Wednesday, December 9, 2009

(Post Removed)

Please accept my sincere apologies. The original text of this blogpost has been removed as it discussed items and issues derived from materials not generally available to the public. As a result, I have removed the original post. I was not requested to do so by anyone; it was just that, upon further reflection, I determined that it was appropriate to do so. The impetus for removal came from a comment made by Rural, which led to further considerable thinking about this matter.

I have left the original comments intact, as I am reluctant to remove anyone’s comments.

This issue remains a significant one for me, and I am certain that I will address it again. In doing so, however, I will rely only on generally available documentation.

-Steve May, December 11 2009.

9 comments:

Ken Summers said...

Boil down all the exegisese of the Constitution and by-laws and here is what I see:

[1] I agree that a 'virtual' Special General Meeting for the purposes of changing the leadership election rules seems to be allowed. And respecting the expressed opinions to the contrary, that it doesn't seem to violate the spirit.

[2] That said. There are two very big problems to having said virtual meeting and vote on changing the by-laws. First is the amount of notification time required. But most of all: that the 'floor' will be open for any number of alternative motions. Plus the fact that the virtual format will not make it possible to have such a complex disussion.

In other words, following the requirements of the by-laws, a virtual meeting and vote will just not be workable. It's guaranteed chaos, followed by an outcome that cannot be predicted and could easily be very undesirable to just about everyone... simply because there isn't a means of discussion for weighing all the options.

My prediction: Council will pass a recomendation from the inner sanctum for a process that ignores the by-laws [of course with a baseless fig leaf constitutional rationale applied].

There will be only the one sponsored motion put to the mail-in ballot vote of a Special General Meeting.

The motion will replace the existing leadership election process with a new one. Violating all common sense about organizational health, let alone the letter and spirit of by-laws, the discussion that goes into the proposed new leadership election process has or is being carried out among a very narrow group.

A thin veneer of democracy will be applied by having pro and con position papers go out to the members with the announcement of the motion and the Special General Meeting.

John Ogilvie said...

This is nauseating..

I will be submitting to the "Special General Meeting" a motion based on the following item in the constitution.

"2.1.5.2 The Leader may be removed from office by motion, at a gen-eral meeting, to hold an election to replace the Leader."

Ken Summers said...

Which is one reason why this so called Special General Meeting will be an invented plebiscite process, rather than what the letter and spirit of the by-laws require.

And rather than having the discussion that common sense should require when making such fundamental changes.

Rural said...

After two years of careful consideration I recently joined the GPC at least in part because of their stated stand on protecting and enhancing democratic process. If the party does not follow its own duly adopted processes and circumvents the party bylaws and constitution for this or any other reason then all is lost. If the public (and fellow Greens) are to have any confidence that the GPC is going to do politics different and take the high road, that MUST include internal policies and procedures whatever they now dictate. That the minutes do not state the rationale behind the motion to hold the “special meeting” is also very troubling.
I also however am troubled that this sort of thing is discussed in a public blog (make no mistake it must be discussed) rather than behind the GPC firewall. Is the public airing of internal procedures helping or hindering the party.

Ken Summers said...

These days Rural, its just a fact of life that things get discussed on public blogs.

Its really questionable whether you could have the neccesary discussion on GPC blogs. I don't know how much censorship there is, but if there is ANY limitation other than attacks on individual members, it snuffs the discussion. If people can be kicked out for 'being too negative' or things like that, its even worse.

At any rate, the NDP has closed lists and where nothing except attacking individuals will get you moderated. Still: most discussions about what people don't like about internal process 'events' and dynamics take place in places like Babble where its even more likely than here that anybody and everybody is reading, if not putting in their two cents.

Not to mention that nobody else really cares what goes on inside parties. It takes a hell of a lot more than what you are going through right now to attract the attention of the media. And circulating on blogs doesn't reach beyond people who already love you or hate you already.

You should be more concerned that there are enough conversations anywhere that even all together they make enough critical mass that there is a serious discussion, period.

Because you sure as heel don't get one in your Council. And the deadening of criticism, or anything even that might become criticism, spreads out from there.

Rural said...

Just as a follow up to this I note that the discussion forum that IS behind the firewall on the GPC web site is hardly used at all compared with thepublic blog at the same location. Perhaps because it is not very well promoted by the GPC as THE place for conversations of the type Steve started. Perhaps Steve you should start a thread there, there is nothing to stop us from starting to address the subject in broad terms on a public blog but refering detailed discussion to that forum. A link to that thread could not be followed by a non member but would direct those members interested to it.
Would that be a good compromise in the future? Just asking!

Rural said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ken Summers said...

Re: your reasons for removing your blogpost.

There was in there only an indirect reference to the minutes. No quotation, and nothing you would even call a summary. You even said it was unclear what was being proposed.

Your post was predominately about what the now removed title said: for me, the ends don't justify the means.

And even then, the bulk of it was you summarizing the exigeses of consitution and by-laws in your earlier blogposts... allowing along the way that there may be other interpretations; and that you understood the motivations IF people wanted to "stretch" the constitution, but that you would disagree with that.

Fair enough summary?

"[the removed post]discussed items and issues derived from materials not generally available to the public."

Your discussion was derived from readings of the Consitution and By-Laws that anyone can get. As noted, the reference to the minutes was inconclusive and immaterial in my opinion.

I'm wondering if your concern was more the one Rural raised: second thoughts about having [prbably inadvertently] put out so much dirty laundry for the neighbours to see?

If thats your concern, as I've alreay pointed out, its both futile; and in pratice, unecessary. Harmful even, because the consequence of worrying about that ends up being that it doesn't really get discussed much anywhere.

But if it really was concern for having revealed "materials not generally available to the public," do correct me.

Chris KN said...

I read the post before it was deleted. It was very interesting and not at all surprising. For what it's worth, I didn't read anything in there that I thought was something the general public shouldn't be privy to.