UKIP Uncovered

UKIP Uncovered
What motivates the leaders of the United Kingdom Independence Party?

Wednesday, May 28, 2003

The illegality of the disbandment of the Yorkshire and North East Regional Committees

On the 15th April 2003 a solicitors letter was sent to the UK Independence Party Leader, Chairman and Secretary pointing out the legal case as to why the disbandment of the two Northern UKIP Regional Committees was considered neither legal nor constitutional. In view of the amount of time that has now passed without any sign of sensible resolution; it now seems necessary to detail the matter for visitors to this Blogspot.

Quote

Solicitor's letter 15th April 2003.

Dear Sirs,

We are instructed that you have purported to disband those two Committees for reasons which are not fully clear at this moment in time.

We are instructed to advise you that we consider that disbandment to be both unlawful and unconstitutional.

We say that for a number of reasons.

Firstly if the conduct of either Committee is in question then that should be a disciplinary matter and should be referred to the Discipline Panel
under the provision of Rule 15.1 of the Party Constitution as amended in January 2001. No such referral has taken place.

Secondly if this is not a disciplinary matter then any such dispute should be resolved by an independent committee or panel. This has not happened.

Thirdly the Committees have not been given any opportunity to put their case before any meeting or any panel and therefore their case has simply not been heard.

Fourthly there has been no investigation of any alleged complaints. We have had the benefit of seeing an e-mail from ****** to ###### (the Party Secretary) with #####'s responses dated the 31 August 2002 and the 3 September 2002 respectively. ******* considered that Rule 1.3 was too draconian indicating that there was no mechanism for a Regional Committee to make representations or to appeal to any independent body. #####'s response was to this effect "should it ever happen there would be an investigation in which the Regional C or Branch C would have their say." That has not happened.

Finally we are instructed to suggest that the leadership is acting in bad faith in the way that it has handled this matter and the way that it has
treated a properly elected Committee. Indeed we are instructed that attempts are being made to set up successor Committees without any elections which must be unconstitutional and against the spirit of the Party.

Please note that although we refer to the above matters, we reserve the right to raise others if necessary.

We are therefore writing to you to suggest that you should immediately set aside this purported disbandment and establish a means of resolving this dispute which would allow at the very least the hearing of objections and representations from the Committees.

If you agree to that course of action please confirm by return and please write to all appropriate Committees and members of the Party indicating that this is to be done to prevent any further misunderstanding.

Finally for the avoidance of any doubt, if it is the case that it is alleged that our Client Committees have broken any of the Party?s rules then will you please specify the particular rules in questions and outline each and every alleged breach.

You will appreciate that this is a matter of great concern to the Committees as it must be to the Party as a whole and therefore we would be grateful if you could respond to matters raised in this letter as soon as possible to prevent matters escalating further.

Unquote

The Party Secretary's Reply

UKIP Party Secretarry's reply dated 24th April 2003

In further reply to your letter of April 15th 2003 I can now comment on your various points. To assist you I enclose copies of the Party Constitution, Regional Committee (RC) Rules, the Euro Election Committee (EEC) Rules, Selection Process for MEP Candidates and other material.

The Regional Committees of the North East and of Yorkshire & Humberside are now disbanded. The reasons given below are known to the members of these former committees.

Relevant background/EEC decisions

At first meeting of the EEC, Feb 15th 2002, it was decided to establish the final MEP list in each region by a postal ballot of members.

At the EEC meeting of August 30th 2002, with Mr ****** present, the document, “The Selection Process for MEP Candidates” was circulated and accepted. This document makes it clear that only those candidates who have been approved by the Party’s national interviewing panel may be considered by the regions. At the same time it laid down that regional committees can not un-approve any candidate, their function is to produce a short list from among those approved MEP candidates who have nominated that region as either first or second choice, giving all candidates equal consideration.

It is also stated that the short list numbers are to be the number of MEP seats (n) in a region plus three. The postal vote then establishes a merit order of 1-n, plus 1st, 2nd & 3rd reserve.

At the EEC meeting of Feb 7th 2003 motion was passed, “... regional committees which do not need to short list (shall) not be permitted to disqualify approved candidates on the national list”. This was approved nem com.

North East Regional Committee. At the EEC meeting of April 26th 2002, the North East Chairman opposed the decision for final MEP candidate selection by postal voting. He was supported by the Yorks rep only and the original decision about postal voting was duly endorsed.

