Once Navy Always Navy

Review of Overseas Branches Representation on National Council
by NCMs Areas 8 and 12

Introduction             (OB = Overseas Branch)

1.      The decision taken by National Council (NC) at their September 2007 meeting, and subsequently confirmed in December, was to interpret the Motion 5 resolution from Conference 2007 as excluding any member of Council who already held a representative or other role on Council.  The inevitable outcome of this was that there was only one available candidate that it could appoint, VP Geoff Hayhoe.  The Council felt that this was not a satisfactory solution in the long term, not because of any reflection upon Geoff whatsoever, but because it had no other choice.  It also meant there was no possibility of appointing a deputy. As a result of that unsatisfactory situation Council commissioned this review to see how the OBs might best be represented in the future, to provide them with the regular input and communication with the NC that they want.

2.      We would like to thank the National President, National Vice-President, National Chairman, Chairman of Standing Orders Committee and General Secretary for their input and guidance during our review process, and to all others who have offered suggestions and comments in passing.  We have tried to be impartial, wide ranging, and totally open in our considerations, and we would welcome feedback on our views from OBs, and invite them to submit further options of their own if they wish.

3.      The 11 options listed below represent the culmination of our considered views on possible mechanisms for representation of OBs on NC.   They are divided primarily into two groups – those which the NC, after due study and debate, feel could be supported and those which they feel have no realistic chance of being implemented effectively.  We have used as the key foundation for our deliberations two potentially conflicting principles that will challenge the NC or Conference when deciding the way forward, democracy and economics.  There are few options offered that do not expose the Association to a suggestion of some degree of discrimination in one form or another.  Arriving at this conclusion we have ignored all personal prejudices, and have indicated where any option may expose the Association to criticism or worse.  We have summarized our views in tabular form at the end of this report, where we have also grouped options together according to underlying similarities between them.

4.      Standing Orders Rule S8 (4) c, the Time Bar, prevents this matter returning to conference for debate until 2010, unless a motion to implement S13, Suspension of Standing Orders, is successful.  Also, we feel that S8 (7), Motions of Urgency, doesn’t provide a route around S8 (4) c.  In our deliberations we have assumed that NC would be very reluctant to recommend the suspension of a standing order, and would only do so if the matter were of significant urgency or importance, and then only if there were no viable alternative.  Consequently, most of the options we put forward would be for submission to Conference in 2010, but one option, if NC so decided, could offer a wider choice of candidates and be implemented in 2008.  A second one could possibly be implemented in 2008, if required, but would be more acceptable for Conference 2010.

Options for OBs Representation

 1.  “That National Council selects one of its members to represent the interests of the overseas branches, and that the member so selected should hold no other standing appointment within the National Council”
 
Noting that NCMs are not appointed but elected, the current NC interpretation of the restrictive clause underlined may be seen as being more restrictive than the OBs had intended.  We feel the restrictive clause could be changed to mean: 

”and that the member so selected should hold no other standing advisory appointment within the National Council”.   (Change underlined).  As this is merely a change of interpretation, no actual alteration to the wording of the motion is necessary.  Any change to the wording would require the approval of Conference.

This motion was approved at Torbay and is the current implementation enacted by the NC. This simple minor change in interpretation probably best reflects the Conference 2007 decision, and gives NC a wider choice of candidate.  It lacks democracy by excluding the direct involvement of the OB members, but the motion as passed was their proposal.  However, if there were competition for the post, the OBs could be asked to make the choice, or at least provide input to the NC, on whom they would prefer to have representing them. 
 
 
2.   “That National Council selects from its elected members a person to represent the interests of the OBs, and one as deputy, for a period of two years"

Rule changes required: New Rule 6(b) (6) One Member from each Area of the Association elected in accordance with the Bye-Laws, one of whom shall be selected by the NC to represent the OBs and one as the deputy.

This lacks democracy by excluding the direct involvement of the OB members.  However, OBs could be asked to input their preferences to the NC and, if there is competition for the post, the OBs could be asked to make the choice, with the two candidates having the most votes being selected as the OBs representative and deputy respectively.

Because of rule S8 (4) c this cannot be implemented until 2010, unless Conference agrees to implement Rule S13.   The two year period may not always be co-terminus with the selected members own term, so a form of flexibility should be considered.

3.   “That National Council arrange for the OBs to nominate candidates from their members to be elected as OBs NCM and deputy.  The electorate shall be the OBs with one vote each”

The persons so elected shall have the status of NCM and deputy NCM. Rule changes required:

Rule 6(b) (6) becomes One Member appointed from the OBs.   After the heading: Elected members:   A new rule 6(b) (7):   One member from each Area of the Association elected in accordance with the Bye-Laws.

Bye-law 7a becomes 7a (1) and new Bye-law 7a (2) becomes The NC will appoint one OB Full or Full Life Member selected from a list of such candidates submitted by the OBs to be the representative for the OBs, and one as the deputy.  Where no second candidate exists, the NC will appoint a deputy.

This solution, which fully satisfies the call for democracy, doesn’t take account of the many different jurisdictions and the diverse problems that an NCM will be asked to understand, as is the case for single NCM option.   Potentially this option carries significant financial implications, which could be mitigated by restricting candidates for NCM to European Branches close to the UK, and because of rule S8 (4) c cannot be implemented until 2010, unless Conference agrees to implement Rule S13.

4.   “That National Council arrange for the OBs to nominate candidates from their members from whom it will appoint one member to represent the interests of the OBs, and one as deputy”

The member so appointed will have the status of ex-officio and rule 6(6) (h) shall apply.  This can have the effect of reducing the value of this members vote to 75% of that of an elected member.  Rule changes required:

Rule 6(b) (6) becomes   One Member appointed from the OBs.
After the heading: Elected members:    A new rule 6(b) (7):   One member from each Area of the Association elected in accordance with the Bye-Laws.

Bye-law 7a becomes 7a (1) and new Bye-law 7a (2) becomes The NC will appoint one OB Full or Full Life Member selected from a list of such candidates submitted by the OBs to be the representative for the OBs, and one as the deputy.  Where no second candidate exists, the NC will appoint a deputy.

The opportunity to nominate candidates gives a form of democracy, but it is less than that enjoyed by the home branches.  This solution may carry significant financial implications, which could be mitigated by restricting the candidature to European Branches close to the UK, and because of rule S8 (4) c cannot be implemented until 2010, unless Conference agrees to implement Rule S13.

5.   “That National Council arrange for the OBs to nominate candidates from their members from whom one will be elected to represent the interests of the OBs, and one as deputy.   The electorate shall be the Delegates to the National Conference”

The person so elected would have the status of a NCM, and the rule changes required are: Rule 6(b) (6):  One member from each Area of the Association, plus one from the OBs, elected in accordance with the Bye-laws.

Bye-law 7a becomes 7a (1) and a new Bye-law 7a (2) Each OB shall have the right to nominate one of its Full or Full Life Members as a candidate for election as OBs representative.  Alternatively any OB which so decides shall have the right to nominate one Full or Full Life Member from any other OB as a candidate for election as OBs representative. The electorate shall be the Delegates to the National Conference.  The candidate coming second in the election shall be the deputy.  Where no second candidate exists, the NC will appoint a deputy.”

The above form of election has not been legally tested.  There is no precedent for conference to elect a member of the NC.  Therefore the member so appointed may have the status of ex-officio, in which case rule 6(6) (h) would apply.  This can have the effect of reducing the value of this members vote to 75% of that of an elected Area member.

The element of democracy this brings is neutralized by, potentially, giving all branches of the Association, home and overseas, a vote in the election of the OBs representative.  This solution may carry significant financial implications, which could be mitigated by restricting the candidature to European Branches close to the UK, and because of rule S8 (4)c cannot be implemented until 2010, unless Conference agrees to implement Rule S13.

