A while back, the vaguest of vague rumours reached me (and being so vague I had no idea whether it was true) that what worried the Alba leadership most after expelling me from the party was that I had a significant number of emails from the Party Chair, Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, in my possession from spring of last year. So I had a look back at those emails to see if I could work out what they thought would be so damaging. The contents are not Watergate - there's nothing in the emails that will be directly career-ending for Ms Ahmed-Sheikh. However, reading them in full does provide quite a powerful insight into the profoundly cynical way that Ms Ahmed-Sheikh operates when the TV cameras are not on her. I can see why that in itself would be enough to worry her, because her political career prospects hinge to a large extent on Alba members continuing to lack that insight.
I suspect the concerns went a lot, lot further, though. Having spoken to a few people over the last few months, I now have a much better sense of what was going on behind the scenes last spring than I did when I actually participated in the email exchange. I now believe that Tasmina told direct lies in these emails about Marjorie Ellis-Thompson, the former chair of Alba's Disciplinary Committee, and that when these emails are published, Marjorie's friends within Alba will realise for the very first time that Tasmina has been lying about, and cynically using, a person they hold in the highest esteem.
To make any sense of this correspondence, though, a little context is going to be required. I'll try to keep the context as brief as possible because the correspondence itself is lengthy. As outlined in a previous blogpost, the Alba leadership under the late Alex Salmond took the incredibly risky decision in late 2023 to rig the party's internal elections, and there is a near-consensus among insiders I have spoken to that Mr Salmond only went down that road under severe pressure from Tasmina, who in particular wanted rid of Denise Findlay (Organisation Convener) and Jacqui Bijster (Membership Support Convener). The office bearer elections, and the elections for ordinary members of the NEC, were rigged in two entirely different ways. After Mr Salmond discovered to his dismay that Ms Findlay and Ms Bijster had been duly re-elected, he stepped in to prevent the results from being announced at conference and then declared the elections void - something he had no power whatsoever under Alba's constitution to do. He trotted out a ridiculous cock-and-bull story about a non-existent "black dossier" to justify his actions. The elections were re-run but not before Ms Findlay was put under intolerable pressure to withdraw her candidacy, because Mr Salmond was under no illusions that if she was "allowed" to stand, she would win once again. The same pressure would undoubtedly have also been applied to Ms Bijster, but apparently she was so disgusted by the voiding of her original victory that she withdrew before the pressure even came on.
Elections for ordinary members of the NEC have a much narrower franchise and are effectively decided on a pay-per-vote basis. So they were much easier to rig - it was just a question of vote-buying in bulk, and trying to conceal the evidence as best they could. However, it was on the latter point that the plan went wrong, because whoever bought the votes got a little over-zealous, resulting in an outcome to the elections that was so bizarre and implausible that if the results had been published, it would have been obvious to absolutely everyone what had just happened. It was therefore hurriedly decreed that the results would be kept secret (apart from the names of those who had been elected), with two patently absurd and completely contradictory cover stories being concocted to justify that decision.
The late Iain Lawson, despite having been an early enthusiast for the Alba project, to his great credit allowed guest posts to be run on his blog querying and criticising the way the internal elections had been run. The Alba leadership reacted with blind fury, and Alba members will probably vividly recall an unhinged message sent out by Chris McEleny flatly denying that the vote-rigging had occurred and saying that anyone who raised questions about it was an "enemy" of the party. However, it turned out that the leadership were not going to be satisfied with public denunciations of the "enemy within", and that Mr McEleny fully intended to abuse the party's disciplinary process to persecute Alba members involved in the guest posts on the Lawson blog - both as revenge, and as a deterrent to any other Alba members who might be tempted to raise legitimate questions. One of the posts was written by Colin Alexander, who was still a member of Alba's Glasgow branch, so Mr McEleny instigated disciplinary proceedings against him and openly specified in the referral to the Disciplinary Committee that he was demanding that the penalty should be expulsion. It was blindingly obvious from the contents of the referral that Mr McEleny had been particularly incensed by an irreverent joke Mr Alexander had made about him on Twitter, and that it had become a personal vendetta as a result. Without doubt Mr McEleny was abusing his powers as General Secretary to get someone he disliked removed from the party.
Another of the guest posts was written by Jackie Anderson and Jacqui Bijster, who had already left Alba and therefore Mr McEleny could take no further action against them. However, he discovered that a screenshot they had used must have come from Denise Somerville, who was still an Alba member, so he launched a disciplinary action against her and merely targeted her for a lengthy suspension (presumably because she hadn't made any jokes about him on Twitter!)
He had a problem, though. The Disciplinary Committee is comprised of two members appointed by the NEC (including a directly appointed chair), plus six elected members. Three of the members elected in January 2024 were myself, Alan Harris and Morgwn Davies. All three of us were independently-minded and were not about to play along with factional purges of Mr McEleny's "enemies". And although we were in the minority on the committee, there was a possibility that in practice we might sometimes be able to win votes due to absentees among the leadership loyalists. That very nearly happened at the first meeting of 2024, at which Mr McEleny had been expecting us to expel Mr Alexander and to suspend Ms Somerville. Neither Geraldine Harron nor Abu Meron turned up, meaning there was a 3-3 tie between loyalists and 'independents', with Marjorie Ellis-Thompson having to rely on her casting vote as the appointed chair to vote the independents down.
At the start of the meeting, both Alan Harris and Morgwn Davies raised several points of order. Some of them related to the blatant unconstitutionality of the new disciplinary rules that had been forced upon the committee, which among other things required us to accept that the Deputy General Secretary (Corri Wilson) would be sitting in on every meeting whether we liked it or not. Marjorie reacted quite angrily to the points of order and frankly was downright rude in some of her replies to Morgwn and Alan. My reading of the situation in retrospect is that Marjorie's anger was actually a response to the turmoil in her own mind, because I think she wanted to chair the committee properly but felt as an NEC appointee that she also had to take account of the instructions she had been given by the leadership, and was therefore trying to steer a 'middle course'. The problem was that no such middle course was actually available. You either react in the proper way to legitimate points of order, or you don't - and unfortunately she didn't.
