UKIP Uncovered

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

Wednesday, November 26, 2003

Birmingham Re-location Latest Letters

The following are two self-explanatory letters on the proposed move of Head Office from London to Birmingham from the Party Vice-Chairman, Damian Hockney, first to all UKIP Branch Chairmen, followed by the referenced letter to Chairman Lott.

Quote

Dear Branch Chairman

I am writing to you to attach a copy of my letter to Party Chairman David Lott of 26th November 2003 about irregularities and failure to consult over the attempted move of the party's Head Office to the estate agents' offices of the party's Deputy Leader. As you will see, no information at all has been provided to the NEC, the NEC was pushed into the move in a very questionable manner and it highly questionable to base our offices in the premises of an NEC member. None of us know the full nature of the deal and how much we will be paying and when. A lease or licence is a serious matter and selling the idea on the basis of some unspecified rent-free period does not alter the importance of dealing with the matter properly now. The party is open once more to legal challenge in the irresponsible manner in whichthe move has been planned.

Along with others, I have located excellent value-for-money offices in London (in Westminster and in the West End), and make clear in my letter to the Party Chairman that if the Deputy Leader is genuinely prepared to make a contribution to new offices, then he can do so in offices which are genuinely independent, and that I will be happy to match his generosity as it will assist the party.

Due to another unsound NEC decision, I am able to e-mail this to you as a branch chairman, but may not e-mail it to the Party Chairman himself or others on the NEC as it was agreed that "important information must not be communicated through e-mail between members of the NEC".

I urge you to read my letter to David Lott and to contact me with any queries you may have.

Kind regards

Damian Hockney
Vice Chairman, UK Independence Party
and Chairman of UKIP Kensington & Chelsea

Unquote

-----------------------------------------

The referenced letter to David Lott follows:-

Quote

LETTER TO DAVID LOTT FROM DAMIAN HOCKNEY

David Lott Esq
Party Chairman
UK Independence Party 25th November 2003
54 Broadwick St
LONDON
W1F 7AH

Dear David

MOVE OF PARTY HEAD OFFICE - LEGALITIES

I am writing to you about the very serious issues which have arisen in the wake of the recent secretly planned move of the party¹s head office.

At the 10th November meeting of the party's National Executive Committee, there was a surprise motion to quickly move the party's head office out of London to an office within the estate agents' offices of the party's Deputy Leader Mike Nattrass. No written proposal was given to the NEC and the verbal details provided were sketchy. No mention was made of the impact on existing staff, volunteers, meetings in London or stock of merchandise, among other things.

I myself knew nothing about this proposal, the agenda for the meeting contained no reference to it at all (and was in any event only received by myself and other members on the morning of the meeting itself) and a large number of other members of the NEC, and indeed the General Secretary, have also made it clear that they knew nothing about this plan. Those charged in September with looking for offices, Deputy Leader Mike Nattrass and Party Secretary Derek Clark, have clearly failed to do what was required - to locate a series of alternatives, in order for the NEC to discuss these.

CLAIMS THAT THE PARTY WILL BE BARRICADED OUT OF ITS OFFICES

Further, members of the NEC were pushed into believing that the party might be barricaded out of its offices if the party did not make an immediate decision. The statement about barricading us out of our offices was made by NEC member ****: he made this claim twice when proposing the move to Birmingham. It was **** own company, ----, which granted the licence of those current offices to the party lasting until March 2004.

If it is true that we are to be barricaded out of our own offices, as he claims, then he needs to answer some serious questions as he was responsible for arranging the license.

PARTY OFFICES MUST BE INDEPENDENT

This situation over the party's current offices in itself proves the lack of wisdom of being dependent upon an NEC member to provide office space on a "deal". If an NEC member grants a licence to the party and then announces to the party's NEC that it is likely to be barricaded out of those offices before the end of the term he has granted, stampeding them into another unsuitable deal, then it proves the need for independent stand-alone offices
taken up by the party which are dependent upon no one individual's grace and goodwill.

Mike Nattrass's estate agents' offices do not therefore offer the solution.

