Chapter and Verse

As has been noted, there was considerable confusion and concern at the Napo AGM regarding Constitutional Amendment 3 which in the end was not put to a vote and therefore fell. Subsequent discussion here has provided some clarity, but thanks go to a reader for supplying 'chapter and verse' in order to allay any further fears and and thus avoid speculation:-  

"The exception clause in the TU legislation cannot be applied to our current General Secretary, this has been confirmed by legal advice that also prompted the suggested amendment to ensure that future general secretaries would be able to benefit from the clause. There will be a General Secretary election in 2023, the process has been agreed by NEC and starts in December with the advert going out. The process was freely shared with NEC, not under confidential cover."

General Secretary Election Procedure

1. Post is advertised via TUC and GFTU networks as well as to staff and members.

2. Applicants are sent an application form and an information pack, including this procedure.

3. Applicants are shortlisted by an employers’ sub-committee of the National Executive Committee (NEC), consisting of 5 members of the NEC, including the Chair and Vice Chair nominated as employers rep to JNC.

4. Shortlisted applicants are interviewed by the employers’ sub-committee to determine which of them would be able to meet Napo’s requirements, thus producing a list of “electable” candidates. This list, together with a statement from each of the electable candidates, of no more than 500 words, is then sent to NEC co-reps and to branches/sections.

5. A meeting of the NEC will consider the list of electable candidates. Each of them shall be invited to attend that NEC where they will be asked pre-submitted questions. Each candidate will be asked the same questions and will then be given the opportunity to make a statement in support of their application for candidature. The NEC will then decide which (if any) candidate it wishes to nominate for election.

6. Four online hustings events will be arranged following the NEC, these will be Chaired by members of the National Officers Group and the arrangements will be supported by the relevant Link Official for the region group and by the Office Ops Mgr for Cafcass. The hustings meetings will follow the same format for fairness:

Each candidate will make a speech for no more than 10 minutes. Following this the same questions (pre-submitted by members to the hustings Chair) will be put to each candidate with no more than 5 minutes allowed for each answer. For accessibility the hustings will continue for no more than 90 minutes.

The hustings will be as follows:

a. The North – Northumbria, Durham Tees Valley, East Coast, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, Cumbria and Lancashire, Cheshire Greater Manchester and Merseyside branches.

b. Midlands, Wales and the South West – Napo Cymru, East Midlands, Staffs West Midlands, Mercia, South South Western, Western branches

c. South East and London – East Anglia, Thames Valley, Hampshire Isle of Wight, Kent Surrey Sussex, Essex, The Four Shires, London and Northern Ireland Branches

d. Family Court Section

7. Branch meetings will then consider the list of electable candidates. The candidates will not be able to attend branch meetings. Branches will have the benefit of a report from their NEC Representative who will have attended the NEC, reports from members who attended the hustings, and the candidates’ own statements. Branches will then be able to nominate one of the electable candidates.

8. The final list of nominated candidates will be put to a postal ballot of all full members. In the event of there being only one nominated candidate that person will be elected unopposed without recourse to a ballot.

2023 General Secretary Election Timetable

16 December Advert Published

13 January Return Date for Applications

18 January NEC Employers Sub Committee Shortlisting

23-27 January NEC Employers Sub Committee Interviews

30 January List of electable candidates sent to NEC and Branches

30 January – 3 February Special NEC (online) for candidate interview and nomination process

6-10 February Hustings Week

13 February – 3 March Branch meetings to consider nominations

3 March Branch nominations deadline

8 March Ballot Commences

30 March Ballot Closes

31 March Result Announced

30 June Last day of current GS contract

Latest From Napo 182

Extracts from the latest Napo magazine:-

Napo NEC – first meeting of the new Napo year

Napo NEC met this week in the first meeting of the new Napo year post-AGM. New NEC reps were warmly welcomed and took great pleasure in ratifying 100s of new members who have joined since the last NEC meeting.

NEC reps play an important part in Napo and at this meeting they agreed the operating plan for the year as well as approving the budget to allow all of the vital work of the union to be done.

Reps were given an update on Napo’s Strategy for Growth and discussed ways that we are working to support members and reps to become more active in the Union including the launch of our new rep and activists training programme.

Delegates to the Women’s TUC conference and the TUC Black Workers conference were ratified, work will now be done to consider motions to those conferences. The motions to the 2018 AGM that were passed are now resolutions and these were allocated to the relevant Napo committees so that work can be undertaken through the year.

Some of our committees have vacancies, please contact your branch chair if you are interested in getting more involved in the work of the union.

Motions passed at the Family Court Section AGM were noted by NEC and a motion from South Yorkshire branch on member expenses was passed, committing us to review the amount paid for mileage to increase it from the very low rate set some years ago.

NEC were informed of the resignation of Vice Chair Denise Mason and thanked her for her hard work, wishing her well for the future. According to our constitution NEC has the power to appoint an acting Vice Chair to fill the vacancy for the remainder of the term (until AGM 2019). David Raho was elected to this position and we welcome him to his new role.

CRC pay – issue being escalated to Probation Programme engagement

At this week’s meeting of the NEC it was made clear that there is considerable anger over the failure by CRC Providers and the MoJ to extend the terms of the NPS Pay award to CRC Staff. The NEC heard about the next steps in our efforts to establish pay parity as part of our ‘8 Good Reasons to Reunify Probation’ campaign. This will encourage all members in the CRC estate and NPS to raise their concerns directly with MP’s about the many problems that you are facing.

