The Membership Speaks

So, what are we to make of the Napo election results released yesterday? 

For the position of Chair the following were elected: Yvonne Pattison (North Yorkshire/East Coast) / Chris Winters (Humberside/East Coast), job share. For the positions of Vice-Chair the following were elected: Katie Lomas (West Yorkshire) and Dave Adams (Warwickshire). 

Yvonne/Chris and Katie and Dave have been elected for a two year term which runs from Napo AGM in October 2014 to AGM October 2016. 

The election of Yvonne as Co-Chair creates an additional Vice-Chair position for the remainder of the term for this post from Napo AGM in October 2014 to AGM October 2015. The Officers will be considering the position and making a recommendation to the September NEC meeting.

Change of subject.............the results are out for the recent NAPO elections inc for the important post of Chair.........15% turnout.......yes just 15%.....on these figures does it matter who was elected?......the vast majority of members are not interested........will anyone at the top table take any notice of this?........NAPO is slowly dying & yes I did vote despite previously advocating a spoilt ballot papers campaign ....

******
I also voted but this was against a backdrop of me giving continued thought to cancelling my membership. If the new people do not make the changes needed then I fear it will have been for nothing.

******
It's hardly surprising that 85% didn't vote. It's only too clear that members views count for nothing in NAPO, and the sorry parade of new labour style 'on message' candidates for these toothless positions plainly offered no hope of anything more positive. We still don't know what led to 'Assistant Chief Executive' Rendon's Hissy fit - his abusive message to members aside - or what lies behind the long rumoured 'disfunction' at the top, let alone what kind of strategy might possibly be informing the present inaction at 'the top'. I guess it's all a matter for professional bureaucrats and their executive pals on the boss's side of the table, and not for the likes of us. As Rendon said, it's not really any of our business - its just our livelihoods, lives and futures at stake while these clowns take our money and do less than fuck all, that's all.

*******
I agree. Napo as an organisation is crumbling, the grassroots are dying. Napo looks more Ponzi scheme than trade union.

*******
I also voted. Also considering cancelling membership if there is no change of approach (and yes I have been involved and I have done things locally and I'm not expecting things to be done for me and I have made my own case with my employer despite not because of Napo but if there is no support for members in fighting TR on a level where members feel supported in their fight then I will leave). 

*******
15℅ in our 'member - led' union. This is evidence of deep apathy. The fight against TR is a minority interest, but no less important for that, it's just that if you cannot win the hearts and minds of your friends, what hope have you of winning over others?

*******
I voted but am staggered at such a low turn out. I suppose that Chris Grayling will be on that like a shot :-/

*******
Bigger turnout than the election for a PCC. PS I voted too! As did my PO wife. Apathy, maybe. More likely ambivalence. Most members don't know the personalities they were asked to vote for so left the decision to those of us who have a firm view.

I'm led to believe that a 15% turnout is the lowest ever, but what organisation in its right mind holds elections in August anyway? One wonders what the figure would have been had there not been a bit of a debate on this blog? What is clear is that those elected can hardly claim a strong mandate for doing much at all, which I suspect will be a source of some relief to the General Secretary and Chris Grayling.

Anyway, it's probably all a bit academic because I'm also told that the key decision not to initiate Judicial Review has been taken by the existing line-up of officers and, despite how it might eventually be spun to members, the reason is purely financial. As prudent custodians and employers, the organisation has to maintain reserves in order to pay-off the staff in the event of a winding-up. 

With the newly-elected officers not due to take up post until the AGM, I wonder how long the radio silence from Napo HQ will be maintained under the interim Chair? I guess there's a bit more mileage yet in this blog trying to fill the vacuum that seems to be so effectively in place at the top. The fight against TR will continue here, but I wonder if it will at Napo HQ? This is what Harry Fletcher says on his blog:-

Can the crash be stopped? In the absence of a coordinated campaign within parliament and the press involving unions, managers and the Institute and with sound public support it seems unlikely. Most Parliamentarians seem unaware of events. There are excellent exceptions like Shadiq Khan and Lord Ramsbotham. Others like the LibDems, know the score but will not intervene. There are 3 months left to stop the rot. Officials and senior civil servants must be aware that the timescale is not deliverable and the next Government will be left to pick up the pieces and say so to politicians. But will they? And can they be made to do so? Those are the key questions.