tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post6783528874889538468..comments2024-02-07T06:48:23.474-05:00Comments on Sudbury Steve May: The Constitutional Tecnhicalities of Holding (or not Holding) a Leader Election in 2010Sudbury Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03959184192546029807noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-14507955766522807482009-12-09T15:13:36.257-05:002009-12-09T15:13:36.257-05:00Regarding Mark's comments:
#1 -- I'm glad...Regarding Mark's comments:<br /><br />#1 -- I'm glad you're reading the Elections Act. That's been something way down on my 'to-do' list, although as you point out, it's necessary someone does that. Do let us know what you glean from it.<br /><br />#2 -- Some hope that the current leader will step down to apply for re-election! From my experience in SGI, I doubt the Mayvens will do anything less than use every means at their disposal to ensure their leader is re-elected, should she want that.<br /><br />#3 -- I agree: not only is it clear that the current leader is getting preferential treatment as a candidate as well as a when she was a nomination candidate, it's also clear that this person enjoys great control over appointments and use of party resources, via a bevy of sycophantic supporters that she herself engineered to appoint.<br /><br />#4 -- Disagree: how can you justify unnecessary travel on global ecological or democratic egalitarian grounds, in an age of viable electronic communication? The ability to 'be present' should not limit a member's democratic rights to participate in a vote.<br /><br />Regarding Ken's comments:<br /><br />I think you underestimate the historical background of the Canada Elections Act, which is designed to perpetuate the notion of the Leader of a political party as the holder of ultimate power and influence in that party. I'd like to see Mark's understanding of the Act (see #1 above), as I believe that the Elections Act is part of the current democratic dysfunctionality the Green Party for which was supposed to offer an alternative.Stuart Hertzoghttp://greenpolitics.ca/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-29011909165677351782009-12-09T13:32:58.067-05:002009-12-09T13:32:58.067-05:00There is no inherent conflict between what the Ele...There is no inherent conflict between what the Elections Act and Elections Canada require of a party leader, and the party leader role being limited to spokesperson.<br /><br />The EC requirements are driven by them being able to hold a single person accountable for certain necessary functions. These are important, such as having to sign all nomination papers, but pretty limited in scope.<br /><br />That is not at all the source or origins of the de facto concentration of authority in the Leader... which is particularly extreme in the GPC.Ken Summershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025548589060865143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-63048437854568224152009-12-09T13:13:55.072-05:002009-12-09T13:13:55.072-05:00Excellent work, Steve! Analysing the Green Party&#...Excellent work, Steve! Analysing the Green Party's convoluted constitution and setting out the requirements to change the rules has saved us a lot of time. Thanks! <br /><br />BTW, any General Meeting is considered a Special General Meeting, they are one and the same. There are only two types of meeting: Annual (or Biennial) General meetings, and General meetings, which can be Special if you want to call them by that name. <br /><br />The rules for calling and running a Special General meeting are as for any General meeting. AGMs are different in that is where legally-required annual or biennial housekeeping tasks are deal with, such as selecting an Auditor and election of officers.<br /><br />Although your excellent analysis deals with the rules, you haven't tackled the essential problem, which is the role and authority of the leader of the Green Party. <br /><br />The Green Party initially regarded its leader as only a spokesperson, but the Canada Elections Act gives great power to the leader of a political party. Over the years, the Green Party has been steered away from this ideal towards the conventional and authoritarian role of leader.<br /><br />Until the grassroots membership of the Green Party takes back control of its 'leader' and firmly defines his or her role as simply a spokesperson, this party will continue its slide down the political spectrum to eventual irrelevance.<br /><br />There is a crying need today for a visionary statement of a different kind of politics: locally-based, non-violent, grassroots, egalitarian, and eco-centric; a politics that treats every human and animal species as having an equal right to exist peacefully on an unpolluted planet.<br /><br />Today's Green Party, lacking a broad base of involved members, is too bound up in its convoluted rules and is easily dominated by self-seeking, pathological personalities. It does not answer that need. <br /><br />So let's get our heads out of the rule-book and look around. Thanks to your efforts, Steve, the way ahead is clear. To change the rules, a motion has to be brought forward, ratified by the Federal Council, and voted on by all the membership. It's as simple as that.<br /><br />It's up to Council to bring to the members any motion for changing the rules. So, what are its plans?Stuart Hertzoghttp://greenpolitics.ca/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-33476226109500331352009-12-09T12:28:04.709-05:002009-12-09T12:28:04.709-05:00The Elections Act does have a fair bit to say abou...The Elections Act does have a fair bit to say about its own requirements of the Leader role, irregardless of what the party's constitution says. But I don't see any of it as central to the questions at hand.Ken Summershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025548589060865143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-15713543294613901532009-12-09T11:55:21.409-05:002009-12-09T11:55:21.409-05:00Steve, long post and, therefore, long reply.
