Critique of OoO Motion for a New Green Party Constitution

A Brief Critique of the Out of Order Proposed Constitution, and why a Revised Constitution is needs as an alternative

When the Transition Team started its work, following the Holistic Review and party wide ballot, it wanted to have a constitution that was as short as possible. The United States of America constitution is short, but it fulfills everything that a constitution needs to: it identifies the governance structures, how people are elected into roles on them, how they are to be controlled, and what powers they have; it outlines some rules for how the parts of the organisation run and those guiding the relationship between the centre and it constituent parts; it sets out the purpose of the organisation, the responsibilities of the individuals or groups in positions of governance and the mechanism by which the purposes of the organisation are to be achieved.

It is not unreasonable to expect that those elements would be present in any constitution proposed to conference. Unfortunately they were not all included in previous proposals from the Transition Team, which is why Standing Orders Committee ruled them out of order - they simply did not constitute a constitution! Efforts have been made to try to correct this problem, but the Constitution Working Group have now tried to do so by adding all of the subsidiary documents into the Constitution. The subsidiary documents include all the Standing Orders from bodies and groups within GPEW, as well as the separate constitutions of Wales Green Party, the Association of Green Councillors and the Young Greens. There is no indication as to whether or not any of these documents have been amended from the current ones. Inclusion of these Constitutions and Standing Orders in the GPEW Constitution makes that document longer – now over 120 pages – but more significantly, it will require a two-thirds majority at Conference to alter them, and no changes in any of these documents can be made for two years after a ballot.

All the necessary elements of a constitution are there in our current Constitution, and also in the Revised Constitution proposed in motion D01. Just as the Constitution of the US House of Representatives, has been amended over the two hundred and thirty odd years since ratification, so ours has been amended over the years. Members voted in the ballot of 2018 to keep the constitution largely as it is, and to just change what needs to be changed. D01 delivers on that, but there are still quite significant changes proposed, partly due to the requirements of incorporation, but also to deliver on the wishes of members consulted in the Holistic Review.

Standing Orders are concerned with the way in which a body decides to carry out its functions. Usually Standing Orders are managed by that particular body but they are subsidiary to the constitution; they may require a particular route for formal agreement, either by another body, or by the whole organisation. They are not part of a constitution which is why motion D01 does not include them; the motion does however make provision for Standing Orders to be written or reviewed during the transition period up to 1st January 2022, if Conference and then a ballot, approves the Revised Constitution. Motion D01 tasks GPRC with this work, and it would be sensible to consider the Standing Orders documents that the CWG has produced when drafting these documents.

Standing Orders Committee found 37 Out of Order sections in the CWG motion and the new constitution as proposed, before deeming that it was not a good use of their volunteer time to consider what further Out of Order sections there may be. The main reasons that SOC ruled the CWG motion Out of Order were ambiguity or vagueness. It is clear that there are several contradictions within the documentation which they are presenting as a whole constitution, and this would lead to confusion for GPEW governance in the future.  It is very unfortunate, but the conclusion for members who read those documents must be that it is simply unworkable as a constitution.

In contrast, Standing Orders Committee have ruled the D01 motion in order. Furthermore, the revised constitution it proposes has been assessed as workable by the party’s Governance consultant. After several years of debate at conferences, many hours of volunteer time, not to mention expenditure by the party, members deserve to have a workable constitution proposal agreed by the Extraordinary Conference to put to a ballot for the whole membership to finally decide. Motion D01 can deliver that; the CWG Out of Order motion cannot without a major restructuring, a complex task, which conference should not be expected to carry out.

Ann Forsaith
Leeds City Councillor
Green Party Regional Council (GPRC) Representative for Yorks & Humber
Former Co-ordinator, Yorks & Humber Green Party