CRC Chief Executives will soon be receiving a letter from Napo General Secretary Ian Lawrence following the debate at the NEC, where a clearer picture emerged of the pathetic responses by corporate management to our claims for fair treatment on pay for their staff.

This week also saw the unions and senior HMPPS management meet under the auspices of the Probation Programme Engagement Forum (TR mark 2). Work is under way to agree some terms of reference which will allow the unions to raise our concerns about the plans to repeat the selloff of Probation and the need to protect the terms and conditions of staff whilst maintaining our total opposition to the whole concept of marketisation.

In a clear sign that Napo will not forget the needs of our CRC members, we have insisted that a major discussion needs to take place about why CRC owners can claim that they cannot afford a decent pay rise for their staff whilst having received half a billion pounds in bailouts from the taxpayer. We will also continue with our argument that adjustments should be made to current CRC contracts to allow providers to match NPS pay rates, and that if this does not happen, then any new contracts that might emerge in 2020, if this disastrous plan is not halted, will simply be untenable.

Napo and our sister unions are pressing our case that CRC staff currently on (or thinking of) secondment to the NPS should be paid NPS rates of pay. Napo also pointed out that there are some staff who are currently undertaking vital work around Minimum Contact Specifications ordered by the MoJ on failing contractors, who must be paid the commensurate rate for the job.

New HMPPS senior Leadership Structure

It was formally announced today that there is a change to the structure right at the top of HMPPS. Two new Director General posts have been created, reporting to the CEO. These posts have been filled on an interim basis to allow for the structures to be developed but permanent selection will take place once the new CEO (the replacement for Michael Spurr) is appointed next year.

Amy Rees has been appointed as Director General for Probation and Phil Copple has been appointed as Director General for Prisons. Both job descriptions require a professional background in the relevant work area. Napo welcomes this development as an important move towards maintaining a distinct Probation identity within the department and look forward to meeting with Amy to discuss how Probation’s Professional identity can be both protected and developed.

Making Sense of CO Report

Over the last few days and the AGM weekend, two issues have become intertwined in the discussion thread, namely that of the Certification Officer Report and pay. In the absence of official statements on both, it's hard to untangle fact from fiction, supposition from rumour. I'm sure the issue of pay will become clear eventually, but in the case of the CO Report, I doubt it. 

In view of this I have attempted to bring together in one place what I feel are salient points in relation to the CO Report and in this we are helped by the almost unprecedented situation of having contributions from two named individuals:-   

Barry Adams 4 October 2018 at 20:16

For many members the background and details leading up to a PO member asking the Certification Officer to rule on a course of action taken by the national officers. What is clear from the Certification Officers report is: The named officers breached the Constitution.

What is less clear is:

1. Why did the officers take the course of action that they did.
2. Who advised the officers (wrongly)
3. Were the ÑEC kept fully and in good time informed.
4. What if any involvement did the General Secretary have.

This action has damaged Napo in many ways and has cost Napo members an undisclosed sum of money. Members should ask these and other questions and the only way to get truthful, honest and unbiased answered it to ask at AGM for an investigation by a independent body (national reps panel?) To report directly to the NEC. Any investigation should be conducted with all possible due diligence.

*****
Peter Robinson 5 October 2018 at 13:07

The findings of the Certification Officer in "Peros v Napo" bring into the open a sequence of events that spans three attempts to invoke disciplinary process under s29 of the Napo Constitution. I represented the members under the internal s29 action on the other two.
In each case the officers deviated from the processes set out in s29 of the Constitution and the associated Rules laid down by the NEC. It is clear from the findings of the formal hearing last month that the officers were in serious error.

I don't think the Certification Officer is strictly speaking a "Court" but it would also be inaccurate to describe the hearing as a "meeting". It is a formal hearing by a regulatory body and of sufficient importance for Napo to be represented by a barrister accompanied by a solicitor.

The issue with setting up an irregular investigation first arose in 2015. I believe that this was the first time the process had been invoked in a generation. There were other complications in that matter but it was eventually found that there was "no case to answer". The irregularity was not pursued further but the officers were informed that the Constitution would need to be amended by an AGM if the process were to be varied in the future. No action was taken by the officers or the NEC to propose such amendment to the following AGM in 2016 however.

The action in July 2017 in the Peros case was the second in the sequence and had several contentious aspects. These included an intention to use the same irregular investigation process. In October 2017 a third case was opened with similar procedural issues. Initially an outline agreement was reached with the officers whereby the process would be cancelled on completion of undertakings by the member. Although the member complied with her part of that arrangement the officers opted to persist with the disciplinary process. They did so without addressing the procedural irregularities. In a long history of representing Napo members in employment processes I have reached settlement in more than a few but on no occasion has any employer reneged on an agreement. I was dismayed that my own Union should do so.

In March 2018 the disciplinary process in respect of both Dino Peros and the matter I was involved in were scuttled short of a hearing. This means that no valid disciplinary finding has been returned in either case and the time, energy and expenditure has been lost without useful purpose. I would point out that whilst Napo resources underwrote the waste on the “official side” the members affected and their representatives have to bear their own costs. 

The persistent deviation from clear provisions in the Constitution needed to be challenged. As the Peros matter predated the other case the complaint was made by him through Dave Rogan. A simple duplication by the other member and myself would not have added to the scope of the action but we would have been prepared to take such action on the same grounds if Dino Peros and Dave Rogan had not done so.

