Sunday 2 October 2016

Cardiff 2016 AGM Report

The time has come to try and make sense of what I saw and heard at Cardiff. As always, it's my personal take and it'll be fascinating to hear what others think. The following is intended as the first of two reflections, the first focused on internal matters, whilst the second will look at the external.  

As I remarked following day one, given the farce of last year, I believe quoracy from the beginning was a surprise to many and as it turned out, an unhappy one for some on the top table. What I think I saw at Cardiff was a particularly unhappy General Secretary; a largely clueless leadership in the shape of the joint National Chairs; a barely-disguised fractiousness within the officer group, some very disillusioned and dismayed officials and a disconnect between the top table and the membership. 

For a union that supposedly prides itself on being open and democratic, what became increasingly clear to me, as the meeting began to plough through business, was that far from being open and honest with the membership, information had to be ferreted out and forensically requested at every turn. There were genuine gasps at learning that our joint Chairs have presided over 8 months of inquorate NEC meetings and astonishingly the motions passed on indicative votes at last years inquorate AGM remain unratified. Apparently three branches, including Wales, have no members of NEC identified. Why?

I heard several questions about membership levels and quoracy, but honestly can't remember the answers and that's possibly deliberate. In the end I asked a Steward and was told the quoracy figure for this AGM was 253, based on 5% of the membership. If my maths are correct, that translates into a membership of 5060, including Professional Associate members. Despite this obvious decline, I don't remember any serious discussion as to the reasons or how the situation can be addressed.         

We eventually became aware that getting a budget agreed took so long that many committees failed to meet for months, if at all, and with such draconian cuts in authorised funding, only one physical meeting a year is currently allowed. This is clearly part of the reason there were so few motions up for debate this year. Personally, I'm utterly astonished that a trade union came up with a budget that effectively meant key committees that are vital in order to progress the work of the union, were effectively prevented from operating. Someone needs firing, or heads need banging together. 

We were repeatedly told how over-worked the staff at Chivalry Road were and that the campaign to sign people up to Direct Debit was taking up so much time, staff could not be spared to service committees. I for one don't buy that argument at all and the joint Chairs need to get a grip on things if the General Secretary can't.  

I think it's worth bearing in mind that all this has (not) been going on behind the scenes   during the period when the current joint Chairs were standing for re-election and the membership were blissfully kept in the dark. There was a time when members were treated to a regular email from the leadership to help keep them informed and engaged, but I think we can now see why this was quietly dropped and instead left to the General Secretary and his often pedestrian blog. 

In his address, I notice the General Secretary once again rehearsed the tired argument that effectively blames the membership for not being more active and for not being willing to take direct action. In essence, no mea culpa, 'it's not my fault'. I'm very tired of hearing this argument because I blame him and the current leadership for being utterly lack-lustre, in stark contrast I have to say to the new Chair of the POA who so inspiringly addressed us on Saturday morning. The membership desperately need inspiration, but where is it going to come from?        

Returning to the issue of a disconnect, amongst other things we discovered that the extremely modest contribution to the Edridge Fund had been quietly and disgracefully reduced from its former level, based upon a percentage of membership. This was something angrily reversed when put to the membership, but not before the top table had the audacity to argue against. It really does come to something when a union with cash in the bank pleads poverty over a relatively paltry sum of, it turns out, about £3,500 in order to support colleagues who find themselves in dire financial straits. 

The disconnect between top table and membership was something on clear display at every turn during this AGM; a joint Chair in her opening address that alludes to this blog by castigating people for making critical comments regarding Napo officers and officials 'on social media', stating that there are 'proper channels' for such matters, but neglecting to mention that the NEC has been inquorate for 8 months. I've said it before and I say it again - this union is dysfunctional in terms of its leadership structures and is a situation that requires urgent attention.