On March 8th 2003 the N. East RC held a committee meeting and, in a telephone conversation with the Party Chairman later that day, their then Chairman said that the N. East committee had decided not to accept postal voting; they would make alternative arrangements. The Party Chairman gave until 6.00 pm the following day to rescind. This was forthcoming, verbally, but the three principal committee officers then mailed an undated letter (copy encl) to those members who had attended the candidates hustings, also held on March 8th, asking them to express a written view as to who their number one candidate should be.

This was held to be a retraction of the verbal undertaking of March 8th and to be an attempt to circumvent and obstruct the postal vote of members. The committee was then suspended pending an enquiry.

An attempt to resolve the issue was made on March 17th when ++++++, the General Secretary and Returning Officer for the MEP list elections, with myself, travelled to Middlesborough to meet the N. East committee to discuss the issue. Their next hustings had been arranged for that evening, 7.30 pm, and we invited them to meet us at 5.30 pm at the same venue. Only one committee member turned up, although several committee members did attend the hustings.+++++ and myself attempted to speak to them after the hustings when those present repeated their objection to postal voting. It proved to be an unproductive meeting.

Yorkshire & the Humber Yorkshire has seven MEP seats so that their required short list is ten.

On or about Monday March 10th the Yorkshire secretary called me to enquire about the number of candidates on his regional list. After consulting the Returning Officer I was able to inform him that there were exactly ten, the required number. This was disputed, Yorkshire insisted that they had 13.

It transpired that they were counting two candidates who had Yorkshire as their second choice, but who had withdrawn having found themselves on the short list for their first choice region. There was also a misunderstanding on all sides with a certain David xxxxxx (Yorkshire) being confused with a David yyyyyy (East Midlands). Both were believed to be putting their names forward but neither filled in the necessary form, and neither could have done so for they joined the Party in 2003, after the closing date for receipt of MEP applications, which was Nov 30th last.

The Yorkshire RC have refused to accept this situation, insisting on short listing and reducing their list to less than ten by rejecting three nationally approved candidates. They had tried to reject one of the latter by resolution at the EEC meeting of Dec 6th 2002 but were defeated. The committee was suspended pending an enquiry.

Investigations and/or Consultations

The above account indicates to you that attempts have been made to resolve these situation but they have been met with refusals to accept the rules for establishing the MEP candidate lists. In the first place these two RCs were suspended after consulting the members of the EEC. Investigations into these suspensions were conducted by the NEC.

On Friday March 21st 2003 there was an Emergency NEC meeting, attended by all but two members. The Yorkshire Chairman was present, being an NEC member in her own right, and she received support from two or three of the NEC members present. This meeting endorsed the suspension of the two Rcs, but provided a mechanism whereby they could be reinstated.

It was decided to ask all these committee members to sign a document (copy enclosed) whereby they would accept the rules for the adoption of the MEP candidate lists and agree to support legitimate candidates. The NEC would have reinstated these two Rcs on Monday, April 7th, had their signed agreements been returned by noon that day. I have to inform you that the only responses were three from the N.East and two from Yorkshire, with the Yorkshire Chairman sending a refusal to do so.

April 7th was the date of the next regular NEC meeting whan a report of the situation was given. After further prolonged discussion the NEC decided that there was no option but to disband the North East RC and the Yorkshire RC, with effect from that date.

A meeting of the EEC on Friday, April 11th, also endorsed the action. The disbandment of the two Rcs has therefore been agreedf to by their peers. (See below).

Following the disbandments, communications purporting to be from the Regional Committees have been mailed to Party members in these two regions. This is an unauthorised use of the Party Data Base, whereby holding names and addresses of members is covered by the Data Protection Act. These former committees have now committed an offence under the Act.

It follows that these former committee members must surrender these data bases, monies and any other relevant material to those legitimate Party Officers who request them. Use of regional, or branch, UK Independence Party funds to settle any accounts not incurred before suspension would be unauthorised.

Further Points

The Party constitution came into force following an approving postal vote of members in 1998, likewise amended January 2001. It requires all members to accept the constitution and Party rules. It establishes the Standing Orders Committee (SOC) which formulates rules and constitutional changes. It describes the NEC as the highest management committee, empowered to authorise the establishment of other groups of members. See 7.6, that the NEC is elected by the whole Party, likewise the Party Leader, 8.3

Among the rules instituted are those for regional committees. Please see 1.3, that the NEC may disband Rcs. The Rcs were set up in their current format last autumn when committee members received copies of the rules. No RC member has made any formal complaint about the rules, except Mr ******.

The EEC was set up in January 2002 and formed its own rules, which were scrutinised by the SOC and approved by the NEC. Please see rule 3, voting membership. The NEC Political Committee is four members, but there are eleven regions, giving the chairmen of the later much the greatest weight of vote between them.

