Election Roundup

If history is anything to go by, most Napo members who intend to vote in the election for General Secretary will already have done so, but sadly the evidence is that the vast majority will not, either tearing up the ballot paper or leave it forgotten behind the clock. Turnout has been shockingly low for years - why is this? Apathy at best, anger and disillusionment at worst. What has the union done to address this? Nothing. 

"Members know about IL and I hope many hear about MR. Given the leadership and figurehead role of a general secretary of a union, it is weird that this election may pass under the radar of most members. Here was a golden opportunity to spark some debate between the candidates that may have provoked some member engagement. 

The incumbent must believe he has nothing to gain by setting out his vision for the next five years and as most incumbents also like to stand by their record of achievements, IL would know he'd be on a hiding to nothing. But the fault here does not lie with the candidates - it lies with the employing authority, the NEC, acting on behalf of the membership who fund the wages. Normally people like to know where their money goes and whether they are getting the best value. 

As turnout is likely to be low, it would seem members don't mind how their subscriptions are spent. The NEC should be hammering home the importance of voting and making it clear to members that they should not waste their money by not voting. Why does the NEC sit on its hands. Nothing stops the Co-Chairs from being proactive in getting the vote out."

The election for General Secretary is possibly the most important process for any union to undertake and it is the time for the membership to reflect on the past record and attributes of the incumbent candidate, together with those of any contender. It would be reasonable to expect an opportunity for ordinary members to be able to question each candidate, or at least have the opportunity of hearing a debate when issues of concern could be aired in order to assist with the important decision of how best to cast ones vote. 

"Whilst the incumbent makes comments behind Facebook firewalls and runs scared from debates. It's ironic that we know more in a few weeks about the political beliefs of a challenger than we do about an incumbent who has been around for years.

IL refuses to step out of his comfort zone to engage in debates. It's a lost opportunity that Napo News did not interview both candidates who could have set out their positions on a range of issues, possibly sparking a wider debate and promoting a bit more member engagement. One of the main purposes served by elections is to air the issues, compare policies and form a judgment about the candidates' relative merits. Instead it seems Napo HQ are behaving as though this election is an Assault on Precinct 13."

It might be a reasonable expectation, but as we know, the incumbent candidate has done all he can to frustrate such an opportunity, even taking leave in order not to be available for a proposed teleconference scheduled for today, Friday or Monday 25th. It's probably also worth noting that, leave not withstanding, it did not prevent him travelling north on Monday and posting out to members not once, but twice in an otherwise admirable demonstration of complete commitment to the job.

But of course for many members it's that concern over commitment to the job and indeed ability for the job that causes much concern. Who can fail to remember his somewhat lacklustre appearance before Bob Neill's Select Committee earlier this year, in stark contrast to that of his clearly well-prepared union colleague? When asked a direct question regarding salary scales, he couldn't answer. His body language and general demeanour gives every impression of someone merely going through the motions and 'winging it'. 

The concerns go back a long way and to the TR battle itself, at least one key Parliamentary meeting missed and others I was told where attendance was late. Despite many members having had their careers disgracefully terminated early, some are still around and with good memories:-

"I remember IL at an AGM saying the letter was in the post for the judicial review - received with whoops of joy. Yet 12 months later we find out it wasn't posted. That was tedious."

There have been the 'car crash' media interviews and I think we can all recall historic instances of the bellicose kind when our General Secretary seeks to impress with bluster and bullshit rather than reasoned, detailed argument. In response to the latest mail-out this reader expresses things rather well:-

"It looks like campaigning, but what could the general secretary do? 'A number of members had been in touch to ask about progress...' so it wasn't campaigning, it was a member-led response. We will never know if members were really clamouring for a response. The piece also includes a namecheck for his POA sponsor and he's able to tell us what prison officers have been telling him. It's nothing we didn't already know, but it's safe ground and there's nothing that he can be held responsible for.

The whole piece in fact is merely a rehash, with all the boilerplate warnings about H&S. IL likes everyone to know he knows what's happening. But he steers clear of action plans and anything against which he can be measured. His blogs are a bit like travelogues – patronising branches with his presence, but leaving no legacy of increased member engagement or participation.

The OMIC paper bemoans the futility of consultation because as he rightly points out the NPS can simply ignore any concerns that Napo raises about the impact on the terms and conditions of staff. These changes warrant negotiations not consultations, but Napo does not fight its corner on this point, it simply plays along with the consultation, adopts a fatalistic stance and tells members they can always raise H&S concerns if they feel individually compromised. And that has been the story since the inception of TR – you are on your own – but IL feels your pain."

We are all familiar with the sad demise of the once vibrant Napo Forum, ironically killed-off by over-zealous editing of contributions deemed to be too critical of the General Secretary. With this avenue for debate having been effectively neutered, it only left this blog as a possible platform for debate:- 

"The whole election is a shambles. If it weren’t for this blog I wouldn’t know there was an election. I haven’t received a ballot paper even though my contact details have not changed in years. I’ve not chased it up. Napo obviously don’t want my vote. It’s impossible to choose between useless and incapable."

"Agree. I have not received a ballot paper either and my details have not changed. No democracy in NAPO it is poisonous at the top table with corrupt process the norm. Things can only get better - new politics please before the demise of this Union. The elected General secretary whoever that is would do well to take the views expressed on this blog by the members seriously for the future of NAPO."

