a “Leadership representative” to be interpreted? In the case of Co-Leaders is it either but not both? If they were unavailable, could this include a representative of theirs?
[Numbering added by SOC. A copy of the Terms of Reference dated 17th June 2021 has been provided for reference]
SOC rules that
Notwithstanding that these are the Terms of Reference (ToR) of a committee created by Green Party Executive (GPEx), it is appropriate in this case for SOC to provide its ‘best reading’ of the Terms of Reference for the purposes of providing advice in relation to the above questions. On reviewing the membership as set out in the ToR (which included ‘a leadership representative’) and noting that it is a task of the group to ‘meet four times a year’, SOC can answer the proposed questions in the following way:
There is no explicit direction in the ToR mandating attendance at meetings. However it is clear that the Co-Leaders should, at minimum, be invited to attend.
There is no explicit direction in the ToR mandating attendance at meetings, or giving consequences for non-attendance. Therefore, as members of GPEx, Co-Leaders would be permitted to input into deliberations at this stage.
Following discussion members of SOC were in agreement that ‘Leadership representative’ could reasonably be interpreted to mean, at least, any single member of the Leadership team, ie. the Co- Leaders and Deputy Leader. SOC was unable to reach a view on whether this could encompass a delegated person or other representative.
In relation to question 3 above SOC advises that it would be best for GPEx to clarify what is meant by the term ‘Leadership representative’.
On 07.01.2022 Ash Routh wrote:
‘Where EROs are running local party / affiliated party group elections, they normally set out the rules for the election, and resolve disputes related to the candidates.
Do EROs also have the power to create rules for voters to follow?
For example, if an ERO instructs candidates that they cannot run on slates, and that where they list candidates for the election, they must do so in a specific order - can the ERO also extend these rules to voting members? For example, if a party member listed in public who their preferred candidates were in a committee election, could the ERO take any action again them?’
On 11.01.2022 Melanie Horrocks wrote:
‘It is, in my view, totally unacceptable for an internal ERO to attempt to limit the article 10 [European Convention on Human Rights] rights of members… no advice was taken by their own admission, and setting their own election rules cannot include limiting members’ own decisions on how to express support for their candidates, in the way they chose… I would like a ruling that the internal elections rules set at the discretion of an ERO… cannot overrule the ECHR/HRA…’’
Given the similarity and proximity of these two requests SOC has decided to address them both with a single ruling.
SOC rules that
It must be said immediately that, while the GPEW and its internal structures are ultimately subject to the law, SOC is not equipped to adjudicate whether or not the behaviour of Returning Officers amounts to a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights or the Human Rights Act.
Sections 17(iii)-(iv) of the Constitution state that:
‘The SOC shall appoint a Returning Officer (RO) and Deputy Returning Officer (DRO) each year. The RO shall conduct elections for office in the Party at national level which take place by postal or Conference ballot. The DRO shall assist the RO and deputise for the RO at the RO’s request.
iv) The RO shall prepare election regulations for the conduct of such elections. Such regulations shall be subject to the approval of SOC, and shall be published to candidates. SOC shall be the final authority for the interpretation of the regulations, and within that interpretation the decision of the RO shall be final.
The Constitution therefore limits the power of the RO/DRO appointed by SOC specifically to national level elections.
Section 5(xii) of the Constitution states that:
‘Members with interests in common may form a group subject to bye-laws approved from time to time by Conference…. 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.’
In line with the existing provision in section 5(i) of the Constitution which states that the ‘general practice’ of the Party will be to ‘encourage the greatest possible autonomy’ of each local party, and treating affiliated groups accorded ‘some or all of the rights of a Local Party’ as analogous, it would appear that the arrangements made by the local party or affiliated group in their own constitution/internal processes take priority in deciding how such elections are run, and it would be for the local party’s/affiliated group’s Returning Officer to interpret those rules.
Disputes over election rules can, as a matter of general practice, be taken up with Green Party Regional Council (as part of their responsibility for ‘keeping under review the general well-being of the party’ per section 6(i) of the Constitution, and subject to reference to ADRC) and SOC, but only where the matter cannot be satisfactorily resolved at the level of a local party or affiliated group.
Should this become necessary, GPRC and SOC would be assisted by the minutes of any meeting in which the rules for the election in question were approved in accordance with the constitution of the local or regional party or the affiliated group.