I have alluded to an unhappy General Secretary and fractiousness amongst the top table. Anyone that paid attention to the recent election process for Chair will be aware that Chas Berry openly signalled a breaking of rank by campaigning on a platform of continued support for Collective Bargaining and hence a position diametrically-opposed to that of others on the top table. Although losing out to the incumbents for leadership, he won this argument convincingly in a barn-storming performance that I'm sure ruined the General Secretary's day. He may not be Chair, but watch this space in terms of Chas taking a lead in exercising some influence over our General Secretary. 

There was more bad news for the top table over the piece of work by Dean Rogers and Tania Bassett, 'One Probation One Profession'. Surprise and dismay were expressed at this having emanated from officers, that it had not had the involvement of Professional Committee and that the consultation process, having been held over the summer period, was almost designed so as not to be noticed. The motion supporting this initiative was defeated.        

Which brings me on to the Saturday morning farce involving an Emergency Motion rather sensibly calling for NEC reform. Having been accepted by Steering Committee, the proposer began to shed some welcome light on the dysfunctional nature of this absolutely key committee that should be holding the Executive, including General Secretary, to account. Amongst other things, we hear of long agenda's, possibly designed specifically to prevent discussion of key matters rather than facilitate it? One is left wondering if this situation is not something that has arisen by design rather than accident? 

A certain irony was quickly highlighted in that the TUO committee to be mandated to look into the situation, was itself effectively defunct, there being only two members, six vacancies and not having met for months, but at least something was happening to draw attention to the situation. Well, that's until a challenge from the floor to the order of business was astonishingly carried, resulting in the Emergency Motion moving to the end of the agenda and hence quite likely never-to-be-reached. The sheer perversity of this decision took my breath away and although clearly irritated, Chair of Steering Committee Jan Peel very wisely chose not to waste time demanding a card vote. 

As it turned out, to the surprise of many, the end of business was reached comfortably by 12.50 on Saturday, due largely to a whole raft of non-contentious motions, including that of 'Reform of the NEC'. Time will no doubt tell if it makes a blind bit of difference. As was wryly pointed out, even if TUO Committee get their act together, it could be reporting to an inquorate NEC....                  

41 comments:

  1. From my (long ago)experience of NEC and long agendas-if a meeting is well and fairly chaired,business can be got through while still allowing time for discussion.Managing time for discussion is key.The reps need to know that concerns are being taken seriously and will be addressed & reported back on or else the discussion can go on and on.Unless procedure's been changed any one of the elected National Officers can be asked by the Co-Chairs to chair the meeting-how able they are to chair is another matter.

    ReplyDelete
  2. NEC has been dysfunctional all of this General Secretary's watch. I have seen it deteriorate all that time and will say again that this union is being led on the decisions made by the General Secretary and his assistant. The collective bargaining challenge at AGM only came about because it was the General Secretary unmandated and in talks with NPS who started out on an agenda to move away from the collective bargaining to individual single units in a reckless and singleminded approach. No strategy or evidence was offered to NEC or PNC to be able to debate and agree on how this would impact on members and how the union needs to be structured to manage that process despite this coming to NAPO's attention in December 2015. The position of the General Secretary was made clear at this AGM, at NEC and PNC in that he was driving NAPO out of collective bargaining on an agenda unkown to the members he serves. Any CRC who acts on a decision to pull out of collective discussion will be in breach of their contract with CRC employees. The officers and officials were pressurised to agree to bring this debate to AGM when inquorate NEC meetings failed to give the attention this needed. AGM showed the top table they have forgotten who they serve, out of touch with members, their interests and poor skills to organise our union and develop strength where we need it at branch level.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes some insight we never had before but why not ? Can the co chairs be called to account and a vote of no confidence in them be taken ?perhaps they might resign.

      Delete
  3. i have to say I was relieved and surprisingly uplifted by this AGM. I feel we as a union have lost our way to some extent but feel more positive about our future. NEC has needed reforming as far back as Judy Mcknights tenure. The ability to attend committe meetings is becoming increasingly difficult due to reductions in facility time often leading to reps using leave to attend. Wen need to encourage members to get active.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh really were you at the NAPO Cardiff AGM then or somewhere else. If you were there were you paying attention? Have you been prescribed or on any medication that states do not use machinery on the label.

