Introduction
Since the Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) on 2 May 2024, we have received a number of emails from members, asking questions, offering feedback and raising points around the decisions which were taken and the processes which were adopted in relation to the EGM.
Thank you to everyone for taking the time to write to us.
We have compiled this page to address key questions so that our position is transparent and accessible.
Our priority is to protect the rights and further the interests of all our members (authors, literary translators and illustrators) and to ensure that every one of our members feels represented and safe to express their opinion.
Members are welcome to share their views on any matters raised below by emailing the Management Committee (the board of directors): board@societyofauthors.org.
About the EGM
Under the SoA’s bye-laws, the Management Committee must call an EGM following a request from 35 or more members.
The EGM took place online from 5pm on 2 May 2024, and was attended by 505 attendees.
On 6 February 2024, we received a written request for an EGM, initially from 35 Full Members. Two resolutions were proposed – one calling for an end to books industry links to fossil fuel finance and another on a proposed statement on Gaza.
The Management Committee decided to add an additional resolution on generative artificial intelligence (AI).
The SoA received the members’ request for an Extraordinary General Meeting on 6 February 2024 and the Management Committee accepted on 13 February 2024 that the request was legitimate and that an EGM should be called in accordance with the SoA’s bye-laws.
In a series of meetings and email conversations, they debated the approach the board should take to the resolutions proposed by the members, as well as the objectives and content of their resolution on AI.
The SoA staff team organised the practical aspects of the EGM – from communicating with members (the notice convening the EGM was sent to members on 27 March 2024 by email or post if members did not have a valid email address), to organising event registrations, administering data and running the event itself.
The Chair of the Management Committee, incoming and outgoing Chief Executive and other members of staff met on multiple occasions with representatives of the EGM’s proposers, in particular to discuss the wording of the resolution calling for an end to books industry links to fossil fuel finance. The aim was to agree wording so that the SoA could support and recommend that resolution to members. In relation to resolution 3, the Management Committee disagreed that a statement on Gaza should be made by the SoA in the terms proposed and, therefore, opposed the resolution.
Staff also liaised with the proposers around who would speak to each resolution.
Staff appointed a specialist voting company, Mi-Voice, to carry out statutory communications around voting and proxy voting, and to securely manage the democratic processes.
The EGM was held online on Zoom on 2 May 2024.
In accordance with the bye-laws, all Full Members of the SoA were invited to vote at the EGM. Associate Members do not have voting rights.
Mi-Voice sent members instructions on how they could vote at the EGM (either in advance by proxy vote via the voting platform or live at the meeting) and, if they preferred, how they could appoint a proxy to vote live on their behalf. The text of the resolutions was sent to members, together with commentary from the Management Committee.
Members voted either by proxy vote in advance; by appointing a proxy to vote live on their behalf; or by voting online during the meeting.
Resolution 1, proposed by the Management Committee, asked members to vote to assert that they do not consent to the use of their works being used to develop generative AI systems.
Resolution 2, proposed by 31 members and supported by the Management Committee, asked members to vote for the SoA to lobby for a responsible end to fossil fuel investment in the books industry.
Resolution 3, proposed by 66 members asked members to vote for the SoA to make a statement on Gaza.
The 5-7pm timeframe was set to ensure that the EGM did not run over time, and it was not intended that 7pm would be the ‘end point of voting’, rather it was the absolute latest time that we could keep the meeting open.
The number of speakers were chosen to fit into the allotted timeframe. We planned to have equal numbers of speakers for and against each resolution, which if all members had spoken to the maximum time allowance, would have taken longer. In the event, resolution 1 and 2 progressed more quickly than we had anticipated and without any unforeseen interruptions.
Members attending the EGM indicated electronically if they wished to speak for or against a resolution. After the proposer and a Management Committee member had spoken to each resolution, the Chair then chose four members to speak to each resolution, two to speak for and two to speak against. To ensure fairness, members were selected randomly by the Chair selecting around every tenth member from those who had expressed a desire to speak.
Yes. We had originally offered the EGM’s proposers the opportunity to nominate two members to speak for their resolutions – one speaker for five minutes and a second speaker for three minutes.
In light of concerns about the timings of the EGM, and after taking advice from the SoA’s Legal Counsel, we asked for only one speaker from the proposers of each resolution in order to allow time for other members to speak to the resolutions.
Since concerns about timings became apparent only immediately before the EGM at the rehearsal, the proposers of resolution 2 and 3 were informed of the change at 2pm on 2 May. We apologised for making this change at such short notice.
Members who voted by proxy vote in advance of the EGM had from 3 April 2024, when Mi-Voice first distributed voting forms, until 5pm on 30 April 2024 to cast their votes.
Over 70% of votes cast were via proxy vote in advance of the EGM.
The live voting figures were 440 total votes cast on resolution 1; 435 total votes cast on resolution 2; and 415 total votes cast of resolution 3.
Members were invited to cast their votes after each resolution had been discussed and voting closed at the end of the EGM. Given the order of proceedings, members had more time to vote on resolutions 1 and 2 and had more than five minutes to cast their vote on resolution 3 following the end of the debate.
The result in relation to each of the resolutions was declared at 18.20.
The request for an EGM was made by 35 Full Members and the EGM was then convened in accordance with the requirements of the SoA’s bye-laws. The SoA was not in a position to prevent the meeting going ahead and did not attempt to do so.
We were approached by several members who argued that resolution 3 should not be debated at the EGM, and in the run up to the EGM we also received correspondence from representatives of UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI). We responded to those members and to UKLFI and explained the requirements of the bye-laws. These approaches did not influence the way in which the EGM was conducted or the issues which were debated at the EGM.
Running any general meeting for members has significant cost attached – both in staff time and in managing the voting via Mi-Voice. The total cost of running this EGM was in the region of £21,000.
SoA policy and practice
The SoA is an independent trade union which exists to empower authors and their estates with knowledge, support and community, and to lobby industry and government for an environment that helps sustain and nurture the careers of all authors and their work.
Our policies and practices are designed solely to further that mission.
The SoA is a democratic organisation, governed by a board of directors (the Management Committee) elected from among the union’s members. The Management Committee is responsible for the management of the SoA, and its role includes setting a strategic direction that will fulfil the union’s remit. They have the legal responsibilities as directors of the company and they take their roles very seriously in making decisions based on the best interests of the organisation, not on a personal basis. A professional staff team carries out day-to-day activities to give effect to the decisions made by the board.
The SoA is not a political organisation, however we regularly lobby the government on issues that impact our members.
The SoA is an independent trade union, but we are not TUC-affiliated or aligned with any political party. The SoA in Scotland joined the Scottish TUC in 2023 to secure access to government forums on behalf of Scottish authors.
When we lobby Westminster or devolved national government, our approaches are based on research and industry knowledge, not political or ideological bias.
Where appropriate, we might publicly support the statements of specialist organisations where they align with SoA values.
The SoA’s Management Committee believes that the SoA should only comment on issues that are within our organisational mission, and where we are informed and can make a positive difference.
By not commenting on areas outside the SoA’s remit, we hope to protect the right to freedom of expression of our 12,500 individual members.
- Read the full policy: How we communicate
This is a new policy, developed throughout 2023 following discussions at the 2022 AGM. The policy was approved by the Management Committee at their meeting on 18 January 2024.
The new policy amends and supersedes past policy, and our practice in some areas may be different from what we have done in the past.
When we published a statement on Black Lives Matter on 9 June 2020, it was in response to messages received by the staff team from members seeking solidarity from their trade union. It was published as a ‘statement of support for Black authors and members of the Black community, from the SoA staff and Management Committee’.
