Did the Dublin Branch officers…?
A chronology of abuse of power, discrimination, bullying and duplicity by the officers of the Dublin Branch
While the section below is long and detailed, it is necessary reading to understand the kafkaesque-like world of the Dublin Branch where the Branch officers – the perpetrators of these absurdities – accuse those who oppose them as being the disruptive ones. These are the same Branch officers who eventually end up charging members with all sorts of ‘offenses’ and from within whose ranks direct charges of bullying emerged.
Did the outgoing Dublin Branch officers fail to include on the agenda motions properly submitted for the 2020 Dublin Branch AGM and fail to circulate the motions before the meeting? [Yes]
Did the incoming Dublin Branch officers fail to include the same or similar motions properly submitted to the next ordinary Dublin Branch meeting and fail to circulate the motions before the meeting? [Yes]
Did the Dublin Branch officers fail to inform members that a member was in correspondence with the Branch officers and did they refuse specific requests to so inform members? [Yes]
Did the Dublin Branch officers continue to discriminate against the same member by refusing to circulate proposals properly submitted and by refusing to disclose correspondence with them while accepting proposals from other members? [Yes]
Did they specifically state?:
“It is not the purpose of the branch email account to be used to circulate party members proposals, rather a tool for updates and information and to do so would set an unmanagable precedent.” 10 February, 2020
and
“We explained in our last email that branch officers do not, as a general rule, circulate emails from one branch member to the rest of the branch. Raising the contents of such emails under a “correspondence” item at branch meetings is effectively bringing it to the attention of the branch members by default.” 13 December 2020 [Yes]
Did the Dublin Branch officers, having informed the member that they would not circulate proposals before meetings then go on to circulate, and include on the agenda, the following proposals submitted on 10 March for Branch meeting on 15 March 2021?:
Proposal 1
The Dublin Branch proposes that the National Executive Committee/Southern Area Committee established an Organisation, Planning and Strategy Advisory Group to assist in promoting the development of the party and in the presentation of our policies.
Proposal 2
Proposals/suggestions presented to the branch committee should – where possible – be circulated to all branch members before the next meeting takes place. The committee will exercise discretion in the event that content may be judged to be personal or insensitive. [Yes]
Did the Dublin Branch vote to reject both proposals? [Yes]
In the case of Proposal 2, did the Branch officers argue against what they had already done (circulating the proposals)? [Yes]
Did Branch officers and the meeting vote against circulating proposals in the future resulting in this position becoming Dublin Branch policy? [Yes]
Subsequently, did the Branch officers – in secret from the branch members – immediately go on to present a document on standing orders to the SAC that specifically contradicted both their stated positions and branch policy? [Yes]
In relation to Proposal 1 above, the proposals debated at the Dublin District Branch AGM (2021) constituted essentially the various approaches that had been promoted at various levels in the party since January, 2020. All such proposals from that member had been rejected, watered down or completely ignored. However, when proposed from another source, the concept of an organisation committee was now adopted at a branch level. Is this correct? [Yes]
The same advocates of the DCCC would then go on to reject a proposal presented to the Dublin Branch that the branch would recommend to the NEC the establishment of a similar organisation committee – the votes against that proposal included the vote of the General Secretary among other members of the SAC and the NEC. Is this an accurate reflection of what happened? [Yes]
Did the Dublin Branch officers fail to circulate two proposals submitted by the same member on 7 May, 2021? Is it correct that the proposals were not circulated nor included on the agenda nor discussed nor noted in the minutes of the meeting?:
Proposal 1
That this meeting requests the branch officers to rescind their threat of imposing disciplinary action against (named member) as contained in an email dated 30 April 2021.
Proposal 2
That this meeting requests the branch officers to answer or attempt to answer the questions I asked in an email dated 27 April 2021. [Yes]
Did the Dublin Branch officers fail to send the same member a copy of the subsequent secret accusations levelled against him in a letter to the SAC? (the content of that document was not disclosed until 25 August 2021). [Yes]
Is it correct that the branch members were never informed about, or consulted on, this unauthorised attack on another member? Is it correct that Branch members were not given a copy of the allegations? [Yes]
Did the Dublin Branch – having failed to put properly submitted proposals to the 2020 AGM – subsequently invite members to send in proposals for the 2021 AGM?
“As such, we are strongly encouraging all branch members to send in proposals for agenda items, motions or points of discussion, in particular if they are willing to speak to these at the AGM.”
(Notice from branch officers, 31 January 2021). [Yes]
Did the Dublin Branch enact this change following a decision of the Dublin Branch? [No]
Did the Dublin Branch circulate proposals submitted to the 2021 AGM despite the fact that the branch officers had decreed that this could not, and would not, be done? [Yes]
Did the Dublin Branch fail to invite the same member to the inaugural meeting of the Dublin Campaign Coordinating Committee (DCCC) despite (among other considerations) the fact that he met the criteria the branch itself had set down for inclusion in the inaugural meeting, that is, the inaugural meeting of the committee would comprise chairs of committees and persons “that could contribute significantly to this initiative.”? [Yes]
Did the Dublin Branch misrepresent the nature of a proposal submitted by the same member to the DCCC? [Yes]
Did the Dublin Branch in yet another gross and insulting instance declare that the same member refused to cooperate in any way with the committee or with one of its members in a letter to the SAC? [Yes]
Did the Branch officers fail to inform members attending branch meetings that they had issued a threat of disciplinary action against the same member. And, did they fail to inform members they were having a problem with another member and seek advice on how to handle the situation? [Yes]
Did the Dublin Branch officers block a proposal from another member in September, 2020 related to the Debenhams lockout? [Yes]
Did the Dublin Branch officers, by design or otherwise, attempt to corrupt the nomination process leading up to the 2021 Branch AGM? [Yes]
As a consequence of a member pursuing an explanation for the above, did the Dublin Branch officers – without consulting the branch members – initiate and send another secret unauthorised allegation of bullying against that member to the SAC? [Yes]
Following his resignation as Chairperson of the Ecology Group, did the Dublin Branch officers initiate and send an additional secret and unauthorised allegation of bullying to the SAC. [Yes]
Did the Dublin Branch officers act beyond their authority, ignore the branch members and fail to notify the member concerned about these activities? [Yes]
Epilogue:
If that litany of irregular activities, discriminatory and intimidatory attacks on members, secret activities, obstruction and flagrant breaches of their positions and of party democracy does not cause you concern then you are either in the right party or the wrong party depending on your position.
Add to that, the fact that these ‘officers’ decide what, if any, correspondence is shared with the membership. These ‘officers’ voted to oppose the sharing of correspondence with members and excluded even the concept of sharing correspondence from their secret standing orders document sent to the SAC.
Furthermore, while the new standing orders document that was circulated by the NEC contained a clause covering the issue of correspondence, this clause mysteriously disappeared (without explanation and buried deep in the bowels of a national newsletter) from the second and final standing orders document – the rules that now govern the conduct of branches.
Now, there is no requirement for any branch to disclose what correspondence is sent or received by the branch officers.
Still not concerned?