MU GS Extension Challenge Letters

On 5th February 2020, the MU Executive Decision took the decision to extend the term of the current General Secretary, Horace Trubridge for an additional 3 years, taking him through to 2025. The minutes covered it as follows:

1.6 The Chair raised the issue of the General Secretary’s term of office. The General
Secretary reported on the position regarding his current term of office, age and any
proposed retirement age and on the legal advice received. The Chair then asked the
Executive Committee if they would like the General Secretary to leave the room
during the debate and it was agreed that there was no requirement for the General
Secretary to leave the room. A debate then took place and at the end of the debate
the Chair asked the Executive Committee whether they would like to defer a decision
on the matter till the March meeting and it was agreed that this was not necessary.
Motion: (cu) “Having regard to Rule VIII of the rules of the Union and the provisions
of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and to the legal
advice received, the Executive Committee unanimously resolved that the age fixed in
accordance with the rules of the Union for the current General Secretary, Horace
Trubridge, to retire from the position shall be on his 68th birthday, 15th January 2025;
that his term of office shall end on that date; and that in accordance with Rule VIII (1)
of the Union’s rules the terms and conditions of employment and term of office of the
General Secretary shall be amended accordingly; and that the Chair of the Executive
Committee shall write to the General Secretary to this effect and secure his written
acceptance of this variation to his terms and conditions of employment.”

On reading this, it was clear to me that this extension potentially breached the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 so I started the process of investigating further. I took legal advice and consulted numerous experienced colleagues before writing to the EC explaining my concerns. The research I undertook also uncovered a worrying pattern of apparent groupthink mentality so I included a section in the letter covering my concerns around this.

The following was sent on 20th April 2020:

Dear EC Member,

I am writing following the publication of the abridged Executive Committee minutes from Wednesday 5th February 2020 and with specific reference to agenda item 1.6. For ease I have copied the item here:

1.6 The Chair raised the issue of the General Secretary’s term of office. The General Secretary reported on the position regarding his current term of office, age and any proposed retirement age and on the legal advice received. The Chair then asked the Executive Committee if they would like the General Secretary to leave the room during the debate and it was agreed that there was no requirement for the General Secretary to leave the room. A debate then took place and at the end of the debate the Chair asked the Executive Committee whether they would like to defer a decision on the matter till the March meeting and it was agreed that this was not necessary.

Motion: (cu) “Having regard to Rule VIII of the rules of the Union and the provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and to the legal advice received, the Executive Committee unanimously resolved that the age fixed in accordance with the rules of the Union for the current General Secretary, Horace Trubridge, to retire from the position shall be on his 68th birthday, 15th January 2025; that his term of office shall end on that date; and that in accordance with Rule VIII (1) of the Union’s rules the terms and conditions of employment and term of office of the General Secretary shall be amended accordingly; and that the Chair of the Executive Committee shall write to the General Secretary to this effect and secure his written acceptance of this variation to his terms and conditions of employment.”

There are a number of problems with this which I will cover throughout this letter.

My principle concern is the EC’s decision to grant an extension to the term of the General Secretary. This nearly three-year extension is arguably an extension of such magnitude that it should have not been agreed before seeking wider membership consensus (this extension constitutes more than 50% of the maximum term allowable under TULRCA 92 in normal circumstances). It is clearly undemocratic to lengthen the term by such a period without giving members the opportunity to vote in an election, and the first question many will be asking is why this lengthy extension was deemed necessary. Elections are a vital part of any healthy functioning democracy and they give voters an opportunity to hold leaders to account. We could remind ourselves of Tony Benn’s Five Essential Questions of Democracy:

  1. What power have you got?
  2. Where did you get it from?
  3. In whose interests do you use it?
  4. To whom are you accountable?
  5. How do we get rid of you?

Faced with the EC’s decision to grant this extension; if members were to ponder these questions with reference to the MU General Secretary, how does the EC expect them to answer question five?

It is also helpful to remind ourselves of the key figures from the 2017 General Secretary election:

Papers sent28,564
Papers returned3,932
Papers spoiled7
Kathy Dyson1,732
Horace Trubridge2,193

It is clear that Mr Trubridge won the election, however when considering this extension without further balloting, a closer analysis of the results is warranted:

% of eligible members who voted for HT7.6%
% of eligible members who voted for KD6.1%
% of voters who voted for HT57%
% of voters who voted for KD41%

Do these close results justify the decision to extend Mr Trubridge’s term as General Secretary without any need for balloting members?

