Max Evidence 3[44] DRCresolutionAG+MT_Dec'11
ANNEX 3 DRC Resolution Meeting 15th
November 2011:
meeting at request of
Matt Townsend under Disputes Resolution Committee
… Meeting of MT with AG moderated by Owen Clarke 15th
Nov. 2011
The meeting was preceded by e-mails from early October
(below) clarifying the issues as:
# How to ensure Cardiff GP meetings are respectful
# fair and impartial minuting of meetings
# openness and free speech infringed in exclusion from GP
website of response to 'unfair' reporting
# adoption of Teleri Clark and dropping of AG from candidate
list agreed by the WGP Council
# was there underlying gender bias or personality
differences ?
Anne took along a 'friend' to the meeting (Max), saying she
particularly needed support “as the episode has caused me emotional upset”.
She proposed taking as framework GP principles on fairness,
openness and respect for all members, as under the Code of Conduct mentioned in e-mails.
Meeting Summary
How we can ensure that future GP meetings are more
pleasant and respectful? (MT)
At the July branch meeting discussing the election
performance, I raised gender-balance as an issue, but MT excluded it from
Minutes (with several others of my contributions); JM from the chair belittled
my complaint over these exclusions at the August meeting by saying trivial
points were not minuted, and led a vote against adding the 'gender-balance'
point to the July Minutes. I asked Matt – what did he make of that disrespect
to me?
At the July meeting I also raised the delay in circulating
the Election appraisal (of June) to branch members (Sam Coates's excuse was
that the WGPC had “thoroughly discussed” it). Sam eventually posted the
appraisal on the Members' website on the morning of the August meeting. At that meeting, I raised that it ignored the
gender issue; also that two critical paras had been omitted from the June
report to the WGPC, which was not explained or justified. As members had not had chance to read it,
discussion was promised for next business meeting (Oct.) but Matt omitted it
from the Agenda.
Does Matt accept this is deeper than personality
differences, but relates to fairness and respect?
The fractious August Branch Meeting
JM put on the Agenda an item about an e-mail about the
election performance, wrongly alleged to be from Anne to Jake Griffiths, said
he was “furious” about it, yet remained in the chair.
MT said both JM and AG raised their voices; 50:50
JM and AG to blame, yet the Minutes don't show that. The Minutes do not record that the e-mail was
from Max to Jake, as Max explained at the time.
The Minutes record that JM demanded Anne apologise, but not that Anne
demanded JM apologise for his mistake.
On JM's “as usual Anne you don't understand”, MT couldn't
agree it was sexist or racist/anti-Irish
On Matt's minuting Anne “claimed to be an expert” in
gender issues (despite Anne giving her experience), MT said this was factual.
MT accepted there was an issue over Sam Coates delaying
release of his election report, but had no explanation for not minuting AG's
complaint that two paragraphs had been omitted and her reading them out.
MT said meeting minutes don't need to be balanced;
Members decide on them at the next meeting
AG said she was asking for fair minute-writing (her
e-mail to OC of 30 Oct. no note of compromise over biased minutes).
Dropping Anne as Assembly list-candidate
MT said the nomination form circulated to members for
endorsement in Oct.2010 carried only Jake's name; he was unaware Anne had
signed a nomination sheet (self-nomination) but been missed off (by JM). After the WGPC decision in February that Anne should join the list,
MT explained he personally opposed her joining it
(for criticising the Dep Leader). MT's
Minute reads: Anne Greagsby has
requested nomination as list candidate.
This could not be agreed.
His explanatory e-mail reads: not a majority at the meeting supporting your
co-option.
MT and the other three men candidates on the List were
present and took part in the decision to drop Anne, including John Matthews,
who was both a candidate and responsible for implementing the WGP Council
decision.
AG responded: The Minute shows misrepresentation of the
Wales GP Council's Minuted decision. The Branch had no remit to reject me and
give carte blanche to Sam to ignore the WGP C decision in nominations submitted
the following Monday. AG showed MT what
the GP Constitution says,
about "nomination" (= self-nomination) and not
"co-option", and then consent of the WGPC - why
did the Branch officers not follow the Constitution if they had reservations
about Anne being a list candidate and raise it with the Council?
AG added that not only did JM and three other men candidates
have a conflict of interest, but it's well-known that informal processes,
especially those of an in-group, are notorious for gender-bias.