The Constitution safeguards the rights of members and forms a central part of the membership contract. Officers are elected to uphold the Constitution and do not have the authority to vary it at will. I do not see the need for further investigation as to possible culpability as the Certification Officer has covered that. I believe that this is the first adverse finding by the Certification Officer in the history of Napo and is a highly significant event. I hope and trust that Napo will have learned from this experience and that there will be no recurrence. The Napo NEC should review the Constitution as there are a number of matters to be addressed. However there should be no deviation without the necessary membership approval at an AGM.

*****
A branch could take a detailed motion to NEC asking for full disclosure of the officers and officials decision chain regarding Dinogate (copyright pending) and how much members money was spent on legal costs. Their answers could then be compared with Dino's version of events and those members who give a shit could then decide what, if anything, to do next. If the new chair and GS are found culpable then a motion of no confidence could follow. It only takes a few members in each branch to put forward and win the argument for NEC reps to be mandated. That is unless the top table find some procedural or confidentially orientated reason to block debate. That's the usual way they do it. If so, then members could make their minds up about that. The thing is, this kind of thing isn't new. IL relies on bluff, bluster and lack of interest amongst the dwindling rank and file to get away with this sort of thing. Oh, and claiming credit for the secret pay deal is the ultimate smoke and mirrors exercise. The MOJ had to modernise pay and would have done so even without union involvement. He just sat on the other side of the table and said thank you. Unless they can tell us what extra concessions they forced from the employers of course.

*****
I rate Jamie. It's a dilemma isn't it? We can wring our hands at the decline in membership, and at some problems that need addressing in its leadership. In order to tackle both, what we need is a call to arms for probation folk to sign up and join. And this will not be helped by public agonising about internal problems. By and large the latter is of interest only to the anoraks, who can then mobilise the members who are motivated to do so, to make some changes. 

Lest we forget, the problems besetting the Union are as much to do with the fucking Tory government getting rid of sign-off and doing everything in their power to undermine the effectiveness of Unions. An issue for more than this one Union. The problems of Probation: privatised, hacked about, underpaid, are also down to this government. Harking back to Halcyon days of Probation and the Union is a bit of a bore frankly.

*****
Peter Robinson 10 October 2018 at 10:07

It would be a mistake for members to dismiss concerns about the Constitution and rules as "of interest only to anoraks". The Constitution is the democratically determined wish of the membership and gives safeguards to member's rights. Section 29 of the Constitution is the only mechanism by which a member is exposed to direct detriment and this raises the possibility for disqualification from office and ultimately expulsion. The whole point of the Peros action at the Certification Office was surely to safeguard those rights from arbitrary variation without authority. Napo argued that the actions were "pragmatic" that the Constitution should not be applied with the strictness of statute. The certification officer evidently did not support that view.

*****
Well said. A Trade Union needs to abide by its own constitution, else, where is the mandate for Reps to hold employers to account for THEIR failure to abide by the rules in respect of their Members? We just become a hypocritical laughing stock with no authority.

*****
Have I read the same Certification Officer's Report as discussed on here? I don't think it was ever disputed that the Officers breached the constitution - the Report says that was agreed by all, Officers included. It reads that it was the reasoning behind the breaches that was complained about. So didn't the CO have to find that the constitution was breached?

No action was taken to remedy the breaches as the matter was discontinued and the CO declined to make an Enforcement Order. The CO even noted that no issues of bias or unfairness were raised. It's hardly the disgraceful scandal cited by some in the comments on this issue. In fact, some of the comments have been quite disrespectful about the alleged initial complaint that seems to have been about bullying of someone. It's almost like some members want to create internal damage to Napo rather than focus on the struggles we should be working on! C'mon Dino et al fight for - not against Napo!

Napo AGM 2018 Reflections

I was going to say that now the dust has settled I'd try and pen a few rather more considered reflections on this year's AGM. But the dust hasn't settled has it and in fact there are even signs of a bit of a storm brewing as a result of that Emergency Motion tabled by Jamie Overland and seconded by Chris Pearson. 

Now lets consider this for one moment. Had SSW Branch not published a report to their members last Wednesday 3rd October outlining the background to the Peros case and had a reader not sent it to me and had I not published it on Thursday 4th October, most members attending the AGM would have remained in blissful ignorance of things. 

When the General Secretary carried out the usual branch roll call and there was silence when he reached SSW branch, in the absence of prior knowledge, members would have been unaware of the reasons for the absence; that it was a deliberate boycott. Had none of this chain of events happened, there would have been no Emergency Motion, no information and above all, no accountability.

This union makes much of being 'member-led' with officers and officials being 'accountable'. But what does it actually mean in practice? Even though I was present throughout, I have absolutely no recollection of the 'accountability' session. I'm not prone to nodding-off at such events, but possibly others who were present could appraise us of what I cannot recollect? I remember the answering of written financial questions, but to be honest the hall acoustics and sound system were so bad I didn't catch much of the answers. I don't remember any general questions of the Top Table that could be described as being part of an 'accountability' session. 

Which brings us back to the EM and Jamie Overland. Thank goodness we still have members willing to put their head above the parapet and ask awkward questions, but they seem a dwindling minority. I think it's worth recalling that Jamie stood unsuccessfully in the recent ballot for Vice Chair and this is what he had to say to members at the time via this blog:-

Vice Chair Post

NAPO members will be aware that there are currently National Officers elections underway and everyone by now should have received their ballot paper. I wanted to take some time to write to you all about why I am standing as I may not be a name on the paper as familiar to some of you as the incumbent officers or those who have been regulars at AGM for many years.