      Delete
    2. 10.41 can't you respond to someone with an alternative view without gratuitous insults? Incidentally a person can take Meds and still be able to "pay attention"

      Delete
    3. I think a rebuke is necessary. It's just not good enough to say this without offering up some justification. I came away uplifted essentially for 3 reasons 1) there's no excuse for any future AGM to be inquorate 2) we have at least one member of top table willing to challenge the General Secretary and 3) the membership is beginning to wake up to the fact that the union requires change.

      Delete
    4. Yes a bit flippant apologies

      Delete
    5. Thank you to both Jim for supporting the "rebuke" and 12:54 for apologising.

      Delete
  4. Out of the 6000 members its a poor show we can't get enough active members to do our buisiness so we can function with strength and influence. I agree there is a big problem in our local branch that means NAPO HQ need to find ways to enable activists, they need encouragement and support not a message from their leader blaming them for any demise. Coming out to meet the branches to engage positively to work with the problems would be a start. Yes we need to increase membership but if staff see the local branch struggling and ineffective then what incentive can they see. Its not a club so promoting Parliament Hill membership isn't enough we are a UNION lets start promoting that and the principles of a union like collectivism, solidarity, equality, the right to work.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am disappointed to say that I found much of the AGM embarrassing and awkward. Looking at the top table, I have little confidence that this will improve. Surely something has gone very wrong if you're sat at the AGM asking whether yourself if you feel that your union have your best interests at heart and feeling ashamed to be part of whatever is going on in the room.

    Alarmingly, one of the best speakers was Jim Barton. Don't panic, I haven't lost control of my senses and was not sucked in by him but he was more inspiring and believable than some of the top table.

    One of the biggest concerns for me was the blaming of members and not just from the top table. The motion regarding quoracy included a lot of talk about members choosing not to attend the AGM. There was a brief nod to reasons, citing childcare but I heard little else to explain this. Unless I missed it there was no discussion about cost or how more staff could be enabled to attend. Talking to other members I became more concerned about this. One branch funded their members for three nights in a hotel, their train fare and registration fee. Another branch paid for two nights in a hotel, their registration fee and a branch meal. One branch funded one night in a hotel and travel. These are just three examples. Surprisingly, they are not branches that you would expect to pay more or less than others. NAPO bang on, rightly and understandably abbot holding the employer/s to account, demanding equal and fair treatment for members but are not modelling this in something as fundamental as funding to attend the AGM. I know that there aren't unlimited funds and I don't necessarily blame individual branches for their decisions but there should be a national policy/process.

    It is my opinion that the AGM may be better attended and there would have been no need to change the quoracy rules if it was shorter with less "filling" and dead time and more business don't. This may also help to fund more members to attend.

    The highlight for me was Dai Donovan who, it appeared to me, did far more to inspire the membership to unite than the top table. I do realise the irony in that this section could, arguably, be described as "filler".