MT could not answer but said he wants to acknowledge that
'cooption' of further candidates was not done properly, and that Anne should have been approached earlier.
The WGPC's Sept.2011 meeting decided that Cardiff GP should
sort my exclusion; AG said this has not
been raised at a Branch meeting, nor progressed by officers apart from Matt's
e-mails to me. It's only fair if someone outside those responsible considers
it. MT said he was leaving Cardiff and
the post of branch secretary.
Gender-bias Issue
How was it decided to co-opt a paper woman candidate (Teleri
Clark) to reduce the gender imbalance of the 4-men candidates announced in
October 2010? MT was vague about dates
and meetings, saying it was at sparsely attended and un-minuted branch meetings
and 'discussed over the months' (8 Nov. e-mail).
The February 2011 WGPC meeting added both Teleri Clark and
AG to the 4-man list as Assembly election candidates. AG asked - both women should have been on the
list if aiming for gender-balance (whether or not one of the men were dropped)
so why not? MT answered he thought AG
used the gender issue when she'd been excluded on other grounds.
Key Point of the E-mail exchange (full e-mail
train below)
1. Respectful meetings
Anne to Owen 30 Oct.
No note of compromise over biased minutes. no record of JM's attack, nor of my request for him to apologise for
attacking me mistakenly, and retained his demand I apologise (for his
misunderstanding?).
2. Candidate choice
From: A GREAGSBY <annegre@btinternet.com> Sunday, 23 October, 2011
Can
you also explain how it was decided that dispensation be sought from the WGP
for Teleri Clark to be on the list, as this did not appear to go
through the Cardiff GP, not was I consulted as officer of Cardiff GP?
You
mention a Cardiff GP meeting after the Cardiff GP conference where “your
request for co-option was discussed”. Was this the ordinary MAY meeting or
was it the SWC campaign team meeting and DO YOU HAVE the
agenda/minutes ? Why do you believe no-one informed me my “nomination had been
unsuccessful” (informally if not in writing)?
You
don't mention the co-option of Teleri Clark which presumably took place at the
same meeting – was there discussion of pros and cons, and how was she informed?
MT
8th Nov. “Anne - I believe Teleri's nomination was discussed over
the months before this, which was why her co-option had already been agreed
(subject to the WGPC support).... I don't have minutes of those
meetings... only around 4 people attending each meeting and I remember that you
weren't attending regularly”.
Matt
as 'co-opted'' candidate was doubtless one of those people, but seems unable to
remember. He does not mention that his
own 'co-option' should have been subject to WGPC approval – they had advertised
the four men candidates in Nov 2010 Guardian blog) was this with WGPC approval?
MT's e-mail of 7 Nov. avoided the question 6 on how and
by whom Teleri was chosen.
I've
already given a full account of how Teleri was chosen and by whom, though
the most we got (on 8th Nov.) was
I believe Teleri's nomination was discussed over the months. He says nothing about the meetings of a
SWC campaign team of which he was a member but had not been formally
constituted as per the Constitution; the meetings were also not minuted as that
requires.
The WGPC minute of 26 Feb. says “SWC... At their last meeting, they had added a fifth: Teleri Clark" and
mentions an "SWC campaign meeting" which Anne would not (of course)
attend. Not explained why the Cardiff
Branch in March decided on matters that were for the SWC campaign meeting.
Matt
to Anne 6 Nov.
my
recollection of what happened around the Assembly candidate selection and why I
do not believe Anne is due any apology.
Anne
to Matt 23 Oct.
how
it was decided that dispensation be sought from the WGP for Teleri
Clark to be on the list, as this did not appear to go through the Cardiff
GP, not was I consulted as officer of Cardiff GP? Do you have the agenda/minutes?
Matt
to Anne 10 Oct.
I am willing to admit things could probably
have been handled better in some respects. We should have held a secret
ballot about your nomination at the Cardiff GP meeting, and someone should have
contacted you afterwards to explain that your nomination had been unsuccessful,
and we should also have held secret ballots for all other candidates rather
than co-opting.
3. fair and impartial minuting of meetings
Anne to Owen ON 6
Oct
MT posted very biased minutes using non-neutral,
negative verbs to my every comment. He refused to amend it when I asked(1) and
blocked comments on the website. He omitted any mention of John Matthews'
insulting attack on me from the chair (2) and my request for an apology.