I have decided to stand for national election as I believe these elections are probably the most critical that NAPO has faced in a decade. At a time when we need to ensure that our officers are effective at steering the union in the right direction for survival and future longevity, we also have a general membership that is as disengaged and apathetic about those at the top than at any time I can recall. This was no more evident than in the General Secretary election, where no amount of positive spin can put shine on a turnout of 16%.

I make no secret of the fact that I voted for radical change in the GS election, but I am fully prepared to work with the newly re-elected GS in working towards a more open, democratic and accountable union. I believe this to be critical at re-engaging you and then with the top table and the NEC.

I have sat in NEC meetings and seen critical debate shut down too soon with too few members to challenge the chairs rulings or ask the really difficult questions necessary to hold officers and officials to account. This is not me criticising the NEC either, it is an extremely difficult job with members often conflicted between representing the will of their branch and voting independently for what they feel to be the good of the union.

My point is the NEC agenda is not led by NEC members but by what the Officers and Officials wish to cover. It’s why at AGM a couple of years ago some of you may recall my emergency motion for NEC reform, following from a year of in-quorate NEC meetings. I fear that we are facing this threat again with numerous NEC posts vacant. Which makes it even more important that we have elected National Officers who work for the members and hold each other and our paid officials to account, where officers do not hide behind the veil of collective responsibility and challenge each other.

Over the last few years I have been made aware of National officers being ‘frozen out’ of key decisions because they did not see eye to eye with the majority. This cannot be allowed to continue if we are to survive as a democratic union.

The Assistant General Secretary has an ambitious strategy for growth which will be covered fully at AGM. This will require buy-in from members and elected officers at all levels in order to be a success. It is therefore critical at this stage that we have National Officers who can see this strategy through in whatever form the members decide is appropriate and hold all to account for it’s effective implementation.

As an aside I implore those who read this, those who are critical and discerning about NAPOs activity, to stand for NEC, we need people who are prepared to scrutinise, to question and yes to be critical and ensure as a union we don’t pass bad decisions on the back of apathy.

That’s my statement anyway. I have Jim’s agreement to engage with you on here. You will no doubt have read the election statements of all the candidates and so I am here to discuss anything from my statement you may wish to discuss.

Regards,
Jamie Overland

It's worth remembering that for reasons of economy, the AGM and conference is now squeezed into just a day and a half, so the time pressure is considerable. However, since a reduction in quoracy was agreed a couple of years ago, business does at least start on time, but sadly nowadays there's virtually no 'debate' and hence no need for card ballots. To be honest I find it quite tedious listening to a succession of uncontentious 'motherhood and apple pie' motions that require no discussion and are carried nem con. Thank goodness most seconders forgo their right to speak at length and just formally second.

Despite there being ample evidence of disquiet within the ranks, it must be of concern that challenging motions are not being submitted, which of course gives the impression that the membership is quite happy. I would venture to suggest that with a history of falling membership this is delusional. Whatever, the result, whilst pretty uninspiring, I'm sure keeps the Top Table happy as nothing contentious regarding the inner workings of the union emerged, apart that is via the EM. To be honest I think this is the main aim - try and make sure attention is focused on stuff like TR, Grayling, anything but any domestic difficulties such as NEC meetings or the fact that committee's such as Trade Union Organisation has only one member, Jamie Overland.

I have no idea how long we would have had to wait to get to Motion 36, General Secretary Election Process and the possibility of a bit of introspection and discussion regarding the way in which our General Secretary managed to avoid any debate during that process, but by skill or good fortune both he and the union were spared the opportunity of that bit of 'accountability' for another year.  

Postscript

Forgot to mention that we never had the chance to debate Motion 39. Commitment to Napo Committees or a New Direction making the case for radical internal change, proposer one Jamie Overland.        

Napo Elections 2018

Vice Chair Post

NAPO members will be aware that there are currently National Officers elections underway and everyone by now should have received their ballot paper. I wanted to take some time to write to you all about why I am standing as I may not be a name on the paper as familiar to some of you as the incumbent officers or those who have been regulars at AGM for many years. 

I have decided to stand for national election as I believe these elections are probably the most critical that NAPO has faced in a decade. At a time when we need to ensure that our officers are effective at steering the union in the right direction for survival and future longevity, we also have a general membership that is as disengaged and apathetic about those at the top than at any time I can recall. This was no more evident than in the General Secretary election, where no amount of positive spin can put shine on a turnout of 16%.

I make no secret of the fact that I voted for radical change in the GS election, but I am fully prepared to work with the newly re-elected GS in working towards a more open, democratic and accountable union. I believe this to be critical at re-engaging you and then with the top table and the NEC. 

I have sat in NEC meetings and seen critical debate shut down too soon with too few members to challenge the chairs rulings or ask the really difficult questions necessary to hold officers and officials to account. This is not me criticising the NEC either, it is an extremely difficult job with members often conflicted between representing the will of their branch and voting independently for what they feel to be the good of the union. 

My point is the NEC agenda is not led by NEC members but by what the Officers and Officials wish to cover. It’s why at AGM a couple of years ago some of you may recall my emergency motion for NEC reform, following from a year of in-quorate NEC meetings. I fear that we are facing this threat again with numerous NEC posts vacant. Which makes it even more important that we have elected National Officers who work for the members and hold each other and our paid officials to account, where officers do not hide behind the veil of collective responsibility and challenge each other. 

Over the last few years I have been made aware of National officers being ‘frozen out’ of key decisions because they did not see eye to eye with the majority. This cannot be allowed to continue if we are to survive as a democratic union. 

The Assistant General Secretary has an ambitious strategy for growth which will be covered fully at AGM. This will require buy-in from members and elected officers at all levels in order to be a success. It is therefore critical at this stage that we have National Officers who can see this strategy through in whatever form the members decide is appropriate and hold all to account for it’s effective implementation. 

As an aside I implore those who read this, those who are critical and discerning about NAPOs activity, to stand for NEC, we need people who are prepared to scrutinise, to question and yes to be critical and ensure as a union we don’t pass bad decisions on the back of apathy. 

That’s my statement anyway. I have Jim’s agreement to engage with you on here. You will no doubt have read the election statements of all the candidates and so I am here to discuss anything from my statement you may wish to discuss. 

Regards,

Jamie Overland

Election Roundup

If history is anything to go by, most Napo members who intend to vote in the election for General Secretary will already have done so, but sadly the evidence is that the vast majority will not, either tearing up the ballot paper or leave it forgotten behind the clock. Turnout has been shockingly low for years - why is this? Apathy at best, anger and disillusionment at worst. What has the union done to address this? Nothing. 

"Members know about IL and I hope many hear about MR. Given the leadership and figurehead role of a general secretary of a union, it is weird that this election may pass under the radar of most members. Here was a golden opportunity to spark some debate between the candidates that may have provoked some member engagement. 

The incumbent must believe he has nothing to gain by setting out his vision for the next five years and as most incumbents also like to stand by their record of achievements, IL would know he'd be on a hiding to nothing. But the fault here does not lie with the candidates - it lies with the employing authority, the NEC, acting on behalf of the membership who fund the wages. Normally people like to know where their money goes and whether they are getting the best value. 

As turnout is likely to be low, it would seem members don't mind how their subscriptions are spent. The NEC should be hammering home the importance of voting and making it clear to members that they should not waste their money by not voting. Why does the NEC sit on its hands. Nothing stops the Co-Chairs from being proactive in getting the vote out."

The election for General Secretary is possibly the most important process for any union to undertake and it is the time for the membership to reflect on the past record and attributes of the incumbent candidate, together with those of any contender. It would be reasonable to expect an opportunity for ordinary members to be able to question each candidate, or at least have the opportunity of hearing a debate when issues of concern could be aired in order to assist with the important decision of how best to cast ones vote. 

"Whilst the incumbent makes comments behind Facebook firewalls and runs scared from debates. It's ironic that we know more in a few weeks about the political beliefs of a challenger than we do about an incumbent who has been around for years.

IL refuses to step out of his comfort zone to engage in debates. It's a lost opportunity that Napo News did not interview both candidates who could have set out their positions on a range of issues, possibly sparking a wider debate and promoting a bit more member engagement. One of the main purposes served by elections is to air the issues, compare policies and form a judgment about the candidates' relative merits. Instead it seems Napo HQ are behaving as though this election is an Assault on Precinct 13."

It might be a reasonable expectation, but as we know, the incumbent candidate has done all he can to frustrate such an opportunity, even taking leave in order not to be available for a proposed teleconference scheduled for today, Friday or Monday 25th. It's probably also worth noting that, leave not withstanding, it did not prevent him travelling north on Monday and posting out to members not once, but twice in an otherwise admirable demonstration of complete commitment to the job.

But of course for many members it's that concern over commitment to the job and indeed ability for the job that causes much concern. Who can fail to remember his somewhat lacklustre appearance before Bob Neill's Select Committee earlier this year, in stark contrast to that of his clearly well-prepared union colleague? When asked a direct question regarding salary scales, he couldn't answer. His body language and general demeanour gives every impression of someone merely going through the motions and 'winging it'. 

The concerns go back a long way and to the TR battle itself, at least one key Parliamentary meeting missed and others I was told where attendance was late. Despite many members having had their careers disgracefully terminated early, some are still around and with good memories:-

"I remember IL at an AGM saying the letter was in the post for the judicial review - received with whoops of joy. Yet 12 months later we find out it wasn't posted. That was tedious."

There have been the 'car crash' media interviews and I think we can all recall historic instances of the bellicose kind when our General Secretary seeks to impress with bluster and bullshit rather than reasoned, detailed argument. In response to the latest mail-out this reader expresses things rather well:-

"It looks like campaigning, but what could the general secretary do? 'A number of members had been in touch to ask about progress...' so it wasn't campaigning, it was a member-led response. We will never know if members were really clamouring for a response. The piece also includes a namecheck for his POA sponsor and he's able to tell us what prison officers have been telling him. It's nothing we didn't already know, but it's safe ground and there's nothing that he can be held responsible for.

The whole piece in fact is merely a rehash, with all the boilerplate warnings about H&S. IL likes everyone to know he knows what's happening. But he steers clear of action plans and anything against which he can be measured. His blogs are a bit like travelogues – patronising branches with his presence, but leaving no legacy of increased member engagement or participation.

The OMIC paper bemoans the futility of consultation because as he rightly points out the NPS can simply ignore any concerns that Napo raises about the impact on the terms and conditions of staff. These changes warrant negotiations not consultations, but Napo does not fight its corner on this point, it simply plays along with the consultation, adopts a fatalistic stance and tells members they can always raise H&S concerns if they feel individually compromised. And that has been the story since the inception of TR – you are on your own – but IL feels your pain."

