Welcome to the Community

Please choose one of the options below to log in and get stuck in!

Login with PPUK

Organisational structure

Currently the NEC and the Board are two separate bodies and they have different areas of responsibility. The NEC looks after day-to-day operations while the Board has a responsibility for the longer term health of the Party as an organisation.

While we regularly have problems keeping 12 Governors, we have bigger problems keeping active NEC members.

Is this the best way to work? While those two duties do still need to be carried out is there a better way to resolve the work load?

Perhaps Governors should be de-facto additional voting members of the NEC? Would this encourage greater Governor involvement in the work the NEC does, providing support to those elected to the named NEC roles (Leader, Deputy Leader, Treasurer, Nominations Officer, Campaigns Officer, and Secretary)?

Should Governors be required to shadow and then if needed step in and fill empty NEC roles? This may provide the needed support to attract NEC officers and keep them in the role.

What other ideas are there for optimising the Party to make it more effective?


  • ThyPirateDaveThyPirateDave South Wales
    edited May 2016
    At an absolute minimum I would reduce the Board to 11 but I think we can safely reduce it to 9. Given elections have been uncontested for some time and attendance isn't 100%, I suggest reducing it to 9 so motions can be passed in meetings.

    I think Board should also have additional low requirement functions. The Financial Oversight Committee is long overdue. Chair and Deputy are also roles that can be prescribed. That could be 6 defined roles. You could leave the other 3 as "Generic" - Trusts and such have a similar layout.
  • I think both these suggestions are helpful (especially given they are de facto happening at the moment) until such a time as the NEC can stand on its own feet.

    However, this means pushing existing Governors into taking responsibility for parts of the NEC currently unserviced, which has been historically troublesome.
  • ThyPirateDaveThyPirateDave South Wales
    Indeed. I know a lot of Governors are taking on additional tasks already with a lack of NEC. Once the NEC is populated though I would say some Governors be prescribed roles (FoC is really needed - each time a Treasurer leaves it drops the party into a black hole)
  • Of course, some of that pain would also be helped with proper handover documentation
  • I also think that historically, Board of Governers has been seen/described as a "good way to start to get involved in the party" and people then move from there to the NEC / a more defined role (or fall away). This is the 'wrong' way around in my view.

    The Board of Governors should be those people that have been around the party for a while and can provide oversight and long-term strategy from a point of knowledge and experience. If you are new and keen to start to get involved, then a Deputy/Assistant NEC role or similar seems more appropriate in my view.

    This means that the Board will have less turnover (as they tend to people that are already known to the party and thus more likely to stick around) and more ability to assist NEC with handover etc. as they will have seen what's going on for a while. (Financial Oversight being a good example of things which should be in place in a number of areas)
  • ThyPirateDaveThyPirateDave South Wales
    @Lennon I agree. I was hoping some NEC would essentially retire to the Board but that didn't seem to happen. Shame.

    I started on the Board and it did feel as you say - like starting from the wrong end and I soon moved to NEC, for a little bit.

    It would be nice to get some eventual end-game and guidance from the Board, especially in absence of an NEC
  • The Board has been referred to in the past as the dying ground for burnt-out NEC officers. But I agree in the past few years we've ended up in a situation where people took a Governor position as a step to be more involved in the party, which was absolutely the wrong way round.

    But the secondary problem we had was that our NEC departments then were too busy to hold the hands of new volunteers and too busy to write any handover material that might have made the hand-holding less necessary.

    That's the pain point we'll have to tackle as we rebuild the NEC
  • Tend to agree with the idea of the Board being a place for those with more experience. However it makes sense to start in the Board just due to the lower work load - especially for new people
  • ThyPirateDaveThyPirateDave South Wales
    Perhaps we need to work out ways of creating low-workload positions/functions without pointing to the board then... some volunteer posts that aren't a lot of work which may give people a sample taste of what it's like to fill more NEC or NEC-type roles?
  • Absolutely!
Sign In or Register to comment.