The most contentious part of the meeting was yet to come, though. Corri Wilson informed the committee that Colin Alexander had not expressed any wish to take up his right under the rules to attend the meeting. I knew that was a downright lie, so I revealed to the committee that Mr Alexander had written to me and shown me evidence that he had in fact emailed Mr McEleny indicating a desire to attend and that Mr McEleny had ignored him. (I had not responded to Mr Alexander to avoid any suggestion that I should recuse myself from the hearing.) The meeting then descended into a degree of chaos. From memory, Alan Harris, Morgwn Davies and myself all argued that the cases against Colin Alexander and Denise Somerville should be dismissed, but we also felt that if the others refused to do that, we should press ahead with considering Ms Somerville's case, because that wasn't affected by Mr McEleny's lie. Josh Robertson in particular was strangely adamant that not only should Mr Alexander's case be deferred to a future meeting, but that Ms Somerville's should be too. In retrospect, I think he had been briefed by the leadership that if anything "went wrong" at the meeting, he should fall back on a delaying tactic to buy time so that the leadership could, to be blunt, simply change the composition of the committee to get it under their own control.
Marjorie used her casting vote to keep the cases of Mr Alexander and Ms Somerville alive and to defer them to a future meeting, but it was at least agreed that the meeting should take place as soon as possible, because both individuals were still under arbitrary suspension from the party and the delay was clearly no fault of their own. However the leadership's Plan B then kicked in. Marjorie, it seems, was regarded as too wishy-washy in her implementation of leadership directives and it was decided to replace her as chair with Josh Robertson, who could be trusted to follow instructions without question. (And indeed he did - as chair he was like a robot spitting out lines that had been scripted for him.) So Marjorie was either 'persuaded' or 'encouraged' to resign, naturally with a cover story that had been devised for her, and that was intended to kill two birds with one stone. There's a tried and tested tactic within Alba of pressuring people into resigning by menacing them with the possibility of disciplinary action. It's often extremely effective, even if there is no real intention of following through with any action, because the person targeted is naturally incensed that they might be maliciously slapped with bogus charges and sometimes resigns as a matter of principle. Or they may just feel so weighed down at the thought of having to defend themselves over a period of weeks and months that they just leave the party to avoid the hassle.
In this case, it seems that Tasmina had the brainwave that Marjorie's anger at the points of order that had been raised by male members of the committee could be cunningly reframed as "Marjorie being forced to resign by misogynistic bullying and harassment", which Tasmina could then launch a one-person disciplinary investigation into, both to distract everyone from the lie Mr McEleny had told in pursuing Mr Alexander's expulsion (which frankly should have resulted in his immediate sacking as General Secretary), and in the hope that one or more of us would feel pressurised into resigning from the committee, thus giving the leadership a more stable majority as they pursued their revenge purges. However, Tasmina completely jumped the shark with her fairy-tale in a number of respects. Anyone who has ever met Morgwn Davies knows that he is softly-spoken and courteous, and the idea that he would misogynistically bully anyone lacks all credibility. Alan Harris has immense professional experience, which is exactly the reason why he kept being elected to so many Alba committees, and although he is extremely persistent and tenacious in pursuing his points when he knows he is in the right, he always does so professionally, and plays the ball and not the man (or woman). Where Tasmina really opened herself up to ridicule, however, was in claiming that Marjorie had said that the meeting was literally the worst experience she had ever had in politics. For the uninitiated, Marjorie was the UK-wide chair of CND in the 1980s, which put her at the very heart of left-wing politics during the turbulent Thatcher period. The idea that she had never experienced anything worse than a few points of order from Alan Harris and Morgwn Davies would insult the intelligence of a newborn hamster. An additional snag for Tasmina was that a full video recording of the meeting existed, and which everyone knew would demonstrate that not even a single word of misognyistic abuse had been uttered - but as you'll see from the email correspondence, she had no compunction in doing whatever it took to neutralise that particular problem.
My belief now, based on what I've picked up from a variety of sources, is that Tasmina veered into the territory of outright falsehood when she claimed in the emails that Marjorie had submitted a formal complaint about misogynistic bullying. If any formal complaint even existed (and if it did, it was only submitted under duress), there was no accusation in it relating to misogynistic bullying in any form. I think Tasmina was chancing her arm and working on the assumption that the contents of the emails would never reach the ears of Marjorie and her friends, and the lie would therefore remain undetected. We may be about to find out if my suspicion is correct.
In a sense, Tasmina's stunt did actually achieve the desired effect, because of the three of us targeted by menacing talk of disciplinary action, one did resign (Alan Harris), which changed the composition of the committee and transformed it into a rubberstamp for the leadership. The McEleny Purges (which eventually extended to my own expulsion) consequently proceeded unhindered for the remainder of the year. However, I should stress that Alan Harris has made clear that he did not resign as a result of Tasmina's disciplinary threats but instead in protest at repeated breaches of the party constitution. You can read his full reasons HERE.
These emails are unedited with one important exception - I've inserted the pseudonym "Colin Alexander" in place of Colin's real name, because as far as I know his real name is not in the public domain.
25th March 2024
From: Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh
To: James Kelly, Josh Robertson, Chris Cullen, Alan Harris, Morgwn Davies, Geraldine Harron and Abu Meron
Dear Committee Member
It is with regret that I inform you that Marjorie Thompson has intimated to me, her resignation as Convener of the Disciplinary Committee. The NEC will meet as quickly as possible to appoint a new Chair bearing in mind the urgency of dealing with the two outstanding cases.
Of even more concern, in her resignation letter, Marjorie drew attention to what she believed was both bullying and misogynist behaviour on the part of some Committee members.
She cited harassment by correspondence in the lead up to the Committee meeting, and conduct during the Committee meeting itself. Marjorie, as you will know, is an extremely experienced Chair of many leading organisations, and therefore when she says the behaviour is worse than she has ever experienced in her professional life, then I have to take this extremely seriously.
Since the meeting was recorded, I intend to review the recording to ascertain whether there are matters which require to be brought to the attention of the NEC.