We are all familiar with the sad demise of the once vibrant Napo Forum, ironically killed-off by over-zealous editing of contributions deemed to be too critical of the General Secretary. With this avenue for debate having been effectively neutered, it only left this blog as a possible platform for debate:- 

"The whole election is a shambles. If it weren’t for this blog I wouldn’t know there was an election. I haven’t received a ballot paper even though my contact details have not changed in years. I’ve not chased it up. Napo obviously don’t want my vote. It’s impossible to choose between useless and incapable."

"Agree. I have not received a ballot paper either and my details have not changed. No democracy in NAPO it is poisonous at the top table with corrupt process the norm. Things can only get better - new politics please before the demise of this Union. The elected General secretary whoever that is would do well to take the views expressed on this blog by the members seriously for the future of NAPO."

Regular readers will be aware that over the last few weeks I've endeavoured to provide a platform for discussion of the issues, merits and demerits of the two candidates and despite the refusal of the incumbent candidate to engage, many members have found it refreshing that the contender could not have been more willing to take part in debate. I'm sure this has proved alarming to our present General Secretary who has been somewhat unusually quick to respond to the news agenda of late, you know, like that 'Times' leak:-  

"Napo is not usually out of the blocks so quickly. Nor did I realise that it was in the verification business. IL says he wants to safeguard members from 'rising expectations' as though anyone out there was interpreting the Times story as the beginning of the end of privatisation. Nonetheless, he chooses to link the imagined rising expectations with the end of privatisation, knowing that to be a fallacy. 

He also writes about 'close connections' in the corridors of power, but these have not yielded anything of substance in the past five years. In effect he tells us nothing that was not already known, but our intrepid leader could not resist the temptation to put himself at the heart of a news story to flaunt his close connections. Pity he did not use his close connections before signing-up for the TR split and the various promises about no redundancies. That was when verification was truly needed. But, of course, at that time he wasn't running a re-election campaign."

Over the years I've been running this blog there's much I've been told, some of it necessarily in confidence and barely 50% has ever got into print for one reason or another. I try desperately to provide as accurate information as I can and I get very annoyed if I discover having been responsible for publishing anything that is misleading. 

When raising the extremely vexed issue of possible compensation being payable should the incumbent candidate fail to win a further term, I now understand a serious administrative error has recently come to light with a consequential failure to appreciate that certain commitments could follow. Whatever, I find it utterly astonishing that votes in an election for General Secretary could be influenced by a possible payout to a losing candidate.        

"After 10 years of being neglected, mistreated & packaged up for sale it seems Napo members would rather stick with what they've become accustomed to rather than vote for change. When the dodgy contract was signed - silence. No consultation. CRCs made swingeing cuts & rode roughshod over members' t&c's, EVR, etc - all we got for our subs was SILENCE, inaction, branch-blaming & abuse directed at staff making choices in an information vacuum.

When this blog facilitated valid criticisms & challenges - the Napo ostrich buried its collective head & still denies this blog's existence. It's time to de-select the Flat Earth Society. It's time to leave the abusive, controlling partner & build a new life for yourselves."

Many members have grown tired of the hand-wringing 'lets blame the membership' that the current General Secretary has got away with for the last 5 years. Astonishingly, I hear that when he was recently invited in to meet with the new minister Rory Stewart, in the context of TR and the future of probation, in answer to the question 'what do you want?', the response apparently was 'I've got an election to fight'. 

There has long been a suspicion that our General Secretary has been far too cosy with the MoJ and cynics will have noted the sudden desire of the government to start talks on pay. Could that possibly have anything at all to do with concerns at the highest levels of government that a change of personnel at the top of Napo could be imminent? 

"It always felt that MoJ/NOMS (now HMPPS) owned IL from the start of his tenure & that 'something' happened around the Ledger incident that left IL indebted to someone."

One thing is clear to me. Members have a duty to vote and it may sound harsh, but it's an unacceptable position to say 'but they're as bad as each other' and not vote. Yes, I hear the interviews did not go well and some have pointed out that neither candidate matches up entirely to the person and job spec. But as they say, we are where we are:-   

"What we should all do, I suggest, is to encourage as many members as we can to consider the issues: think about the two candidates, understand that you are being asked to vote because you are part of the collective paymaster. Take the trouble to participate in the ballot. We will never know for certain whether the weakness of Napo (weakness – lack of industrial muscle is assessed by levels of participation, ie solidarity), emboldened the MoJ and the private companies to behave disdainfully, but it's a good counter-factual to think that they would not have got away with so much if they had perceived a strong union ready to fight its corner. 

If members do not participate, at the very least by casting a vote, then Napo's slide towards extinction will become more assured. It's naïve to see a union as an 'insurance policy' like the AA in the event of a breakdown. Only a strong union can insure and protect you against unfair treatment and get you better wages – and a union can only be strong if it's members have backbone and collectively care about their destiny."

It has been put to me that Mike Rolfe is a 'disruptive' candidate and that might not be a good thing. On the other hand it might be just what is needed in order to shake much of the remaining membership out of its collective torpor. What is clear is that he has been dignified throughout this campaign, in stark contrast to the unsubstantiated and personal Facebook comments from the incumbent candidate that could possibly bring Napo into disrepute. 

There will shortly be an election for National Chair and it must be hoped that the person appointed will be rather more 'hands on' than of late and that the NEC can become much more effective in ensuring that any General Secretary is held adequately to account.

