Thoughts but Mostly Feelings on Council’s Leadership Contest Motion
When it came time for the Bonser Ballot vote on BGM resolutions instead of voting early and voting often, I voted early and voted not at all on any of the 3 leadership contest resolutions. I just didn’t know which one was best for the GPC and it wasn’t because I was confused about how long 4 years was.
The votes are in. The results from the roughly 11% of members casting votes on each of these 3 resolutions indicate to me that about 2/3 of that sample are in favour of Council’s Leadership motion and 1/3 are in favour of something else. That’s quite decisive even after my amateurish adjustment for people who apparently supported all 3 resolutions.
Me, I’m still not sure which resolution is the right choice. But by now I do know a few other things for sure. I know that I don’t like the way Council’s motion appeared to be marketed. Right off the bat of course any motion endorsed by the Federal Council gets a huge credibility boost, some have said an unfair boost. I also don’t like the way a recent GPC press release implied that voting on these resolutions was now over because it’s not. I don’t like the way the Leadership Contest resolutions have become identified with the conflicting interests of current Leadership and future Leadership aspirants or with GPC loyalty questions of ‘supporting our Leader’ or ‘not supporting our Leader’. I don’t like the way that misinformation has crept into the discussions.
Most of all, I don’t like changing the Constitution at the 11th hour to retroactively justify decisions already taken. I feel like my arm is being twisted when asked to support Council’s resolution. If I don’t support it or any of the other motions I’m contributing to forcing the GPC into a hurried leadership race to end in 2010. Such a race would not benefit the GPC. It’s almost as if when presenting this motion Council was already betting that it would pass. With the benefit of hindsight of course, we should have had a Leadership Contest culminating at this BGM and we should be talking at this BGM about a Council style resolution for future contests, a resolution more in sync with election cycles.
None of those feelings of course have anything to do with the merits of Council’s resolution itself or the position we now find ourselves in. Council’s solution may be the absolute best way to go but it’s nigh impossible to deny the appearance that the process and existing Constitution are being manipulated to get there. Personally I suspect that what some see as manipulation is better characterized as a lack of foresight and preparation but that too has no bearing on the current situation.
Back to the things I don’t know for sure. I don’t know if there’s a compromise out there that would meet with the approval of more than 2/3 of the membership. Perhaps changing Leadership Reviews to Leadership Contests in the Council resolution is one such compromise. Perhaps after discussion and explanation the Council resolution as it stands would have even more than 2/3 support at the BGM. Perhaps another resolution would. Perhaps there are other compromises. Perhaps no one is in the mood for compromise. Perhaps a simple acknowledgement or explanation from Council that it has manoeuvred membership into a difficult position (or me at least) would earn their resolution more support.
Back to something I do know for sure. All these Leadership Contest resolutions need to be discussed at the BGM to find out if indeed there is a way to come up with a resolution that has even more support than 2/3 of the membership represented at the BGM. If there isn’t, that’s ok too as long as we try.
- Ard Van Leeuwen'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
Good post, Ard
Thanks for posting this, Ard. Your thoughts and feelings on these matters are very much like mine -- particularly with regard to the arm twisting.
Jim Elve
The opinions expressed here are purely my own and do not represent official Green Party of Canada policy or positions.
New mechanisms for change needed
I agree with Jim, that is a balanced and well written post, Ard.
To me, the underlying cause is that our mechanisms for changing the constitution, by-laws and directives are flawed and need to be improved. In 2006, the existing constitution was in pretty rough shape, with large sections of the document under dispute over quorum and other issues. The membership, including me, voted to adopt the new constitution in its entirety so that we would have an agreed baseline from which to work. But it is not perfect, and the process itself needs to, imho, be improved.
Only the bravest of the brave read through the entire battery of constitutional amendments, by-laws and directives. Often, we reach a point of fatigue, and begin to check out from the process. It does not surprise me that the voting turnout is low.
There are a couple of by-laws and directives in place which will allow us to move to a more regular and inclusive process, using the internet rather than planes, trains and automobiles. I hope that the forums that we imagine will have some opportunity for modifying and improving proposals based on the feedback, similiar to the first, second and third reading of a bill in Parliament.
I hope that everyone will be able to register their support and/or concerns, but that the forum does not become overwhelmed with the voices of a few. (Here's an idea: what if we had a forum where each member has a space to state their position on a particular resolution, limited to, say, 1000 or 2000 words? That way we might avoid the nasty back and forth that happens in list serves and blogs and doesn't help to advance understanding).
I believe that more open discussion, in a longer time frame, will help alleviate the perceptions that we now have of a large number of disconnected resolutions which need to be passed or dumped in a very short period of time. It used to be that only conference attendees could actually debate the content of the motions, and then, only workshop attendees who must often choose between conflicting workshop schedules. I applaud the first trial of the online discussions that were available in the members zone .. thanks to IT and the organizers. It is an important first step.
Not with a bang but a whimper
To bring this full circle in a very few words, what actually happened at the BGM when Council’s leadership contest resolution came up? It appeared that the 1/3 of bonser ballot voters who wanted or would have considered something else either changed their minds or didn’t attend the BGM in that proportion.
When it came time to test the will of the meeting to work shop the green lighted Council resolution, something which was confirmed by the Chair to be within the authority of the meeting attendees, there was almost no appetite whatsoever to take even a step in that direction or to even discuss taking a step in that direction. The 1/3 turned into something less than 1/5, probably closer to 1/10.
The two alternative leadership contest motions were defeated in workshops and in plenary. There was an attempt to amend one of those resolutions to call for a one time leadership contest after the next election. It was defeated in work shop because it was deemed to substantially change the original intent of the motion. Back at plenary there was no appetite (and some confusion) to test the will of the meeting with such an amendment.
The will of the floor prevailed in a decisive way. And, a defeat of a resolution to put in place a proxy or delegate system will ensure that the BGM meeting attendees will continue to have the final word on GPC resolutions on a one vote per attendee basis.
Ard Van Leeuwen (Dufferin-Caledon, ON)
The views I express on this blog are purely my own and should not be construed to represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada.