London ESF 2004 takeover bid

international | anti-capitalism | opinion/analysis Monday February 16, 2004 18:20 by lish

This is constant and preventable by you.

The ESF may not take place in London due to extreme lack of cashfIow but if it does this is what we're looking at:

I just received the following mail about the London ESF meetings from an activist friend. It's a familiar litany of undemocratic, concensus-free, bullying decision making based on a phony

"we don't have time to discuss it so let's just agree in principle and then forget about it argument."

there are strategies to prevent this kind of takeover.
concensus is the strongest, as it allows those who don't usually speak to do so, alleviates the problem of one organisation sending multiple delegates and prevents professional ranters from hogging the floor by prioritising those who haven't already spoken, who often have experience and knowledge rather than a brass neck.

speaking out, refusing to be railroaded and not accept ing being called "divisive" for refusing to ratify a farce is also necessary.
"well of course you'd say that, you're a ..."( insert label).

there's a difference between front groups & organisations that could genuinely achieve something if not hijacked and salvaging them is a matter of getting involved and staying involved.
the Irish Social Forum for example has not been taken over because it's genuinely open and works by concensus and so isn't dominated by a loud majority, or minority.


The GLA referred to below is the Greater London Authority presided over by Ken Livingstone.


MINUTES OF UK ESF ORGANISING COMMITTEE MEETING 29 JANUARY

Dear friends

I attended the First Meeting of the so-called Organising Committee.
My record of the meeting is somewhat different from the minute-taker's. So that people have an alternative version so they can judge for themselves what happened, I add my version to the original minutes pasted below with a short introduction. Its not complete either, as I didn't take many notes as I was so busy arguing with people.
best
Stuart

Challenging the Official Minutes of the First Organising Committee, 29th January

1. Background
At the first (and last) UK Assembly for the ESF, 24th January 2003, a 'proposal' from a number of trade unions, NGOs and campaign groups to form a new Organising Committee/Assembly to organise the ESF 2004 London process was agreed to by a number of organisations, groups and networks.

The proposal had been originally signed by:
AMICUS
UNISON
UNISON Northern Region
SERTUC
RMT
CWU
NUJ (in principle)
Indian Workers Association
Asian Congress on Local Affairs
National Assembly Against Racism
Campaign to Defend Asylum Seekers
Globalised Resistance
Black Londoners Forum
National Black Alliance
National Black Students Alliance
1990 Trust
Liberation
Third World Solidarity
National Pensioners Convention
Help the Aged
The Travellers Law Reform Coalition
Consortium of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Voluntary and Community Organisations Newham Refugee and Homeless Families Forum

It was also opposed by many organisations, groups and networks. Therefor, there was no consensus in the room. A large vocal majority appeared to support the proposal and abused those who opposed it. The meeting had no representative structure: only if you knew about the meeting through email lists could you come - it was not publicly advertised - and there was no way of knowing how evenly spread the 223 'representatives' were. 200 could have been from one trade union or one political party, noone would have known but the 'voice' of the majority counted, even though that majority could have been made up of only a clique of groups.

Those that agreed to the proposal formed two types: (1) unconditional acceptance (2) acceptance subject to amendment/discussion of amendments.

It was agreed, although it was again not a consensus, that those who wanted to affiliate would sign their name and organisation and those that didn't accept the proposal in its present form should still affiliate 'subject to a discussion about amending the proposal' at the first meeting of the new 'Organising Committee'.

Redmond O'Neill of the GLA, and the chairs of the meeting accepted that people were signing up and not signing up on the understanding that at the first Organising Committee meeting, amendments and issues of concern raised at this meeting would be discussed. These included:
· the relationship of the existing working groups to the new Organising Committee
· the inability of individuals to affiliate to the Organising Committee · the disenfranchisement of groups unable to afford £50 to affiliate · the organisation of meetings and how to arrive at genuine consensus decision-making
· rotation of chairs/facilitators
· how the Organising Committee will actually function
· the feeling that money buys decision-making power
· the London-centricity of the process, disenfranchising those around the country who want to help organise and shape the ESF process

This was made clear by those people wishing to affiliate in this way writing 'subject to amendment' on the sign-up sheet. The chairs and David Holland of the GLA were asked to circulate to the email lists a public record of who had signed up for which position. They agreed to do this. They have so far not done this.