Further, given my understanding that one case was discharged and two deferred, there is no prejudice to those cases, in my reviewing of Majorie’s complaint with the NEC.
In the meantime, there are particular matters which Marjorie has brought to my attention which I will deal with now.
Firstly, apparently there was questioning of the Deputy General Secretary’s role as Clerk to the Committee.
That is not appropriate.
The rules, as passed by the NEC, establish that position, and the Committee should abide by them until and unless they are changed by a future NEC. Further, the Clerk is responsible for taking minutes, as part of that role.
Secondly, I’m advised there was an “interrogation” of the Deputy General Secretary with regard to one of the cases, based on what transpired to be, misinformation.
That is not acceptable.
If the Deputy General Secretary had reason to recuse herself as Clerk, she would have done so. More to the point, any Committee member who has discussed a case with a member whose matter is appearing before the Committee, should immediately recuse themselves. I believe it was accepted during your meeting, that any member receiving unsolicited information from any member before the Committee, should immediately make it available to the Clerk/Chair.
To this end, may I ask that you advise the Clerk, and in advance of your next meeting, if you have had any contact of whatsoever nature with any member who is appearing before the committee, relative to the matters before the committee, which would require you to recuse yourself. In addition, if you have received any direct representations from members please now pass them to the Clerk for distribution to the whole committee.
Thirdly, a member of the Committee questioned the validity of the membership of the second NEC appointment.
Since the Constitution is clear on this point at 11.3, this too, is not appropriate.
If a member had genuine confusion on the matter, (and not able to read or find the Constitutional basis for it) they should have raised it with the Chair before the meeting, for clarification.
It is simply not appropriate to question the bone fides of a fellow Committee member, mid-meeting.
Fourthly, while the Committee is entitled to be understandably frustrated if it feels that it has not been provided with all the information it requires, it is not appropriate to attribute malicious motivation to a staff member - in this case, the General Secretary.
I will see to it that the Committee is furnished with all the information required to discharge its proper and important function before it next meets.
That, of course, also depends on the good intent of Committee members and their willingness to respect the Chair. That will be upheld.
I will discuss with the new Chair, any views of Committee members on improving or clarifying the rules. In the meantime, you will operate under the rules agreed at the September 2023 NEC.
Undoubtedly, the meeting scheduled for Wednesday cannot take place. In any event, it would have been subject to obvious challenge by either or both of the two suspended members as being of insufficient notice, given the Committee was anxious to ensure that their right to appear in person should be clearly explained to them.
Neither can we leave matters in limbo until the NEC meeting, in fairness to the two suspended members.
Thus I propose you meet on Monday the 8th of April at an agreed time. This will ensure adequate notice can be given to the suspended members. I understand that some members were concerned about meeting over Easter. I know you will also be anxious to respect the fasting periods of Ramadan. If that date proves impossible for members, then please contact the Clerk who will seek an alternative for that week.
I will contact you again after I have had the opportunity to review the recording and report to NEC.
Thank you
Yours for ALBA
Tasmina
Party Chair
* * *
25th March 2024
From: James Kelly
To: Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh
Copied to: Josh Robertson, Chris Cullen, Alan Harris, Morgwn Davies, Geraldine Harron and Abu Meron
Hello Tasmina,
I am deeply concerned by both the contents and tone of your email. Firstly, this coming Wednesday was agreed by members of the committee as the date of the next meeting, and that was done for a very good reason - namely that Colin Alexander and Denise Somerville remain suspended simply because information that should have been provided to us was withheld. As that is no fault of their own, it is obviously unacceptable that their temporary suspensions should remain in place any longer than is absolutely necessary, and therefore unless there is an exceptionally good reason, the meeting should take place on Wednesday as scheduled.
Secondly, there appears to have been a serious breach of confidentiality given that you seem to be referring to events that took place at the meeting and in private correspondence between committee members. To the best of my knowledge, there is no broad exception to the confidentiality rules that would allow the party leadership to be passed the details of meetings other than the main decisions that were taken. One of the very reasons that there was so much concern about the involvement of the Deputy General Secretary was the fear (whether founded or unfounded) that she would "report back" on everything that happens. I have no idea whether that is what happened, or whether the source of the leak was the resignation letter or something else entirely. But those fears will now only intensify. You presumably know that it was inappropriate that the information was passed to you, and that it is even more inappropriate that you used that information as the basis for allegations in an email to other committee members without first checking whether the basic facts were accurate or disputed.
Thirdly, I can set your mind at rest on one point. I was present throughout the meeting and have seen all the private emails shared between committee members. Unless there were private emails between individuals that I am not aware of, I can assure you that no misogynistic language was used at any time, and no misogynistic behaviour occurred. So that appears to be a false allegation. On the question of bullying, the only allegation of bullying I was aware of before receiving your email was that the convener herself had bullied three other members of the committee, including myself. I did not make that allegation, but it was suggested to me that some of comments made towards me by the convener constituted bullying. And it was certainly not hard to guess what comments were being referred to.
Fourthly, I must take issue with your suggestion that it is "not appropriate" to attribute motivations to the General Secretary in withholding information from us. It's not just that it wasn't inappropriate to draw the inference that was made, it's that no other plausible explanation for his motivation is even available. Even if the withheld email from Mr Alexander was somehow missed by error, there was enough information in the other emails to infer that there must have been a missing email, and also to infer the likely nature of that email. Therefore, we shouldn't have been flatly informed that Mr Alexander did not wish to attend the meeting when the opposite was known to be true. Let me remind you that this is not a trivial matter - the General Secretary made explicitly clear that he wanted us to use the meeting to expel Mr Alexander from the party. For him to make that request on the basis of false information and partial information is something that must be deprecated in the strongest possible terms. I'm sure you would agree, and I would urge you to speedily make representations to the General Secretary to ensure that it never happens again.
As party chair you command our fullest respect, but as you have chosen to involve yourself in this matter, I would respectfully suggest that the nature of your involvement should be to put an end to the grievous ongoing procedural unfairness against Mr Alexander and Ms Somerville by ensuring our next meeting goes ahead as scheduled on Wednesday evening, and by leaving the General Secretary in no doubt whatsoever that he should never, ever again ask the Disciplinary Committee to expel a party member while withholding key information from us.
Many thanks,
James Kelly
* * *
26th March 2024
From: Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh
To: James Kelly
Copied to: Josh Robertson, Chris Cullen, Morgwn Davies, Geraldine Harron and Abu Meron
Dear James
Thank you for your email of 25th.
The Committee shall not meet tomorrow. It shall meet when the Committee is properly constituted after the next NEC meeting. Since the Committee expressed the view that the two suspended members before it were now given an unambiguous invitation to attend the Committee, the earliest date which it can meet is one which gives the obligatory 14 day notice. Therefore I would be grateful if all Committee members would now confirm with the Clerk their availability for the earliest date after Tuesday 9th April.
Now I shall address your points in turn.
There is no “breach of confidentiality”. The previous Convener of the Committee has made serious allegations to me about misconduct by members of the Committee and she has detailed the same. Since clearly the Committee cannot determine on the conduct of its own members and, since the General Secretary is involved in one of the potential complaints as described to me, I am investigating as Party Chair. Being part of a Committee does not exempt individuals from the code of conduct which applies to all Party members. As already explained, I have no role in determining the two cases where substantive consideration is yet to begin, and therefore, there can be no prejudice.
After reviewing the evidence, including the recording of the meeting, I will report to and consult the NEC as to whether any further action is required. It is the right of the former Chair to make a complaint, and it is my responsibility to deal with it appropriately.
I am grateful for your assurance that there was no misogynistic behaviour at the meeting.
However, you will understand that at a meeting where the woman Convener has complained about the behaviour of a number of the five men on the Committee, it might be best that I review the evidence of any misogyny, rather than yourself. As I watch the recording, I will take into account that “someone” suggested to you, that you and two other men were being bullied by the female Chair.
No, it is not correct or reasonable to ascribe malicious motivation to staff members and still less when they are not present to explain or defend themselves. In fact, it is a basic rule of conduct of voluntary organisations, that personal attacks or allegations are not made by elected office-bearers against staff members, at least outwith a formal process. We shall abide by that standard, rather than see the party have to defend such conduct at an employment tribunal. You should perhaps allow for the possibility that you may be wrong in your assumptions.
Finally, I am relieved to hear of your full respect for my position as Chair of the ALBA Party. You could demonstrate that now please in two areas;
Firstly, I would like everyone’s co-operation to ensure that this year’s Committee now conducts its important business in a professional manner.
Secondly, please now give to the Clerk availability of dates from Tuesday 9th April. This will provide the earliest opportunity to have the two outstanding cases properly heard.
With thanks and best wishes
Yours for ALBA
Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh
Chair ALBA Party
* * *
26th March 2024
From: James Kelly
To: Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh
Copied to: Josh Robertson, Chris Cullen, Morgwn Davies, Geraldine Harron and Abu Meron
Hello Tasmina,
Thank you for your reply. "The Committee shall not meet tomorrow" amounts to a statement that you are overruling the decision of the committee itself, which was reached after extensive and careful deliberation. Essentially the feeling of the committee was that a delay was inevitable due to the General Secretary's extraordinary decision to withhold information from us and to mislead us on several key points, most notably the false claim that Colin Alexander did not wish to attend the meeting. But because that delay was the fault of the General Secretary and not of Ms Somerville and Mr Alexander, who both remain suspended pending the next meeting, it was also felt that the delay should be as short as practically possible. As you are unilaterally reversing our decision, I would suggest the ongoing suspensions are now utterly untenable and must be lifted pending the meeting. I urge you to make immediate representations to the General Secretary to ensure that now happens.
Indeed, from my recollection (and unlike you I have to rely on recollection rather than a handy video recording!), we actually agreed that the convener should urge the General Secretary to lift the suspensions and apologise to Mr Alexander and Ms Somerville. Did the convener ever actually make that request on our behalf before she resigned? I have no confidence that she did, given that you and I both heard from Alan Harris yesterday that Denise Somerville had still not even been informed of the outcome of the meeting, which to my mind is unforgivable. If the convener did not do what we agreed that she should, then given that you have unilaterally taken charge of the situation, I urge you to belatedly make the agreed representation to the General Secretary on the committee's behalf.
To claim that "there is no breach of confidentiality" when you are aware of extensive details of a confidential meeting that you did not attend is the height of absurdity. "Being part of a Committee does not exempt individuals from the code of conduct which applies to all Party members" is a straw man argument, because it implies that I suggested that such an exemption applies, which as you know, I did not. But by the same token, the fact that all party members are bound by the code of conduct does not provide an all-purpose excuse for throwing confidentiality rules to the wind. If it did, those rules would be worthless, and all anyone would have to do to get around them is to lodge a complaint, regardless of whether or not it is well-founded.
You will see when you review the recording that not even one word of misogynistic language was used. However, I note your somewhat sarcastic suggestion that a) I as a man may somehow not be able to discern misogyny in the way that you as a woman may be able to, and b) this situation is somehow being viewed differently because the meeting consisted of five men and one woman. The latter point is particularly disturbing, and I will explain why. Absolutely no misogyny occurred at the meeting, but what did occur was repeated points of order, courteously expressed, by two members of the committee (neither of whom were me). The likelihood is that what the convener really objected to was the persistence of those points of order. If we've really reached the point where men raising points of order with a female chair is going to be reframed as "misogyny", we're well on our way to a situation where committee members cannot fully participate in meetings and thus will be unable to fulfil their responsibilities. That may well be the intention.
