Tuesday 9 October 2018

Napo AGM 2018 Reflections

I was going to say that now the dust has settled I'd try and pen a few rather more considered reflections on this year's AGM. But the dust hasn't settled has it and in fact there are even signs of a bit of a storm brewing as a result of that Emergency Motion tabled by Jamie Overland and seconded by Chris Pearson. 

Now lets consider this for one moment. Had SSW Branch not published a report to their members last Wednesday 3rd October outlining the background to the Peros case and had a reader not sent it to me and had I not published it on Thursday 4th October, most members attending the AGM would have remained in blissful ignorance of things. 

When the General Secretary carried out the usual branch roll call and there was silence when he reached SSW branch, in the absence of prior knowledge, members would have been unaware of the reasons for the absence; that it was a deliberate boycott. Had none of this chain of events happened, there would have been no Emergency Motion, no information and above all, no accountability.

This union makes much of being 'member-led' with officers and officials being 'accountable'. But what does it actually mean in practice? Even though I was present throughout, I have absolutely no recollection of the 'accountability' session. I'm not prone to nodding-off at such events, but possibly others who were present could appraise us of what I cannot recollect? I remember the answering of written financial questions, but to be honest the hall acoustics and sound system were so bad I didn't catch much of the answers. I don't remember any general questions of the Top Table that could be described as being part of an 'accountability' session. 

Which brings us back to the EM and Jamie Overland. Thank goodness we still have members willing to put their head above the parapet and ask awkward questions, but they seem a dwindling minority. I think it's worth recalling that Jamie stood unsuccessfully in the recent ballot for Vice Chair and this is what he had to say to members at the time via this blog:-

Vice Chair Post

NAPO members will be aware that there are currently National Officers elections underway and everyone by now should have received their ballot paper. I wanted to take some time to write to you all about why I am standing as I may not be a name on the paper as familiar to some of you as the incumbent officers or those who have been regulars at AGM for many years.

I have decided to stand for national election as I believe these elections are probably the most critical that NAPO has faced in a decade. At a time when we need to ensure that our officers are effective at steering the union in the right direction for survival and future longevity, we also have a general membership that is as disengaged and apathetic about those at the top than at any time I can recall. This was no more evident than in the General Secretary election, where no amount of positive spin can put shine on a turnout of 16%.

I make no secret of the fact that I voted for radical change in the GS election, but I am fully prepared to work with the newly re-elected GS in working towards a more open, democratic and accountable union. I believe this to be critical at re-engaging you and then with the top table and the NEC.

I have sat in NEC meetings and seen critical debate shut down too soon with too few members to challenge the chairs rulings or ask the really difficult questions necessary to hold officers and officials to account. This is not me criticising the NEC either, it is an extremely difficult job with members often conflicted between representing the will of their branch and voting independently for what they feel to be the good of the union.

My point is the NEC agenda is not led by NEC members but by what the Officers and Officials wish to cover. It’s why at AGM a couple of years ago some of you may recall my emergency motion for NEC reform, following from a year of in-quorate NEC meetings. I fear that we are facing this threat again with numerous NEC posts vacant. Which makes it even more important that we have elected National Officers who work for the members and hold each other and our paid officials to account, where officers do not hide behind the veil of collective responsibility and challenge each other.

Over the last few years I have been made aware of National officers being ‘frozen out’ of key decisions because they did not see eye to eye with the majority. This cannot be allowed to continue if we are to survive as a democratic union.

The Assistant General Secretary has an ambitious strategy for growth which will be covered fully at AGM. This will require buy-in from members and elected officers at all levels in order to be a success. It is therefore critical at this stage that we have National Officers who can see this strategy through in whatever form the members decide is appropriate and hold all to account for it’s effective implementation.

As an aside I implore those who read this, those who are critical and discerning about NAPOs activity, to stand for NEC, we need people who are prepared to scrutinise, to question and yes to be critical and ensure as a union we don’t pass bad decisions on the back of apathy.

That’s my statement anyway. I have Jim’s agreement to engage with you on here. You will no doubt have read the election statements of all the candidates and so I am here to discuss anything from my statement you may wish to discuss.

