Report of amicus Joint Executive Council of Saturday 9th March 2002 held at Millbank Tower, Millbank, London, commencing at 11.00am

In my opinion the meeting dealt with very little work but was again a gathering of two unlike minded groups of people. That is not to say neither or either side was right or wrong but it was a very frustrating meeting to chair, particularly as there is no way back and eventually both sides must accommodate each other.

There appears to be a clear lack of trust between the Joint General Secretaries, which manifests itself in either point scoring or defending the sections-policy and internal democracy, depends who you talk to at the time

. .

The first three quarters of an hour was taken up-with a discussion about a possible replacement for Rod who, as a matter of urgency, had to return home. I read the situation, as the replacement was not the sticking point but the fact that we had not informed the AEEU before hand. Then there was a discussion about MSF actually electing deputies, which the AEEU said they knew nothing about. The AEEU made the point that we had agreed that there would be no surprises at the meetings and we would inform each other of problems and points we wished to raise. HOW?

Any attempt at corrections to the minutes looks a non-starter. It appears that once the JGS's have agreed a set of minutes there is no way we are going to get them altered. The AEEU 14 will simply vote for the status-quoi. However, that does not stop us raising issues.

During matters arising the point was made about NEC member's involvement in all the procedural steps of officer recruitment. No agreement was reached just an acknowledgement of the current MSF practice.

The AEEU/ICTU position was raised and mention '-was-made'of'a set of papers from a working party. Ken Jackson said he had not –seen these notes and had no knowledge of them

A number of papers were circulated during the meeting about the current position of integration. As I understood it only one was joint and agreed and that was from Bill Walsh and Charlie McKenzie and dealt with Officer integration. Lucy circulated a further report

The JEC expressed it's disquiet at papers being circulated during the meeting and instructed the JGS's to make sure that 'in future 'all papers are sent to -members 7 days before the meeting..' I assume therefore that in future papers will not be accepted on the day, verbal updates?

It was also agreed that-Margaret Wall and Bob Shannon should prepare a Joint paper on our political activity.

Regarding property-we again went round the houses' about Moreland Street and Bermondsey Street until -Ken Jackson made it very clear that the AEEU would entertain neither He went on to say that he was only accepting our original stance, which apparently was to say that we should start afresh, and find a new and independent corporate office.

On finance Roger outlined our 2001 results and promised a full copy of the audited accounts for the next JEC. Ken made certain remarks about our pension holiday and in his view to end the holiday would cost £1M per year. He went on the question in a negative manner the 3% offer to officers and staff, the @325K cost of harmonising our salaries to the levels of the AEEU, our expected loss of 4% of the membership and the subscription freeze. His general thrust was that these cost were beyond us and could only be honoured by the AEEU. All but the pension holiday are, as far as I am aware; covered by Our 2002 budget.

It was agreed that the JGS's should produce, as a matter of some urgency, a joint 3-- year-financial plan covering the years 2003,4 and 5.

The first journal was distributed and the point that the only female in the journal was contained within an advertisement for the AEEU holiday club seemed to go-over-the- heads of our AEEU colleagues.

We are down to 3 possible logo designs and the JEC have instructed the JGS's and co chairs to decide which one to use.

Ken Jackson gave a short verbal report on the Labour Party, as did Roger regarding the TUC.

In relation to the Rules Commission. Ken Jackson was of the view that we need to hold a Rules Conference in advance of spring next year to have in place arrangements for 01/01/2004.

Finally, we agreed standing orders: we agreed 13 out of 14 paragraphs. The one paragraph, which was not carried, therefore not included involved consultation between meetings "by JGS's with the co chairs.

Although there was no agenda item for AOB I did allow Roger to raise the question of Ken Jackson's election. I was disappointed because I felt that we did make crystal clear our concerns, hence our seeking advice, and reserving our position.