Walkout at Princes Street Labour AGM
I blogged last week on the ructions within Princes Street Labour.
I’ve now had multiple reports from the Princes Street Labour AGM last night. Around 40 people turned up but half of them were ruled ineligible to vote by no less a personage than the Labour Party General Secretary, Mike Smith.
Smith ruled that only those registered as at 10 March could run for office or vote. This is based on their rule that the electorate committee has to actually admit or refuse new members. Now in National (which has similar rule) like Labour this is never done in practice. You never ever actually vote to accept new members – they are deemed valid from the time they pay their sub, unless they are specifically declined. But this is a common political trick within parties. Generally the rules are not followed in spirit rather than letter on a day to day basis, but when there is a contest it gets all legalistic.
It seems this fairly arbitrary ruling went down pretty badly at the AGM, as it reeked of using procedural tricks to avoid a close fight. A move to delay the AGM so everyone could vote was denied, and in the end over a dozen members walked out in protest, and the Chair’s election ended up being uncontested.
March 22nd, 2007 at 10:39 am
It is this kind of stupid shenanigans that will see the Labour Party in opposition for a very long time. If the heart and soul of the Party–the Princes Street Branch–is in this kind of turmoil even before the electors have chucked out Helen Clark, what’s in store for them after the next election?
March 22nd, 2007 at 10:47 am
Another exclusive IP prediction, can we file this one with his famous “Don Brash will lead National to victory in the next election” quote just two days before Mr B resigned?
As for the actual story, there does not seem to be a lot to it. Procedural wrangle at Party branch, not many hurt.
March 22nd, 2007 at 11:24 am
“Not many hurt”, says Sonic, as half of the members are disenfranchised and a massive walk-out.
March 22nd, 2007 at 11:29 am
I’ll leave someone who was there to dispute the numbers with you DPF( from what I heard it was nowhere near half who were ruled ineligible to vote).
My experience in the Alliance was that we always explained before a vote was taken (contentious or not) that if you had joined before X date you weren’t eligible to vote so please refrain. I am particularly thinking of a selection meeting I was at, and the rules were quite clear that you must be a financial member of the branch for the six months prior to the selection meeting. I don’t see why elections of branch officers would be any difference, and clearly it isn’t.
I really wish you would stop the ridiculous spinning on this stuff DPF. I am not in Labour, but it seems to me that you are just mischief making to try to get a negative spin on internal Labour politics in the media, knowing that this blog is widely read by journos. How about debating real issues for a change?
March 22nd, 2007 at 11:35 am
Is it just me or does IP’s sudden concern for the rights of Labour Party members seem a little out of character?
If half of the voters really did join the branch within the last 12 days that does suggest something odd going on.
March 22nd, 2007 at 11:56 am
About 15 members walked out, which was approaching half the meeting. Utter electioneering from higher up in the party.
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Span – how on earth am I spinning this. I am reporting on information being passed to me. I deem it news worthy, as do the several newspapers who have reported on it.
A branch feud is generally not news worthy. A branch feud which involves the party’s ruling council is news worthy.
I don’t know the actual number who walked out, but as I said my information comes from more than one source.
And posting on this feud in no way lessens the ability to cover policy issues. I think it is pretty obvious I can do more than one post a day.
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Of course the rules of the party need to be followed when there is a contest. When there is no contest and everyone is happy they don’t matter so much – but when there is, you need to follow the party constitution – how else do you resolve these issues? The party constitution was developed over a long period of time and all clauses were voted on by party members at national conferences.
And of course you should have a cut off date for new members who sign up voting at the AGM. Otherwise it would be so easy to get a bunch of people off the street, pay their membership fee and get them to vote for you – how is that fair? I’m not saying that’s what happened in this case, just that there are reasons behind all of the rules and they need to be followed when there is a contest, so people can’t complain later.
“It seems this fairly arbitrary ruling went down pretty badly at the AGM, as it reeked of using procedural tricks to avoid a close fight.”
I would also note that the chair’s position was only uncontested because the other contender chose not to stand even though he was eligible.
Are you saying that it would be ok to not follow the rules and possibly have the outcome invalid as a result?
As for postponing the AGM to a later date – the rules showed that this was not possible. Under the constitution the branch AGM has to be held by the end of March – there being no LEC meeting in the mean time to accept the new members it would not have made any difference. It is also required for members to be given a minimum of 2 weeks notice before the AGM, and there not being 2 weeks left in march, that was also not possible.
Note the New Zealand Labour Party consitution is available from:
http://www.labour.org.nz/labour_team/nz_council/index.html
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Who else has reported on this?
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Has anyone asked the question why all of these new people joined at the one time. What was the carrot that coerced them to do so.
If I had 10 or 20 bucks (or whatever the fee is) spare I would sooner have a few beers than join the labour Party.