Regards,
Jamie Overland


It's worth remembering that for reasons of economy, the AGM and conference is now squeezed into just a day and a half, so the time pressure is considerable. However, since a reduction in quoracy was agreed a couple of years ago, business does at least start on time, but sadly nowadays there's virtually no 'debate' and hence no need for card ballots. To be honest I find it quite tedious listening to a succession of uncontentious 'motherhood and apple pie' motions that require no discussion and are carried nem con. Thank goodness most seconders forgo their right to speak at length and just formally second.

Despite there being ample evidence of disquiet within the ranks, it must be of concern that challenging motions are not being submitted, which of course gives the impression that the membership is quite happy. I would venture to suggest that with a history of falling membership this is delusional. Whatever, the result, whilst pretty uninspiring, I'm sure keeps the Top Table happy as nothing contentious regarding the inner workings of the union emerged, apart that is via the EM. To be honest I think this is the main aim - try and make sure attention is focused on stuff like TR, Grayling, anything but any domestic difficulties such as NEC meetings or the fact that committee's such as Trade Union Organisation has only one member, Jamie Overland.

I have no idea how long we would have had to wait to get to Motion 36, General Secretary Election Process and the possibility of a bit of introspection and discussion regarding the way in which our General Secretary managed to avoid any debate during that process, but by skill or good fortune both he and the union were spared the opportunity of that bit of 'accountability' for another year.  

Postscript

Forgot to mention that we never had the chance to debate Motion 39. Commitment to Napo Committees or a New Direction making the case for radical internal change, proposer one Jamie Overland.        

36 comments:

  1. A branch could take a detailed motion to NEC asking for full disclosure of the officers and officials decision chain regarding Dinogate (copyright pending) and how much members money was spent on legal costs. Their answers could then be compared with Dino's version of events and those members who give a shit could then decide what, if anything, to do next. If the new chair and GS are found culpable then a motion of no confidence could follow. It only takes a few members in each branch to put forward and win the argument for NEC reps to be mandated. That is unless the top table find some procedural or confidentially orientated reason to block debate. That's the usual way they do it. If so, then members could make their minds up about that. The thing is, this kind of thing isn't new. IL relies on bluff, bluster and lack of interest amongst the dwindling rank and file to get away with this sort of thing. Oh, anf claiming credit for the secret pay deal is rhe ultimate smoke and mirrors exercise. The MOJ had to modernise pay and would have done so even without union involvement. He just sat on the other side of the table abd said thankyou. Unless they can tell us what extra concessions they forced from the employers of course. And, why are UNISON and GMB not endorsing the deal? A word from them here wouldn't go wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The pay deal exactly take it or leave. Nafo bend over as they have no substance to develop a strategic aim for members. The general secretary wrote something in his election about not taking reward until membership have deal. You see why he's in a hurry then. Dinogate is something bigger and southwest certainly made their presence felt although cleverly absent in support of Dino. This split has to have some impact on the conduct failure of the top to both do the job honestly. Or competancy and both need action,training if they are really incompetent perhaps. Having taken it court and rolling the dice it has all the obvious hallmarks of complete dishonesty from all at the and this question of integrity has to be satisfied. As with Ledgergate we now have a scandal in plain sight and we have to have assurance the details must be released to the nec employers and what linkages has this issue to others hinted at. Dinogate will have to tell his branch I guess no doubt as they backed him.

      Delete
    2. The new chair and the GS have already been found culpable by a court of law. It's in the judgement. Do we really want to belong to a union that behaves like this? Or indeed do we want to finance such activity?

      Delete
    3. Thank you to Jamie. We need activists like him. I was impressed by his Q&A on this blog. Now we have evidence that he follows through as he did at AGM.
      Dinogate is just another example of the paranoid secrecy practised by the top table. NEC reps not allowed to discuss NEC issues with their members. NEC members not to contact each other by email or have a website/blog, because, we are told, of data protection.
      We invest a lot of power in these people and they show no accountability at all. We are paying for this outrageous behaviour!