No details or costs are known to the NEC. As you know, when I initially asked for the deal on paper at the NEC I was refused. Nothing - not a scrap of paper - was available at the NEC. After heated discussion, including an initial refusal to supply anything in writing, it was finally agreed that - figures will be provided on costs and benefits' (Minute 4c).

I must say I am not surprised that over two weeks later, not a single piece of paperwork has yet been provided to the NEC about this intended move.

NEC MISLED OVER DETAILS

No terms, no conditions. No details of rent, no details of rent free period. No draft licence, No costings of the move. Nothing. This is irresponsible, and is against the normal and lawful operation of an unincorporated body where members of the management body the NEC have been not given due and proper information. I am sorry to say I also have firm evidence that we have also been purposely misled. Indeed, the fact that such a move was planned in
secret, with no information given to many members of the management body, and in spite of the fact that meetings of the NEC had taken place where this could have been considered, makes it against the lawful operation of such a body.

Much was made of a "rent free period" being offered, but rent free periods are negotiated as a matter of course in many office situations. In any event, there is no certainty as to what this rent free period is: as you remember, Mike Nattrass changed it during the course of the meeting. This is highly irregular. We do not know whether the offices are suitable, whether
Mike Nattrass has tried to let them already, why they are vacant, or indeed what is the liability for the rates.

This move was presented as a cost-saving exercise, but that is simply misleading and untrue. Any savings made in a specific aspect of such a move - not in any event specified or costed at the meeting - are going to be offset completely by other costs which include:

MASSIVELY INCREASED EMPLOYEE COSTS

1 There will be massively increased costs in paying the travel and occasional accommodation for staff who are currently in place - this will be at least £10,000 per year. You cannot simply hope that you can just discard the existing staff like old toys. Their rail travel will have to be paid, as will overnight accommodation in many circumstances where they have to work
late. And any proposed move has to factor in the relocation costs of existing staff. This particular matter could run into tens of thousands of pounds. No plan as to employment of existing staff has been disclosed

CLAIMS FOR CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL

2 Alternatively, there will be grounds for claims for constructive dismissal, as it has become clear that one of the aims of the move is for some NEC members to take control of the administrative functions and finances of the party and to get rid of those who operate the party HQ in a genuinely impartial manner according to the party constitution. There is a
documented history of specious and unsubstantiated complaints by yourself, the Party Secretary Derek Clarke and others against certain officials, and you have an explosive and very expensive situation waiting to blow up in this continuing and divisive campaign against party officers, just at the time we need to concentrate on the European Elections campaign. I remind you of your e-mail to regional organisers in August, not copied to the General
Secretary, soliciting complaints against the head office staff. It is unlikely that the party will win such legal action if taken against it, and the costs in any event will run into tens of thousands of pounds. In light of its record on employment matters, I have no confidence in the party leadership to handle this matter, or in its cavalier attitude towards the obligations that all reasonable employers must have towards their staff.

In addition, no provision has been made for the cost of recruiting and training new staff who will inevitably not be as efficient as existing staff.

LEGAL ACTIONS ARISING FROM UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS

3 Because this planned move has not been properly considered by the NEC, and no paperwork has been presented, members of the NEC could stand accused of making reckless decisions and open themselves to legal actions. Proper consideration is needed, including costed alternatives.

50 PER CENT OF PARTY WORK DONE BY VOLUNTEERS

4 At present, roughly 50 per cent of the work at Head Office is done by volunteers, and a well-trained capable base of them has been established. No hint has been given of the names and details of those who could take the place of these valuable party members in Birmingham. To ignore the necessity and value of this existing resource of about 25 flexible people and the history of its development will mean that the party will have to pay more
money, and very soon, for more full time paid employees and for the cost of recruiting and training them.

STAFF NEVER CONSULTED

5 Against both common practice and employment laws, the staff have never been consulted of the move, just informed after the event. Do you seriously think this is the correct way to treat loyal hardworking and valuable staff? Would you like this treatment to be given to yourself?

ADMINISTRATIVE CHAOS

6 Administrative chaos will come in many ways, but is typified by the following incident. It became clear almost immediately after the NEC on 10th November that it would not be easy to run the merchandising operation from Birmingham, and pressure for an office in London to run this operation was immediately made within 24 hours of the decision. This is a typical example of the law of unintended consequences arising from secrecy and lack of consultation. It will lead to greater costs, lower efficiency and dislocation between functions which currently run smoothly.