At the very least, soundings should have been taken from Regional Committees to assess if this extension has their support. Past correspondence has made clear that the EC wishes to uphold the principle of representative democracy, so who exactly is being represented if the views of Regional Committees aren’t sought on such a serious matter?

It is also deeply concerning that the decision was taken over 2 months ago yet has not been publicly announced aside from in these abridged EC minutes. Is there a plan to announce this to the wider membership or is this agenda item considered notification enough? There is also an issue around the timing of the decision. While many members are losing their livelihoods and the very future of the union is potentially at stake, this seems out of touch with the working lives of the members you represent.

Aside from the disappointing disregard for seeking the views of the wider membership, the crux of the matter is whether this decision is legal. Were EC members given full sight of the legal advice and opportunity prior to the meeting to analyse it and come up with their own questions and conclusions? Who issued the legal advice? Will the legal advice be made available?

Without sight of the legal advice referred to, I can see no legal basis for this extension and no basis for the Certification Office to allow it.

The relevant provisions of TULRCA 1992 are:

Chapter IV – Section 46:

  • (b) A trade union shall secure that no person continues to hold such a position for more than five years without being re-elected at such an election.
  • The positions to which this Chapter applies (subject as mentioned below) are—

(d) general secretary.

Chapter IV – Section 58:

(Note that the legislation requires that all of the following conditions are met)

Exemption of certain persons nearing retirement.

  • Section 46(1)(b) (requirement of re-election) does not apply to a person holding a position to which this Chapter applies if the following conditions are satisfied.
  • The conditions are that—

(a) he holds the position by virtue of having been elected at an election in relation to which the requirements of this Chapter were satisfied,

(b) he is a full-time employee of the union by virtue of the position,

(c) he will reach retirement age within five years,

(d) he is entitled under the rules of the union to continue as the holder of the position until retirement age without standing for re-election,

(e) he has been a full-time employee of the union for a period (which need not be continuous) of at least ten years, and

(f) the period between the day on which the election referred to in paragraph (a) took place and the day immediately preceding that on which paragraph (c) is first satisfied does not exceed five years.

  • For the purposes of this section “retirement age”, in relation to any person, means the earlier of—
  • the age fixed by, or in accordance with, the rules of the union for him to retire from the position in question, or
  • the age which is for the time being pensionable age (within the meaning given by the rules in paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 to the Pensions Act 1995)].

The legislation requires that all of the conditions are met. The MU rules make no mention of an extension over the five-year maximum period allowable by law in order to take a General Secretary to retirement age so requirement 58(2)(d) is not met. MU Rule VIII(8) states:

The General Secretary shall hold office for the maximum period provided by law or until death, cessation of membership, resignation or removal from office, in accordance with the provisions of the Rules.

The maximum period provided by law is 5 years, unless a union’s rulebook includes an additional rule allowing for this exemption to apply. Two examples of such additional rules are found in the rulebooks of GMB and ASLEF:

GMB Rule 15.5

An election will not need to take place if the holder of the office:

A) having been elected to that office under this or the previous rule; and

B) having been a full-time employee of the union for at least 10 years;

would otherwise reach retirement age within five years of their current term of office ending.

ASLEF Rule 9(A)(1)

c) Members elected to the position of General Secretary shall take up their position:

i) immediately following the date of the Executive Committee’s adoption of the scrutineers’ report where a vacancy exists; or

ii) In line with the statutory provision but no longer than 6 weeks following the closing date of the ballot, where a candidate will be declared the winner of the election.

Any member elected to the position of General Secretary may occupy the position for a period of five years from the date they take office but not beyond their 65th birthday. Any member elected to the position of General Secretary and unable to complete the further full 5 years term in office prior to attaining 65 years of age shall be permitted to stand for reelection. Where they have less than 12 months prior to their 65th birthday the member will be allowed to continue in office as the General Secretary without an election.

The Certification Office would not judge MU Rule VIII(8) to meet the eligibility criteria required in TULRCA 92, but suspending that reality for a moment and playing out an hypothetical scenario in which the Certification Office does allow an extension, the decision to allow the extension until 2025 (age 68) would constitute an additional breach. The MU has no fixed age under the rules for the General Secretary to retire, meaning TULRCA 58(3)(b) would apply. This means that the General Secretary’s retirement age (and therefore the end date of any extension allowed under Section 58 of TULRCA 92) is 66 – the age which is for the time being pensionable age within the meaning given by the rules in paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 to the Pensions Act 1995. The relevant section is:

Pensions Act 1995 – Schedule 4 – Part 1 – Pensionable Ages for Men and Women

Rules for Determining Pensionable Age

  • A man [born before 6th December 1953] attains pensionable age when he attains the age of 65 years.

(6) A person born after [5th October 1954] but before [6th April 1960] attains pensionable      age when the person attains the age of 66.

According to the EC minutes, Mr Trubridge’s date of birth is 15th January 1957, meaning the date at which he reaches pensionable age (and therefore the latest end date of any exemption of the requirement to be re-elected) is 15th January 2023.

Schedule 4 Table 3 of the Pensions Act 1995 indicates the timetable for increasing the pensionable age to 67 (although the timetable begins with persons 3 years younger than Mr Trubridge) and there is as yet no timetable for increasing the statutory pensionable age to 68. Therefore, there is no legislative basis for an extension to age 68. Of course, this is academic because the MU rules do not allow any extension.

Aside from the question around the legality of the extension, I also have to express alarm in reading that the General Secretary was present in the room throughout this discussion. This arguably raises alarm bells about the unanimous carrying of the motion. It is well established best practice that where a conflict of interest has been declared, the individual excuses themselves automatically for that portion of the meeting. This is a particularly important principle to follow when the conflict relates to a pecuniary interest. I would suggest that the best and only solution would have been for the Chair of the EC to follow the procedure set out in the EC’s own Declarations of Interest Policy issued in August 2017 which states:

Action

8. Making a declaration means that no contribution to that item should be made by the member, nor should they play any part in the decision-making process. The chair of the meeting will request that they leave the room for the item.

The policy doesn’t allow for discretion from the Chair in its application, so why is the EC requiring all Regional and Section Committees to abide by this policy but not applying it to itself? Newer members of the EC might argue that they weren’t made aware of the policy, but the General Secretary and Chair of the EC were both in post when the policy was introduced so there can be no excuse. This constitutes a major procedural failing.

This question casts doubt over the procedural practices of the MU’s highest committee and I feel obliged to challenge the EC on whether robust debate and discussion is taking place at the top of our union. It’s interesting yet alarming to look at the motions of the past 24 months of meetings as collated on these tables:

Date of MeetingNumber of Motions tabledNumber of Motions to which the decision to accept/reject was carried unanimouslyDate of MeetingNumber of Motions tabledNumber of Motions to which the decision to accept/reject was carried unanimously
Jan 20182423Jan 20193131
Feb 20183433Feb 20193030
Mar 20183030Mar 20192020
April (i) 201877April 20192828
April (ii) 20183131May 20192928
May (i) 20183030June 20192525
May (ii) 201844July 20193131
June 20183433Sept 20193534
July 20183131Oct 20194141
Sept 20183432Nov20192929
Oct 20182424Dec 20194242
Nov 20183030Jan 20202929
Dec 20183333Feb 20202525
Total number of Motions tabled for EC consideration Mar 2018 – Feb 2020Total number of Motion to which the decision to accept/reject was carried unanimously
741734 (99.1%)

Of course, the majority of these motions are related to the receiving of minutes pertaining to other union committee business so would not typically be challenged. However, a great many of the motions relate to serious core union business such as motions from members, motions from Regional Committees and approaches from other political organisations requesting affiliation, to give a few examples.

If this unanimity is a true reflection of the outlook of the members of the EC, then the MU must look to increase diversity of thinking on the committee as a matter of urgency and must encourage different voices to speak up.

In Matthew Syed’s book Rebel Ideas, he discusses the importance of diversity in the thinking of any group of individuals if disastrous decisions are to be avoided. One example he gives is that of the review group which oversaw the introduction of the Poll Tax; where a lack of diversity of experience proved catastrophic, this despite the fact that the review group “loved working together. They were agreeing, mirroring, parroting, corroborating, confirming, reflecting. They were basking in the warm glow of homophily. This social harmony deluded them into thinking they were coming in on a wise policy. In fact, it showed the opposite. They were entrenching each other’s blind spots.”

If the EC does not share such unanimity of outlook, then questions must be asked about how a situation apparently suggesting the phenomena of groupthink has been allowed to occur.

