Reforms to the national organisation
For several months the Conservative Future National Management Executive has been looking at reforms for the national structure of the organisation.
At the monthly meeting of the NME on Saturday 13th September we voted in favour of a basic structure of these reforms, which are enclosed below in a document. This structure is only a basic plan; at the next meeting we will be ‘fleshing’ out the details (on the functions of the various roles & how they will be elected) once further discussion has taken place between the NME members and the membership of Conservative Future.
Have a look at the document below. There is an FAQ in the back, but if you have any more questions then leave a comment below in this post – an NME member will then answer it for you.
More importantly if you have any feedback about the reforms then please comment below. We will take any comments or feedback into consideration at the next meeting.
Related posts:
I like the idea of NME > RC > AC > Branch – it gives strong channels to move comments and requests through the organisation. However, I do no like the “AC optional” approach.
In Wiltshire & Dorset, at the time I became AC, there were two branches – Dorset East (Bournemouth/Poole/Christchurch area) and Swindon. As AC I considered my primary goal to establish more branches and this meant that my first year has been based around a membership review and subsequent drawing up of a branch structure for the Area. This has lead to five new branches being tabled of which three are now up and running.
This structure is in place so that branches support one another and work together. If I have branches voting to “leave” the Wilts & Dorset Area then that weakens the overall structure. By having an AC in place, it allows us to continue developing the Area but under these proposals, branches can vote away the AC part of the structure which would either leave the Area to stagnate or put more workload onto the RC who may not have any real interest in that Area.
So, in summary, adding RCs is a great idea but don’t give branches the power to alter the STRUCTURE by removing ACs altogether.
I am not immediately for or against the proposals in any way as of yet, however a couple of thoughts spring to mind on reading the document:
First, if there are any areas where there are too many Area Chairman, “We recognise the important role Area Chairman play, but not every area of the country needs this same format”, why not simply increase the size of the region that Area Chairmen are responsible for and simultaneously remove one of the Area Chairman positions in that region.
I also disagree with “It’s all about giving power back to the members who know much better what works for them locally, and not sticking with a rigid structure at the most important support level”. I genuinely don’t think members themselves know or care who is responsible for them above their branch Chairman, as long as their own branch is good and active. I would be interested to know how this viewpoint has come to light.
Furthermore, the idea of the “local members” choosing whether they want an AC is quite frankly bizarre- why would it matter to them? Surely it is up to the branch Chairmen in that Area to decide, not the members of the branches. I fear that these reforms could be an unnecessary distraction to the work of current ACs.
Nevertheless, I do agree that Area Chairman are not needed in some areas and that a regional figure would be more appropriate. However I think we must think carefully about the fact that a Regional Chairman would often have to travel large distances to visit branch Chairmen, and due to the volunteer nature of CF, this may be an unfair hardship to place upon them.
I hope this comments can be read constructively.
1. Very sensible offering some form of recompensatory remuneration for expenses such as travel costs, this is wholly necessary if the Regional Chairman function is to be successful.
2. RC’s as a successful measure to reduce London centric organisation, very appropriate way to prevent us from just being seen as the youth branch of the Notting Hill set, or Sloanie Army!
3. Concern that all the quibbling should have remained behind closed doors. Such a public process is unhelpful for obvious reasons, yet alone the fact it belies our primary purpose.
Paul, anonymous & Tory Hyaena
Thank you for the feedback – keep it coming!
We will take your views on board at the next meeting.
PAUL
- We are not saying the Area postion is optional, rather flexible. We believe in this level, but we want to offer a flexibility of how it works and is setup. In your area it clearly does work and would probably stay the same. Other areas need more help at this level, some need less.
- In terms of the branches discision in the AC level we had not yet worked how this will work – any suggestions you have are very welcome. We don’t want branches voting to ‘leave’ the Area, rather them working to choose a setup that will help and support them.
ANONYMOUS
- Having RC’s working with branches to choose a setup for the AC level means these decisions over areas can be made at a local level, that will work much better than the current NME at a national level.
- In terms of your 2nd point we want feedback on the decision method at a branch level. The current method used involves members giving comments to the branch Chairman who then votes once he has made a choice. Do you think we should stick with that?
- It is also hoped that pushing the decision making to local levels will help to make more members interested in the struture above them.
- As is stated in the introduction of the document we are negotiating money for travel expenses, so that RC’s can effectively cover their regions.
TORY HYAENA
- As we say, and you support, one of the main reasons for these reforms is to knock down the London centric structure. RC’s will have to be on the electoral roll in the region they want to represent.
- The quibbling has been regretable. We only hope that these constructive current comments continue here as members discuss the finer detail of these reforms.
Thanks again for the comments – please come back to me if you have any issues from what I have written.
Richard
Can any CF member attend the monthy NME Meeting? If so what are the future dates/times/locations of such future meetings?
Alex,
At present members do not attend NME meetings. Normally we meet every 4-6 weeks although constitutionally we should only meet 3 times a year.
Although we want feedback on the reform proposals we do also want comments regarding this issue – should members be allowed to ’sit in’ during meetings?
In the meantime please leave any comments here you have about the reforms – there will also be several opportunites for members to chat with the Exec at Party Conference
Thanks for the comments so far. We are listening, and will take views very much on board when we finalise the way forward – so please keep them coming in.
Personally, the new structure in theory is a positive one – I do like the change for RCs, and the fact that you must be on the electoral register for the area doesn’t necessarily preclude the best outside of the region applying – providing they travel a lot!