There is surely a strong case in saying that opting for 5 more years of the same will hardly be likely to tackle apathy? The union could just continue to slide into possible extinction or merger, and lets not forget a consequent very large payout to the General Secretary at the time, whoever that happens to be.    

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that we are in a bloody mess. How we got here, who is to blame and how it can be fixed are all extraordinarily difficult issues to try and wrestle with, but I intend to carry on trying for as long as I have readers and for as long as we still have an independent union. That blog post last week concerning the end of TR has now attracted over 2,500 hits, thus demonstrating beyond doubt that under the right leadership there is still scope for a fight that sees probation return to being a proud and worthwhile endeavour once more.    

General Secretary Election 10

I saw this desolate comment left last night and wondered how typical it is? 

Anonymous 29 May 2018 at 22:17

"Napo is non existent in Durham Tees Valley CRC, no communication at all from local Chair, no meetings, nothing. Forgotten members. Complete overhaul of Napo required."

There's now less than a week before Napo's NEC are due to interview both candidates for the post of General Secretary on 5th June, the closing date for Branches to submit nominations being noon Monday 4th June. 

By any stretch of the imagination it's all a ridiculously short timescale, the firing gun only having been triggered by email to Branches on 10th May. Over a period that includes not one, but two Bank Holidays, when many colleagues especially with young children take some annual leave, Branches are supposed to have organised meetings, discussed the merits of each candidate and if agreed, make a nomination. 

As usual with Napo, communication has not been a strong point as evidenced by the following exchanges on Facebook dating from Saturday 12th May, indeed the same day I fired the gun on the process with a blog post.      

12th May Facebook

I haven't received any information on the Napo general secretary elections. Should I have done and by what mechanism?

I’ve not either. I understood NEC have yet to interview both candidates at our next June NEC meeting.

Ah I didn’t know that.

It’s gone to branch chairs/convenors first. Got the email Thursday.

O interesting. Our convenor told us ages ago didnt need to send members stuff as "everything" would be sent out by Napo HQ individually to members. Met our NEC rep on TUC March yesterday & told me that it was next NEC when the candidates would be interviewed. We all get ballot slips eventually but hope we are not voting over summer which would be daft (holidays etc). As an aside...communicating news/what's going on and explaining process with rank and file seems to be a perpetual prob with Napo. I don't understand why when social media offers umpteen outlets! At times it's as if we are trying too hard to be "a magazine" with glossy pics' etc rather than just talk about core business and what the staff (Admin/Officers and Officials are actually doing on our behalf). Personally it's the latter I want as can get t'other elsewhere.

I think more info could be sent out but things have definitely improved. However certain things like this need to go to the branch exec first before members.

Katie Lomas. Branch officers have been sent info as there are things they need to do. NEC meet on 5th June and ballots go out to members shortly after that. If anyone has queries about the process contact your branch reps or link officer/official.

I get that Katie but it relies on Branch Officials communicating & as I said above when I queried Branch Chair re dearth of info was told it (all info) was sent out to individual members or to be found on website. We have had no Branch info since Xxxxxx stood down as Secretary last Sept and have since been told Branches no longer need Secretaries as info goes out to members.

Katie Lomas. Not quite as simple as that Xxxxxx, some stuff goes out direct - all members should get Friday news, plus other specific mailouts plus the blog - but where a branch exec needs to do stuff it goes to them...

Whatever is MEANT to happen I'm relaying what my Branch Chair and Convenor are saying happens and as I have said umpteen times now and am not going to repeat again after this, info has not been passed onto Branch members in Xxxxxxx since last Sept by our Branch Officers for the reasons given.

For what it's worth, I agree with Xxxxxxxx. I wasn't even aware there were going to be general secretary elections until reading a post on here that alluded to it. Perhaps this is not the forum for this discussion but I too feel I would like to know more about what's going on or being discussed.

Thanks Xxxxxxx! I suspect part of the problem is gulf between what is intended/planned centrally and what local officers understand/find feasible to achieve and meanwhile left in the dusk are common & garden members. I only found out about this FB page via references on Jim Brown's blog and then took ages to find a "sponsor" to allow me to join this group. If the Forum on Napo webpage had been developed well it could have facilitated these discussions between any member electing to join in and those Officers/Officials designated or choosing to link in plus there were trained moderators to ensure no abuse etc. As it stands this is a closed group I understand (thou what criteria for admission is I don't know) which is fine but there are a load of members still in the "dusk" or outside these forums of info exchange depending on ability of their Branch Officers to help keep them in the loop. Similarly we have a keen local NEC rep but [they are] one who doesn't use social media nor service emails. We no longer have branch meetings as could not sustain quoracy so members only know about Napo activity via what they find out from website should they bother to search that (still not the easiest to navigate and doesn't facilitate quick exchange info or quick answering of questions) or via emails from the centre......that leaves a lot of gaps!

I'm not sure its fair to hold Napo HQ responsible for what your branch officers aren’t doing or how they have miscommunicated stuff. No one has ever said branches don’t need to communicate certain things to their members so no idea where that idea has come from in your branch. It doesn’t make sense anyway as the exec need to discuss certain things first. The more actively involved people are in their branch the stronger they are!

I'm not blaming HQ I'm making the point that info that it's assumed goes out via Branch Officers from HQ doesn't in our area. Of course it's great when members are active and attend meetings etc but that doesn't happen everywhere and certainly isn't happening in my area and 3 people on Exec being only ones who did meet isn't enough to function as a Branch. Help from members and from HQ was requested last Sept. I'm not going to repeat myself any further.