6.   “That National Council arranges for the British Isles Branches to nominate candidates from their members from whom one will be elected to represent the interests of the OBs, and one as deputy.   The electorate shall be the OBs with one vote each”.
 
The person so elected will have the status of a NCM.  Rule changes required:

Rule 6(b) (6) becomes: One member from each Area of the Association, plus any one other British Isles member of the Association to represent the OBs, elected in accordance with the Bye-Laws.

Bye-law 7a becomes In order to provide a representative list of candidates, each Branch shall have the right to nominate one of its Full or Full Life Members as a candidate for election as Area NCM and one of its Full or Full Life Members as a candidate for election as OBs representative.  Alternatively any Branch which so decides shall have the right to nominate one Full or Full Life Member from any other Branch in the Area as Area NCM and any one other British Isles Full or Full Life Member as OBs representative.  The runner up in the OBs representative election shall be the deputy.  Where no second candidate exists, the NC will appoint a deputy.

This option has a semblance of democracy, and may be endorsed by some OBs, but it is discriminatory by restricting candidates for election to British Isles Branches, and is thus open to legal challenge.  However, this could be mitigated by extending candidature to include near European Branches.  It will carry fewer financial implications, but because of rule S8 (4) c cannot be implemented until 2010, unless Conference agrees to implement Rule S13.

7.   “That National Council arrange for the British Isles Branches to nominate candidates from their members from whom it will appoint one member to represent the interests of the OBs, and one as deputy”

The member so appointed will have the status of ex-officio and rule 6(6) (h) shall apply.   This can have the effect of reducing the value of this members vote to 75% of that of an elected member.  Rule changes required:

Rule 6(b) (6) As at Option 6 above

Bye-law 7a becomes 7a(1) and new Bye-law 7a(2) becomes The NC will appoint one Full or Full Life Member from its British Isles Membership selected from a list of such candidates submitted to the NC to be the representative for the OBs, and one as the deputy.  Where no second candidate exists, the NC will appoint a deputy.
8.   “That National Council arranges for the British Isles Branches to nominate candidates from their members from whom one will be elected to represent the interests of the OBs, and one as deputy.  The electorate shall be the Delegates to the National Conference”

The person so elected will have the status of a NCM.  Rule changes required:

Rule 6(b) (6) becomes: One member from each Area of the Association, plus any one other British Isles member of the Association to represent the OBs, elected in accordance with the Bye-Laws.

Bye-law 7a becomes In order to provide a representative list of candidates, each Branch shall have the right to nominate one of its Full or Full Life Members as a candidate for election as Area NCM and one of its Full or Full Life Members as a candidate for election as OBs representative.  Alternatively any Branch which so decides shall have the right to nominate one Full or Full Life Member from any other Branch in the Area as Area NCM and any one other British Isles Full or Full Life Member as OBs representative.  The candidate coming second in the election for the OBs representative shall be the deputy.  Where no second candidate exists the NC will appoint a deputy.

The above form of election has no precedence.  Therefore the member so appointed may have the status of ex-officio and rule 6(6) (h) would apply.

The element of democracy this brings is neutralized by, potentially, giving all branches of the Association, home and overseas, a vote in the election of the OBs representative.  It will carry lesser financial implications than option 5, but because of rule S8 (4) c cannot be implemented until 2010, unless Conference agrees to implement Rule S13.

9.   Revert to the previous position, which has pertained through most of the period of OBs representation to date, of a National Officer/Adviser as the OBs representative.

We felt that this should be included as an option, but three overriding concerns caused us to place it very low in the pecking order:

• It is a complete departure from the desire for democracy, whether full or partial
• It does not give the OBs a vote on National Council
• Apparent dissatisfaction with the role in recent years led to the request for change and culminated in the motion to Conference 2007.

10. “That Conference designates the group of Branches known as the OBs to be an Area of the Association and to be known as the ‘Overseas Area’ ”

This is a fully democratic option and all the existing rules and bye-laws pertaining to Areas of the Association will apply.   Although this, on the surface, is the most democratic, inclusive and equal option in putting the OBs into the same structure within the RNA as all other Branches, it has significant drawbacks.  The OBs will find it almost impossible to comply with many of the rules and bye-laws that apply to the existing Areas, one obvious example being they will not be able to hold Area Meetings four times a year without incurring enormous expense.  It might be possible to set up some form of internet conferencing, but this assumes all OBs will have suitable internet access and delegates who are sufficiently computer literate.  Even then, the world wide time zone differences between the OBs would result in some having to go online at very unsocial times.  If only one OB can’t meet these computing requirements the option is no longer fully democratic.   There will also be pressure for the OBs to pay full subs since they are getting the same membership and representative arrangements as all other branches, but currently are only paying half subs.   Realistically, this option has far more against it than for it. This solution may also carry significant financial implications, which could be mitigated a little by restricting the candidature to European Branches close to the UK (but which would no longer make it the fully democratic option), and because of rule S8(4)c cannot be implemented until 2010, unless Conference agrees to implement Rule S13

11. Something from outside the box.

Could there be advantages from having several OBs representatives?

This could be achieved by the National Council allocating OBs around the thirteen Areas on a reasonably equitable but flexible basis. This could be of the order of three Branches each; by allocating OBs from the same geographical region to the same area; or by allowing an OB to decide for itself which Area it would like to ‘adopt’, the NC using a deciding vote, when necessary, to ensure an equitable spread.

No new rule is required but a Motion to seek Conference approval for the allocation of the OBs to the existing 13 Areas would be wise.  This option, if favoured by the NC and OBs, should be presented to Conference 2010.  Although it represents an Area reorganization, which is within the remit of NC under Rule 7(k) to recommend, it would not be wise to present in 2008 as it might be seen as an attempt to circumvent the Time Bar.

Because this option is a very radical approach, the following list of advantages and disadvantages is submitted for consideration:

Advantages

• The Branch gets the comfort of a home/base port.
• Best match for Unity and Comradeship.
• There will be no changes required to the makeup of the National Council.
• The Area committee gets an enhanced role.
• The Areas and home branches become more aware of the worldwide reach of the Association.
• The NCM can share with the Area committee some aspects of the task.
• It will bring OBs into line with home branches allowing the application of current rules and future changes to be more universal.
• Rule changes will be minimal, amounting to an additional Bye-Law, but the impact on unity, equality and comradeship could be significant.
• The common denominator of OB does not necessarily imply that all OBs experience the same problems or share the same policy views.  Some OBs may even prefer to be considered more like ‘home’ branches.
• A democratic option, different to option 3, but acceptable. All other options except 3 advocate varying forms of discrimination, but this option offers a good opportunity for inclusion and equality.
• A similar system is already in operation for two Branches in the Republic of Ireland.
• The additional workload will be spread across the NCMs.
• Removes the complexities of co-terminus arrangements with any single existing NCM acting as OBs representative.

Disadvantages

• A variation in form, standard and quality of communication, but probably no different to that experienced by Areas and home branches now.
• Some additions to the existing workload of NCMs.
• An OB may not get its first, or preferred, choice of Area.
• Although rule changes are minimal, the financial impact of them could be significant.
• Some Area Committees may not wish to take on responsibility for OBs, particularly with added cost implications.
• Areas may expect to receive capitation rates for their OB members
• The OBs may not wish to be distributed around the home areas and prefer to retain their collective identity as the ‘overseas’ group of branches.
  

Summary

5.      The Terms of Reference under which we were asked to undertake this review, as a result of NC belief that the current choice of candidates to represent OBs is too narrow, gave us authority to consider any option, to communicate widely with OBs, to suggest potential rule changes, and to identify, if possible, a single recommended option.

6.      We believe that we have considered a wide range of options, culminating in the 11 presented above, and made suggestions as to potential rule changes.  We have not consulted widely with OBs as yet, as we felt it prudent to submit this review to NC for further refinement  before distributing it out to OBs.  However, both NC members and OBs are invited to submit their views, and to offer any other option they may wish to be considered.  With regard to recommending a single option, we find this difficult, because of the quite diverse aspects offered or required by some of the options.  Option 1 could be implemented directly by NC.  Option 11 is a radical change of thinking and could offer an alternative statement to Conference 2008 under NC’s powers to recommend Area changes. However, this would almost certainly be seen as an attempt to circumvent the Time Bar and is best left to 2010.  It is our “outside the box” option.  The remaining options would all be time barred and require a delay until Conference 2010, unless Conference agrees to implement Rule S13, plus a further delay for rule changes to be approved by the Privy Council.

7.      Option 1 is effectively as passed at Torbay but reinterpreted, so we feel it would receive the widest acceptance from branches at home and abroad.  It also has simplicity and ease of implementation. Option 11 offers no change to NC membership, but a realignment of the OBs with home Areas.  It offers several advantages and some disadvantages, but we felt it was worthy of high consideration.  Option 2, with slight adjustment, is the defeated amendment from Torbay, but because it was part of the debate, we felt it should be retained as an option.  Options 3, 5, 6, 8 and 10 involve some form of election, 4 and 7 an appointment.  Option 9 we include only because it has been the status quo for most of the time the OBs have been represented on NC, so we feel it should remain as an option for consideration.

8.      If a new NCM is considered to be the best way forward we would recommend option 6.  It requires an election by the OBs, but it has the least impact on costs compared to options 3 and 10 which are the truly democratic options, although option 3 costs could be reduced by limiting candidature to near European Branch members.  Option 6 is therefore likely to be more acceptable to Conference, and we know is acceptable to some OBs who have communicated with us since the overseas representation issue came to the fore.  Option 6 could possibly be made even more acceptable if the candidature were widened to include near European Branch members, a consideration that could also be applied to options 7, 8 and 9.

9.         We would draw your attention to rule 6 (h) which has the effect of reducing the value of a Vice Presidents (ex-officio) vote to 75% of that of an elected NCM, it is for this reason we have drawn a distinction between the positions of VP and NCM, and our aim should be to satisfy the OBs desire for full representation.

10.     The following table provides a consolidated, simple summary of our review, with an explanation of the final column groupings on the succeeding page.  The five options which the NC would find acceptable are listed first, followed by those which NC believes have no realistic chance of being implemented.

TABULAR SUMMARY OF OVERSEAS BRANCH REPRESENTATION OPTIONS

NB    The option numbers do not imply any order of preference.

Group Organisation:

A.      Makes use of current NCMs to also act for OBs, or the appointment of a new VP.  Option 1 could be implemented in 2008 by NC changing its interpretation of Conference 2007 resolution.

B.      Candidates for NCM would be from OB members.  These could be very costly options, unless using candidates from near European branches, and are unlikely to provide any real advantages over options with candidates from British Isles Branches.
 
C.      Candidates for NCM would be British Isles Branch Members (and possibly near European Branches).

D.     Requires the creation of a new Area.  This is the fully democratic option in that it puts OBs on an equal footing with British Isles Branches.  However, it is impossible for an Overseas Area to meet the current rules governing areas of the RNA, and OB members would not want to accept a demand for equal subs to members of all other areas.

E.      Requires modification to the area structures. This would split up the OBs as a separate entity and they would become branches within existing Areas.  This has several advantages in terms of Unity and Comradeship, but would disadvantage most OBs in terms of Area involvement compared to local branches in the Area.