    After the AGM I am left doubting that I'll attend another and questioning whether NAPO is the right union for me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Good point 11:07, how are branches managing their funds to support members interests? AGM must be a priority and although it is worrying our quorate is reduced significantly we have retained the ability to attend as a member rather than by nomination only. We do need to make sure branches are organising effectively to enable members to attend so we don't loose this right likely to be taken away if we are not active.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This from the co chairs statement 2016
    “ln 2014 we originally chose to stand as co-chairs because we believed that collectively we bring a wider range of skills, knowledge and both professional and trade union experience. We believe this has worked effectively over the past two years and has fostered good team working within Napo”
    ‘genuine gasps at learning that our joint Chairs have presided over 8 months of inquorate NEC meetings and astonishingly the motions passed on indicative votes at last years inquorate AGM remain unratified’. Apparently three branches, including Wales, have no members of NEC identified. Why?
    Ironically they must have known of the dire situation yet made no mention of any strategic thinking or planning on how to put their current failings right. Read their statement they are not going to do what they promised either as current performance is an indicator of future activity.
    “Chairs need to get a grip on things if the General Secretary can't.”
    I don’t think this is wholly fair Jim, as the General Secretary is not, and cannot be, all things to all people. It looks from what we observed in the performance of the co chairs in the speeches, and in general, clearly not capable in this role. That is not to say they are not their day job. The General Secretary is not well supported by the right combination of skilled or able membership led governance. Having seen the top table argue against a charitable grant to the Edridge fund is as far from our values and disconnected from membership one could ever imagine possible in NAPO.
    “I think it's worth bearing in mind that all this has (not) been going on behind the scenes during the period when the current joint Chairs were standing for re-election and the membership were blissfully kept in the dark.”
    Is this a hint that they have not been wholly honest in their accounting for their period of leadership?
    It is a good thing the motion for national collective bargaining was reinforced and incredible that our Co Chairs were for the break- up of the union’s ability to function. On this defeat alone should they not be called to account? This is more than a difference of opinion and can they lead NAPO in light of this? Well done to Chas for his break away from conformity but let’s be honest, the brilliant speeches from the supporters destroyed the pathetic efforts of the co-chair. Did they throw it or are they just not able?
    In relation to the one profession issue should we not remind the Officials that motions are member led and member decided in debate. Role drifting for the press and parliamentary press post might need re assessing in light of the desire to dump our profession in support of a new merged desire that will keep MOJ happy on E3 as our pay become reduced further and being a PO disappears, supported by Union officials. I think they might want to look elsewhere for jobs as they are clearly in the wrong place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will only admit I voted for Chas in his first term of office but felt let down and disappointed by him, so much so he did not get my vote this time. However, I am the first to say I am so grateful that he has stood up for maintaining our collective bargaining and delighted the membership have supported him. Now all the top table and membership need to fight to maintain this and not allow the NPS or the CRCs to again overturn agreements made to protect staff. Will Unison unite with us on this and fight the employer to protect all staff.

      Delete
  8. The chairs only got in on a marginal difference, led more by apathy. We are stuck with the same old unless the members stand up and be counted, branches get active and hold their leaders to account you don't need to leave it solely to NEC. Mandate the chairs with action and direction not silence.

    ReplyDelete
  9. My experience of the AGM leads me to believe that if the election of National posts had taken place afterwards (and enough members had attended or had feedback) then we'd be looking at a very different top table next year. The only person that I would be happy to see remain was Chas who at least showed some integrity. Interestingly I didn't vote for him and I don't think he is strong enough for chair but the AGM did leave me feeling more positive about him. I note that Dino did not attend the AGM. I have seen (from this blog) that he did not waste this time and was busy fighting "at the coalface". If Dino had been chair and Chas, vice chair I don't think I'd be questioning my ongoing membership in the way that I am now.

    It feels a little like the EU referendum and the propaganda that people believed when voting leave. Subsequent information that has come out, if it were widely know prior to the vote then the result may have been very different.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very likely and a comment that I am in total agreement.

