“Chairman’s” email

Some LPUK members may have received an email today from Nic Coombe, who purports to be the Chairman of LPUK. His position is controversial, to say the least, with Gavin Webb rightfully appointed to this position by the NCC. To the extent the position is held, it is held by default of bureaucratic actions being signed off by Nic Coombe and Andrew Withers.

This statement had been posted to the old blog spot website and was discussed previously on Libertarian Home. Ken Ferguson, Communication Director had this to say on the statement:

It is important to know that the NCC, as elected, is still functioning and will continue to resist the hi-jacking of the party by the rump of former officials.

The status of each of member of the rump committee was also discussed previously.

Ken went on to mention that:

The statement at the bottom of the [blog] announcement is untrue.

“This notice is published after consultation with all the legally responsible officers and as many members of the NCC as could be engaged.”

As far as I am aware, Nic Coome did not contact or consult any NCC member prior to publication.

It is of course interesting to note that the email version does not contain sentence quoted from the previous version.

[Text updated to include links]

Tags:

LPUK

Date:

August 1, 2011

Up next:

Before:

25 responses to ““Chairman’s” email”

John Watson

August 1, 2011 at 10:27 pm

The question is did Nic and Andrew quit from the party, when did they hand in their resignation, what was on the resignation letter? Handing in the form to the EC for the (application rejected)de-registration of the party can not be considered “leaving” or “quitting” the party. If so, on what legal or constitution rule would this define as “quieting” the party specially when the application was rejected by the EC.

As in the constitution, the legal officers (Members or not{Gray area}) are required to attend the NCC meetings, and if these legal officers such as Andrew/Nic/SimonF have not at least been invited to these NCC meetings then the NCC meetings could be determined illegal.

As things stands, with the recent update on the EC website (with my name now removed) Nic/Andrew/SimonF are still legal officers of the party.

If any NCC member is not happy with any officer or NCC member have the power to call an NCC meeting and vote officers out of the party, to my knowledge none of the NCC members have exercised these powers.

Members also have the power to vote the officers out at the AGM or requesting their local co-ordinator to call an NCC meeting.

If the NCC votes out a legal officer/member from the party, the legal officer has the right to a judicial committee, however this has yet to be setup by the NCC in accordance to the constitution. (After 7 months since the last AGM)

To my knowledge {correct me if am wrong}, at least for the past two month the current NCC has virtually remained idle.

For the party to have any future, current NCC members and legal officers need to work within the very constitution they agreed to when they joined the party, this clearly has not been the case.

LikeLike

1. Simon Gibbs
  
  August 2, 2011 at 6:32 am
  
  They quit in the sense that they said “I resign effective -whenever-“, and subsequently they were replaced with new officers at a quorate NCC meeting. Forms filed with the EC are irrelevant.
  
  LikeLike
  
  1. John Watson
    
    August 2, 2011 at 8:03 am
    
    Can you give me the source of when they said “I resign effective “ in writing as I can not find any source or email of them saying this. And if they did resign, was it as legal officer, member or both. They can not resign as legal officer until a replacement comes into place. Even if they resigned as membership, they still should have been invited to the NCC meeting in accordance to the constitution.
    
    LikeLike
  2. Simon Gibbs
    
    August 2, 2011 at 12:31 pm
    
    I was paraphrasing, John. You can’t create a controversy out of that.
    
    LikeLike
  3. John Watson
    
    August 2, 2011 at 3:04 pm
    
    Simon, there is claims that they “resigned”, however I am still not found the source.
    
    To my knowledge they tried to de-register the party, and wanted to stand down and went silent during the NCC meeting in May.
    
    However I still question if these individuals actually legally resigned from the party and the sources/letters of these resignations.
    
    If the NCC is claiming these individuals resigned from the party, then the NCC should be able to give us the date and supply the official letters of these resignation(s).
    
    If they have not resigned from the party, and if the NCC did not invite these individuals to the NCC meeting then these NCC meetings can be considered unconstitutional.
    
    If the NCC are not happy with these legal officers or in dispute with them, then the constitution gives the NCC the required tools to deal with these individuals.
    
    As things stands, the legal officers of the party have acted as if they have not resigned.
    
    IF any if the NCC members confirm when did these legal officers resigned and the official letter of resignation. And if they have not resigned why the exclusion from the recent NCC meetings.
    
    LikeLike
  4. Andy Janes
    
    August 2, 2011 at 5:40 pm
    
    I have an e-mail send by Nic on May 15th that states the following:
    
    ‘After the latest outburst from Malcolm, I’ve had enough. I hereby resign as Chairman and as a member of the party.’
    
    Is that conclusive enough?
    