The basis (of the dispute) is the Welsh Assembly election
campaign and the selection process that was conducted and run in a gender
biased manner – my pointing it out is causing embarrassment.
Note (2)
attached is JM's e-mail of 5th
August just prior to the Meeting, which he repeated there.
4. Exclusion of responses from Web-site
MT
7th Nov. justifies censoring
Anne's comments/question when acting as 'moderator' ; takes Anne's questioning
it 30 Oct. as trying to undermine
this process.
Accepts
he interpreted a Branch decision that Minutes are agreed at a meeting as
excluding comments or clarifications (“debate”) outside that meeting.
Accepts
he removed Anne's question on Nominations Officer rather than respond to it.
Says
this censoring was an open process ; does not comment on 'free speech'.
Did
not tell the Branch of his approach to the DRC.
5. Gender bias
Owen to Anne 10 Oct.
I would suggest an informal meeting between myself,
yourself and Matt and possibly other invitees to quietly work through the
issues involved after receiving your reports. This would be followed by
the preparation of a report and recommendations for Cardiff&Vale
Green Party on the issue.
Anne to Owen to 7 Oct
Surely the obvious resolution is through a proper
report on women involvement/bias in the election. At the July WGP
meeting and again in Sept the C&V/SWC RCT were to sort it and
would report to the next WGP meeting. If Matt is embarrassed because he and
friends were involved, then let him and me outline evidence on it to you, so
that you can write the report.
E-Mail train preceding and informing the Resolution
meeting of 15th Nov.
From: owenclarke <owenclarke@cooptel.net> Wednesday, 16 November, 2011 12:38:35
To: Anne Gregsby <annegre@btinternet.com>
Cc: pippa bartolotti <pbartolotti@freenetname.co.uk>
Subject: Dispute resolution
To: Anne Gregsby <annegre@btinternet.com>
Cc: pippa bartolotti <pbartolotti@freenetname.co.uk>
Subject: Dispute resolution
Dear
Anne
Many
thanks for atending last night's resolution meeting with Max. It is unfortunate
that we were unable to reach a resolution, but this is fairly normal for a
first resolution meeting.
Thinking
over what was said last night I sympathise with your desire for the removal of
gender bias in the Green Party and for better working standards and
with your frustration at the lack of support for your campaigning actions.
Comparing
the situation in Cardiff and Vale with that in Gwent, both had men who had
carried / domineered the local party through difficult times. Both have been
joined by women activists, but whereas in Pippa's case this has led to her
becoming Deputy Leader of WGP, in your case it has led to your rejection as a
list candidate by members who were probably not properly informed about your
early application.
May
I suggest that you try to find 10 minutes to talk with Pippa about how best to
forward your causes while retaining the support of local party members ?
All
the best
Owen
From: Matt Townsend
<matt.townsend@walesgreenparty.org.uk>
To: owenclarke <owenclarke@cooptel.net>
Cc: A GREAGSBY <annegre@btinternet.com>
Sent: Monday, 7 November, 2011 1:32:34
Subject: Re: Resolution Meeting
To: owenclarke <owenclarke@cooptel.net>
Cc: A GREAGSBY <annegre@btinternet.com>
Sent: Monday, 7 November, 2011 1:32:34
Subject: Re: Resolution Meeting
That's
fine thanks Owen - I'll meet you at the Prince of Wales Wetherspoons pub.
Yes
I would like to resolve all disagreement before I go. I will think about my
actions and how any of them may have contributed towards the issues within the
Cardiff GP.
In
terms of coming to a resultion, what I'd personally like to focus on is how we
can ensure that future GP meetings are more pleasant and respectful. I believe
Anne's disagreement was initially with several people and not me specifically.
More recently, and mainly since me becoming Secretary and contacting DRC, I
feel that more of this disagreemant has been with me specifically.
My
concern is that when I leave Anne will continue to be in disagreement with
others and that meetings will continue to deteriorate. I'd like us to focus on
what we can do to improve meetings and eliminate things like shouting, talking
over people and other disrespectful behaviours. I'm happy to agree to
disagree on all other issues so long as we can agree that future Cardiff GP
business will be conducted respectfully and in a friendly and fun manner and
remove all aggressive behaviour and negative arguing from the party.