NEED TO INDEMNIFY THE PARTY

I am therefore writing to you to make clear that the NEC must review this decision, and those who wish to continue along this course must indemnify the party against any employment claims, and all financial losses.

On the occasion when you, the Party Leader Roger Knapman, Nigel Farage, Party Secretary Derek Clark and others acted wrongly over the Party Treasurer, I myself paid the legal bills to restore order to the party and I generously did not ask others, even those responsible, to contribute. I will not do that on this occasion and I will not accept the Party paying the
bills either. It is time that those who are breaking our rules, and indeed the law, take responsibility for their actions.

NEW OFFICES LOCATED IN LONDON

In conjunction with others, I have recently placed the need for party offices on the commercial market in London, and we have located, very quickly, suitable offices in the heart of Westminster, in Whitehall, London SW1, at the centre of where government operates. The price of them is similar to what we are currently paying - £13,000 per year - and the
landlords will put in place partitions etc as part of the deal.

These however are not the only offices available. There are other larger ones we have located, many offices are available in the West End at £10 per sq ft because of the lowering demand in the wake of the unfortunate Congestion Charge, and these offices all have the benefit of being independent. They have no financial connection with an NEC member, and the party can take up a lease and deal with it in a professional manner. All are available for occupation before the end of the year.

If the Deputy Leader is genuinely in generous mood and wishes to make a 'kind offer' then maybe he can offer a contribution towards the annual rent of a truly independent office, based at the heart of government, on a no-strings basis. Indeed if he does, I will match his offer.

Any proposed savings in rent concerned are tiny in comparison with, for example, the £60,000 overspend on the Scottish and Welsh elections which you personally authorised outside of your remit, without the knowledge of the NEC, and which is a key reason for our current financial difficulties.

DECISION TO BAN E-MAIL MAKES PARTY LAUGHING STOCK

It is also outrageous that you should send me a fax effectively telling me not to tell the truth to party members on this matter, and threatening me with yet more discipline proceedings for telling the truth concerning the ultra vires action of the NEC. Unfortunately your attempt to hide the facts by passing a resolution telling NEC members not to communicate by e-mail has been widely recognised for what it is - an attempt to hide facts, deny information, and to make unaccountable decisions. As you know, the party has been made a laughing stock - right across the internet - by this resolution, with members and others asking if UKIP has reverted to quill pens yet, and whether it is planned to confiscate all members' computers as a condition for joining the party or standing for the NEC.

OBLIGATIONS OF PARTY OFFICIALS TO INFORM NEC

In all of this, there appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding by yourself and the others I have mentioned of the party constitution and rules and how the executive body of an unincorporated association must act with due care and not recklessly. It was clear at the time in May that you found it difficult to understand how offensive and against the rules it was when you attempted to discipline the Party Treasurer for providing the facts to
NEC members about the Scottish and Welsh overspend. Not only was he entitled to provide this information when asked, but he was legally obliged to do so as well. For him to have acted on your orders and denied the information to the NEC would have resulted in him breaking the law. Do you think it is right that the Party Treasurer should have been threatened with his position for providing details of serious financial problems to members of the NEC who themselves are financially personally liable?

You and others genuinely appear not to understand the gravity of the situation. If we are trying to establish a political higher ground based upon the legitimacy of democracy, it is not a good start if our leading officials break our own rules, or indeed the law.

You must now take the following action:

EITHER

You will withdraw this unconstitutional move, which is not based upon properly written analysis and costings, immediately institute proper consultation widely within the party, including the office staff, make clear that you will not attempt to remove the party offices and records to the offices of another NEC member and undertake not to oppose the securing of
the best value accommodation in London.

OR

You will confirm that you will personally indemnify the party against the legal consequences of the move, including all financial losses and possible legal costs in dismissing staff and of any further legal actions required to restore order and legality to the party.

Yours sincerely

Damian Hockney
Unquote

posted by Martin |7:40 PM