More bloody rules – Chapter 7.IX.6 states that notices to affiliates must be delivered to the Secretary.

Any notice required to be given under these rules shall be in writing which may include electronic communication. Notices to be sent to affiliated organisations and Party units shall be addressed to the secretary thereof.

Tagged on:

6 thoughts on “Secretaries

  • 24th January 2018 at 5:21 pm

    Hi Dave,

    I think you’re reading this one wrong; it is not necessary to deliver it (uniquely) to the secretary, though I suspect that they are the most appropriate recipient, or at least co-recipient. It is that it is addressed to the secretary, in the same way that letters to newspapers are addressed to the editor but are really intended for the readership. I can see no reason in the rules why one couldn’t send all members of a group the same correspondence (as long as it is the same, sending different versions to the executive and the membership seems a little too devious) as long as it starts ‘Dear Secretary.’ This would be the equivalent of writing an open letter I guess, I can’t, in my cursory glance over the 2017 rules, see why that would be a problem.


  • 25th January 2018 at 6:38 am

    I don’t agree. The high court stated, in its ruling of the summer of 2016 that the correct interpretation of rules is the most simple. A number of Affiliates, as a matter of policy are not informing CLPs of their appropriate Secretary’s contact details. In these cases, the Secretary of the CLP cannot fulfil their duties.

    • 25th January 2018 at 10:30 am

      The high court ruling information is interesting, I’d not ever paid any extra attention beyond the news, but I’ve just been to have a look and my legalese has its limitations, but it does look to me that the overarching outcome is that the rulebook should be treated as a contract (as long as I’m reading the right one), interpreted with contract law and therefore should probably be written in clear, unambiguous language; somehow I feel a complete rewrite is in order!

      Under that provision, I would guess failure to provide the secretary’s details would be in some way negligent, in the same way that it would if a corporate entity didn’t provide suitable contact details for clients (members have paid after all), which could have serious ramifications if due to this inaction there was grounds for a suit.

      I still think you could send a letter and then hand out copies at the door to a meeting, particularly if you were unable to find an individuals contact details and, for example, had to send the correspondence for a ward secretary to the constituency party secretary instead. The simplest interpretation of the above rule says only what you must do, not what else you mustn’t, surely? But your point about the affiliates not maintaining up to date contact information is certainly true and should be required, although I don’t know how to enforce that in a volunteer organisation.


  • Pingback:Hooray – breadcrumbs of my mind

  • Pingback:Phantoms –

  • 23rd September 2021 at 5:22 pm

    Someone in GLU obviously read this, it’s gone!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: