Leadership Hopeful Doesn't understand the Process
Red Flags have been raised by the recent words of Ms. Lemieux's latest "Green Party Action Alert"
I would like the opportunity to debate the merits of a leadership contest vs. a leadership review with Green Party members on the convention floor in Toronto this August. We have an opportunity now to shape our Vision for Canada ahead of the next election and to expand our members and our electors’ base at the same time.
If you agree with me that this is too important an issue to be decided through an online vote, please support my resolution by voting GREEN to help ensure it makes it to the convention floor.
Sylvie Lemieux - Leadership "Candidate" Green Party Action Alert Wednesday July 28 2010
It is clear that she is not understanding the process of how things are done on the floor of the BGM / convention and the voting process of the Bonser ballot. She will need to understand these if she truly wishes the Leadership role.
Aside from running for Leader when we the membership haven't decided to hold a Leadership Contest yet is presumptive and disingenuous to any process and ultimately the hand the membership will have in the determination of the future affairs of the party by bonser ballot and at the BGM. Borderline contempt is what I see in this unfortunately, by her own words or those put in her mouth by her handlers.
If her intent is to get folks to honestly debate her resolution on the floor at the BGM then her posting in her most recent newsletter is either skulduggery - an attempt to influence the vote with sophistry to supporting a resolution by marking it "green" which by the process means approving it . Yellow flagging it for discussion at the BGM is the purpose of the yellow vote.
So Sylvie or the person you asked to put this little missive together for you - the direction should be Vote yellow if you want to debate it on the convention floor and vote Green if you want it to pass without discussion. An attempt to counsel others to vote at the last minute this way is just dishonest.
To advocate that the issue is too important to be decided by the whole of the membership to instead of those who are engaged in the affairs of the party and can by way of sponsorship or individual ability and resources to be there to vote in person is equally contemptible.
Drew Fenwick
Winnipeg Centre
- Drew Fenwick's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Recent Comments
- Rick Mitchell |
- Anne Marie Benoit |
- Frances Thauberger |
- Paul Maillet |
- Steve May |
- 1 of 2222
- ››
Comments
Haha! 'We the membership' already decided, 4 years ago...
Apparently, 'We the Membership', who decided in 2006, and confirmed in 2008 to have a Leadership contest in 2010 do not matter much when "We the Leadership" prefers to ignore the constitutional provisions for a leadership contest, and instead 'We the Council" presented a motion to indefinitely extend the leadership term with a review motion.
And now Drew, you take a small snippet from the letter that you are so outraged by, and deliberately leave out the bulk of it where the recipients are urged to vote Green, or Yellow, if they want to see the motion debated on the floor, as you pointed out yourself. Selective quotes + indignant outrage = blatant hypocrisy.
Of course, Sylvie's 'handlers', those dark forces which have become a focus of an intensive misinformation campaign are to blame, because poor little lost Sylvie is not capable of resisting the evil macchiavellian Chauvenists lurking under the bedsheets.
A very poor effort at character assasination, but I am sure you will learn with the passage of time.
Matt your wrong...
I just re-read the text of letter- yes there are some explanatory notes at the end of it and not part of her letter that suggest the yellow option but that clearly is not in her letter -so there is no so called "snippet" involved ... where does it say anywhere in her letter to vote yellow.
There is a suggestion made to vote yellow or green buried in the last few sentences in the small print at the bottom of a lengthy set of explanatory notes written by some unknown author. This is not the same thing at all Matt.
She is advocating Green lighting the motion in her letter not the lets discuss it on the floor yellow optionat the bottom of a whole bunch of fine print. You are suggesting - your proof of honesty and straightforwardness is deeply buried in the fine print? Who do you work for - an insurance company?
The point of deepest concern is that she is dismissing this issue which should be decided by the membership at large by saying that it's too important to be handled by the democratic vote of our entire membership underway in our party. How can you support that?
Matt you are just wrong on this one.
Drew Fenwick
Its a devisive issue
I will not get into who is right and who is wrong here but will say that I too am troubled by the statement “If you agree with me that this is too important an issue to be decided through an online vote”.
It is indeed an important issue and one that is too important an issue to be decided by the relatively small number of delegates who are able to attend the GPC convention in person!
To be fair I do note that as far as I know any motion that is debated on the floor is subject to ratification by the general membership although I am not clear as to how that process works. If it comes to that point it will just drag this divisive issue out longer. I truly hope that once this is decided one way or the other that the GPC can get on with getting some greens elected but I fear the divisions will continue to haunt the party for some time to come.
Democracy requires dialog, please join us at http://democracyunderfire.blogspot.com/
There is no ratification for any leadership resolutions
Thanks to constitutional changes at the 2009 BGM, bylaw revisions and directive resolutions are not ratified by the membership. Please note the GPC Constitution,
Article 10.2 - Bylaws
10.2.1 Notice of amendments to the Bylaws shall be included in the notice of meeting at which the amendments shall be considered.
10.2.2 Amendments shall be submitted by at least 5 individual Members who are in good standing or by a Unit of the Party representing at least five Members in good standing.
10.2.3 Amendments shall be adopted by a majority of the votes cast by Members in good standing at a General Meeting.
So none of the membership resolutions will be ratified by the membership. Not G10-d11 (Sylvie's motion) which is a directive for Federal Council or G10-c29 (Federal Council's motion) which is a change to the bylaws.
All the more reason to register for the BGM.
... and if you can't make it to the BGM, make sure that you vote.
Mark Taylor (Cypress Hills - Grasslands)
http://ReportonGreens.blogspot.com
This statement is purely my own opinion and no way is to be mistaken for the viewpoints of the party
Amendments vs Motions
As seems to be the norm there seems to be some things that are unclear as to how such things as adoption of amended motions actually works.
I note that the following text appears in the hard copy mailed out ballot instructions…
“If a motion receives 60% or more green votes it will be adopted…… if a motion receives 60% or more red votes it will be rejected. For all other outcomes the motion will be decided on at the convention. Motions adopted at the convention will be sent out for membership approval later in September.
So whilst the amendment may pass at a “general meeting” it would seem that the amended motion will be sent out for ratification? As I said at the top more confusion! Perhaps some member more familiar with the bylaws would care to clarify, perhaps council members might want to tell us of their interpretation. Just asking!
Democracy requires dialog, please join us at http://democracyunderfire.blogspot.com/
I will not even bother
No point responding to pure propaganda.
Well Matthew you would know
Well Matthew you would know propaganda, that's all you've been spewing lately.
Drew said "Aside from running
Drew said
"Aside from running for Leader when we the membership haven't decided to hold a Leadership Contest yet is presumptive and disingenuous to any process and ultimately the hand the membership will have in the determination of the future affairs of the party by bonser ballot and at the BGM"
Wrong we did so in 2006 when it was decided we would again in 2010 and every 4 years forward.
It is you who are wrong.
Vote green on Sylvia's resolution
Bravo Sylvia Lemieux !!!
DO NOT VOTE YELLOW
VOTE GREEN and do as the constitution says so that the current leadership do not obtain a death grip on the party by only having poorly attended reviews !!
Political Games
Drew is right about one thing for sure: how terribly crass for Lemiuex to suggest that she wants to have her motion debated on the floor of the Convention...and then recommends that people vote "Green" for the motion, which effectively removes it from having any debate on the floor of the Convention.
Either she's an idiot, or she's playing politics. I know she's not an idiot.
Yet another example of saying one thing, and actually meaning something else. Sort of like her "I respect the Constitution and the 4 year leadership term requirement...except for this year when we should hold the contest in 2011, despite having no constitutional authority to do so"
"Sudbury" Steve May
TOO LATE !
Speaking about referring to the constitution
Anyone see this?
http://mail.google.com/mail/?hl=en&shva=1#inbox/12a1f0812f22f3be
What is wrong with you people that like to ignore our constitution?
VOTE GREEN TO SEND A MESSAGE
DONT PLAY AROUND WITH THE RULES
AND REMEMBER AS COUNCIL YOU SWORE TO UP HOLD !!!!! THE GREEN PARTY CONSTITUTION
FIRST AND FORE MOST
It looks like John will need to go to Toronto to help get the message across and to show proof and truth !