On
7 November 2011 00:18,
owenclarke <owenclarke@cooptel.net> wrote:
Dear
Matt
I
am sorry to know that you will be moving away and thus unable to support
Cardiff & Vale Green Party in the future. I hope that you will agree with
me that it would be best for all if this disagreement is resolved before you
go, even if by agreeing to disagree on one or two points. I will meet you at
7:00 on Tuesday 15th in Wetherspoons near the Station. I hope that Anne will be
able to join us, but if not I will arrange a meeting with her beforehand.
I
hope that you will agree that the objective is to come to a resolution of this
disagreement that you can both accept. It would help if before coming to the
meeting you thought about whether any of your actions might have
unintentionally contributed to the problem.
This
line of thought is being successful in another resolution situation, although
it is true that it has taken two months for the full effect to appear.
All
the best Owen
----- Original Message
--------------------------------------
From: Matt
Townsend Sunday, November 06, 2011
To: owenclarke Cc: A GREAGSBY
Subject: Re:
SOC ruling
Dear
both,
My
reason for initially contacting DRC was that I felt Cardiff GP meetings had
become unbearable and that we needed outside help to mediate. I'm very grateful
to Owen for his involvement.
However
my personal circumstances have now changed. I am standing down from my
post as Cardiff GP Secretary and I won't be attending any further Cardiff
GP meetings after November as I am moving away. So my original
reason for contacting DRC has become redundant.
I
sincerely hope future meetings of the Cardiff GP will improve, although I will
not be involved. If there is anything I can do to help, please let me
know. The only date I'm free from Owen's list is evening of Tuesday 15th
but I do think meeting is only worthwhile if we have a clear shared objective.
I
also feel I have given a full breakdown of my recollection of what happened
around the Assembly candidate selection and why I do not believe Anne is due
any apology. I'm not really happy to endlessly respond to Anne's many emails
point by point as I don't think this will get us anywhere, and I've already
given all the details I can remember. But if there is anything which you both
think I can do to help improve the situation within the party before I leave I
will be happy to help.
regards,
Matt
From: owenclarke
<owenclarke@cooptel.net> Thursday, 3 November, 2011
To: Anne Gregsby <annegre@btinternet.com>
Subject: SOC ruling
To: Anne Gregsby <annegre@btinternet.com>
Subject: SOC ruling
Dear
Anne
The
reply from SOC of E&WGP was that there are no specific rulings on how the
minutes are written or accepted, but the email said that in their opinion the
normal situation that the next meeting modifies or approves the minutes of the
previous meeting also applies to the Green Party. Unfortunately my PLC decided
to make my last six months of incoming emails disappear so I cannot send you
the original.
-----------------
From: Matt
Townsend Tuesday, 8 November, 2011
To: Anne Greagsby <annegre@btinternet.com>; Owen Clarke <owenclarke@cooptel.net>
Subject: Cardiff GP March meeting minutes
To: Anne Greagsby <annegre@btinternet.com>; Owen Clarke <owenclarke@cooptel.net>
Subject: Cardiff GP March meeting minutes
Anne
- I have found the minutes to the Cardiff GP meeting, as you have
requested, where your co-option request was discussed (following your
request at the WGPC meeting in Cardiff in February).
The
notes are very brief but basically there was not a majority at the
meeting supporting your co-option.
I
have uploaded them to the members' website:
http://my.greenparty.org.uk/resource/cardiff-and-vale-green-party-minutes-march-2011
Anne
- I believe Teleri's nomination was discussed over the months before this,
which was why her co-option had already been agreed
In
e-mail of 7th Nov. which we received in February in Cardiff).
I don't have minutes of those meetings (this is all long before I became
Secretary) and in that period we were often getting only around 4 people
attending each meeting and I remember that you weren't attending regularly.
I
hope I have now answered all your questions!
Matt
Townsend
Secretary,
Cardiff and Vale Green Party; Conference Organiser, Wales Green Party
EXTRACT
from
Green
Party Cardiff and Vale Minutes
21/03/2011 Eco home centre, Canton
Present:
Yvan, John, Jake, Sam, Paul, Larissa, Matt, Tony Moore, Tony Matthews
Apologies:
Anne Greagsby, Nigel, Mark
Chair:
John
Minutes:
Matt
...................
4.
List candidates
Sam nominations to be delivered on Monday and marked registers to be collected at same time.
Sam nominations to be delivered on Monday and marked registers to be collected at same time.
5. Nominations
Anne Greagsby has requested nomination as list candidate. This could not be agreed.
Anne Greagsby has requested nomination as list candidate. This could not be agreed.
From: Matthew
Townsend <mattgwyrdd@gmail.com> Monday, 7 November, 2011
To: A GREAGSBY , Cc: owenclarke; Dispute Resolution Committee
Subject: Re: re draft minutes and my email reply to Matt on selection for Welsh Assembly election
To: A GREAGSBY , Cc: owenclarke; Dispute Resolution Committee
Subject: Re: re draft minutes and my email reply to Matt on selection for Welsh Assembly election
1. I see in the draft
Minutes that the Branch says comments on them are not allowed – is that
correctly recorded?
I
believe my minutes are correct yes. This was discussed at the
meeting. If you'd like further clarification then please feel free to ask
at the next meeting. The meeting agreed that the process for agreeing
minutes is to discuss them at the following meeting, not to have debates about
them on the members' website.
2. I see that my question on
the Website regarding a 'Nominations Officer' was removed
I
removed your comments - I did send you a response first explaining my
position. Basically I have been tasked by a meeting (I think it was in
August when you were present) to carry out this process, which I'm now
doing. You were at this meeting and did not speak out against it
then. I felt your comments would have caused confusion as to whether this
process was going ahead or not and therefore I removed them. I have to be
allowed to carry out the tasks which I have been tasked by the meeting to do.
3. Did you remove it and on what
authority
I
did it as an Secretary of the Cardiff Green Party. I believe this is why
I have access to moderate the Cardiff members' website.
4.
openness and free speech
This
is an open and transparent process - it was agreed at a meeting that I would do
this. I feel that you are trying to undermine this process and I'm not
sure why you are doing this.
5. I also see no mention of your
approaching the DRC over your approach for help in resolving our disagreement.
Did you really not tell the Branch you were doing this on their behalf?
I
didn't contact DRC on others behalf - I contacted them for assistance. So
no I don't believe I did discuss this at the meeting. Would you like it
to be discussed at the next meeting? My aim in all this is to make
Cardiff meetings better as they are currently extremely hard work and there has
been shouting and accusations and other behaviour which I believe is wholly
unnacceptable.
6. Could I remind you I'm still
awaiting your reply to my e-mail of 23 October on your outline of how a female
candidate for the Assembly list was chosen and by whom.
I've
asked you for further information on one point of your email twice now and
you've not responded to either. I've already given a full account of what
I believe happened during the assembly process. Again, I'm not sure what
point you are trying to prove here?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To:
Matt Townsend Date: 30/10/2011 18:29
From: A GREAGSBY Cc: owenclarke , Dispute Resolution Committee
Subject: re draft minutes and my email reply to Matt on selection for Welsh Assembly election
From: A GREAGSBY Cc: owenclarke , Dispute Resolution Committee
Subject: re draft minutes and my email reply to Matt on selection for Welsh Assembly election
To Matt
I
see in the draft Minutes that the Branch says comments on them are not allowed
– is that correctly recorded?
I
see that my question on the Website regarding a 'Nominations Officer' was
removed, while nothing is said in the Minutes. Did you remove it and on what
authority; if not, will you inform the person responsible of the Green Party principle
for openness and free speech?
I
also see no mention of your approaching the DRC over your approach for help in
resolving our disagreement. Did you really not tell the Branch you were doing
this on their behalf?
Could
I remind you I'm still awaiting your reply to my e-mail of 23 October on your
outline of how a female candidate for the Assembly list was chosen and by whom.
Regards Anne
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To:
owenclarke <owenclarke@cooptel.net> Date: 30/10/2011
From: A GREAGSBY Cc: Dispute Resolution Committee
Subject: no note of compromise by Matt over his biased minutes of the Sept. meeting.
(See attached file: cardiff gp minutes october 2011.doc)
From: A GREAGSBY Cc: Dispute Resolution Committee
Subject: no note of compromise by Matt over his biased minutes of the Sept. meeting.
(See attached file: cardiff gp minutes october 2011.doc)
To
Owen
I
attach the minutes of the October Branch meeting which I did not attend, but
they record no note of compromise by Matt over his biased minutes of the
Sept. meeting.
As
I wrote to you, the Branch meeting with John Matthews as chair would not
produce a fair record of the meeting where I asked he retract and apologise for
wrongly and 'furiously' attacking me after misunderstanding an e-mail.