The chairs stated that everyone would be contacted with details about the first meeting of the Organising Committee. To reiterate a key passage of the document that enacted this committee:

"The meetings of the UK Organising Committee for the ESF in London will take place on a monthly basis and be open to all social movements and organisations wishing to participate in hosting the ESF in London."

Note the words 'monthly', 'open to all', 'social movements'.

As the meeting ended, rumours were already going round that the first meeting of the new Organising Committee had already been pencilled in for Thursday evening, at either the GLA or NATFHE offices. This information was being given selectively - some groups who asked the GLA were told, other groups who asked were told 'we don't know yet'.

On Tuesday evening, 27th January, an email was circulated by the GLA informing a small list of invited organisations to the first meeting of the Organising Committee on Thursday evening at 6.30pm at City Hall. The email, however, contained important new language:
"National and regional organisations which have agreed to affiliate to the Organising Committee are invited to send one representative to this meeting".
This was subsequently forwarded around the various ESF-related email lists.

2. Thursday 29th January: first UK ESF Organising Committee meeting

On arrival at the GLA's headquarters at City Hall, Tina Becker of the CPGB asked David Holland of the GLA why she had not received an email about the meeting after having affiliated her organisation to the Organising Committee. His reply was: "you aren't a national or regional organisation". She challenged this, so he changed tune: "you are a political party and parties are excluded from this process". Tina challenged that as well, correctly, by stating that there had never been a discussion about the party question in the UK process so far. He replied: "you know I don't make the rules around here, just following orders". She was still allowed to attend the meeting.

Before the meeting began, Dean Talent from The Wombles told a group of us that he had rung up Alexandra Palace (one of the venues originally cited by the GLA and SWP as a possible venue) to find that the GLA had provisionally booked it for the end of October, and had secondary bookings all through November. Dean was very upset because the GLA had failed to ask anyone involved in the ESF process or even report on such a booking so far. While he accepted there was nothing wrong with provisionally booking venues, he questioned why the GLA had not informed the various email lists or meetings so far. He was also worried that the venue would be foisted on the ESF process without consideration of what it meant for the kind of ESF it would create.

3. The Original Minutes with My Version Alongside

The meeting was facilitated by Alex Gordon (RMT Regional Secretary, South Wales & West of England) and Maureen O'Mara (President NATFHE). A proposed agenda had been circulated in advance, along with the minutes of the meeting of Saturday 24 January. Apologies were read out. The 55 people present at the meeting introduced themselves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My version: The meeting was not facilitated but aggressively chaired albeit in difficult circumstances. The chairs were constantly directed, bullied, interrupted, and often overruled by Redmond O'Neill, who was officially representing the Mayor of London, and sat to the immediate side of the chairs. He in effect acted as the chair of the meeting throughout, introducing every item of the agenda with not just information but orders about how the Committee would proceed. Discussion was discouraged at nearly all times, and occasionally the chair shouted down anyone trying to make an 'unpopular' (critical, questioning) intervention.

The minutes clearly don't want to record who was present because this would reveal how several organisations abused the one representative rule, which of course led to an even more unrepresentative and undemocratic meeting.

