Tim Carpenter calls for an SGM

Image by Richard Rutter

In a message to emailed members, and available online, Tim Carpenter has announced his intention to call an SGM:

This meeting is essential, in my view, as the Leader, Chair and Treasurer have resigned without and still refusing to sign over replacements as per Electoral Law, and so these posts should, in my view, be filled by popular mandate

The constitution of the Party contains a serious flaw in that it places itself entirely under the sovereignty of electoral law. In effect, caving in, in advance, to any conflict between the electoral department of our imperfect government and the interests of the governed, however. This clause was cited in support of the argument that Andrew Withers, and Nic Coombe remain official leader and chair, since they remain registered as such. Since the treasurer has resigned, the electoral law is again sovereign when it nominates the leader to be interim treasurer.

In the message Tim pauses to condemn the continued withholding of financial information by the registered Treasurer:

The post of Treasurer may be problematic as access to the bank account and all historic documentation is still being withheld from the remaining members of the NCC, who, as per the Constitution, have a right to oversee the financial affairs of the Party. We hope the open and democratic nature of the above plan will make those responsible for this realise that I and others of the NCC wish the membership to decide the future of the party and to know what has happened. To resist that request is, in my view, to hold the membership in contempt and I will not stand for that. Should that situation persist and a Treasurer not be elected or, if they are, denied full and complete transfer, then I will support immediate use of legal/offical avenues without fear or favour. I believe you would expect nothing less from the NCC.

We know, thanks to Ken Ferguson’s minority report that there are expenses claimed by Andrew Withers that require explanation:

two of the transfers marked A P Withers are described as “Election Expenses” and party members might be interested to ask why LPUK funds appear to have been used to fight an uncontested parish council election on an “Independent” platform.

The sovereignty of the Electoral Commission does have it’s advantages, as it provides for a mechanism to reallocate control of the Party by official diktat:

The officers in post will then be able to follow the Electoral Commission’s advice given to me of contacting the Electoral Commission with this mandate so as to resolve the bureaucratic impasse.

It is, of course, entirely reasonable to expect the Government to intervene in cases where the control of an asset – the Libertarian Party accounts and name – is disputed. But as Tim concludes:

It would, however, be much simpler if those who have the means to make this transition dignified and correct, do so, by transferring the official posts in accordance with the membership’s wishes.

  6 comments for “Tim Carpenter calls for an SGM

  1. Jun 19, 2011 at 3:29 pm

    Sad that it has come to this. Who is still left in the NCC even? Are Tim, Gavin and Simon Leader, Chairman and Treasurer as previously announced?

    I agree a meeting needs to be help ASAP, and it is a shame that one was not held yesterday as previously announced. It looks like will probably be another month now before this mess is resolved.

  2. Ken Ferguson
    Jun 19, 2011 at 4:53 pm

    “Who is still left in the NCC even? Are Tim, Gavin and Simon Leader, Chairman and Treasurer as previously announced?”

    Yes, they are.

    It is important to understand that they were correctly appointed at a quorate meeting of the NCC. They are not recognised by the Electoral Commission as being in these positions because the previous incumbents, although they resigned, refuse to sign the resignation papers.

    You are correct that it will probably take another month or so for the SGM to be held and the mess to be cleaned up, but the most important thing is that it happens and we can move on.

    • Jun 20, 2011 at 3:15 pm

      It’s worth noting, explicitly, though it does seem a little nit-picky, that *not all* of the incumbents “refuse[d] to sign the resignation papers”.

    • Jun 20, 2011 at 9:17 am

      I don’t think you’ve any need to worry John. Enough of the registered officers HAVE refused to sign forms that the problem is genuine, but I don’t think the letter refers to you, as far as I can tell.

      Also, I think footnote 3 relates to “NCC meetings, conversations, emails and other communications since April that I have been involved in have not been conducted as a “coup”, as a clique or under any authoritarian direction of an individual or individuals”, although it could be clearer.

    • Tim Carpenter
      Jun 20, 2011 at 10:12 am


      If you read the letter carefully, you will see that I do not accuse you of withholding information and as you know at no point did I do so in the run-up to your resignation.

      Simon accurately points out that note [3] refers to those propagating inaccurate opinion as fact. Further, note I refer to the POST of Treasurer being problematic, as an incoming officer will be presented with a far from satisfactory state of affairs.

Comments are closed.