It is then, quite simply, that most members of two Regional Committees have been attempting to depart from the rules which they themselves helped to make. In doing so they are failing to support the constitution and it is they who have acted in bad faith. Their attempted disregard for the rules came in the stages immediately prior to the postal vote, threatening to ruin fifteen months of work and careful planning.

Action was therefore taken as a matter of urgency to protect the integrity of our Euro Election Campaign. The other nine Regional Committees are all working enthusiastically within the rules. The leadership have a responsibility to the Party for protecting the Euro campaign, 2004, which they do not intend to neglect.

Yours sincerely,

Solicitor's Reply of 2 May 2003

Quote

Dear Mr #####

I thank you for your letter of the 24 April 2003 in response to mine of the 15th and now confirm I have my Clients instructions.

I am instructed that the Selection Process for MEP Candidates’ document was circulated during the August 2002 meeting of the EEC. It was neither discussed nor accepted by the EEC. The minutes for that meeting at paragraph 7 state: ‘Reports from $$$$$ circulated. Thoughts on these to be sent to$$$$$ in next two weeks’. In fact, the submissions were to be forwarded to $$$$$$ via ++++, and indeed they were. The fact that the minutes record that the regions were asked to comment on this very long draft report is clear evidence that the report had not been accepted.

The report is not even referred to in the subsequent EEC minutes.

It is patently untrue that this report was EEC policy.

However, it is recorded in the EEC minutes of April 2002 at paragraph 2(b)(b) that: ‘the proposed numbers for short-lists are a maximum figure’. This was in response to the situation which has caused the present crisis being anticipated. This was an agreed EEC decision and has never been rescinded.

The contents of the $$$$ draft report are therefore not binding and it is untrue that the Yorkshire region must have 10 candidates.

The relevance of the reference to the February 2003 meeting is unclear. Neither the North East (NE) nor Yorkshire regional committees have tried to disqualify candidates on the national list. What the NE and Yorkshire regional committees expect is to be able to interview and short-list their candidates as other regions have done and as per the EEC timetable.

North East & Yorkshire

Yorkshire did not need 10 candidates (this is dealt with above).

The Yorkshire secretary did not enquire about the number of candidates from you, on Monday 10th March or at any other time. You did not work at Head Office (HO) and you are not the returning officer. There was therefore no reason why such enquires would be directed to you. Furthermore, you were a candidate yourself and therefore not someone who should have been involved in the candidacy of others.

13 people did apply to be candidates in Yorkshire.

The Yorkshire region had concluded its interviews by the 10th March, bar one who was interviewed the following day.

David xxxxxx did apply to be a candidate. He applied at the same time as David zzzzzz following a meeting at the offices of ----- on the 3rd December 2002. He told **** that he had sent off his application form to HO. ****** spoke to ++++ at HO and was told by ++++ that an application form had been received from David xxxxx on the same day as one from David zzzz. At the subsequent EEC meeting on the 6th December 2002, ++++ distributed lists of the applicants to each region. The list for Yorkshire includes the name of David yyyy. At that time ***** did not know the correct spelling of David xxxx’s name and so there was no reason to raise any query.

There was no ambiguity regarding this. There was some considerable argument on the EEC regarding candidates who had not yet got their applications to HO. In Yorkshire, &&&&& had not done so, and he was treated differently from David xxxx (see the amended December minutes). ++++ was very clear that HO had received application forms from David xxxx and David zzzz, but not from &&&&. This is clearly recorded at paragraph 6 of the amended December 2002 EEC minutes.

You allege that ‘neither filled in the necessary form’. Clearly, this cannot be true. If neither yyyyy or xxxx had applied, then why did the name ‘yyyy’ appear on the Yorkshire list?

The closing date for nominations was extended due to the meeting with ---- on the 3rd December 2002. This was why David xxxx put in his application after the 30th November deadline, which had been extended without publication. For David yyyy to also apply to be a candidate for the Yorkshire region where he does not live, after the original 30th November deadline, and just happen to coincide his application for the same day as that of David zzzzz, and instead of David xxxx (who either was less than clear to **** or had his application lost in the post) is so fantastic a coincidence that it is not worthy of serious consideration.

It is untrue that the Yorkshire region tried to reject one of the applicants at the December 2002 EEC meeting. A letter, dated 16th February 2003 and headed ‘FOR THE RECORD’, was sent to ++++ about the minutes for the December meeting stating:-

“Regarding the latest set of EEC minutes for the 7th February and the revisions of the previous minutes, I would wish to place the comments on record.