When we published a statement on the invasion of Ukraine on 25 February 2022 and subsequent open letter to ‘the writers, illustrators and translators of Ukraine’, it was in direct response to a letter from Maria Morozenko (Chair) and Dmytro Chistyak (Deputy Chair) of the National Union of Writers of Ukraine, calling for solidarity with their members.
These statements on Black Lives Matter and Ukraine were consistent with SoA policies at the time.
By October 2023, when the SoA received calls from members to make a statement on Gaza/Israel, the new commenting policy was awaiting approval from the Management Committee. The Management Committee’s view was that statements which are made by the SoA should align with this draft policy.
The SoA’s past approach to the situations on which we comment had been to consider issues on a case- by-case basis. While this had worked well historically, from 2018-2019 we found that the SoA was being drawn into wider cultural debates and being asked to take sides in online public disagreements between high-profile authors on issues which are outside the remit of the SoA as a trade union.
To provide clarity to members, and to protect the organisation and staff team, we needed a formal policy to define the areas on which the SoA should speak out, as well as clarifying who speaks for the SoA and when.
Currently, the SoA has no policy on how members’ subscription fees are funded. We know that in the run-up to the EGM, a proposer of one of the resolutions offered to help prospective members with the costs of joining the SoA so that they could vote on the resolutions. As there is no policy on how members’ subscription fees are funded, this did not contravene SoA policies.
Resolution 1
Resolution 1, proposed by the SoA Management Committee, asked members to vote to assert that they do not consent to the use of their works to develop generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems.
A majority of members voted FOR resolution 1.
Of those who voted, 97% of members voted FOR resolution 1.
- 1,833 voted for
- 52 voted against
- 44 abstained
According to the mandate given by its members with the passing of resolution 1, the SoA will write to the developers of generative AI systems to assert members’ rights, urging for compliance with copyright law and calling for transparency, credit and adequate compensation for the use of our members’ works. Letters will be sent out over the course of August and September 2024 and members will be updated via email and via the SoA website.
Resolution 2
Resolution 2, proposed by 31 members and supported by the Management Committee, asked members to vote for the SoA to lobby for a responsible end to fossil fuel investment in the books industry.
A majority of members voted FOR resolution 2.
Of those who voted, 85% of members voted FOR resolutions 2.
- 1,480 voted for
- 251 voted against
- 192 abstained
The SoA is currently considering how best to give effect to this resolution to ensure that its actions to support the publishing industry divesting from fossil fuel investments are conducted in a way that protects jobs and livelihoods in the publishing and energy industries.
We support the right of authors to free speech in supporting fossil fuel divestment or sustainability initiatives, subject to the limits set by international human rights law and standards, and in line with its policies, and in particular where authors feel pressured by publishers or event organisers not to express their views on these subjects publicly.
We urge all members to engage with their publishers and readers to support our ‘Tree To Me’ campaign and the industry commitment ‘Publishing Declares’ and to use their voices to inspire positive change as we reduce our impact and transform our ways of working.
We are part of the Sustainability Industry Forum and we have our own Sustainability Working Group and Sustainability Member Network. Members will be kept updated on this work via email and via the SoA website.
Resolution 3
Resolution 3, proposed by 66 members, asked members to vote for the SoA to make a statement on Gaza. In advance of the EGM, the Management Committee voted by majority to oppose resolution 3 and recommended that members vote against it.
A majority of members voted AGAINST resolution 3.
Of those who voted, 53% of members voted AGAINST resolution 3.
- 786 voted for
- 883 voted against
- 239 abstained
The Management Committee took the view that making the statement proposed in resolution 3 was outside the SoA’s remit, and that the SoA should only comment on issues that are within our mission, and where we are informed and can make a positive difference.
By not commenting on areas outside the SoA’s remit, we can better protect the right to freedom of expression of our 12,500 individual members.