I do believe that there MUST be a one member, one vote election process for Chairman AND RC’s. This is vital and without such a process would result in a severe backlash in the form of active members abandoning the CF movement.
With regards AC’s, it’s dependent on what branches want. If branches want no involvement over the area, they won’t want an AC. That said, I do believe that it should be an “opt-out” aspect of CF – AC’s remain in place, until such a point that groups of branch chairmen say otherwise.
I’m sure these are well-intentioned and I am happy somebody is trying to wrestle CF away from the London clique it so often falls into the hands of, however I do have some concerns about these proposals.
Mainly we need to know what criteria the decision that an area has too many area chairmen will be taken on. Local members realistically are never going to take these decisions, and in some areas (such as mine) we barely have any activity outside of Universities and a few friendship groups, so these references to developed branch structures is rhetorical. If the NME make some of these decisions based on marginal seats, amounts of members or on branch numbers then I somewhat fear we will be shooting ourselves in the foot. Where I live in North Yorkshire we have had some trouble filling vacancies for area chairmen as we have in West Yorkshire; these are crucial battleground areas where we need to drum up support, cutting CF representation to say a Yorkshire ‘regional chairman or coordinator’ would be disasterous, and a clear sign that the people in charge have no idea about politics in the north (or how big places are for example). In most regions of the north the AC would then be decided by one branch, as some have amazing memberships whilst others struggle, in effect this would cement the dominance of one branch and leave others floundering or unable to start up. You’d have an AC for Shipley (a seat we already have), with no need to help anybody in Bradford, Halifax or Leeds where we need to take seats.
In theory it is a good idea to spread internal democracy, but we’ve always been the party that do this in a practical sense which enables us best to win a general election. Let’s not become the Lib Dems! I applaude the attempt to move to a more local way of decision-making, which ties in very nicely with our ideology, though it’s a shame it couldn’t have been done in a more thoughtful way.
I agree with the need for ‘reform’ of a sort, however I think we have the framework in place to make CF a success already.
Area Chairmen are the answer. The reason they are not as effective as they could be is simply that they are not utilised by the national exec – and that’s not a dig at the incumbents, it’s a historic problem.
The counter argument is that most ACs don’t put any effort in during their terms, but it’s circular: Give them real responsibility and empower them; the job is seen in a much more serious light; ACs improve.
In most cases, e.g. campaigns and social action, ACs could and should be heavily involved with the national exec portfolio holder with these matters in their own Areas. There was a lot of talk about making everything more local, and therefore more relevant at the last CF elections, but we still have ‘national’ campaign days and a national social action project. For many people these are simply to difficult to travel to and not relevant.
So my ‘reform’ is thus: Keep CF as it is, but run lots of campaign days, social action projects and student life meets, on a local level, with the AC and the NME working closely together. These events would not even be smaller, we’ve seen time and time again that local events attract just as many people as ‘national’ days if well organised.
Other benefits would follow, not least massively improved communication meaning we shouldn’t see the sort of palava these reforms have attracted in CF again.
These reforms render ACs impotent and serve only to make the job even more of a non-entity. Leaving aside the fact this goes against the promise we were made that the reforms would not effect ACS, this is a disastrous mistake for us to take.
I would like to make the following observations about the proposed reforms of CF:
1 – I fully support the proposed change of having regional co-ordinators, who must be on the electoral role in that area. Having representation from across the country on what will for all intents and purposes be the NME by another name can only be for the good.
2 – I cannot agree however that these positions can be decided by any other process that that which is currently used for the NME ie. one member, one vote. To have such important positions appointed threatens to destroy the legitimacy of CF in the eyes of the individual branch members. We go ahead with any other option at our peril.
3 – Area Chairman are, and should always remain, a permanent and vital part of the CF structure. Having read the above post I do not feel that I can add much to this point than what has been stated by Matt Lewis. I would however note that AC’s will never be able to function properly unless they have adequate administrative support (full database of members in their area, contact details of all branches, etc), and some funding to enable them to visit and meet all of the individual branches.
On a separate note it would be interesting to see exactly how much work has been done by our administrative officer Mr Lunn. We seem to be paying an awful lot of money for very little in return. I for one would like to see a fully audited report of exactly what work has been done during his period of employment so that we may properly assess whether the money is being put to good use.
Another point:
CF’s structure should mirror as closely as possible that of the national party. There are too often breakdowns in communication as it is, without us offsetting the structure.
Richard, Joe, Matt and Matthew – thanks for the comments. These will be considered at the next meeting.
A few points:
- The main part of these reforms is the replacement of the RC’s instead of the NME. This seems to very popular and will help to break the London bubble.
- We are looking at the election process due to trying to save money on the cost of the elections (an online system is the most reasonable new way of doing the elections). We also want (as Matt supports) to mirror the Party as much as possible. The suggestion of a ‘body’ voting system for the national positions is to mirror the election process of the National Convention, the top level of the voluntary Party.
- We are still looking at the election procedure and will certainly take your views on board.
- We are not scapping the ACs, rather allowing the RC’s and branch chairman to decide the level of supoort needed on an ‘area’ basis. This will actually make the AC level far more effective.
- Changing the rigid structure of the AC’s is to give more flexibility and power to the branch chairman. We have not decided on the criteria for this and any ideas you have are welcome?
Thanks – keep the feedback coming!
Richard
Leave your response!
Archives
Categories
CF’s networks
Meta
Authors
Blogroll
Links
Search
Recent Comments
Most Commented
Recent Posts