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:58 pm
PDM I think it is only $5 to join if you are a student.
People would have been joining to vote in the election which it sounds like many of them could not anyway.
Read that members of the Labour Party can be members of more than one branch and maybe lots of them were also just expressing a preference to be members of Princes Street as well to get involved.
I have heard from a mate at the University that the guy that was standing against the chair had the numbers to win as well.
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:58 pm
PDM I think it is only $5 to join if you are a student.
People would have been joining to vote in the election which it sounds like many of them could not anyway.
Read that members of the Labour Party can be members of more than one branch and maybe lots of them were also just expressing a preference to be members of Princes Street as well to get involved.
I have heard from a mate at the University that the guy that was standing against the chair had the numbers to win as well.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:03 pm
One can use the rules to get a desired end. For example one could have said it is great we have all these new people keen to participate and we will schedule a teleconference of the local LEC to endorse their membership.
Then it would all be within the rules and everyone could have voted.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:43 pm
This is just another version of the Prebble brouhaha that occured in the 80′s. It will always happen in branches that attract young, energetic, sometimes kooky individuals (University Students). During my time as Princes St Chair, there were a core group of activists who were dedicated to getting work done and achieving things for the party. The person who wanted to run for chair is one of those, but he attempted to stack the meeting with people who had never been involved with Princes Street in the past and who were there solely to hijack the democratic process. From what I understand, Mike Smith ensured a valid and legitimate interpretation of the rules that were specifically set up to prevent this type of carry on. I think that the current chair, and most members of the branch handled themselves and the situation in a really professional and mature way. They are a credit to Labour.
Disclaimer: Not in Labour anymore, so it’s not just sycophantic bullshit.
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Xavier, have you grown up and joined National?
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Xavier – you may be pleased to know that one of the e-mails refers to you having been an excellent Chair
March 23rd, 2007 at 8:23 am
Xavier, spoke to some of my friends at the University and it seems like the challenger had lots of support in the club.
He was also backed primarily by students whereas the guy that was chair had brought in all the graduates who used to be member and most of his supporters were not even students anymore.
So much for democracy in a student branch of the party.
My friends tell me you are a green now. I am sure they would NOT undertake such shenanigans!
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Ra Ra, Rasputin. I was at the meeting and my recollection differs from that of your friends at the university.
The challenger, Alex Foulkes, had the support of about twelve to fifteen new members of the branch. Some of these are people I know, whom I think could be useful members. Others I am less sure about, particularly the individuals who left behind leaflets for the Socialist Workers’ Organisation. I do not know whether these people are students.
Alex also had the support of some established members of the branch. How many is difficult to ascertain, since Alex withdrew his candidacy before the vote. David Do has many supporters, the majority of members, I believe.
It is unfair to say that the incumbent, David Do, “brought in all the graduates.” Princes Street has many graduate members who usually attend the AGM. The media attention this contest has created may have prompted others to come. Only Labour Party members were entitled to attend and only members of Princes Street could vote. Again, how they would have voted is unknown, since Alex withdrew.
There were no “shenanigans” on the part of the executive or the Party. The meeting was conducted strictly in accordance with the Party’s Constitution. Most of those newer members were not entitled to vote because they joined after 10th March, the date of the last Auckland Central LEC . Incidentally, Alex had announced he was to stand for Chair on 21st February.
There could be no question of a teleconference of the LEC to approve new members. LEC meetings are held formally once a month. The next meeting will be in April. One member proposed that the AGM be postponed until after the next LEC but that would not have been possible since the AGM had to be held before the end of March.
Three members who have regularly attended Princes Street meetings were not on the list of members, because they had not named Princes Street as their branch when they renewed their memberships. Unfortunately, this means they cannot vote at the AGM, stand for office or nominate another for office. I was one of those members. It’s tough, but those are the rules.
All those who were on the list of Princes Street members were entitled to vote for the contested positions. The votes were conducted by secret ballot and adjudicated by an election officer who was not standing for any position. The meeting was chaired by a senior member of the Party, as is normal practice.
I doubt whether any organisation would conduct its AGM much differently.
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Paul,
I was not wanting to post but I can assure you that I WAS at the meeting and think that you might have had a fog in front of your eyes or are perhaps using selective memory.
I can assure you having done the figures that Mr Do did not have the majority of people in the room that turned up.
Last year there were 21 members attending and this year there were over 40. I have yet to get the minutes to get the exact numbers but would argue about 20 including yourself are not students and they had been phoned by Friends of Helen to do there duty and vote for Mr Do. I am under no illusions of that.
Are the following people students as Auckland Uni?