My request that I be minuted regarding ^^^^^ ruling himself out is not as you have written it. What I said was that ^^^^ had made extremely derogatory comments against the Yorkshire region and the other proposed candidates to an important UKIP backer, and that by so doing he had ruled himself out as a candidate. I then asked that I be minuted upon this point.

The logic of this should be obvious. If ^^^^ is so contemptuous of the Yorkshire activists (many of whom he has never met or spoken to), and is prepared to risk alienating potential backers by involving them in his schemes, then he is clearly unsuitable to work as part of a team during the election campaign, and would be a disastrous MEP if he managed to secure that position.

Given the similar situation in the general election campaign in 2001 regarding ~~~~ and the total disaster of the so-called northern regional office which was responsible for the election addresses, then anyone who similarly wishes to impose ^^^^ on Yorkshire in any capacity is doing so with the full knowledge of the inevitable consequences. Such a person cannot be claiming to be acting in UKIP’s best interests’.

Investigations and/or Consultations

You allege that the Yorkshire Regional Committee ‘was suspended pending an enquiry’. They are unaware of anything taking place which could be called an enquiry, nor have they been informed of the findings of any such purported enquiry.

They are aware that !!!! has been ringing up some committee members
and threatening them with expulsion.

You were told before your visit to the North East on the 17 March 2003 that the Regional Chairman was abroad and that the other committee members would be unable to attend a meeting at 5.30 p.m.

The EEC has not been designated the power to suspend regional committees, and has no more power to suspend regional committees than has the conference steering committee.

The NEC meeting of the 21st March was not properly constituted. That meeting did not endorse the purported suspension by the EEC of the NE and Yorkshire regional committees.

The NEC did not decide to ask the two committees to sign any document. The terms of the document are not as set out by you, and you admitted that it was the non-signature of these documents which was the reason for the disbandment of the two regional committees.

The opinions of the EEC are irrelevant.

At no stage in this have the two regional committees been given any opportunity to defend themselves, nor do you allege that they have. They have been the victims of an orchestrated witch-hunt.

To say that the NEC had ‘no option but to disband’ the committees is clearly a nonsense.

The Yorkshire Regional Committee is registered itself under the Data Protection Act and has its own records. They are able to communicate with local UKIP members without your permission.

Further Points

I have to say that my Clients are surprised to see you citing the constitution and rules when my Clients consider that you have yourself broken those rules. The NEC is itself bound by the constitution and is not above it. The two Regional Committees have not ‘been attempting to depart from the rules’. It is the leadership who have ignored the rules.

I am now asked to bring various matters to you attention, effectively being a report on the actions which give rise to complaints against ????, //// and yourself (the Respondents)

1. The respondents broke the EEC rules relating to the selection of candidates in Yorkshire, in that three candidates (David yyyy, wwww and qqqq) were alleged by you (after the purported suspension of the two regional committees by the EEC) in a telephone conversation with **** to have withdrawn their candidacies for Yorkshire. This was alleged to have happened as a result of conversations between the candidates and you prior to the short-listing process in Yorkshire, and was kept secret from the Yorkshire Regional Committee. Also David xxxx, another candidate, told **** (after the emergency NEC meeting) that ???? had telephoned him and told him that there was an irregularity with his candidacy and that he should step down, which David xxxx agreed to do - again this was kept secret from the Yorkshire Regional Committee. These were clear instances of interference in the candidate selection process in Yorkshire by persons who were candidates themselves, which is against the EEC dictum that candidate selection should not involve other candidates. This was further an abuse of power and unwarranted interference by the leadership.

2. The respondents ignored the EEC appeal procedure, particularly as set out in the minutes of the 6th December 2002 at paragraph 2(b)(e), and did not give the defendant regions any proper notice of the complaints against them, or any opportunity to defend themselves.

3. The respondents ignored the EEC decision, set out in the minutes of the 26th April 2002 at paragraph 2(b)(a) that the EEC would only overrule a regional committee ‘in extremis’. The respondents initiated and pushed the EEC into overruling the NE and Yorkshire regions without good cause or reason and as a first resort by means of an untruthful e-mail and a selective telephone ring round by ????.

4. The respondents induced and encouraged the EEC to exceed its authority by trying to suspend the NE and Yorkshire regional committees. The EEC had not been designated this authority by the NEC as required by paragraph 1.3 of the Regional Committee Rules, as set out in the Party Rule Book. 1.3 states:

‘The NEC or designated subcommittee of the NEC will at their discretion from time to time review the powers, purposes, make-up and usefulness of any Regional Committee and vary or amend such powers, purposes and make-up or disband any Regional Committee in entirety according to circumstances’.

5. The respondents acted in breach of 6.1 of the Regional Committee Rules, as set out in the Party Rule Book. They intervened in the internal affairs of the NE and Yorkshire regional committees as a first resort and to prevent those committees resolving their difficulties themselves and/or to cause difficulties whereas otherwise none would exist. 6.1 states:

‘All difficulties arising on any Regional Committee which cannot be internally resolved shall be referred to the NEC or designated subcommittee of the NEC for resolution’.

6. The respondents broke the undertaking given by you as to one of the procedures for disbanding a regional committee, by not giving either the NE or Yorkshire regional committees any opportunity to respond to the allegations being made against them. You set out the procedure thus:

‘Should it (disbandment) ever happen there would be an investigation in which the Regional C or Branch C would have their say.’

7. The respondents broke 15.1 of the Party Constitution relating to discipline. It is clearly set out that the Discipline Panel is responsible for breaches of discipline and that the members of the NEC are strictly barred from being involved in this matter. The respondents induced and encouraged the EEC and NEC to set up shop as the Discipline Panel and act as prosecution, judge and jury in suspending/disbanding the NE and Yorkshire Regional Committees.

8. The respondents broke paragraph 1.1 of the Discipline rules as set out in the Party Rule Book. The respondents induced and encouraged the EEC and NEC to set up shop as the Discipline Panel and act, without any investigation, as prosecution, judge and jury in suspending/disbanding the NE and Yorkshire Regional Committees. Paragraph 1.1 states:

‘The Discipline Panel shall be responsible for investigating all matters that may result in the removal from office of an elected official of the Party or prospective candidate or the expulsion or suspension of a Party member from membership’.

9. The respondents broke paragraph 1.1 of the Discipline rules as set out in the Party Rule Book. The respondents induced and encouraged the EEC and NEC to eject from office roughly 20 elected Party officials and one candidate, cccc, had his candidacy terminated.

10. The respondents broke paragraph 7.14 of the Party constitution in that they induced and encouraged the NEC to call and proceed with an emergency meeting at less than 24 hours notice without setting out the motions to be debated.

11. The respondents have throughout acted in bad faith with a view to imposing their own favourite candidates on the NE and Yorkshire regions which is not a proper use of their position in the Party. By so doing, they have severely damaged the standing and effectiveness of UKIP in the NE and Yorkshire regions, if not the country as a whole.

So far as your letter generally is concerned it appears to me that you do not answer the question as to why, if the conduct of the two Regional Committees was a disciplinary matter, was not the matter referred to the Discipline Committee.

Nor do you answer why, if it was not a disciplinary matter, was there no hearing or enquiry by an independent panel.

You also do not explain why the two Regional Committees were never given any opportunity to put their case.

In particular, you do not explain why the procedure which you set out in your e-mail dated the 3rd September 2002 to **** was not followed. Likewise the EEC appeals procedure.

You also ignore the request that the purported disbandment be set aside, and I am disappointed that you do not offer any indication of a genuine willingness to end this dispute. My Clients are surprised at this and are surprised that you prefer to continue to misrepresent the rules and the facts rather than make a genuine attempt to resolve this dispute amicably. You must understand from the detailed nature of this response that my Clients are not prepared to accept what has happened and if a way forward cannot be determined for the resolution of this dispute then legal proceedings are going to be issued commencing with injunction proceedings to set aside the disbandment.

My Clients also instruct me to the effect that the current Postal Ballot is being conducted irregularly and insist that this be put on hold pending the resolution of the main dispute.

I therefore ask for your urgent responses and your proposals for the resolution of this dispute within the next seven days. Failing receiving a response from you or a response which will resolve the matter those proceedings will be inevitable.

I await to hear from you accordingly.

Yours sincerely

Unquote

The case seems as strong and as clear as it could be that the disbandment of the Northern Committees was neither legal nor constitutional.

It would appear that unless immediate reinstatement of the two committees is not made at next Monday's NEC meeting the wheels of justice will begin to slowly grind. As the party leadership is now discovering, with its past charman having to explain to the High Court the events surrounding the disqualification of a candidate in an earlier year NEC election, even fancy titles do not provide legal immunity.

The timing of an eventual hearing in about a year or so from now could well not be more disastrous for the electoral prospects of the party in either the 2004 European Parliamentary elections or the more important next General Election, particularly as some of those involved now also already figure as MEP Candidates. What a target to give to our opponents and what a disaster for those seeking Britain's EU withdrawal!

posted by Martin |8:49 AM

This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.

www Ukip Uncovered