What process does the Chair engage in to encourage free and open debate? Is dissent from what appears to be a groupthink mentality tolerated, or better still, encouraged? How does the Chair accommodate robust analysis of any issue so that decisions reached are not only sound in basis but in the best service of the union and its members? Are difficult questions such as “in whose interests?”, and “why should we?” being asked?

Or are dissenting voices silenced? Are some members of the EC feeling pressured into silence, or going along with matters because they feel they lack the subject knowledge, experience or confidence to speak up?

What training is received to empower EC members to ask questions? What training is given to inform EC members’ understanding of their obligations to the union, or to improve their understanding of trade union legislation?

As an Executive Committee, you must look at the chain of events here and analyse how such a mistake can have been allowed to occur. Some of the questions that must be asked are:

  1. Was full and proper legal advice obtained?
  2. Was the legal advice flawed?
  3. Was the EC shown the full legal advice and given time to analyse it prior to making a decision? If not, why not?
  4. Why did the EC decide not to defer a final decision on such an important matter until the following meeting? Was that aspect of the decision unanimous?
  5. Why was Mr Trubridge allowed to remain present while this matter was discussed?
  6. Did Mr Trubridge contribute in any way to the discussions around this matter?
  7. If the legal advice wasn’t shared with the EC, what reasons were given in justification of the extension?

You must satisfy yourselves with the answers to these questions and many others that remain hanging in the air after an episode so dissatisfactory and potentially harmful to the union.

The members who lend you the power of a seat on the EC hold your obligation to speak up with your true voice on each and every matter being discussed, so any behaviour preventing this from happening cannot be tolerated. In addition to this democratic principle, the MU EC is responsible for ensuring that the MU complies with the requirements of TULRCA 1992, in order to continue operating effectively as a trade union. The aims and objectives of the union can only be achieved when the EC is able to meet its responsibilities. I am in no doubt that when you made the decision to accept a nomination to sit on the EC you wished only to help the MU in working towards its aims and objectives. Sadly however, it is clear that a number of major mistakes have occurred and you must insist on their rectification.

I look forward to hearing confirmation that the motion granting an extension to the term of General Secretary has been nullified.

Yours faithfully,

Mike Kidd

********************************************

On 25th April I received a reply from Dave Lee (Chair of the Executive Committee) refuting my “assertions” and doubling down that no wrongdoing of any form had taken place. The letter was largely irrelevant and failed to address any of the concerns around either the legal issues or the lack of democratic process. The letter was also published on the MU website and followed by an article in Music Week…

The letter on the MU website was published as follows:

The MU Executive Committee has been contacted by a member in regard to an item in the abridged minutes of the February EC meeting concerning the General Secretary’s term of office. The Executive Committee can clarify that it was unanimous in its decision and is delighted to have endorsed an extension to our General Secretary’s term of office until retirement on his 68th birthday.

The decision was taken in full receipt of legal advice covering the required conditions to be fulfilled under TULRCA 1992 and the MU Rules. This advice was given by Thompsons, a highly respected law firm specialising in Trade Union Law and, in summary, was as follows:

  • Rule VIII 8 of the MU rules providing for the General Secretary to “hold office for the maximum period provided by law” satisfies the requirement of section 58 to be “entitled under the rules of the union” to continue in office.
  • The age and date of election of the current General Secretary mean that he meets the requirements for section 58 to apply.
  • Section 58 refers to “the age fixed by, or in accordance with, the rules of the union for him to retire from the position”. The EC has power under MU Rule VIII 1 to “determine the terms and conditions of employment of the General Secretary” and therefore has power in accordance with the rules to determine the retirement date applicable to the General Secretary.
  • Section 58 does not prohibit the union from agreeing a retirement date which is later than state retirement age.

The full advice was sent out to EC Vice Chairs by me on 10 January this year, well in advance of the February EC meeting and communicated to the full EC at the meeting. During the presentation of this advice, various points and reassurances were asked for and given. The advice was thorough and was accepted unanimously.