#1 ...Steve, long post and, therefore, long reply. <br /><br />#1 - I would be really carefully about stating what the Elections Act requires from a political party in regards to the role of a leader. I have been reading (still in progress) the Elections Act and there is very little mention of what the Leader does and doesn’t do. There are a lot of theories in the Green Party about what the Elections Act says but I’m safe to saying that a majority of Greens, including the very active, have never read this document.<br /><br />#2 – While the Constitution isn’t clear on whether or not the Leader needs to step down in order to run again, Elections Canada is very clear about the financial rules around leadership races. If the party gives anything to the current leader in a leadership race, then that giving has to extend to all candidates. The onus would then be on the current leader to clearly document that none of her party-paid salary was spent on events not related to being the current leader, that the party-paid phone was not used to campaign, that the party-paid assistants she has aren’t working on her campaign, etc. otherwise the party would have to provide equal pay, equal resources (phone, computer, etc.) and equal staff to every candidate. The easier solution is if Ms. May runs again in 2010 that she step down as Leader in order to run for the position again.<br /><br />#3 – While you may be “technically” correct that the Leader is just another member of Federal Council, the Green Party is not currently running that way. When Federal Council decides that getting “just another member of Federal Council” elected as a Member of Parliament is it’s #1 priority, we have created a very clear distinction between the Leader and other Federal Councilors.<br /><br />#4 – I will completely disagree with your interpretation of “present”. I will very much argue that “present” means in person otherwise what is the point of having the membership ratify any motion that is passed at a BGM. <br /><br />#4a - If they are allowed to be present by mail-in ballot, then there is no necessity for ratification at all… just the shear act of mailing a ballot makes you present at a meeting. However, the Constitution does require a ratification vote therefore your interpretation of “present” is incorrect.<br /><br />#4b – Why would there be any mention of those present have to be from two different regions if physical attendance was not an issue? Again, because there is a very clear distinction that two regions need to be present at the meeting, they need to be physically present.<br /><br />The Constitution has some problems… no question there. However, it is very clear that a Leadership Race has to happen in 2010. Sure, the current Green administration can try to call a Special General Meeting (under whatever title) to change the rules but why? We just had a leadership race in Ontario that generated very little interest because there was only one candidate. Especially considering Chantal Hebert’s editorial today (http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/736376), the last thing we should be doing is looking for or creating technicalities to delay a race.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-79923137506297264522009-12-09T08:24:15.374-05:002009-12-09T08:24:15.374-05:00Since 8.6 clearly indicates that "Special Gen...<i>Since 8.6 clearly indicates that "Special General Meetings of Members" must be held in accordance with the by-law, and as there is no by-law currently available to implement this provision, it is my interpretation that the only type of General Meeting which the Green Party of Canada can currently hold is a General Meeting of the Members.</i> <br /><br />I would interpret this with less room for ambiguity than I think you have left.<br /><br />"must be held in accordance with the by-law".... if there is not another by-law, then by default this has to referr to the by-laws that apply to all general meetings.<br /><br />In other words, a Special General Meeting can be called- and there is good reason to so differentiate it. But it is governed by the same by-laws that govern any other type of general meeting.Ken Summershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025548589060865143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-16931904132919994472009-12-09T07:46:13.441-05:002009-12-09T07:46:13.441-05:00Seems strange to ask someone to elaborate on a lon...Seems strange to ask someone to elaborate on a long post, but here goes with the questions on that closing theme of other motions at a virtual meeting.<br /><br />What would you say as to whether it is REQUIRED that other motions be entertained? Is there wiggle room that a [virtual] general meeting could be called for the purpose of voting on only one motion?<br /><br />If a general meeting can only be called where all members have that 30 day window to submitt motions... is there any mechanism specified in the Constitution or by-laws for determining which motions end up being submitted for voting at the general meeting?<br /><br />Related to that: whoever determines which motions are voted on [Council? how?], is there room within what the Constitution and by-laws require and allow, that the deciding body could determine that only the Council sponsored by-law amendment motion would be voted on at the general meeting?<br /><br />[Leaving aside for the moment questions of legitimacy, perceptions of such a move within and outside the GPC, etc.]<br /><br />Sidenote if relevant: the practice in other parties limits very much what body can submitt a motion, and how those will be filtered. An individual member submitting is out of the question. I don't know how much of that process is precedent based, and how much is written into constitutions and by-laws, but at least a lot of it is the latter. If an individual GPC member is able to submitt a motion directly for a vote- thats different. But for the purposes of my question as to whether Council can explicitly or effectively limit the motions put forward to their own only, it doesn't really matter whether motions can come from individual members, or have to come from a body like an EDA.Ken Summershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025548589060865143noreply@blogger.com