Understandably, the Branch was uncomfortable over the row and preferred not to
record his attack, nor my request for his apology and left his demand I
apologise (for what?).
Matt
refused my request to circulate my draft amendments in advance, and failed to
even modify his slanted “Anne complained” wording.
This
all goes to support my point that the Minute-recording process needs to follow
some guidelines, and asking you to find relevant Green Party material on which
to base our conciliatory discussions on this issue.
Please
move the process on and let us know what you propose to use.
On
the second issue (gender-balance in candidates and officers) I'm still waiting
for Matt to reply to my questions clarifying their 'co-option' of the male and
female candidates on the Assembly list. I have copied to you my e-mail reminder
to him on this, plus points relevant to the first issue.
regards Anne
------------------------------------------------------------
From: A GREAGSBY <annegre@btinternet.com> Sunday, 23 October, 2011
To: Matt
Townsend Cc: owenclarke; Dispute Resolution Committee
Subject: reply to Matt re. his email on selection for Welsh Assembly election
Subject: reply to Matt re. his email on selection for Welsh Assembly election
|
Thanks
for your recollections on my raising my exclusion from the Assembly candidate
list and on the gender balance issue generally.
You
mention email(s) which you felt unfair about Pippa and raised questions
about how she had become Deputy Leader – is this the exchange between us of
15-16 March?
You
remember that candidates for the Assembly list were co-opted by votes of
those present at subsequent Cardiff GP meetings and appear unaware of my own
existing official nomination. DO YOU HAVE dates and records of this
co-option process?
Can
you also explain how it was decided that dispensation be sought from the WGP
for Teleri Clark to be on the list, as this did not appear to go
through the Cardiff GP, not was I consulted as officer of Cardiff GP?
You
mention a Cardiff GP meeting after the Cardiff GP conference where “your
request for co-option was discussed”. Was this the ordinary MAY meeting
or was it the SWC campaign team meeting and DO YOU HAVE the
agenda/minutes ? Why do you believe no-one informed me my “nomination had
been unsuccessful” (informally if not in writing)?
You
don't mention the co-option of Teleri Clark which presumably took place at
the same meeting – was there discussion of pros and cons, and how was she
informed?
It's
good we agree the need to find ways to encourage more women to get involved
in the party locally and stand in elections – let's look to productive
discussion at the session at WGP conference
Anne
Greagsby
Notes
1.
Minutes: Wales Green Party Council Meeting 26th February,
Cardiff
Conference
Two
more people volunteered at a Mid & West meeting held the previous day. SWC had four, all men. At their last meeting, they had
added a fifth: Teleri Clark. As Teleri has not been a member for a year, this
addition needs the assent of WGPC – this was formally agreed. AG also
volunteered, so there will be six names on their list. The formal approval
for this will be given by the next SWC campaign meeting.
2.
Minutes: WALES GP COUNCIL MEETING 10th September 2011,
Sheffield Conference
AG
raised this as she was unhappy that she had not been added to the list when
the February WGPC meeting has accepted that she would be added. After some
discussion, it was agreed that this was a Cardiff & Vale/SWC RCT matter
rather than a WGPC matter, and it would be sorted out at that level. Action: Cardiff & Vale GP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
On Mon, 10/10/11, Matt
Townsend <matt.townsend@walesgreenparty.org.uk> wrote:
Subject:
selection for Welsh election
To: "A GREAGSBY" <annegre@btinternet.com> Cc: "owenclarke" <owenclarke@cooptel.net>
A
number of your emails and comments at meetings seem to be around the fact
that you weren't selected as candidate for the Wales election campaign.
Most of what happened was now quite a while ago so I'm not stating that
this as fact, but I am giving my personal recollection in the hope this will
move things forward.
In
the only formal process of nominating and selecting candidates, I remember
that only Jake put himself forward and therefore when there was a postal
ballot Jake was the only name on the ballot paper. I don't know why at
that point you hadn't put your name forward for that formal ballot, I wasn't
at all involved in the process so I couldn't comment. From what I remember
others were co-opted by votes of those present at subsequent Cardiff GP
meetings, but this had been delayed due to discussions around whether to
stand constituency candidates, and I don't remember whether you were at those
meetings.