      Delete
  10. In January 2014 the membership was 8123 - if it's now 5060, that's a drop of 3063 (37%) in two-and-a-half years. Given NEC inquoracy and the inability to service committees, it's a picture of serious decline. The tasks of the union are not being carried out. In view of the leadership's ambition to abandon national collective bargaining, from where would the resources be found to support local bargaining, when existing tasks cannot be fulfilled and a key part of the union's decision-making structure has stopped working? The absence of the NEC removes accountability and oversight of the paid officials which makes a nonsense of Napo being member-led. And as for openness and transparency, when an AGM audience gasps following disclosure of chronic inquoracy, what members there are are being kept in the dark. The clarion call for members to get active has gone unheeded for years. It's more likely that the levels of activism will continue to fall.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I have to say it makes my blood boil to hear the excuse that some non attendance at NEC meetings may be due to the lack of facility time. The right to adequate facility time to carry out trade union duties is enshrined in The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Attending NEC will be covered as a duty under Sect 178 (2) of the Act. I can therefore see no grounds for this to be a reason for non attendance (there may be other reasons of course). In my previous role as Branch Chair and JNCC Rep, my current role as a Branch Rep (and now as a newly appointed NEC Rep for SSW Branch) I have (and will be) taking time to attend to NEC and repping business. I have never been given 'adequate' workload backfill, but no matter, that is not my problem. Work left undone is also not my problem. The provision to be facilitated to carry out my duties is enshrined in employment law - end of. I sympathise with the motion brought to AGM by Napo Cymru concerning the difficulties experienced in some areas around facility time but really this motion wouldnt be necessary if all appointed officials just firmly and politely remind their employers of their obligations - and attend to their duties. I accept some Managers dont know much about the law and HR depts can also be woefully inadequate on providing relevant advice. Sometimes therefore, printing off a copy of the ACAS Help and Advice sheet for Employers/Employees Section 1 Time off for Trade Union Duties and shoving in a Managers hand helps!
    Deb

    ReplyDelete
  12. Deb, you are just one of the reasons that SSW branch remains strong against a backdrop of a weak centre and other weakening local branches. Keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I've got but on good grounds the GS was delighted with the Cardiff outcomes. Well done

    ReplyDelete
  14. Great conference. We have a rumble of energy and activism. Interestingly this is a Momentum driven rumble. Trouble with that - in general and in the room this last few days, is that the recent election of Mr Corbyn to lead Labour, has promoted a deluded optimism. That optimism springs from rallies, party meetings and SGMs of tiny unions with shrinking members. Small numbers of people in a room agreeing with each other, they (we) need to look out of the window

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't agree that all the energy on display at Conference was primarily 'Momentum' driven. Of course the confirmation of Jeremy Corbyn as the current leader of the Labour party isn't the panacea for all worldly ills, but his reelection has firmly demonstrated the power of the collective when individuals come together and challenge the naysayers. At a time when trade unions are under so much threat and challenge, this is refreshing and empowering, a reminder of what can be done when people stick together, regardless of political allegiance.

      Delete
  15. Walked out of the conference just behind the Gen Secs of the POA and NAPO. Men In Suits and swaggering. Great womens fringe session with Jo Stevens MP. We defo need more women leading

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NO No we don't definitely no and I am a women.

      Delete
    2. that is a really interesting comment. Why?

      Delete
    3. We need talented and the most skilled either gender.

      Delete
    4. "Men in suits". That would be professional men, at a professionals' conference, looking professional. "Beware, so long as you live, of judging men by their outward appearance" (Jean de La Fontaine)

      Delete
    5. It seems to me that The Labour Party are reasonably good at highlighting some problems and asking questions but I have heard no specific policy announcements since Sadiq Khan proposed upping the Youth Offending Teams work to deal with up to 20 year olds - I do not know if that is current policy either.

      I joined Labour in an attempt to preserve the influence on policy of Corbyn and McDonnell but have yet to see anthing precise and coherent about policy to mend probation.

      What did Jo Stevens have to say about it please?

      Delete
    6. It's always wise to start with a Maggie reference at Tory conference and David Davis leapt straight into his speech yesterday by telling the audience that Mrs Thatcher had once told him that if a woman is to get to the top of her profession she has to be twice as good as a man. "Fortunately," she added, "that is not very difficult."

      Delete
    7. Pity it was incorrect!!!! The correct quote... "Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult". Charlotte Elizabeth Whitton

      Delete
  16. I would really like to know why staff will not take action over the changes within both the CRC's and the NPS. You have the power to remove your labour so why are you not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would walk out in an instant but then I believe that had Unison and Napo coordinated strike action in our original strike against TR we would be in a very different position. When they did not, the appetite for ongoing strike action wained as was demonstrated in the second strike action. I also believe many staff did not believe Grayling would get his way, so were happy to go to work, get paid while some suffered the financial loss in the fight to try and protect all.