    LikeLike
  5. John Watson
    
    August 4, 2011 at 6:36 pm
    
    ‘After the latest outburst from Malcolm, I’ve had enough. I hereby resign as Chairman and as a member of the party.’
    
    And lets not forget Nic frustrations with the NCC, specially the lack of support/defence of his report which was agreed to by all NCC members who attended the meeting.
    
    Me and several other individuals with in hours of that email convinced Nic to continue on as chairman until a possible replacement chairman/treasurer could be found. There was a view from some of us if Nic stood down the party may have been de-registered.
    
    If you determine that email was Nic resignation the the same argument can easily be applied to other NCC members.
    
    As things stands, Nic is acting as if he has never resigned and for his position to be replaced requires a 2/3 vote majority from NCC members, letter in writing and if required a Judicial committee.
    
    LikeLike
Ken Ferguson

August 2, 2011 at 10:53 am

Yep. Shows all the signs of turning into a Zombie Apocalypse!!!

“The monsters are usually hungry for human flesh, often specifically brains.”

http://outspokenrabbit.blogspot.com/2011/07/dead-chicken-party.html

LikeLike

Richard Carey

August 2, 2011 at 3:16 pm

Yeah, maybe they never resigned, and we dreamed it all, like in Dallas, when they brought Bobby back from the dead.

LikeLike

ManNotNumber

August 2, 2011 at 8:39 pm

What a complete bollocking waste of time.

LikeLike

1. Simon Gibbs
  
  August 2, 2011 at 9:09 pm
  
  Better than watching the compiler compile.
  
  LikeLike
  
pavel

August 4, 2011 at 7:44 am

Actually, membership@ has even answered my questions about Andrew Withers and Nic Coome!
“Apologies, I did not answer your second question regarding Andrew Withers, again I would refer you to the avoidence of doubt letter from the Electoral Commission, and his role as Party Leader and acting Treasurer is on the Electoral Commission Website.

Both Andrew and Nic have been instrumental in raising funds for the party in recent weeks and the setting up of a new party website, otherwise the Party would have been de registered on a statutory basis at the end of June.”

LikeLike

1. Simon Gibbs
  
  August 4, 2011 at 10:50 am
  
  Did they send you copy of that letter Pavel?
  
  LikeLike
  
  1. pavel
    
    August 4, 2011 at 11:59 am
    
    I haven’t asked. I’ve only asked Andrew or Nick to come to Rose&Crown drinks tonight – Andrew cannot come because he is busy till 7pm and he lives far away in Somerset.
    
    LikeLike
  2. Simon Gibbs
    
    August 4, 2011 at 12:07 pm
    
    Nic is also quite distant. I think it would be interesting if they tried to explain themselves in person, but I am confident that Andrew in particular would be too ashamed of his actions to turn up.
    
    LikeLike
  3. John Watson
    
    August 4, 2011 at 6:04 pm
    
    Agreed,
    
    And this is the whole point of the Judicial committee which even to this day the NCC have not setup.(and from old emails Andrew was demanding this from the NCC right back in April)
    
    If the NCC followed through procedures laid out with in the constitution, we may have answers that some members are seeking.
    
    However, it is really too late, the party is now virtually over so I will leave this NCC to continue to “idle” by.
    
    John
    
    LikeLike
Richard Carey

August 4, 2011 at 11:53 pm

@ John Watson,

He resigned. Everyone knows it. Everyone read the same thing as Andy. Indeed, if memory serves, it was you that announced the fact.

From that day until the other day when an email arrived under his name, there has been no announcement that he rescinded his resignation, even if such a thing were possible. In fact, not a peep has been heard from him.

If he’s still chairman, that means you must still be treasurer, right?

LikeLike

1. John Watson
  
  August 6, 2011 at 6:04 pm
  
  @Chris
  
  The only legal officer who can resign (according to EC rules) is the treasurer, which I did officially on the 13th of May with an official letter that was forwarded to the EC.
  
  According to the EC rules the Party Leader or Chairman can not simply resign from the party, and the email that Nic sent is completely irrelevant due to EC rules.
  
  Nic as far as I understand was willing to stand down if the NCC found another chairman, however this NCC meeting to elect another chairman has to be legal with Nic (the current chairman) at least being invited to the NCC meeting in accordance to the constitution.
  
  As Nic was not invited to this NCC meeting (in accordance to the constitution) then the NCC meeting cannot be regarded legal or constitutional.
  
  Thus Nic has right not to sign these forms, however the NCC has the right to use the legal courts however based on my understanding of the EC laws and the constitution the NCC would be wasting their time going to court.
  
  However a court case would be interesting, however the NCC does not have the finances, members to donate to finance a legal challenge and I bet they don’t have have the will power to go down that route.
  
  As things stands Nic is registered (and elected) legal chairman of the LPUK with the Election Commission and is clearly acting as if he is still the chairman of the party.
  
  The NCC has options, it is up to them what steps to take however undermining the constitution will get them no were.
  
  This is not what is morally right, but what is legal and constitutional.
  
  LikeLike
  
  1. pavel
    
    August 6, 2011 at 8:56 pm
    
    Heh, what would this libertarian party do without the rules defined by the government 🙂
    
    LikeLike
  2. Richard Carey
    
    August 8, 2011 at 12:00 am
    
    “As Nic was not invited to this NCC meeting…”
    
    I’m sure if he wasn’t invited it was because he had announced he had quit the position and the party and flounced off.
    
    If he’s still chairman, then why hasn’t he arranged the SGM that he promised us months ago?
    
    LikeLike
  3. John Watson
    
    August 8, 2011 at 5:46 am
    
    @ Richard
    
    He can not quit under EC rules by a simple email.
    
    As Nic is legally responsible for the actions of the party members and decisions that the NCC takes, it is only reasonable to expect the NCC to invite the current legal officers to the meeting in accordance to the constitution, .
    
    If Nic considers the meeting un-constitutional, then he has every right not to sign the forms.
    
    Legal officers can not simply quit from their positions by a simple email like the other NCC members can, due to the legal officers legal responsibilities they have to follow through correct procedures before they can walk away from their legal responsibilities .
    
    Irrelevant of what emails he has wrote, he clearly has not quit the position as he has never abandoned and cannot legally abandon his legal responsibilities.
    
    If you like it or not Nic is still Legal and elected chair man of the party.
    
    Will be interested in the NCC next steps or will they just remain “idle”.
    
    John
    
    LikeLike
  4. John Watson
    
    August 8, 2011 at 6:09 am
    
    @announced he had quit the position and the party and flounced off.
    accordance to the employment contract..
    
    Nic did write an email (with little understanding of the law) saying he is quitting however under legal laws (Contract) he can not walk away from his responsibilities thus the NCC can’t just turn around and undermine the parties constitution by not inviting the current legal officers to the meeting. And I disagree that he “flounced off”
    
    “If he’s still chairman, then why hasn’t he arranged the SGM that he promised us months ago?””
    
    The party was in liquidation, and break down of communications between the legal officers and the NCC, and from my understanding (until recently) were virtually not talking to each other (which is not very libertarian)
    
    LikeLike
  5. Richard Carey
    
    August 8, 2011 at 1:46 pm
    
    The problem I have with all this, is that I actually was present as an observer at the NCC meeting following Nic’s resignation, and so I know that votes were held and unanimously carried on the posts of new chairman and party leader and a temporary treasurer (that’s right; unanimous, including Liam Hillman), so Nic had no legitimate reason to not sign the forms.
    
    As for whether Nic flounced off or not, that is my interpretation of his resignation, which sought to place the blame for his decision on Malcolm’s continuing questions, which, as an ordinary member myself, I feel were entirely justified.
    
    In any case, Nic has made no attempt, as far as I can see, to call the SGM he promised, which would have allowed an opportunity to the party to deal with the problems.
    
    For all I know, he’s not in any way involved in any of this current business. He may be completely out of it, and someone else using his name.
    
    LikeLike
  6. Simon Gibbs
    
    August 8, 2011 at 2:37 pm
    
    I’m another of the three observers. I recall Liam kept his dissent for the process as a whole, in particular he questioned each of us as suitable choices for observers, but he seemed satisfied and voted for each of the motions.
    
    LikeLike
John Watson

August 8, 2011 at 6:59 pm

Simon, from my source the reasons why the NCC meeting was not legal..

1) Failure of the NCC to at least invite the legal registered officers of the party, as they have the right to vote. { even to vote in their own replacement }
2) Least 1 NCC member (not legal officer) not even invited to attend the meeting.
3) Timing, according to the constitution, NCC members should be given a 2 (or so) week notice, from old emails notice was less than a week.
4) Questions on the membership status of some of those individuals who attended (included NCC members).
5) One NCC member who voted, had a claim against him and should not have had the right to vote (in accordance to the constitution).

During the time SimonF was in discussions with Andrew, I question what other NCC members were doing during this time, because as far as I can tell during this time the NCC just remained “idle”. { Correct me if am wrong }

The rest of the NCC members could been setting up a Judicial committee or been doing other things to help forward liberty in this country, but we had absolutely nothing from this NCC.

John

LikeLike