- Read the full policy: How we communicate
Because the Management Committee had taken the view, based on the new policy mentioned above, that geopolitical statements on conflict zones would be outside the remit of the SoA they did not seek to re-word the statement drafted by the proposers before resolution 3 was put to the membership. Nor did the SoA receive any proposed amendments from members to resolution 3, either before or during the EGM.
We invited members to vote on the wording of the statement which had been put forward by the proposing members. The Management Committee’s statement – published in the same document – recommended that members vote against the resolution for the reasons explained above.
Having heard from some members asking for clarification about which part of the document they should be voting on, we do appreciate how including two conflicting statements in the same document might have caused confusion.
The Management Committee did not explicitly mention anti-Arab racism in their statement on resolution 3. The passage in their statement said, ‘we condemn abuse and the incitement of hatred of any kind, including anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim racism and hate speech.’
For the avoidance of doubt, the SoA condemns the incitement of hatred of any kind, including anti-Arab, anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian racism and hate speech.
In accordance with its current policy, the SoA does not comment on geopolitical issues and, as an organisation, has not commented on the situation in Gaza.
However, as individuals, we are devastated by the loss of life, destruction in Gaza. We, too, strongly feel the level of concern, anger, frustration and helplessness felt by our members in the face of such events, as expressed in the SoA papers which were sent to members with resolution 3.
We mourn the deaths of journalists, poets and other media workers.
Review and learnings
Having heard from many members since 2 May, we appreciate that there are lessons we can learn to improve the way in which similar situations are dealt with in the future.
There are no plans to repeat the vote. The membership voted on the three resolutions either by proxy or live during the meeting. Voting was managed independently and confidentially by a third-party conference, Mi-Voice.
Based on feedback from members, we recognize that it would be helpful to provide greater clarity around this new policy, how it works, how it benefits the SoA (including members, staff and officers) and how we balance those interests with the objective of not making the policy too proscriptive.
We have instructed our Legal Counsel to lead a review of the SoA’s policy. The purpose of this review is to ensure that the policy accurately reflects the SoA’s current thinking and to consider whether it ought to be further refined to provide greater clarity of our position in this area. The review is now underway, and we will let members know the outcome as soon as it is concluded.
A review of the background and process by which resolution 3 was tabled before the EGM was undertaken by the Management Committee on 16 May. We recognise that lessons can be learnt and improvements in process and communication can be made going forward. This review is ongoing and is being undertaken in the hope that, in future, we are in the best position possible to respond to situations where there are varying views among the membership on issues of concern.
The SoA’s past approach to the situations on which we comment had been to consider issues on a case-by-case basis. While this had worked well historically, as explained above, the SoA felt that to provide clarity to members, and to protect the organisation and staff team, we needed a formal policy to define the areas on which the SoA should speak out, as well as clarifying who speaks for the SoA and when. Given the SoA’s current policy and taking into account the vote cast by members in relation to resolution 3, the Management Committee has no plans to reconsider making a statement on Gaza.
We do not have the resources to directly support authors outside the SoA membership. However, we regularly support the work of partner organisations such as English PEN and PEN International.
As part of our ongoing review of the SoA’s policy on commenting and sharing, we will consider and clarify how it should now apply to sharing similar work by partner organisations.
In accordance with its current policy, the SoA does not comment on geopolitical issues and, as an organisation, has not commented on the situation in Gaza.
However, as individuals, we are devastated by the loss of life, destruction in Gaza. We, too, strongly feel the level of concern, anger, frustration and helplessness felt by our members in the face of such events, as expressed in the SoA papers which were sent to members with resolution 3.
We mourn the deaths of journalists, poets and other media workers.
The SoA believes in the value of union representation for all authors at local level around the world; unfortunately, as an organisation with limited resources, setting up or contributing to an organisation such as the SoA in Palestine is not something that the SoA can lead on. However, as a member of the International Authors’ Forum (IAF), we will continue to be involved in any work of the IAF in this area.