Dear Gina,
Since the last all members meeting took place on 13 October 2016 i have been approached by a number of Enfield North CLP members, all voicing their dissatisfaction at the way the vote for London Regional conference delegates and Regional Board nominees was conducted, asking me to make this clear to the EC and to put forward their ideas for ensuring that it doesn't happen again. I would like this raised at the next EC meeting.
The point raised with me by these comrades all boil down to what they see as the following issues:
Firstly, some members did not receive notification and were thus unaware of the 13 October 2016 meeting. I'm sure that everyone would agree that this is highly unsatisfactory and must not be allowed to happen again.
However, in relation to the meeting itself there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with the way that the election of conference delegates and Regional Board nominees was conducted.
The ballot papers did not seem to be in any particular order, and some were blank bits of paper. The reason given for this was that it was because the printer had broken down before all the ballot papers could be printed off. This in and of itself would be enough to undermine confidence in the ballot procedure. In such circumstances, calling off the ballot until a later date should have been considered and put to the members present at the meeting to decide.
In my view the ballot should have been postponed to a later date, when a full set of printed ballot forms were available. A decision about this should have been made by a show of hands of all those present. Unfortunately it wasn't. In hindsight i think that this contributed to a feeling of unfairness on the part of many present at the meeting. It did nothing to allay any feelings of mistrust that may exist following the recent leadership election.
The ballot papers were not individually numbered, making it impossible to say with certainty that the ballot forms sent out were the same ones that were received back. This alone can seriously undermine confidence in the integrity of the results and contribute to an atmosphere of mistrust in the CLP.
The way the votes were counted was also unsatisfactory and did nothing to instil confidence that things were being done in a fair and impartial way. The counting exercise itself did not take place in a part of the meeting room that was sufficiently visible to all of those present. In my opinion it should have been conducted on the stage area, albeit at a table that is separated from the Chair and CLP Secretary.
Before and during the hustings, and before the ballot papers were collected by the tellers, printed slips of paper were being distributed containing a slate or list of the preferred candidates of certain of the EC members. It is not clear that this practise is within the Labour Party rules.
During the count all communication between the head teller and the Chair should have been in the open and in public. It was clear that there were several private conversations between them before, during and after a series of recounts, and before the results were announced. The members were thus not kept fully informed during the counting. This contributed to a feeling of there being a lack of transparency in the way the ballot was being conducted.
When the count was finally concluded Doug Taylor, Enfield Council Labour Group leader announced that the votes for two of the Regional Conference delegates were mixed up with those for the womens' delegates. Then, when a challenge to the validity of the election process itself was made from the floor by a CLP member, along with a proposal to abandon the ballot and re-run it online, the Chair continued without any attempt at first of all canvassing the views of all those present.
This also raises the question why the casting of votes for conference delegates was separated out on a gender basis at all. As far as i understand there was merely a requirement that two out of the CLP's three delegates must be women. There was no requirement that one of the delegates had to be a man rather than a woman. We could have elected three women delegates if we had wanted to. This choice was not given to the CLP members due to the way that the ballot papers were drawn up.
I hope never to see such poorly managed CLP elections again. It is vital that all business conducted in Enfield North CLP is carried out in a transparent, fair and inclusive way. Unfortunately the last meeting left an unsavoury perception of unfairness which must never be repeated.
It would therefore assist in maintaining the confidence of CLP members in the fairness and integrity of the conduct of voting at future meetings that the following measures are introduced:
A count/tally made of all those present at the meeting.
Numbered ballot forms distributed to each person, to ensure that they match the numbers of people present in the room.
Election of tellers by show of hands
Counting of votes to be done at a table on the stage/platform, in front of and in full view of everybody, and with all tellers present.
Making it clear that meeting will remain open until the votes are counted and announced.
In addition, although i'm sure that meeting notices are sent out to the members correctly and this should in no way be seen as a criticism of you personally, i think that in order to ensure maximum member participation at future meetings, confirmation of receipt of meetings notifications should requested in the outgoing email. Members should be requested to reply. Then any that don't respond can be contacted again. This would greatly reduce incidents of members not being kept fully informed of events and would help maintain a healthy atmosphere within the CLP, free of any feelings of suspicion or mistrust.
I would be grateful if you could both confirm receipt of this email communication, and that you will submit it to the EC for discussion.
Yours comradely
Mark French
Enfield North CLP