      Delete
    4. Dinogate will he tell members what the real story is then ?

      Delete
    5. Jamie should have been elected he is clearly not likely to collude with the disaster area that Napo has become and the toxicity towards members who ask questions.

      Delete
    6. Pleasant enough guy. He is no longer an NEC rep and does not as yet hold an elected position in Napo London Branch that has incubated more than a few radicals in its time.

      Delete
    7. Glad someone else can see through GS claim that Napo gets the credit for pay reform. The truth is that it’s been on the cards for NPS since the split and the recognition by the employers that it’s was potentially discriminatory. It’s shameful the way IL is taking all the credit and indicative of his lazy ways especially to use it as a stick to beat non members with Another divisive move by Napo

      Delete
    8. It needs to be made clear that pay modernisation was a direct result of Heskett v Secretary of State for Justice. The judgement states that the NPS pay structure is prima facie discriminatory and instructed that the NPS take swift action in addressing it. So, it was a single employee not NAPO etc.

      Delete
  2. @07:26 - "The general secretary wrote something in his election about not taking reward until membership have deal."

    What 'reward' has not been taken, I wonder? The regular salary hikes have been accepted according to the CO's trades union report.

    For balance the GS seems to have significantly reduced the generous additional "benefits" that Ledger stuffed in his pocket.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mean the expenses have been curbed in some way ?

      Delete
    2. It could be the current GS is just all hot air and no action requiring expenses. Noticed a reduction in flirting this AGM so maybe someone has had a word. Needs to get down off his soapbox and do some hard graft reading and understanding.

      Delete
    3. From previous post (still no 2017/18 report):

      In 2016/17: Salary: £70,202 Benefits: £1,500

      In 2015/16: Salary: £67,102 Benefits: £1,500

      In 2014/15: Salary: £151,236 Benefits: £32,489
      NOTE - "Total paid in respect of two people holding office of general secretary within the period and is not the sum paid to one individual."

      In 2013/14: Salary: £71,324 Benefits: £11,784

      Figures suggest (1) new GS in 2013 starts on lower salary &, after the scandalous double salary decision, (2) 'benefits' seem to be pegged at £1500. Annual increment (inc rise?) awarded & taken suggesting uplift of about £3000/year. So current GS probably started on around £64000.

      Did anyone ever question why Ledger was claiming £10000+ a year in expenses?

      Delete
  3. Glad to see Napo London Branch member Jamie Overland stirring things up a bit with national in the fine tradition of the branch. I don’t like all the boycotting nonsense. Dino should have come and had a rumble. I note that the retired member radicals are also London led so it looks like the Southers are on the offensive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Loving the 200AD reference.

      Delete
    2. Jamie Overland would and should be elected. He is cool and able It takes people like him and others with strength of character. Those involved in this scandal at the coal face will not be seeing it as a divided counties issue at all. Unity is the strength and the top table deflections and avoidance strategy that jim has illustrated is just a massive con trick too far. Why was this not to be reported on? How do they think they can get away with breaking all the rules it takes a court to rule on? Why did they do this and what costs were involved. What else have they secreted in their term and continue to hide. It is time high time for accountability.

      Delete
    3. Well done to Jamie but remember where the ammunition came from. Dino or SSW Branch did not need to attend. The news is out there. It was fortunate timing that the result was out just prior to the AGM but the decision to
      boycott had already been made.

      Delete
    4. Leaving, boycotting and walking out are ineffective forms of protest. Standing up and taking on the GS face to face with a vote of no confidence is what a real leader does. No one is prepared to do that so the hapless charade continues ad nausea.

      Delete
  4. I rate Jamie.
    Its a dilemma isnt it? We can wring out hands at the decline in membership, and at some problems that need addressing in its leadership. In order to tackle both, what we need is a call to arms for probation folk to sign up and join. And this will not be helped by public agonising about internal problems. By and large the latter is of interest only to the anoraks, who can then mobilise the members who are motivated to do so, to make some changes.
    Lest we forget, the problems besetting the Union are as much to do with the fucking Tory government getting rid of sign-off and doing everything in their power to undermine the effectiveness of Unions. An issue for more than this one Union. The problems of Probation: privatised, hacked about, underpaid, are also down to this government.
    Harking back to Halcyon days of Probation and the Union is a bit of a bore frankly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I love the bit about this being "of interest only to the anoraks" - except if you were the victim of course - real empathy on display here.