Hamish McCracken
Enzo Giordani
Megan Bates
Edwin De Ronde
Prof Heinz Traebing
Gina Porter
Conor Roberts
Michael Wood
Simon Randall
Sam Malafeh
Patrick Hine
You
There were others who I did not even recognise that came out of the woodwork and no doubt had been ordered to attend by more senior party stooges.
Your revisionism is interesting as Oliver, myself, Tama, you, Julia, Raf, Tim and many longstanding members had been cut out of voting. It was most certainly way more than three. The fact that most of us are of the left does not seem to enter your head I suspect!
Why does the AGM have to be in March? Because you, Conor and Simon Randall say so! Oh well then that is good enough for me then! Aye Right.
There most certainly was shenanigans and I can take it that you will not be signing my open letter to the New Zealand Council that I will circulate to all branches, members and Labour MP’s.
The struggle does indeed carry on I will not put up with such corruption, cheating, rorting and downright skullduggery.
I withdrew my candidacy to another day. I would not stand in these circumstances. That day will come. The personal attacks failed and I was still going to win and then the Gen Sec had to Cheat. That is a strong word but the only one I find apt.
Your final quote ‘I doubt whether any organisation would conduct its AGM much differently.’ is so laughable that it hardly deserves a reply. I suspect that most AGMs do not have 15 people walking out and the heated exchanges that we did.
Paul your argument has so many holes in it that I could steer the QE2 through it.
Alex Foulkes
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Paul,
I was not wanting to post but I can assure you that I WAS at the meeting and think that you might have had a fog in front of your eyes or are perhaps using selective memory.
I can assure you having done the figures that Mr Do did not have the majority of people in the room that turned up.
Last year there were 21 members attending and this year there were over 40. I have yet to get the minutes to get the exact numbers but would argue about 20 including yourself are not students and they had been phoned by Friends of Helen to do there duty and vote for Mr Do. I am under no illusions of that.
Are the following people students as Auckland Uni?
Hamish McCracken
Enzo Giordani
Megan Bates
Edwin De Ronde
Prof Heinz Traebing
Gina Porter
Conor Roberts
Michael Wood
Simon Randall
Sam Malafeh
Patrick Hine
You
There were others who I did not even recognise that came out of the woodwork and no doubt had been ordered to attend by more senior party stooges.
Your revisionism is interesting as Oliver, myself, Tama, you, Julia, Raf, Tim and many longstanding members had been cut out of voting. It was most certainly way more than three. The fact that most of us are of the left does not seem to enter your head I suspect!
Why does the AGM have to be in March? Because you, Conor and Simon Randall say so! Oh well then that is good enough for me then! Aye Right.
There most certainly was shenanigans and I can take it that you will not be signing my open letter to the New Zealand Council that I will circulate to all branches, members and Labour MP’s.
The struggle does indeed carry on I will not put up with such corruption, cheating, rorting and downright skullduggery.
I withdrew my candidacy to another day. I would not stand in these circumstances. That day will come. The personal attacks failed and I was still going to win and then the Gen Sec had to Cheat. That is a strong word but the only one I find apt.
Your final quote ‘I doubt whether any organisation would conduct its AGM much differently.’ is so laughable that it hardly deserves a reply. I suspect that most AGMs do not have 15 people walking out and the heated exchanges that we did.
Paul your argument has so many holes in it that I could steer the QE2 through it.
Alex Foulkes
March 23rd, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Alex,
you don’t have to be a student to be a member of Princes Street. Even so, those you have listed have long connexions with Princes Street and I believe most have held positions there. Those that remain members of the branch are entitled to vote at AGMs.
I for one was not phoned by any Friend of Helen. I knew I had no vote before the meeting. I was unable to vote because I had neglected to name Princes Street as my second branch on my membership renewal form. I would imagine that is what happened to the others you mention; either that or that they had not renewed their membership last year. Only Oliver and Tama mentioned that they were ineligible at the meeting.
I believe the twelve or so members who left with you were mostly new members who had joined after the last LEC meeting on 10th March and so would not have a vote. How many of those who remained in the meeting would have supported you is unanswerable.
Why does the AGM have to be no later than March? Because the Constitution of the Labour Party says:
“36. Ordinary meetings of the Branch shall be held regularly, preferably at intervals of one month. Annual General Meetings shall be held in February or March of each year.”
Conor, Simon and I have no say in the matter. If there was any breach of the Constitution in the conduct of the meeting, then you would have cause to complain formally and I would support you. However, I can see no such breach.
Paul
March 27th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Are the following people students as Auckland Uni?
Hamish McCracken
Enzo Giordani
Megan Bates
Edwin De Ronde
Prof Heinz Traebing
Gina Porter
Conor Roberts
Michael Wood
Simon Randall
Sam Malafeh
Patrick Hine
You
I don’t know about most of them – but I can tell you for sure that both Edwin de Ronde and Megan Bates are both Auckland University Students.