Bristol GP EGM 02/10/24

The Bristol Green Party EGM was called by several members and the business was two linked motions relating to the No Fault Suspension process. This was triggered by the suspension and subsequent expulsion of our own Jude English with many members feeling that there had been an injustice and that the system is in need of reform.

The first half an hour was taken up by selecting a Chair despite Ani S-T’s best efforts to kybosh that move. Eventually Ani was ousted from the chair and replaced by Katy Grant. From that point on Ani seemed to permanently have her hand raised and made a number of so-called technical points that were actually condescending advice to the Chair or speeches against the motion.

Motion 1 was fairly simple and required BGP to support the move by GPEx to seek legal advice on the GPEW Disciplinary Process and No Fault Suspension process. At first it seemed that anyone who turned up for the Zoom meeting could speak, including Laura Ecott (GPRC rep for the SE) who mounted a batshit crazy defense of the purported legality of GPRC processes. After an objection to Laura being allowed to speak it was agreed that only members of BGP would be able to speak. Discussion continued but despite several frankly bonkers objections to the motion it did pass by a clear margin when voted on.

To say the voting was shambolic would be an understatement. The method used was a show of virtual hands with those not eligible to vote being trusted not to do so. Complicated by the fact that in several cases up to three members were sharing the same single virtual hand and others couldn’t work out how to raise it so relied on waving at the camera. Not to mention the many names that appeared to be present on more than one device.

Motion 2 was much more contentious and began with “Bristol Green Party has lost all faith in the No Fault Suspension process being carried out in a fair and impartial manner, and the current process does not seem to fit with natural justice. BGP requires that a Speaking out Complaint be made on behalf of BGP to the CEO and to the Chair of GPEX, as per the speaking out procedure”. The proposer of the motion gave detailed background information on the complaint made against Jude English that resulted in her suspension then expulsion.

Then came the amendment from Simon S-T that rewrote the entire motion including its title. If such an amendment had been proposed to a motion at Conference SOC would have ruled it Out of Order and several people correctly described it as a wrecking amendment.

A heated debate then followed with those supporting the amendment becoming increasingly aggressive and Simon S-T seeming to suggest that anyone supporting or enacting the original motion would be in breach of the Code of Conduct. The section that asked for “whistleblower protection for BGP and/or its members from further NFS/TSPI requests until the legal review of the NFS/TSPI and complaints process by GPEx and the parties legal advisers has been carried out, and any recommended improvements implemented” was misrepresented as calling for a ban on any suspensions that would lead to an inability to remove dangerous people despite clearly referring to whistleblowers and not others. But this section could have been better worded and may have influenced the voting.

The amendment was passed after a recount so the proposer of Motion 2 promptly announced that he was withdrawing it as it no longer bore any resemblance to the motion originally presented. At which point Simon S-T suddenly discovered a liking for Conference rules, despite ignoring them when presenting his wrecking amendment, and declared that once a motion had been put to the floor it no longer belonged to the proposers and could not be withdrawn. By this time the meeting was nearly an hour over time, people were getting tired, and after some more heated discussion the Chair declared that the motion would not be voted on and closed the meeting.