Regular readers will be aware that over the last few weeks I've endeavoured to provide a platform for discussion of the issues, merits and demerits of the two candidates and despite the refusal of the incumbent candidate to engage, many members have found it refreshing that the contender could not have been more willing to take part in debate. I'm sure this has proved alarming to our present General Secretary who has been somewhat unusually quick to respond to the news agenda of late, you know, like that 'Times' leak:-  

"Napo is not usually out of the blocks so quickly. Nor did I realise that it was in the verification business. IL says he wants to safeguard members from 'rising expectations' as though anyone out there was interpreting the Times story as the beginning of the end of privatisation. Nonetheless, he chooses to link the imagined rising expectations with the end of privatisation, knowing that to be a fallacy. 

He also writes about 'close connections' in the corridors of power, but these have not yielded anything of substance in the past five years. In effect he tells us nothing that was not already known, but our intrepid leader could not resist the temptation to put himself at the heart of a news story to flaunt his close connections. Pity he did not use his close connections before signing-up for the TR split and the various promises about no redundancies. That was when verification was truly needed. But, of course, at that time he wasn't running a re-election campaign."

Over the years I've been running this blog there's much I've been told, some of it necessarily in confidence and barely 50% has ever got into print for one reason or another. I try desperately to provide as accurate information as I can and I get very annoyed if I discover having been responsible for publishing anything that is misleading. 

When raising the extremely vexed issue of possible compensation being payable should the incumbent candidate fail to win a further term, I now understand a serious administrative error has recently come to light with a consequential failure to appreciate that certain commitments could follow. Whatever, I find it utterly astonishing that votes in an election for General Secretary could be influenced by a possible payout to a losing candidate.        

"After 10 years of being neglected, mistreated & packaged up for sale it seems Napo members would rather stick with what they've become accustomed to rather than vote for change. When the dodgy contract was signed - silence. No consultation. CRCs made swingeing cuts & rode roughshod over members' t&c's, EVR, etc - all we got for our subs was SILENCE, inaction, branch-blaming & abuse directed at staff making choices in an information vacuum.

When this blog facilitated valid criticisms & challenges - the Napo ostrich buried its collective head & still denies this blog's existence. It's time to de-select the Flat Earth Society. It's time to leave the abusive, controlling partner & build a new life for yourselves."

Many members have grown tired of the hand-wringing 'lets blame the membership' that the current General Secretary has got away with for the last 5 years. Astonishingly, I hear that when he was recently invited in to meet with the new minister Rory Stewart, in the context of TR and the future of probation, in answer to the question 'what do you want?', the response apparently was 'I've got an election to fight'. 

There has long been a suspicion that our General Secretary has been far too cosy with the MoJ and cynics will have noted the sudden desire of the government to start talks on pay. Could that possibly have anything at all to do with concerns at the highest levels of government that a change of personnel at the top of Napo could be imminent? 

"It always felt that MoJ/NOMS (now HMPPS) owned IL from the start of his tenure & that 'something' happened around the Ledger incident that left IL indebted to someone."

One thing is clear to me. Members have a duty to vote and it may sound harsh, but it's an unacceptable position to say 'but they're as bad as each other' and not vote. Yes, I hear the interviews did not go well and some have pointed out that neither candidate matches up entirely to the person and job spec. But as they say, we are where we are:-   

"What we should all do, I suggest, is to encourage as many members as we can to consider the issues: think about the two candidates, understand that you are being asked to vote because you are part of the collective paymaster. Take the trouble to participate in the ballot. We will never know for certain whether the weakness of Napo (weakness – lack of industrial muscle is assessed by levels of participation, ie solidarity), emboldened the MoJ and the private companies to behave disdainfully, but it's a good counter-factual to think that they would not have got away with so much if they had perceived a strong union ready to fight its corner. 

If members do not participate, at the very least by casting a vote, then Napo's slide towards extinction will become more assured. It's naïve to see a union as an 'insurance policy' like the AA in the event of a breakdown. Only a strong union can insure and protect you against unfair treatment and get you better wages – and a union can only be strong if it's members have backbone and collectively care about their destiny."

It has been put to me that Mike Rolfe is a 'disruptive' candidate and that might not be a good thing. On the other hand it might be just what is needed in order to shake much of the remaining membership out of its collective torpor. What is clear is that he has been dignified throughout this campaign, in stark contrast to the unsubstantiated and personal Facebook comments from the incumbent candidate that could possibly bring Napo into disrepute. 

There will shortly be an election for National Chair and it must be hoped that the person appointed will be rather more 'hands on' than of late and that the NEC can become much more effective in ensuring that any General Secretary is held adequately to account.

There is surely a strong case in saying that opting for 5 more years of the same will hardly be likely to tackle apathy? The union could just continue to slide into possible extinction or merger, and lets not forget a consequent very large payout to the General Secretary at the time, whoever that happens to be.    

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that we are in a bloody mess. How we got here, who is to blame and how it can be fixed are all extraordinarily difficult issues to try and wrestle with, but I intend to carry on trying for as long as I have readers and for as long as we still have an independent union. That blog post last week concerning the end of TR has now attracted over 2,500 hits, thus demonstrating beyond doubt that under the right leadership there is still scope for a fight that sees probation return to being a proud and worthwhile endeavour once more.