      Delete
  17. I would. But what would be the demand we would strike for?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Just a few thoughts from the perspective of someone who has been a Branch Chair, NEC rep, TUO Committee Chair and a National Officer.
    Top table - an impressive performance from Chas who brings a passion (clearly lacking elsewhere amongst the officers) to his interventions. I may be being cynical, but I suspect (and received some confirmation of this at Cardiff) that he was very unhappy at the election process - did he receive (cynical) encouragement to stand by some elements at Chivalry Road to ensure the anti co-chair vote was split?
    NEC reform - this body has been dysfunctional for decades. I've been involved in putting together 2 formal reform proposals which went nowhere, because the union at those times preferred to perpetuate a system whereby branches provided (sometimes monumentally ill-prepared and ill-informed) co-reps, who, because they attended alternate meetings, often had no knowledge or grasp of interim discussions and were therefore unable to hold officers and officials to account. Will this attempt at reform produce a more positive result?
    Finances - a total nonsense that the direct debit issue took up so much time and effort by the entirety of Chivalry Road staff that they were unable to deal with NEC and Committee issues! What was obvious was that there was a significant drop in income from 2014 to 2015. This was before the direct debit issue really bit and the apparent linked massive drop in membership, so the predictive budget for this year (not alluded to at Cardiff) must show a further / larger income drop. Will Napo be financially viable by the end of this financial year? There were some passing references to an HQ move and I know that Chivalry Road hasn't been fit for purpose for a long time, but is the move to sell and then rent simply to ensure a sufficient redundancy pot when the seemingly inevitable happens?
    And in terms of supporting activism, I was offered no financial assistance at all to attend Cardiff.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spot on regarding the move. Estate agents have long been instructed and it is in a prime location. Ian and Dean have been offered their old offices back at PCS for a discount. The problem is that the office staff are a feisty lot and the top table have to navigate a knife edge to deal with them without a fuss and much cost. and keep the money for the juicy redundancy packages when things are wrapped up after the next AGM. Their strategy is to leave falling membership to fall to justify shutting shop. We can thwart their plans by increasing membership and making the buggers work harder for their bulging pay packets.

      Delete
    2. NEC certainly has not been dysfunctional for decades. Some of what you say is marginally correct by the loss of a collective memory on issues as NEC reps alternate but the rest is your opinion and not well founded as nor is this alternative oopinion

      Delete
  19. Hi. Sorry for being off topic but I'm just reading up on the development of the priority perpetrator identification tool, and some research that was done in Wales consulted G4S and I'm just wondering - what do G4S do in the community in Wales? Having looked up some jobs it says they provide services to CRCs and NPS but I'm still not clear what they do. Is there anyone here who can let me know? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  20. https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-8280-We-must-organise-in-privatised-services#.V_IaQMvTXqA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UNIONS must not disengage with services when they are privatised, Prison Officers Association (POA) chairman Mike Rolfe said yesterday. Mr Rolfe urged probation officers at their union Napo’s AGM “not to make the same mistake we did” when the POA refused to organise in privatised prisons two decades ago. “To be honest, it was a mistake, because we need to recognise everyone,” he said. He told probation officers there was a “continued threat of privatisation” hanging over the prison service.
      But he said Jeremy Corbyn’s proposals for the justice sector could give prison officers hope. “We took the brave decision to support Jeremy Corbyn — brave because many of our members probably voted Tory, probably voted Ukip,” he said. “But he’s proposing … a nationalised prison service with workers who are well paid and well looked after, so why wouldn’t we support him?”

      Delete
    2. In the absence of not knowing the full context, I don't know what he's driving at, as probation are represented and organised within the private CRCs. No one has suggested withdrawing from CRCs. I assume it's an oblique reference to national collective bargaining vis a vis local bargaining. Whatever, as I see it there is no comparison with what the POA did in private prisons and what Napo is doing in the CRCs.

      Delete