I
recall at the Wales GP meeting in Cardiff Conference you complained that you
were not on the regional list for the election. This was deferred for
the Cardiff GP to discuss at our next meeting. Then you sent an email
around the Cardiff GP email group which was critical of an another Cardiff
environmental group. You also sent around an email which I felt was unfair
about Pippa and from what I remember raised questions about how she had
become Deputy Leader. From my recollection you then didn't attend the
next Cardiff GP meeting where your request for co-option was discussed. I don't
want to speak on behalf of others, but I think I can fairly say that the
majority present at that meeting were against you being co-opted, so it could
not be agreed for you to become a candidate.
You
raised this again at the WGPC meeting in Sheffield and I asked it to be
deferred back to the Cardiff meeting as I still believe this is a Cardiff GP
matter and not a Wales GP matter. I am willing to admit things could probably
have been handled better in some respects. We should have held a secret
ballot about your nomination at the Cardiff GP meeting, and someone should
have contacted you afterwards to explain that your nomination had been
unsuccessful, and we should also have held secret ballots for all other
candidates rather than co-opting. However, this is just my personal opinion
in hindsight and I do not feel it would have actually changed the outcome at
all. I sincerely do not believe you were the victim of any gender
discrimination.
I
am keen that we find ways to encourage more women to get involved in the
party locally and stand in elections. Although I think we currently disagree
about how this can be achieved, I think we can agree on that as a goal and
maybe can find some common ground going forward. I'd be really keen on
a productive discussion around this as I think it is a major issue in
politics generally.
Matt Townsend
Secretary,
Cardiff and Vale Green Party,
Conference Organiser, Wales Green Party
|
On
14 October 2011 14:59,
owenclarke <owenclarke@cooptel.net> wrote:
Dear
Anne and Matt
Now
that Anne has formally agreed to accept DRC help, although denying the
existence of a dispute, we should be able to make good progress. As I see it
Matt had a difficult situation on his hands and asked for DRC assistance. Anne
has been trying to make sure that her concerns about gender bias in the
selection of candidates for the Welsh Assembly election are properly addressed.
I
have no problem in accepting that neither of these issues are a dispute, but
believe that DRC are capable of giving assistance in this situation. I cannot
name another body which I believe would be more suitable for this essential
task.
In
essence I see the problem as being the perpetual one of how to give adequate
protection to minority views in the situation where the majority view must
determine the action that is taken.
However,
what I think is of no great importance, what really matters is that you two
agree on a course of action that will bring this unhappy situation to an end.
I
will try to get a copy of the Citrine Rules of Debate, which lay down the
procedures which should be followed during debate. When we have had a chance to
study this and both your informations, I suggest that we meet in a suitable
“green” coffee house in Cardiff at a suitable date and time to talk over the
situation. I see this as having arisen from an unfortunate combination of
circumstances rather than from any personal antagonism between you.
All
the best
Owen
Clarke
On Mon, 10/10/11,
owenclarke <owenclarke@cooptel.net> wrote:
Subject:
Re: last email
To: "A GREAGSBY" <annegre@btinternet.com>
Cc: "Dispute Resolution Committee" <drc@lists.greenparty.org.uk>, "Matt Townsend" <matt.townsend@walesgreenparty.org.uk>
Date: Monday, 10 October, 2011, 0:41
To: "A GREAGSBY" <annegre@btinternet.com>
Cc: "Dispute Resolution Committee" <drc@lists.greenparty.org.uk>, "Matt Townsend" <matt.townsend@walesgreenparty.org.uk>
Date: Monday, 10 October, 2011, 0:41
Dear
Anne
I
have received your email of the 7th Oct and several others.
The
purpose of resolution is to restore the harmonious conditions that have existed
in Cardiff & Vale Green Party in the past.
I
totally agree that the issues raised need to be considered, although some
of these like the acceptance of one or other form of the minutes will be
decided by the Cardiff &Vale members pressent at the next meeting.
I
note that you have successfully sent your version of events to all Cardiff
& Vale members, so they will be able to reach an informed decision, which I
hope will then be accepted by both sides as the corect minutes.
On
my situation as the dispute resolver, I have often found that people who
witness the problems that a dispute in which they are not directly involved is
causing, will try hard to influence those involved to come to a resolution. I
hope that my efforts to assist you and Matt to reach resolution will meet with
success. Although it is inevitable that I will reach conclusions about
individual actions, my aim is to use this knowledge to assist both sides to
reaching a resolution of their choice. I am very pleased that recent emails
have been more about reaching solutions than placing blame for past actions. I
always advise against asking for apologies, since some people find this very difficult.
