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.