Given that I am confident that the allegations of misogyny are utterly baseless (with the caveat that there may be emails I am unaware of), I am deeply troubled by your implication that you will be treating my "concerns" on a different and lesser basis from the convener's complaint. It is clearly not acceptable that one person's concerns are the subject of of a full-blown investigation, while another person's concerns will apparently be merely "taken account" of. In order to ensure fairness of treatment, I now have no option but to inform you that I wish to lodge a formal complaint with you that the convener of the Disciplinary Committee, Marjorie Ellis Thompson, bullied myself, Alan Harris and Morgwn Davies at the meeting on Wednesday, and subsequently exacerbated the bullying with baseless accusations of misogyny, which was apparently calculated to deter committee members from being able to be properly heard in meetings. The bullying was sufficiently severe that it contributed, as you know, to the decision of Alan Harris last night to leave the party. It could therefore hardly be more serious. I look forward to your confirmation that my formal complaint will be investigated by you on exactly the same basis as the convener's formal complaint, and that you will be treating both complaints with equal seriousness, irrespective of the sex/gender of the person who lodged them. Doubtless you will also wish to write at length to the former convener, as you did to us, advising her that you have received a complaint of bullying, that it greatly disturbs you, that you are treating it with the utmost seriousness, and that you will be reviewing the recording of the meeting to assess whether the NEC will need to act on that complaint.
In respect of your paragraph which essentially tells me to pipe down about the fact that the General Secretary withheld information from us to try to get a member expelled (his openly stated goal), let me just reiterate that it is not appropriate to try to browbeat me in that way. With, again, the absolute greatest of respect, neither you nor anyone else will be persuading me to pretend that there might be some mysterious, unspecified way in which what happened was somehow acceptable. Instead, I would respectfully suggest your focus should be on making urgent representations to the General Secretary to ensure that there can never be any repeat, and that the rights of party members to a fair hearing before potentially *being expelled* are never again trampled on as they were on Wednesday.
Thank you,
James Kelly
* * *
5th April 2024
From: James Kelly
To: Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh
Copied to: Chris McEleny
Hello Tasmina,
I've waited ten days before chasing this up, but I'd be grateful if you'd confirm that you received my formal complaint against Marjorie Ellis Thompson for bullying myself, Morgwn Davies and Alan Harris at the most recent meeting of the Disciplinary Committee meeting, and that you'll be handling the complaint in the same way as the one apparently made by Ms Thompson herself. I'm copying this message to the General Secretary, just in case there's any suggestion that the complaint technically needs to go through him in the first instance.
Many thanks,
James Kelly
* * *
9th April 2024
From: Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh
To: James Kelly
Dear James
I confirm that your complaint was considered by me and that no further action will be taken upon it.
I made that determination and reported it to the NEC on 6th April, as I judged the General Secretary was part of underlying argument exercising the Committee.
Your complaint will not be placed before the Committee and I have informed the Committee Chair accordingly.
You will also see that in correspondence to the Committee today, I have made some general remarks explaining the reasoning behind the relevant provisions in our current Constitution and Code of Conduct. Whether you agree with them or not, they shall be adhered to until such time as they are changed. The rules of procedure for the Disciplinary Committee are capable of being changed by the NEC and I can certainly see the case for clarification of certain clauses.
With best wishes
Yours for ALBA
Tasmina
* * *
9th April 2024
From: Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh
To: James Kelly, Josh Robertson, Chris Cullen, Morgwn Davies, Geraldine Harron and Abu Meron
Dear Disciplinary Committee Member
I write, as promised, further to my letter of 25th March, having discussed matters with the NEC at its meeting of 6th April.
I recommended to the NEC that no formal action should be taken following the complaints of your previous Chair, with regard to the conduct of several members of the Committee.
I have reviewed carefully the recording of the previous meeting and consider that “no action” is the best course to take. However, I also advised the NEC that I would be making some observations on conduct. Since mostly these are the professional conduct of respect and courtesy that I would expect of any Committee member of our Party, I would be grateful if the Committee members would now please take them on board.
Members of the Committee will respect the Chair and abide by rulings once made. That did not happen properly at the last meeting. It must now do so. My view is that the previous Chair was placed in an impossible position and I have apologised to Majorie for the manner in which she was disrespected.
Members of the Committee will not question the bona fides of staff members. I reviewed the questioning of the Committee Clerk by Mr Harris, about some prior contact with a previous disciplinary case. It was unacceptable as well as erroneous, and if Mr Harris had not resigned from the Party then I would have recommended disciplinary action against him based on what I saw. It also raised at least the possibility, that Mr Harris had been involved in direct contact with members appearing before the Committee. If indeed it was the case, then it would have been totally improper, as I know the Committee itself acknowledged with reference to another case.
The NEC have determined that the Deputy Secretary General will act as Clerk to the Committee. It is their right between determinations of Council or Conference. That is an end to the matter. The Deputy General Secretary is not involved in the decision on disciplinary action or referring matters to the Committee, nor in the Committee’s deliberations but merely as a professional Clerk where clarity is essential.
The Disciplinary Committee does not exist as a separate entity from the rest of the Party. It exists to ensure a fair hearing for those subject to serious complaint. Further, it is not the final “court of appeal’ - that is the role of the Appeals Committee which, of course, has no NEC members on it.
A case in point is the recording of meetings. Such information is not the “property” of the Committee. It is information held by the Party, and as such, the Party is liable for it. Meetings should not be recorded unless there is a very good and particular reason for doing so. Thus, since I have determined no formal action to be taken on the basis of the recording of the last meeting, I have with the agreement of the NEC, ordered it to be destroyed.
A Committee member raised a counter complaint against Marjorie for “bullying”. I reviewed the evidence from the tape and found it to be without foundation and will not pass it to the Committee. Since the General Secretary was involved with the underlying argument, I have taken this decision as Party Chair.
This position of reviewing complaints on whether to pass them on to the Committee is in our Constitution (11.5, 11.6 and Code of Conduct 3.5) and is designed, inter alia, to avoid spurious or vexatious complaints, tying up the Committee.
“Counter-complaints” should not become a normal part of the Committee’s proceedings. It is not sufficient reason to raise a complaint, that a member has been complained about. For example, those on the Committee will recall the inadvisable remark of Mr Sean Davis that he had lodged a complaint against the member “he thought” had complained about him.
The NEC will always be interested in observations from the Committee about the Party Constitution, the Code of Conduct and the rules of procedure which can be brought before us. In my view, there is room for clarity on a number of areas. However, until changes are made, the Disciplinary Committee will operate under the present Constitution, the present Code of Conduct and the rules of procedure as passed at NEC last September.
I sincerely hope with these points of clarification, the Committee can now proceed with its important business with its new Chair, Josh Robertson, as appointed by NEC, its new NEC member, Christina Hendry and its new National Council member Jackie Reid.
May I take this opportunity to both thank you for your ongoing service to the Party, and to express a personal wish that the Committee moves forward positively from this point on.
Yours for ALBA
Tasmina
Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh
Party Chair
* * *
9th April 2024
From: James Kelly
To: Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh
Copied to: Josh Robertson, Chris Cullen, Morgwn Davies, Geraldine Harron and Abu Meron
Hello Tasmina,
I have received two emails from you today, but I'll reply to this one to make it easier to copy to other members of the committee.
First of all, I think we can all spot when "tactical ignoring" is going on. I lodged a formal complaint with you two weeks ago, and you didn't even acknowledge it until today. Both Morgwn and I sent emails to Corri last week asking about the mysterious delay in setting the date of the meeting. I didn't receive a reply and as far as I know Morgwn didn't either. I certainly don't blame Corri for that, because presumably she was acting under strict instructions to ignore us. If I can be forgiven for adopting your own lecturing language, "tactical ignoring" of important correspondence until an NEC meeting can be held is profoundly disrespectful and should not happen again.
It cannot be argued, incidentally, that you followed the same procedure in handling my complaint as you did with Ms Thompson's complaint. You were not only extremely quick to acknowledge Ms Thompson's complaint, but you also swiftly wrote to other committee members (including, by definition, the unspecified members who were the subject of the complaint) to tell us how concerned you were by the complaint - even though by your own admission you had yet to investigate it, and thus couldn't possibly know whether it had any "foundation". This soft form of prejudging does not promote confidence in your impartiality in dealing with these complaints, and nor does your sarcastic language in a previous email, the subtext of which was that it was essentially impossible for a female chair to have bullied three male committee members. It ought to be a statement of the obvious that it's not impossible, and I hope this sequence of events will cause you to reflect on your own prejudices - especially as they have such a direct relevance to your role in disciplinary matters.
When I heard that the recording was to be destroyed, I assumed this was a heavy-handed way of drawing a line under the matter so that neither complaint could be investigated, and thus everyone would feel they had been treated equally. But it instead transpires that you reviewed the recording and only *then* ordered it to be destroyed, even though we gave our consent to the recording specifically for it to be used to be Morgwn and not by you. What has happened is extraordinarily cynical and I hope you have made a personal apology to Morgwn for this grievous abuse of trust.
As I made clear when I lodged my complaint, I did it only because you had left me no choice. Your sarcasm in your previous email left no doubt that it would not be an even-handed investigation otherwise. As no action is being taken on either complaint, I have no great problem with the outcome, although I do note the very different tone you have used about each complaint - with only mine referred to as "without foundation". Having both reviewed and destroyed the recording without consent, you'll have seen the former convener's insulting and bullying behaviour, and you have clearly deemed it to be fully acceptable. This, I'm afraid, poses fresh questions about whether the leadership is fostering a culture of bullying within Alba via the system of hand-picked committee conveners.
The one thing I would agree with you about is that it was unfair to raise the credentials of a committee member during the meeting itself. However all other disputes with the former convener were caused by her telling members to shut up when they were asking to raise a point of order, as is their right, or by her telling members to shut up because she personally didn't like their opinions. Of course the chair of any committee must command respect, but only when they are not abusing their position to bully members and prevent them from participating. As long as the new convener simply uses his position to keep order in the normal way, I am optimistic we can make a fresh start.
"The Disciplinary Committee...exists to ensure a fair hearing for those subject to serious complaint" is an odd observation, because what you objected to was that some of us were so vocal in trying to ensure it *was* a fair hearing. It certainly wouldn't have been a fair hearing if we had proceeded on the rigged basis we were clearly expected to.
"Further, it is not the final “court of appeal’ - that is the role of the Appeals Committee which, of course, has no NEC members on it." That's very carefully worded. What it leaves out is that the convener of the Appeals Committee is not elected, but is a direct NEC appointee. There is therefore no stage of the disciplinary process which is independent of the NEC. That fact makes it all the more important that elected committee members speak up when they see something happen that should not be happening. That is exactly what several of us did, and I make no apology for it whatsoever.
James Kelly
* * *
13th April 2024
From: Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh
To: James Kelly, Josh Robertson, Chris Cullen, Morgwn Davies, Geraldine Harron and Abu Meron
Dear Committee Member
Since Mr Kelly has circulated his recent correspondence around the Committee, I too am sending this reply around the full Committee. In that correspondence, he ‘outed’ himself as the Committee Member who made a complaint of “bullying” against the former Convener, Marjorie Thompson. I, properly, hadn’t mentioned the identity of the complainer, in any of my correspondence with the committee, until he identified himself to you all.
A word of explanation might be helpful here.
Our current Constitution and Rules and Code of Conduct do not require the General Secretary in conjunction with myself, to bring each and every complaint before the Committee. The purpose of these relevant clauses was to provide a protection against vexatious or ‘tit for tat’ complaints, ie ‘you have complained about me so I will counter-complain’. If allowed, such complaints would swamp a Committee. In this case, because the General Secretary was involved in the underlying argument, I made the decision alone.
I rejected Mr Kelly’s complaint for two reasons.
Firstly, I examined the recording of the proceedings of your last meeting, and found it without foundation. By no stretch of the imagination, could any reasonable person conclude, that Mr Kelly had been “bullied” by the then Convener. What I saw on the tape was a Chair attempting to keep order under sustained harassment from some members of the Committee. Additionally, Mr Kelly does not have the right to complain on behalf of other people, and I should advise that I have received no similar complaint from either Mr Davies or indeed Mr Harris, before he left the Party.
Secondly, the nature of Mr Kelly’s complaint, and how it was expressed so differently in his letters of 25th and 26th March, convince me that Mr Kelly’s complaint was ‘tactical’, ie he made it, as he put it himself, “to ensure fairness of treatment”. That is not grounds for a complaint to be passed on to the Committee. Making a complaint against a fellow party member is a serious matter. It should be treated as such, and I enclose the relevant parts of Kelly’s correspondence as an Appendix, to illustrate the point of how Mr Kelly moved in a single day from “I did not make that allegation (of bullying)” to “I now have no option etc etc etc.”
It was for these reasons that I decided not to pass on Mr Kelly’s complaint to the Committee. As I have already stated, my view on Ms Thompson’s complaints is that, although I did think some of the conduct I witnessed on the Committee was unfair on the Chair and inappropriate in what should be a professional environment, I did not consider - with the exception of Mr Harris’s completely inappropriate interrogation of the Committee Clerk - that they met the high bar of reference to the Disciplinary Committee.
In any event, these were matters for me to determine under the Constitution which I have done. They are therefore not available for further debate. Nor are the other matters raised by Mr Kelly about the timing and membership of this Committee. The Committee has to be properly constituted in terms of its membership, to meet, and a delay was therefore inevitable. The meeting can now take place.
More optimistically, the Committee is constituted again with a full membership, and the cases before it have been notified in proper order with proper notice.
I therefore wish the Committee well in your important deliberations and thank you again for your ongoing service to the Party.
Yours for ALBA
Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh
Party Chair
Appendix
Extract from email of 25th March
“On the question of bullying, the only allegation of bullying I was aware of before receiving your email was that the convener herself had bullied three other members of the committee, including myself. I did not make that allegation”
Extract from email of 26th March
“In order to ensure fairness of treatment, I now have no option but to inform you that I wish to lodge a formal complaint with you that the convener of the Disciplinary Committee, Marjorie Ellis Thompson, bullied myself, Alan Harris and Morgwn Davies at the meeting on Wednesday’.
* * *
15th April 2024
From: James Kelly
To: Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh
Copied to: Josh Robertson, Chris Cullen, Morgwn Davies, Geraldine Harron and Abu Meron
Hello Tasmina,
I can't raise any particular objection to the oddity of receiving an email from you that refers to me in the third person as "Mr Kelly", but what I do object to is that at one point in the email you refer to me as "Kelly". I think it's fair to say that does veer into discourtesy.
There's one inaccuracy and a number of points of concern that I need to flag up from your message. The inaccuracy is that I somehow "outed" myself to other committee members in my previous email. That's literally impossible, because when I originally raised my formal complaint, I did it midway through a longer email which I copied to the rest of the committee. So if other committee members read that email, they knew about the complaint right from the start, and they also knew who had lodged it. Indeed, during the two weeks when you appeared to be tactically ignoring the complaint until the NEC meeting could be held, I was asked by two other committee members whether I had heard back from you yet. So your selective quoting from my emails of 25th and 26th of March is, I'm afraid, somewhat redundant. Other committee members already have those full emails and can see the quoted text in its proper context.
Nevertheless, in the mistaken belief that my identity was secret, you claim that it was "proper" for you to withhold my name. That simply underscores one of the key points I made before - that it was self-evidently wholly *improper* for you to send a lengthy email to committee members naming Marjorie as having made a complaint, and saying how concerned you were about it, even though by your own admission you had yet to review the recording and thus didn't have a clue whether there was the remotest substance to her claims.
And it is categorically wrong to suggest I lodged some sort of "counter-complaint". To this day I have no idea whether I was one of the people Marjorie named in her complaint (for the obvious reason that you have not told me), and it's plainly not possible for someone to "counter" a complaint against them if it may not actually exist. Perhaps you think I should just infer that you wouldn't have reacted in the way you did to my own complaint if Marjorie hadn't named me. But a nod here and a wink there does not give you sufficient justification to apply the "counter-complaint" label.
In any case, it should be fairly obvious that not all counter-complaints are "vexatious", and that not all vexatious complaints are counter-complaints. What else might constitute a vexatious complaint? One example might be a committee convener who feels stuck in the middle between committee members who want to ensure a fair disciplinary hearing, and a party leadership that is infuriated that expulsions aren't occurring on the nod. As a convenient way out, the convener is encouraged to participate in an elaborate Hollywood production involving baseless allegations of "misogyny" in order to distract from the only truly salient point, namely that the General Secretary withheld key information from the committee to try to maximise the chances of getting his desired expulsions. I don't know if that was the motivation behind Marjorie's complaint, but I'm sure you'd agree that if it was, that would make it far more of a vexatious complaint than any well-founded counter-complaint.
And with all due respect, it seems phenomenally improbable that the main reason for the General Secretary's power to unilaterally dismiss complaints is to avoid vexatious or "tit for tat" complaints. Most of us have heard on the grapevine about complaints of substance that never reached the Disciplinary Committee, and those usually weren't counter-complaints. If there's any sort of common thread, it appears to be the use of the General Secretary's power to protect prominent or leading members of the party from having to face a disciplinary process, while also apparently ensuring that rank-and-file members who are openly critical of the leadership have the full disciplinary machinery chucked at them with considerable gusto. If in all of this the occasional vexatious complaint falls by the wayside, that is but a happy by-product, not the main purpose of the rules.
There is, in fact, no contradiction at all between my emails of 25th and 26th of March, but there is a difference between them, and that's for the obvious reason that something had fundamentally changed in the intervening period. I had received a reply from you that left no room for doubt that you were prejudging a complaint that you had not yet investigated. For no apparent reason other than personal prejudice, you characterised Marjorie's concerns as extremely serious, while sarcastically dismissing my concerns as obviously ridiculous. That simply wasn't good enough, and it left me with no choice but to take reasonable steps to try to ensure a fair process. If you truly regard an honest pursuit of fairness as undesirable and "tactical", that says considerably more than you realise about the bankruptcy of the complaints process as it stands.
Your allegations of what you supposedly saw in the recording of the meeting will have to remain moot, given that having viewed the recording without consent, you then destroyed it without consent before anyone else could see it. If what you've done wasn't so outrageous, it would be downright comical. As Morgwn repeatedly pointed out, he was relaxed about the complaint precisely because the recording existed and it would verify what we already knew - that the claims of "misogynistic bullying" were without foundation. But I'm sure that fact had *nothing whatever* to do with the decision to hurriedly destroy the recording.