>From my recollection but there are many missing:
Redmond O'Neill, the Mayor of London (leader? of Socialist Action) Alex Gordon, RMT, affiliated Maureen O'Mara, NATFHE, affiliated Hugo Charlton, Campaign Against Criminalising Communities (CAMPACC)/Green Party, not affiliated yet (he asks that all people state their party affiliation for purposes of transparency and openness; an SWP member objects, calling it 'McCarthyism'. Hannah Griffiths, Friends of the Earth, affiliated subject to discussion on amendments Noel Douglas, Globalise Resistance Steering Committee, affiliated, Movement of the Imagination (does not admit to being member of the SWP) Phil, Campaign against Climate Change Dave Timms, World Development Movement, not affiliated yet, but member of the programme group Jill, from many networks, not representing anyone Stuart Hodkinson, Red Pepper, affiliated subject to discussion on amendments Delegate, Cuba Solidarity Campaign Rachel Hodgins, Revolutiion, Workers Power Jeremy Dewar, Workers Power newspaper, Workers Power, wants to put on agenda a discussion about the Porto Alegre principles Jane Loftus, CWU/SWP Steve Bell, CWU/Labour Party Nick Sigler, Unison (Head of International)/Labour Party Alan Rae, Amicus/SWP John Street, Babels Volunteer Translator Network/Green party Tina Becker, CPGB, affiliated (told that her organisation couldn't affiliate - a bit of discussion breaks out, see below) Anita Bressan, Rifondazione Communista/London Social Forum several people from Spirit Matters New left Review Dean Talent, The Wombles, not affiliated 2 delegates from DAY-MER, Turkish-Kurdish group Chris Nineham, representing Stop the war Coalition, affiliated, does not mention his membership of either Globalise Resistance or being a Central Committee member of the SWP Sarah Colborn, Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, not affiliated yet several delegates from National Assembly Against Racism several delegates from Unite Against Racism and Fascism delegate, Muslim Parliament Roy Webb, London disability network/British Council of Disabled People Sue Jones, Amicus/Globalise Resistance (don't recall her admitting her SWP mmebership) representative from SERTUC Kate Hudson, CND/Communist Party of Britain delegate, Artists against the War Naima Bouteldja, Just Peace/Globalise Resistance Steering Committee Jonathan Neale, Oxford Globalise Resistance (doesn't mention SWP membership) Guy Taylor, Globalise Resistance Steering Committee (doesn't mention SWP membership) delegate from Basque Separatist Group Lies Rossi, Globalise Resistance Steering Committee Kai F. Brand-Jacobsen, Transcend (peace & development network for conflict transformation by peaceful means) Dan Cooley, Ecostruction Ltd (green web portal) 5-6 GLA staff

Readers will judge for themselves whether this is a 'broad' representation of our movement as claimed by Noel Douglas in his 'report' of the meeting to the culture group and on Indymedia. http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/01/284667.html
Readers will note that while the GLA and the SWP/GR had multiple delegates, everyone else had one or two.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Minutes of the meeting of 24 January 2004. It was noted that the 24
January meeting had agreed that the UK Organising Committee should be
established to make all arrangements to host the ESF in London and that all
appropriate social movements, NGOs and organisations should be invited to
participate. It was agreed that the amendments suggested at the 24 January
meeting to the UK ESF Organising Committee statement would be considered at
the next meeting of the Organising Committee. The mover of amendment 7,
clarified that the amendment was only the final para entitled "Add para 11" -
please see the minutes of 24.1.04 meeting for the text of the amendments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My version: The minutes of 24th January were circulated. The chairs invited the meeting to pass them. Stuart Hodkinson (Red Pepper) wanted it minuted that "these are not minutes, but a summary of Saturday, a summary that doesn't have anything on the 3 hours of discussions, debates, arguments, behaviour of people, and does not even begin to give any impression of people's arguments and opposition to the proposal. The amendments listed here do not reflect all those issues raised on the day. From now on, I propose that we have 'minutes', not summaries of meetings." Nick Sigler (Unison), immediately followed by saying "I don't want to be bureaucratic about this but as this is the first meeting of a new body completely unrelated to the UK assembly, we don't have the authority or the need to approve these minutes as they apply to another body. I move that we just use it as a discussion document and move on". Vocal support then drowned out minority opposition, and the minutes were,
well, erm, sort of left in limbo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Meeting to discuss proposals to ESF European preparatory meeting. It
was agreed that the UK Organising Committee (UK ESF OC) would hold a meeting
during the day on Sunday 29 February to agree final proposals for hosting the
ESF in the UK to be put to the European preparatory meeting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My version: Jill argued that this might not be enough time before the European assembly to make any changes required from that meeting. She was constantly interrupted by the chair and Redmond O'Neill. Several others voiced concerns but no real opposition to this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Agenda: The agenda circulated prior to the meeting was agreed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My version: Below is that agenda
1. What is required to host the ESF?
a) venues
b) translation
c) accommodation
d) budget
e) communication
f) expanding support for the proposal
g) liaison with the European Preparatory meetings
2. Finance
a) affiliation levels
b) legal entities and bank accounts
c) address
d) procurement
3. Procedure for amendments to structure raised on 24 January 4. Future meetings 5. Next European Preparatory Assembly
Several additions to the agenda were proposed, including:
- a discussion about the Porto Alegre Charter of Principles
- a discussion about the participation of parties
- report backs from the working groups and clarfication of their current status
- a discussion on how the organising committee would work
All of these had support from at least a fifth of the 'groups' (not individuals given they duplicated), but were all ruled against by the chair following loud opposition from Redmond O'Neill and others. So, no consensus but, hey, as you might have now guessed, that didn't matter because the UK process does not work by consensus decision-making.
A further discussion took place over who was deemed to be a serious, bona fide organisation: the words 'national' and 'regional' and 'organisation' were constantly used a some kind of brand - groups and networks were clearly not being recognised. Jill asked how could 'networks' be represented in such a strict and narrow process? Apparently, the minutes - which we couldn't pass - of the 24th referred only to 'organisations'. But as I have demonstrated above, not at all!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Working groups: All of those who had contributed to the process to
date were thanked. It was agreed that written reports should be circulated of
the work of the working groups established between 13 December and 24 January.
It was agreed that the UK ESF Org Cttee would establish all of the working
groups necessary to develop the process in Britain and ensure continuity with
the work done so far. It was suggested that the formal establishment of the
working groups should be slightly delayed to allow organisations to affiliate
to the committee and consider how they can most effectively contribute to the
process. In the meantime it was suggested organisations and groups of
organisations should take on the specific tasks necessary to develop the UK
proposal to host the ESF.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My version: throughout the first part of the meeting, Dave Timms of the Programme Group and Jeremy Dewar of the Practicalities Group, repeatedly made the point that the discussions were crossing over into the work already done in the working groups, that it was disrespectful not to hear any reports from these groups, that important information needed to be reported back that concerned this meeting etc etc The Chair/Redmond axis simply bulldozed their way through with the support of highly bureaucratic people who just kept saying "we've got work to do, we've got no time". This led to repeated points of clarification from people asking about the status of the working groups. The Chair, prompted and then overruled by Redmond O'Neill until they said the 'right thing', eventually said that working groups had been abolished with the creation of the Organising Committee. Several people simply opposed this on the grounds that this was never agreed, that they had affiliated on grounds
that such a discussion would take place. But the chairs simply read out the text of the Organising Committee, which stated that the Organising Committee would establish everything needed to make the ESF happen. The UK Assembly and working groups no longer existed - Redmond O'Neill repeatedly stated: "the working groups work ended on the 24 January".
As for 'the working groups were thanked'. This is particularly disingenuous. It was only after a woman from a European network stated that perhaps if Redmond O'Neill was to thank people for their work so far and recognise that they had done some work and not simply being 'abolished' then people might feel a lot better about things. So Redmond promptly, in a deeply irritated voice with a large twist of sarcasm, 'thanked the working groups for their work'.
The abolition of the working groups was objected to by a number of people i.e. those people who had been in the process from the very beginning, not the sudden batch of newcomers who hadn't been members of these groups and yet were complaining that 'we' were holding people back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Venue: There was a discussion on venues. It was generally felt that a
single venue was preferable, but this and the problem that many are already
booked limited the number of options. It was indicated that a provisional
booking had been made for Alexandra Palace to safeguard this option - but as
time goes on less venues are available and those that are want firm booking as
soon as possible. It was agreed to continue looking at alternatives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My version: This was the first item on the agenda - we only reached it after one hour of pre-agenda discussion. One reason was because every time anyone raised questions and points of clarification, some hack from the GLA, SWP, NAAR or union was make some pompous 5-minute speech about how we didn't have time for this selfish, self-indulgent moaning.
Anyway, instead of opening up the floor for discussion on venues, Redmond O'Neill was asked by the chair to tell the meeting about the work the GLA had done on venues. He repeated what we all said previously for the last 4 months: single venue preferable, very few options, Alexandra Palace would cost £700,000-750,000 but there were big transport problems, would need Marquees; Excel Centre - not in the spirit of the ESF (to which a number of us muttered it was 'perfectly' in-keeping with the spirit of the ESF given the current state), Earls Court mentioned, GLA may be taking over Crystal Palace.
Dean from Wombles spills the beans on the GLA having booked Alexandra Palace INFORMATION THEY HAD NOT VOLUNTEERED WHEN GIVEN THE CHANCE. A big row breaks out, which rumbles on throughout the meeting. Dean eventually walks out, along with Anita Bressan and Jill. They said they could no longer take the authoritarian, undemocratic way the meeting was being run and the dominance of the GLA.
Discussion takes place about possibilities: we finally get some serious practical discussion and suggestions. The GLA - note, the state - says that it welcomes volunteers to help with looking into venues. Chris Nineham/Guy Taylor offer Globalise Resistance's help - although without consulting its own steering committee apparently; NATFHE also offers its help.
Jeremy Dewar invites the GLA to come to next meeting of the Practicalities group - he did his best all night, bless him - to discuss these things with it, but he is of course shouted down. Not before he gets a good one in saying: "the reason why the practicalities group has been unable to work on these issues is because the GLA has refused to attend its meetings or liaise with it, working on its own and sidelining it".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Translation: It was agreed to seek to organisation translation on the
basis of volunteers and to work with Babel International to this end. John
Street (Babel Network UK) will work with other interested organisations to
take this forward.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My version: Redmond O'Neill (now chairing) asked John Street to tell us about the translation aspect, but just before he'd really opened his mouth and told us anything, Chris Nineham interrupted and told us about how the new computer-streamed system worked really well in India, is much cheaper and means you don't need any identification. Nineham said the option was between professional and babels, and if we went with Babels, they insisted that it was all volunteer. He said, to his credit, that John Street would need a lot of support and help.
Decision: The meeting agreed to approach Babels.
Stuart Hodkinson made a brief point stressing that "if we are going to approach Babels, which we must, we must do so on the basis of respecting them. They were treated badly in Italy, better in Paris, but not good enough. They are not machines, they are humans, activists and need to be treated properly if they are going to be brought in".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Accommodation, catering and transport: There was a long discussion on
the problem of providing sufficient cheap and free accommodation in London,
with contributions from many representatives of diverse community
organisations. It was agreed to continue to discuss with a range of community
and other organisations re accommodation, to make an appeal for individuals to
provide accommodation in their homes and to approach the London Tourist Board
re commercial hotels, guest houses etc. Representatives of Day-Mer and a
Kurdish community organisation indicated that there would be strong support
from local communities in providing catering. It was also suggested that
catering concessions might help contribute to funding. It was also noted that
discussions would be needed with Transport for London to assist on the
transport of delegates. The National Assembly Against Racism, Day-Mer,
Globalise Resistance and a number of other organisations agreed to look into
developing solutions to these problems.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My version: the GLA invites these volunteers to help it sort out these problems - no initiative is being allowed to take place without GLA overseeing it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Website: It was noted that the financial constraints on a UK hosting
of the ESF would make it very important that registration was efficient and as
far as possible carried out in advance. This in turn requires a well
functioning web-site able to cope securely with thousands of financial
transactions from registrations from all over Europe as well as the
development of the programme and organisation of the Forum. It was agreed that
the procurement process for a website would be started without delay and that
an email address would be set up immediately. It was suggested that the
ethical practices of the applicant companies be considered. Other issues
regarding distribution lists, netiquette, and content would be discussed at a
later stage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My version: the chair asked, wait for it, Redmond O'Neill, to tell the meeting all about the website issue. His presentation was focused on 'money': the website would be basically to provide pre-event registration and information. He said that the French website hadn't worked so they had lost money, and had led to queues on the doors; in Mumbai, they took huge amounts of money through the website. He said the French organisers told him 'no matter how much it costs, make sure you get the website working'. He proposed that the GLA go out and look for best service provider - put it out to tender to private sector. The Organising Committee would submit content and design the spec., but the actual technical side would be sorted out now.
Alan Rae offered to talk to Amicus e-workers to help in this.
The GLA tried to push through the procurement, which then became, 'we'll set up an email address as well', and we'll start working on the spec. Redmond again said 'the GLA welcomes others to help us in this'.
Stuart Hodkinson: I offered Red Pepper's help on the website - note that its not in the minutes even though I said it twice - but I also raised a major concern which definitely had support from others. I asked what the 'ethical' implications of using private sector web-companies - did we have a charter of ethics, what was our policy on software, Microsoft. "We are a movement of webmasters and websites, and surely we can look to our own movement for these skills. I'm sometimes critical of the way trade unions behave on this, but we've surely got to keep the website 'in-house' with the Amicus people or whoever. We've got to practice what we preach".
I might as well have been talking to myself on Mars - redmond o'neill contemptuously dismissed this as 'yes, we'll make sure its ethical, trade unionised', but we need to move on this blah blah blah...this wasn't what I meant.
So much for Indymedia, so much for a corporate-free Forum...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Budget/Fundraising/Bank account: A first draft indication of possible
costs of hosting the ESF in London was circulated for discussion. A robust
plan demonstrating that the necessary funds to meet these costs could be
secured would be essential before binding commitments, such as booking of
venues could be entered into. This would include commitments of contributions
from supporting organisations, any contributions from appropriate trusts
acceptable to the ESF, a robust estimate of income from registration,
concessions and other sources. It was made clear that a number of large,
medium and smaller organisations are now considering what contribution they
may be able to commit to hosting the ESF. It was stated that at this stage
neither UNISON nor the GLA had made decisions to commit funds. Hannah
Griffiths (FoE) offered Friends of the Earth's expertise in working with
others to investigate appropriate Trust fundraising.
It was suggested that funding should also be sought at grassroots level and it
was agreed to circulate an appeal to this end.
It was agreed that setting the right level of registration would be an
important issue to be resolved.
It was suggested that a solidarity fund should be established to assist the
participation of movements from Eastern Europe and SE Europe. It was agreed that Maureen O'Mara (NATFHE) would proceed with opening a bank
account and that suitable signatories with standing would be sought. There will be a discussion with Brig Ougbridge (Big Green Gathering) and
others to take forward the work they have undertaken so far on legal
structures. Legal advice on this will be necessary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My version: Redmond O'Neill stated that on the bank account "this is not a volunteer issue - only people with public standing with legitimate organisations behind them can be signatures".
Several of us raised the issue of Brig's legal document - I asked how it was possible to set up a bank acocunt without working out what kind of entity we were.
Red Pepper also offered to help with trust research - again, this wasn't minuted.
main discussion: Tina Becker (CPGB) wanted to know how much the GLA and unions were prepared to commit to the ESF process given that the Organising Committee was their basis for getting involved. She quoted a few figures she had rumours of: GLA £250,000; Unison £100,000. This immediately drew a pretty aggressive, hostile attack from Nick Sigler saying Unison hadn't even discussed the ESF and money and it certainly wasn't going to be £100,000. Tina asked Nick why he had to be so 'sneering' at her question. He replied "because I'm not here to give copy to the Weekly Worker and I don't want figures being banded around the press and having journalists ringing me up and then having to explain to my members why all this money is beinbg spent". At which point, Redmond O'Neill intervened to say that the GLA was at this stage committing "no money", they would go away and look at all their commitments and budgets for the year and try and merge events into the ESF to free some resources , but it was have to be matched from elsewhere.
Chris Nineham said that we would probably have to think about charging £30 and then working out arguments to defend this.
So watch this space - the £30 marker has been put down. Just like the Alexandra Palace marker was put down last year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Expanding support
It was agreed that a large scale effort should now be made to systematically
invite all appropriate organisations and social movements to support hosting
the ESF in the UK and to participate in the UK Organising Committee. A number
of approaches to this were suggested and Jeremy Dewar, Stuart Hodkinson (Red
Pepper), Naima Bouteldja (Just Peace) and Lucy Ellinson offered to generate
further support. The GLA will mail its stakeholder lists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My version: seen this before? yes, we've been saying this for the last 3 months, and so far, the only people to have made such an effort are the grassroots activists networks and more recently the programme group.
Again, Redmond O'Neill introduced the item and stated that we would need an appeal letter and then send it round systematically.
Red Pepper stated that it had already done a lot of work on mapping and contacing groups, so had the programme group. It argued that the programme group letter be taken as the model to be used and that all our groups should put our databases onto the table and mail these out. Red Pepper offered to coordinate this.
Redmond O'Neill replied "yes, we'll work with you on, but we can't allow you our database for legal reasons".
Hannah Griffiths suggested a better means: we all send the same letter through all our different networks.
Redmond replied that we would all do a number of things simultaneously.
Chris Nineham again reiterated an appeal letter for funds.
Tina Becker of the CPGB also volunteered to help with this - not minuted! When Jeremy Dewar was volunteering, the SWP began whispering to Redmond to make sure that only organisations volunteered. He suddenly blurted out "yes, its got to be organisations".
Jeremy replied: "I am representing an organisation - Workers Power newspaper".
Cue major row about 'parties, organisations, practicalities group' again.
Stuart Hodkinson: I admit to losing my rag and shouting at Jonathan Neale for starting the row through his whispers to Redmond - I reminded him that he was representing 'Oxford Globalise Resistance' - hardly a bona fide national or regional organisation - and GR had at least 6 reps in the room, whereas everyone else had 1 or 2".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Liaison with European Preparatory Meeting
The next European Preparatory Meeting was scheduled for 6/7 March. It was
agreed that the venue would be discussed at a later meeting.
12. Office space
It was agreed that the UKOC should seek office space and it was reported that
discussions were taking place with a number of trade unions.
13. Next meetings
It was agreed that the UK ESF OC will meet on Thursdays: 5, 12, 19 and 26
February at City Hall from 5:30 pm-8:30 pm and that there will be a meeting
during the day on Sunday 29 February to facilitate attendance from outside
London.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My version: we agreed it was important to have weekly meetings, but we there was no consensus on which days. Several of us argued that the meetings had to be on the weekend to enable outside London to take part. But of course, the SWP and GLA hacks intervened en masse to say that Thursday was better, made it more convenient after work etc etc
Then another row broke out: I argued that the UK Assembly had agreed to meet on the weekends where possible - everyone said I was wrong so I apologised and re-stated that the GLA and others had always paid lip-service to "of course meetings will be open, transparent, accessible", of course we should enable broad participation, and now they were excluding all those who live outside London.
I'm afraid that most people simply didn't care about those outside London, person after person said "they can contribute in other ways".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct record of minutes: Alex Gordon (RMT), 30th January, 2004