I had no idea Ian was leaving!! Surely that is an important piece of information!!

Katie Lomas. Our General Secretary is an elected post and served a 5 year term so is up for election every 5 years.

Thanks Katie but I do remember being made aware of this in past years so it was a bit of a shock to see this suddenly appear! No apparent notice given (that I have received) that the term is up!

Katie Lomas.  An advert went out on our website and press, your NEC rep should have reported back to branch members that it was happening as it was discussed at length at last NEC. Ian has been mentioning it regularly since last AGM when he announced he would be re-standing. Branches have been informed this week, get in touch with you local branch officers to find out how they are dealing with it as each branch is different.

As a further example of not knowing key info...I learnt via trawling through Jim Brown blog posts that Katie is now apparently Co-chair with Chris. Is that true? If so what happened to Yvonne and presumably this is again info that was sent out via Branch Chair or Convenors or NEC?? Or is it that whomever made the post on JB's Blog had wrong end of the stick? Actually on re-reading Jim's blog I am maligning the integrity of his info as he's posted a document which ends 

"Please note that the nomination forms must be returned to Napo by noon on Monday 4th June 2018 – please follow the instructions on the form.

Yours sincerely

CHRIS WINTERS & KATIE LOMAS National Co-Chairs" 

So what's happened here then?

Katie Lomas. Must be a typo Xxxxxx! No one has changed roles as far as I am aware!

--oo00oo--

For those willing to look, there are surely many telling indicators of systemic communication and organisational failures in the above exchanges, but the bit that really resonates with me is this:-

"We all get ballot slips eventually but hope we are not voting over summer which would be daft (holidays etc)."

Well, it is indeed anticipated that ballot papers are sent out to members shortly after the NEC meeting on 5th June, unless that is, some common sense prevails. Readers will recall from the blog post on 19th May that London Branch were able to discuss the matter at their scheduled meeting on Friday 18th May and were so unhappy with the process that the decision was made to demand more time and opportunity to learn more about the candidates:-

Emergency Motion

GENERAL SECRETARY PROCESS

This Branch requests that the NEC make arrangements as a matter of urgency, such that all members have the opportunity to ask questions of both General Secretary candidates prior to the Election. If this is not achievable by the election deadline, this motion moves that the deadline be extended.

Proposer: Napo London Branch

It will be interesting to see if the NEC get the message and have the bottle to get a grip on things because unless there's some concrete demonstration of direction and leadership from Napo's supposed governing body, we are indeed all doomed.

General Secretary Election 5

News comes in from a reader that yesterday's London Napo Branch meeting was not only quorate, but came to the unanimous conclusion that a lot more information was required before any candidate for General Secretary could be endorsed. I understand a motion to the NEC demanding the opportunity to question both candidates by rank and file members, possibly online or in person, will be forthcoming. 

Apparently some members are strongly of the opinion that the incumbent has a significant advantage over the other candidate and despite some enthusiastic support for the challenger, not enough is known about them. There would appear to be quite a head of steam building in some quarters to demand an extension to the selection process in order to ensure proper scrutiny takes place for what will be a 5 year term of office. 

This interesting development not only serves to highlight that some members are not at all happy with a shoe-horn-in of the incumbent for another term, but that a change of leadership and fresh ideas is required. They are also dissatisfied with the whole process. On Facebook there has recently been some lively discussion regarding the perennial complaint of a lack of information from Napo HQ and some fairly lame responses that tend to highlight an unwillingness or inability of the union to acknowledge the world of social media and effective direct communication in an online world:-

"An advert went out on our website and press, your NEC rep should have reported back to branch members that it was happening as it was discussed at length at last NEC. Ian has been mentioning it regularly since last AGM when he announced he would be re-standing. Branches have been informed this week, get in touch with you local branch officers to find out how they are dealing with it as each branch is different."

What's clear from the Facebook exchanges is that post-TR and the split, many branches are barely functioning effectively with officer posts unfilled, inquorate meetings and even suspended according to one contributor! It surely serves to highlight the gulf between what's actually happening on the ground and the theory as espoused by HQ. 

Of course there was a time when all members got a regular emailed newsletter from the Joint Chairs, but this seems to have been dispensed with in favour of the General Secretary's blog. I suspect many members would expect regular direct communication from those charged with the direction of the union, as well as the General Secretary. But this only serves to highlight the dysfunctionality of accountability within the union that has been discussed here on many occasions.

It is the NEC that both employs and holds the General Secretary to account and thus has a vital role in the selection process. Over the years many union members have been astonished to learn how often this group has been inquorate, a situation that not only disables effective oversight and direction of the union and General Secretary, but effectively disenfranchises the membership, particularly those members who's NEC rep fails to turn up for any reason. 

More than ever, it's clearly of vital importance that individual members make sure that their Branch NEC rep will not only be turning up on June 5th, but that they are absolutely clear as to the mandated wishes of the Branch regarding the General Secretary election process and indeed whether either candidate meets the selection criteria. As employers, this group has the power and authority to decide as it sees fit and appropriate, taking full account of members wishes and what is felt to be in the best interest of the union. 

Such is the nature of any group that holds power over the direction of an organisation, there are bound to be factions, groupings, cliques and vested interests at play and so it's vital that ordinary members make their views known over the coming weeks, both at Branch meetings and by personally seeking out their NEC reps prior to the June 5th meeting. Failure to do so could mean the very future of the union is put in further jeopardy.