I note, incidentally, that you've quietly dropped the word "misogyny" from all of your references to Marjorie's complaint. I suspect that's belated recognition of the credibility gap that always existed.
On your point that I cannot make complaints on behalf of others, and that Alan Harris did not lodge a complaint before he left the party, the operative words there are that *he has left the party*. I would suggest that clearly indicates a level of disquiet that actually goes considerably beyond the lodging of a complaint.
James Kelly
* * *
15th April 2024
From: Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh
To: James Kelly
Copied to: Josh Robertson, Chris Cullen, Morgwn Davies, Geraldine Harron and Abu Meron
Dear James
The Committee is properly constituted and shall now meet under the new Chair.
I have exercised my functions as Chair according to the Constitution. That has included dismissing your complaint against Marjorie as without foundation for the reasons previously stated. Yours was the only complaint received about the past Chair.
I did not consider that of Marjorie’s complaints. On the contrary, I, on reviewing the evidence, believed that the conduct of some members of the Committee was reprehensible. I just did not consider it met the high bar necessary to justify reference to the Disciplinary Committee. I thought my apology to Marjorie on behalf of the Party for the behaviour she encountered, was the best way forward.
I was present at the drafting of the current Constitution and in the chair when it was passed. I know exactly why all complaints received are not referred to the Disciplinary Committee and it is for the reasons I have stated, not the ones you have imagined.
All minutes, proceedings and recordings of the Party are under the stewardship of the NEC and it is my responsibility to ensure the Party as a whole conducts its affairs properly. Internal private business of the Party, including disciplinary meetings, should not be recorded unless there is overwhelming and exceptional reason for doing so.
Now that the Committee has been reconstituted there is the opportunity for a fresh start. I am sure that the new Chair will be able to rely on all members of the Committee to show the respect which allows the proper and orderly conduct of business.
Yours for ALBA
Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh
Party Chair
* * *
15th April 2024
From: James Kelly
To: Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh
Copied to: Josh Robertson, Chris Cullen, Morgwn Davies, Geraldine Harron and Abu Meron
Hello Tasmina,
The opening part of your email doubles down on your earlier implication that only my complaint was without foundation, and that Marjorie's complaint did somehow have some foundation even though you've dismissed it. That attempt to have your cake and eat it, I would suggest, is analogous to the reaction of certain elements of the SNP and the media to Alex Salmond's acquittal, ie. "he may have been technically found not guilty due to the high standard of proof required, but we all know he's guilty in a non-criminal sense". That sort of line is indefensible enough after a rigorous criminal trial conducted by jury, but in a situation where you've set yourself up as judge, jury and executioner, and hastily destroyed all the evidence afterwards (!), I don't see how you can expect it to be taken remotely seriously.
However, the main problem was not that you concluded that my complaint was less well-founded than Marjorie's after reviewing the evidence. It's that you provisionally reached that conclusion *before* reviewing the evidence - and your earlier emails demonstrate beyond all doubt that you did that. It's unlikely that anyone fainted with amazement when your ruling just happened in to be in perfect accordance with your earlier-stated preconceptions, or when you destroyed the recording so that it's now impossible to substantiate your claims about what you supposedly saw in it.
On your protestations about the reasons behind the sweeping powers given to the General Secretary (and to some extent you) to unilaterally dismiss complaints, I'd just gently suggest the Mandy Rice-Davies maxim applies here. Of course the Disciplinary Committee has no direct role in reforming the disciplinary rules and procedures - that's for the Constitution Review Group to make proposals on, and ultimately for party members to decide. But let us hope that this indefensible system is comprehensively replaced before too long.
If the logic for destroying the recording is that it should never have existed, it inevitably follows that it should have been destroyed before being viewed by anyone, including yourself. That's especially the case given that we only gave our consent for the recording to be made specifically for it to be passed to Morgwn to assist in his note-taking. It's debatable whether it was really within the NEC's province to order the destruction of the recording, but even assuming that it was, the recording had been in existence for weeks before that meeting and decision took place. There was therefore no bar during that long period on the recording being sent to Morgwn as agreed. That did not happen, but instead you used the recording yourself without consent. I reiterate: an apology is due, especially to Morgwn, for that cynical breach of trust.
James Kelly
* * *
15th April 2024
From: Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh
To: James Kelly
Copied to: Josh Robertson, Chris Cullen, Morgwn Davies, Geraldine Harron and Abu Meron
Dear James
Much as you may like it to be, it is not my conduct which was under examination. It was yours and that of others.
The well-respected Convener of a Party Committee resigned and complained in detail about conduct on a Committee. I examined that conduct on all available evidence, and found that with one exception, it did not meet the high bar of being referred to the Disciplinary Committee.
After reviewing the evidence I found your counter-complaint was without foundation. That complaint was made by you and you alone.
The decision is made. You don’t like it. That is unfortunate, but there it is.
This correspondence is over. Please now kindly apply yourself to the task you sought election to carry out.
Thank you
Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh
Party Chair
* * *
15th April 2024
From: James Kelly
To: Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh
Copied to: Josh Robertson, Chris Cullen, Morgwn Davies, Geraldine Harron and Abu Meron
Hello Tasmina,
It apparently needs to be stressed that I am not your employee. I am an elected committee member, just as you are an elected NEC member and an appointed Chair. We each have our own role. You are of course free to choose not to reply, but you have no more right than I have to declare the correspondence over or to issue military-style orders.
Most of what you said this time is a redundant repetition of points I have already responded to at length, so all I will say about that is the repetition does not make your case any stronger. Indeed it suggests an inability to answer the detailed concerns that have been raised in reply. The one novel thing you said is "it is not my conduct which was under examination. It was yours and that of others". That is literally the first time you have even bothered to inform me that I was named in Marjorie's complaint. Going forward, I think you need to reflect carefully on whether conveying information so belatedly and in such a sly manner is any sort of way to conduct a disciplinary process.
James Kelly