A better way is is to ask for an admission that things could have been
handled better.
The
question of women involvement/bias in the election has many facets. My
experience is that Green Party men are very keen to get gender balance at
election time, although not happy with enforced balance. Another point is that
men are frequently better informed about the rules relating to selection of
candidates. I would suggest an informal meeting between myself, yourself and
Matt and possibly other invitees to quietly work through the issues involved
after receiving your reports. This would be followed by the preparation
of a report and recommendations for Cardiff&Vale Green Party on the
issue.
From
our continued email discussions I assume that you are prepared to continue with
Dispute Resolution, even if you are uncertain about the way in which I am
applying it. Can you please confirm that this is so.
All
the best
Owen
Clarke
From: A
GREAGSBY
To: owenclarke
Cc: Dispute
Resolution Committee
Sent: Sunday,
October 09, 2011 1:42 PM
Subject: Re:
last email
From:
owenclarke <owenclarke@cooptel.net>
Subject: Re: Resolution
To: "Anne Gregsby" <annegre@btinternet.com>
Cc: "Matt Townsend" <matt.townsend@walesgreenparty.org.uk>, "Dispute Resolution Committee" <drc@lists.greenparty.org.uk>
Date: Friday, 7 October, 2011, 1:58
Subject: Re: Resolution
To: "Anne Gregsby" <annegre@btinternet.com>
Cc: "Matt Townsend" <matt.townsend@walesgreenparty.org.uk>, "Dispute Resolution Committee" <drc@lists.greenparty.org.uk>
Date: Friday, 7 October, 2011, 1:58
Many
thanks for your reply to my email. I will try to answer your questions point by
point.
The
email address that I used was that in the WGP membership list. I have now
updated this to your new email address, and informed London of the change.
I
have received a request for assistance in reaching a resolution from Matt
Townsend, not a complaints form.
Thank
you for your information on the root cause of the dispute.
I
am acting as a dispute resolver, not an arbitrator. I was appointed by DRC to
act mainly on the basis that I am the DRC member living closest to the dispute. In
this position it is my aim to assist both sides to reach a solution
of their mutual choice. Since this process requires both sides to
refocus their view of the situation, the process is rarely fast, and a
resolution cannot be guaranteed. It depends on those involved accepting to
some degree that the need for a resolution to assist the Green Party and
themselves is more important than their desire for a resolution strictly
on their terms.
All
the best
Owen
Clarke
From: A
GREAGSBY
To: owenclarke
Cc: Matt
Townsend ; Dispute Resolution Committee
Sent: Thursday,
October 06, 2011 12:10 PM
Subject: Re:
Resolution
From:
owenclarke
To: Anne Gregsby <annegre@aol.com>
CC: Matt Townsend ; Dispute Resolution Committee <drc@lists.greenparty.org.uk>
Sent: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 15:17
Subject: Resolution
To: Anne Gregsby <annegre@aol.com>
CC: Matt Townsend ; Dispute Resolution Committee <drc@lists.greenparty.org.uk>
Sent: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 15:17
Subject: Resolution
Dear
Anne
Matt
Townsend has asked the Dispute Rewsolution Committee (DRC) for help in
resolving the confrontation between yourself and Cardiff / Wales Green Party. I
hope that you will agree to joining into the resolurion process in which I will
be the DRC member acting as resolver.
In
the dispute resolution process the aim of DRC is to assist both sides to come
to a resolution of their choice, which although not ideal for either side, is
one which they can both accept because of the damaging effects that a dispute
causes. DRC have no powers other than persuasion, but that does not mean that
we are ineffective at either the local level or at national level, a dispute
between GPEx, GPRC and Wales Green Party has been resolved in the past with
DRC's assistance.
In
the present situation I will be first of all trying to compile an agreed,
written list of Wales Green Party procedures, since I see lack of clarity
in this area as being a root cause of the dispute .It is one of the
problems of the Green Party that the activists are so busy being active that
the essential business of keeping procedures up to date and properly recorded
often gets put aside.
Since DRC
only have a small budget our normal aim is to carry out resolution by email
contacts, although meetings with either one or both sides are not ruled
out. All communications within DRC are confidential to the two sides and
DRC.
All
the best
Owen
Clarke
No comments:
Post a Comment