Since Horace became General Secretary there has been a new sense of urgency and drive within the organisation with initiatives to bring the worth of our members to the attention of not only the general public but politicians of all persuasions. We have campaigns in the orchestral field which have brought great steps towards “parity” for extras and deputies, together with joint initiatives like the Manifesto for British Orchestras with the ABO. Campaigns on music education in schools that have been taken up by politicians from all parties. Campaigns on music venues, joint initiatives with UK Music, Help Musicians, BAPAM and many more. Equalities development and Safe Space open lines. A policy of taking our EC meetings to the regions and having the opportunity to engage with the Regional Committees on a personal level. An increase in membership numbers with the advent of a new joining scheme. The reorganisation of staff positions to revitalise our response. An increase in funds to distribute to our members from dubbing receipts that can now be paid out. All this under the shadow of Brexit and the potential harm that this could bring to our profession.

The initiative to attend party conferences and present a stand at these events has proved well worth the investment of our funds. Delegates take great interest in our campaigns and are happy to show their support. This has been all the more so with our successful stand at the Conservative Party conferences where new appreciation and support for our efforts has been found. All the more welcome in the aftermath of the last election. We have access to ministers in a Tory Government to an extent not previously experienced.

To add to this new drive, our biennial conference was transformed with universal approval by those that attended. It now encompasses a review of work to date and an open multi-session day for future ideas within each department of our union. The initiative came from Horace and his team and highlights, together with the above, our desire to extend his term of office, compliant with the law, without the interruption of a possible election. It should also be noted in passing that an extension was granted by the EC to our previous General Secretary John Smith.

With all the uncertainty faced by our members as we navigate withdrawal from the EU, and the extremely effective work the team has done in putting musicians to the forefront of politicians’ minds, the EC was adamant that stability should be sought. We have been reassured that our decision was correct by witnessing the Union’s rapid response to the crisis faced by our members during this unprecedented Covid-19 pandemic and the readiness to make funds available to ease immediate hardship.

In relation to the EC minute 1.6 and the debate that took place after deciding there was no need for the General Secretary to leave the room, it should be noted that approval for the extension was resoundingly and unanimously clear. Horace rightly declared an interest in the issue and offered to leave the meeting. The EC unanimously decided that it wished Horace to remain present for the discussion. You will be aware that the General Secretary does not have a vote on the EC.

It had been my intention to let Horace present his request and allow questions to be heard, and then return to the matter at the March EC meeting thereby allowing time for further reflection. The mood of the meeting was so enthusiastic and decisive in support that there was no need to defer until March. It was agreed unanimously as the minute states. The minute sufficiently conveys the mood and decision of the Committee.

The EC takes its responsibilities extremely seriously. It is made up of intelligent, conscientious and diligent activists whose expertise covers every aspect of the music industry. All EC members stand for re-election every two years. It is the EC’s responsibility to oversee the running and governance of our union, ensure we have a strong leadership that protects the future of the MU, protects our members from unscrupulous employers and provide guidance and influence to our politicians. One could add that one of the founding principles was to protect its members from themselves.

The EC is confident that Horace Trubridge provides the quality of leadership the MU needs during these turbulent times.

The decision was communicated by inclusion in the abridged minutes published to members on the MU website as is the customary method of communication. The minute on this item does not differ in the abridged version from the unabridged minutes.

Finally, the very suggestion that the minutes were held back, as reported elsewhere, in order to be obscured under the pandemic news whirl, is insulting to the integrity of our hard working officials and EC in such difficult times where our resources are being sorely tested.

Dave Lee

Unfortunately, this response fails to address a number of the most important issues contained in my original letter.


From a legal perspective, we can accept that some of Dave’s points are correct, some are open to further debate, and some are correct but irrelevant. Most important, is the final bullet of Dave’s four point summary of the legality of the extension. In this he provides us with a distraction from the key legal issue. Dave is correct that the legislation does not prohibit a trade union from agreeing a retirement age which is later than the statutory retirement age, but this point has never been in dispute. The question in dispute is whether that later retirement age would qualify as end point for an exemption from the requirement to hold elections at intervals of no more than five years. The legislation is very clear that the exemption only extends to the earlier of either the union’s own retirement age or the statutory retirement age:


“For the purposes of this section “retirement age”, in relation to any person, means the earlier of—
(a) the age fixed by, or in accordance with, the rules of the union for him to retire from the position in question, or
(b) the age which is for the time being pensionable age”

Has Dave’s response deliberately missed out this clearly relevant detail? Why has it not been acknowledged? Do the EC understand the difference between the issues raised in my letter and the response given?