      Delete
    2. It would be a mistake for members to dismiss concerns about the Constitution and rules as "of interest only to anoraks". The Constitution is the democratically determined wish of the membership and gives safeguards to member's rights. Section 29 of the Constitution is the only mechanism by which a member is exposed to direct detriment and this raises the possibility for disqualification from office and ultimately expulsion. The whole point of the Peros action at the Certification Office was surely to safeguard those rights from arbitrary variation without authority. Napo argued that the actions were "pragmatic" that the Constitution should not be applied with the strictness of statute. The certification officer evidently did not support that view.

      Delete
    3. Well said. A Trade Union needs to abide by its own constitution, else, where is the mandate for Reps to hold employers to account for THEIR failure to abide by the rules in respect of their Members? We just become a hypocritical laughing stock with no authority.

      Delete
  5. According to Twitter Mr Lawrence's rousing address has been well received today at The Prison Governors association Conference

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "A passionate address" says PGA

      Delete
    2. Michael Spurr also received praise.

      Delete
    3. So did the coffee.

      Delete
  6. I think it’s fair to say that ILs shortcomings were signposted long before the recent election yet he had what I thought was a credible opponent and was elected by a large majority of a trifling turnout.
    You get what you ( or vote ) for. Why are people now acting surprised?

    ReplyDelete
  7. https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/16970805.serious-failings-found-in-essex-probation-service/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is this Essex’s comeuppance for refusing to be the ‘E’ in BeNCH CRC ?? Haha

      Delete
  8. Would like to just Put right a rumour that GMB did not support the pay deal.This is complete rubbish GMB are very much promoting it as the best deal since Austerity began.I have this from George G the GMB negotiator who is a personal friend I have known for years.In fact without GMB influence,pressure and negotiation I doubt we would have achieved such a good one.It is Unison who are the ones sitting on the fence!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Have I read the same Certification Officer's Report as discussed on here? I don't think it was ever disputed that the Officers breached the constitution - the Report says that was agreed by all, Officers included. It reads that it was the reasoning behind the breaches that was complained about. So didn't the CO have to find that the constitution was breached?

    No action was taken to remedy the breaches as the matter was discontinued and the CO declined to make an Enforcement Order.

    The CO even noted that no issues of bias or unfairness were raised.

    It's hardly the disgraceful scandal cited by some in the comments on this issue. In fact, some of the comments have been quite disrespectful about the alleged initial complaint that seems to have been about bullying of someone.

    It's almost like some members want to create internal damage to Napo rather than focus on the struggles we should be working on! C'mon Dino et al fight for - not against Napo!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Disagree with this on a fundamental level. Breaching your constitution, particularly in the course of a disciplinary hearing is not to be sniffed at. It undermines us as a union when we fight for members against policy breaches by employers and causes lasting reputational damage. Further to that we went to court spending members money putting up a straw man argument to defend that breach of constitution, suggesting they felt fully justified in doing so.
    Interesting that you call accountability of our elected officers working against NAPO. I’d suggest the opposite, the officers and officials are not NAPO, it is the members and therefore ensuring they act in our best interests is very much fighting for NAPO. Whereas publicly damaging the reputation of the union is quite the opposite.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jamie- aren't elected officers members? Don't we choose them to manage Napo, along with the NEC on our behalf? Publicly damaging the reputation of Napo is disheartening- so why go to the Certification Officer to do exactly that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What about the individuals reputation who was vindicated.

      Delete
  12. The reputation was damaged by those who broke the rules. Don't shoot the whistle blower!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Underlying reasons that motivated the officers to deliberately break all the rules will likely be revealed in investigation. Dishonesty integrity collusion ?

      Delete