There can be no doubt that this extension has triggered a significant reaction from the wider membership, but it’s also clear that there is currently no acknowledgement that any mistakes have taken place, whether deliberately or otherwise. Therefore, it is vital that we continue to apply pressure and insist on a full and proper explanation, and the immediate nullification of the motion extending the term of the General Secretary.


Many colleagues have expressed their frustration at discovering this disregard for democracy but have asked, “what we can do to address it?”
There are many steps available to us, including the eventual possibility of an official complaint to the CO. In many respects however, such a formal route could restrict us to only resolving those specific issues which have breached legislation. As my first letter detailed, there are many more questions we need answers to outside of formal legislation breaches. Questions around democracy, questions around respect for the views of the wider membership, and questions around the need for recognition that the MU is its members, not its leadership.

I have set out 25 questions which must be answered by the EC before this issue can be resolved. The questions are:

  1. Did the Chair of the EC seek legal advice from Thompsons Solicitors, asking questions specifically relating to an extension to the term of Horace Trubridge as General Secretary?
  2. Did the Chair of the EC seek legal advice prior to any discussion of this matter with the rest of the EC?
  3. Did Horace Trubridge authorise the request for legal advice in his capacity as General Secretary?
  4. Are there any minutes available recording the discussions that led up to the decision to seek legal advice?
  5. Are you prepared to disclose the full, unredacted legal advice to help assure the membership of the surety of the decision to extend the term of the GS beyond the 5 years permitted?
  6. On what date was the legal advice sought?
  7. Is there any form of paper trail recording the discussions that led up to the request for legal advice?
  8. Did the legal advice incur a cost which was met out of MU funds?
  9. Was the concept of a retirement extension devised by Horace Trubridge himself or did it originate with the EC?
  10. Did Horace Trubridge approach the Chair of the EC to inform him that he would not be seeking re-election for another five-year term, but wished to remain in post after the initial five year term, until his chosen retirement date?
  11. Was the Certification Office consulted about the proposals?
  12. Is it the view of the EC that reference to this matter in the abridged EC minutes constituted adequate notification to the wider MU membership?
  13. Do the EC believe that Horace Trubridge’s presence in the room during the debate of this matter constituted any breach of procedure?
  14. Do the EC believe MU rule VIII(8) meets the requirement stipulated by TULRCA (92)S.58(2)(d) and that therefore this situation qualifies as an exemption to S.46(1)(b)?
  15. Do the EC believe MU Rule VIII(1) grants the EC authority to determine the retirement date of any General Secretary on a case-by-case basis through amending the terms and conditions of employment of the General Secretary outside of a General Secretary vacancy situation?
  16. Do the EC believe that to alter the terms and conditions of a General Secretary outside of a vacancy situation is permissible under MU Rule VIII(1)?
  17. Do the EC believe it is legally permissible under TULRCA S.58(3) to not hold an election required by S.46 until the later of the Statutory Pensionable Age or the age fixed under the rules of the union?
  18. Has the date 25th January 2025 been selected for strategic reasons in the pursuit of the MU’s general aims and objectives or is it simply as a reflection of Horace Trubridge’s preferred retirement date?
  19. Do the EC view elections as interruptions to business?
  20. Do the EC believe that any training is required in order to fully carry out their responsibilities as members of the EC?
  21. Do the EC see any issues with the statistics collated by Mike Kidd in his previous letter around the unanimous carrying of motions?
  22. Is it true that the statement published on the MU website is representative of the view of the MU EC and that the principle of collective responsibility, defined in past EC minutes as “being bound by the collective decision and bound to support that decision publicly” is being adhered to?
  23. Do the MU Secretariat and the EC believe that “should any member of the EC fundamentally disagree with a decision, policy or statement, they should resign from the EC”, as stated in past EC minutes?
  24. Alongside the publication of the statement on the MU website, are you prepared to publish the correspondence you received from Mike Kidd on 20th April?
  25. Paragraph 3 of your letter states, “During the presentation of this advice, various points and reassurances were asked for and given.”. The penultimate paragraph of your letter states however that the full EC minutes do not offer any additional detail. Please can you provide more detail as to what points were raised, who provided reassurances and what the reassurances were?

The MU seem to be attempting to avoid the submission of motions around this issue so we absolutely have to be sending these questions in and insisting on answers.

Please email any contacts you have at the MU, whether that is Executive Committee members, Regional Committee members, Officials or even the Secretariat. Insist on answers! They will have to listen if enough of us shout!

%d bloggers like this: