I Was Being Nice
The following is a cross post from http://www.davebagler.ca.
I was. I said that we should thank Stuart Hertzog for making the party reaffirm its commitment to grassroots democracy. I then suggested that now that his point has been made that he should step down.
I was being nice, but I can't be nice anymore. Stuart Hertzog has lodged an official complaint with Elections Canada arguing that the Green Party is acting illegally in the riding and providing her nomination campaign with unfair support.
This story was picked up today by the National Post and again we get to look like a bunch of idiots. Thanks Stuart, you wanted your 15 minutes and you are now getting them... at the expense of the Green Party of Canada.
Stuart its time to go away. I think you may be confused, you think you're helping but your not. You are hurting the party and the damage is not limited to SGI. You are casting doubt on the GPC being a serious party across the country. Please stop.
We have an office, we have volunteers and we have money. It's time to start the campaign, to get the leader of this party elected. Stuart is only standing in the way.
If you are a Green Party member who wants to see a Green MP elected in the next election then join me in asking Stuart to go away.
Stuart is wasting our time and our efforts with his baseless attack not just on Elizabeth but on the party and on the many hard working volunteers who want and are willing to work to elect our first Green MP.
- Dave Bagler'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
Looking like idiots?!
I think the NP article is fine, and the extra publicity for the Green Party doesn't hurt.
Now, about looking "like idiots", the fact that these blogs are public on the GPC site may be something to reconsider. There's some pretty odd stuff and characters participating on these blogs, not to mention the bickering. It makes the GPC look unprofessional, and the GPC needs to look like a mature and serious option or it won't attract enough voters.
I think a members-only forum (phpBB style) would be a better format for informal discussion amongst members. These blogs are member opinion so why give them such a high profile on the GPC site? Is the disclaimer enough?
Publicly Airing our Laundry - good for the environment
Sorry, Michael, I have to disagree about re-locating this blog-site to a members only section. I understand that your intentions are good, and I also understand that some of what is written here is potentially problematic from a public-relations point of view. But I believe that there is an over-riding principle here which shows Canadians that we don’t micro-manage the message (or messengers), that we encourage critical debate about policy, leading to the conclusion that we are different from the other parties.
Sure, we sometimes air our dirty laundry for all to see, but I think that the GPC should continuing encouraging stringing up new clotheslines, rather than keeping our laundry, dirty and clean both, tucked away in a basement dryer, only to be taken out when it is clean and pressed, and neatly folded. These sorts of "clotheslines" are ultimately good for the economy and the environment.
"Sudbury" Steve May
I would like to remind you
I would like to remind you Steve, that because these blogs are completely public, not everyone can participate. There is a tradeoff between openness and inclusiveness. I'm not sure that one is necessary more important than the other.
Very true, Bram: blogs are not completely inclusive
Yes, very true, Bram. There are individuals here in Sudbury who would like to be able to openly contribute to the discourse on our blogsite here, but for their own reasons, they feel that they are not able to do so because they would be required to reveal their identities. This may be problematic for their employers, or family, or for whatever reason.
That being said, there are opportunities outside of this site in which they can participate in a more anonymous way. I don’t know whether or not they are, but there are opportunities.
Now, that doesn’t mean that we should go and remove this site, because it’s not completely inclusive, and because our dirty laundry is available here for all to see. On the contrary, I continue to believe this blogsite shows the world that we do things differently in this party, that we value discourse and tolerate dissent, with the notion that we are trying to constantly update and improve our organization, and by extension our nation.
It is fair, however, to point out that this site is not completely inclusive.
"Sudbury" Steve May
Complaining to Elections Canada
I think the salient issue isn't Hertzog's attempt to get the nomination, but rather that he has lodged a complaint with Elections Canada. Personally, I think the decision to lodge such a complaint outside of the party decision-making structure should be grounds for explulsion from the party.
The local EDA can have a nomination meeting and Stuart can have his 15 minutes of fame, but complaints lodged to Elections Canada can be a tremendous distraction even if they are totally groundless in nature.
Complaining to Elections Canada
Deleted a second button push.
Bill, I doubt many people
Bill, I doubt many people support Stuart, and I'm unsure how Elections Canada can get involved, but with that said, expelling somebody from the party for approaching Elections Canada would make us look vindictive or secretive.
Also, it doesn't sound very legal, although I realize your heart is in the right place.
Probably right about optics---
Bram:
You are probably right about the optics. But there is a tendency in this party for people who don't get the answer they want from the internal structure to immediately run to the courts instead of trying to organize some sort of caucus to support their point of view. I've seen spurious accusations leveled against all sorts of people. Indeed, one member threatened me with a lawsuit because of work I was doing on behalf of the Federal Council---until he was told he would be expelled from the party if he didn't drop the threat.
I think that our culture of permissiveness has changed this sort of thing from the option of last resort to the one of first recourse.
Hertzog's Issues with the process in SGI
If the Green Party does have any dirty laundry around this issue, as Mr. Hertzog suggests, it needs to be aired. I suspect that Mr. Hertzog has been experiencing a level of frustration with his ability to get answers to questions he has asked, from either the local EDA or from the Party.
I am concerned with one of the points Mr. Hertzog has raised, that being that the Party did not provide him with a membership list as per its own Rules for Nomination Contests. Specifically, as I understand it, the membership list was 4 ½ days late in arriving. Which doesn’t seem like much, but given that there are only 19 days being made available to campaign for the nomination, he would have lost about one quarter of his time to campaign.
This whole nomination process strikes me as being somewhat absurd. Normally, contested nomination contests are to be used as opportunities for nominees to sign up new members, yet the provisions of the GPC’s Constitution indicate that only members who have been so for 30 days or more will be eligible to vote. So, the SGI nomination process will result in no new members who can vote to determine who will be the candidate.
Funny, I thought, particularly when I have read some criticism from the Party apparatus about the coronation of Mike Schreiner to be the next leader of the GPO, specifically because the uncontested leadership contest would generate no media airtime for the GPO, and result in no new members for the Party.
But back to Hertzog. I have a lot of respect for Hertzog standing up for grassroots democracy. It seems that everyone in the Party respects that the Leaders just simply can’t announce his or her intentions to run in a particular riding without the possibility of facing a challenge, and ultimately I believe that reflects well on our Party.
I’m not so sure that there are grounds to Hertzog’s assertions, however, that money "donated" to the EDA is now somehow being used to finance E. May’s campaign to become the candidate. That’s because there isn’t any utility for her, or for Hertzog for that matter, to actually engage in campaigning at this time, given that they can’t sign up new members who would support them by voting at a nomination meeting, for the reasons given above.
Yes, maybe E. May and her team would be able to buy signs or do a whole bunch of things to try to win over existing members in SGI, but really, that would be the focus of her whole campaign right now. And, from the sounds of things, E. May’s campaign manager has answered Hertzog’s charges about spending money: it’s not happening.
Hertzog also indicates that he believes that a situation of creating unequal access to Party resources is occurring in SGI, and points to the 4 ½ day delay for receiving a copy of the membership list as evidence. It appears that this delay was in contravention to the Campaign Committee’s rules. Why the delay? Did E. May’s campaign also experience a delay? No one seems to have answered this question yet, so I think this whole issue is still on the table. Looks to me like someone has some explaining to do.
Greens, we need to keep ourselves above the level of the other parties. From what I’ve been able to piece together about the whole process now unfolding in SGI is that it appears to me that the letter of the law is being followed, but the spirit is somewhat questionable. We, as a Party, need to be better than that.
Yes, we will all be grateful when E. May is declared the candidate in SGI. I, for one, intend to help her win the election in B.C. by doing some phone canvassing when the writ is dropped. We’ll be happy to move on from all of this, and we’ll look back on it and claim that at least we received some positive media attention from this whole episode.
But Stuart Hertzog’s points will remain, and we will do right not to forget them. Stuart is here because he is concerned that the Party is forgetting its grassroots, that too much power is being shifted to the centre. He has been asking difficult questions, and receiving difficult answers which have lead him to conclude that the GPC might be a little bit broken in the practicing what we preach department.
When this is all over, we, as a Party, need to do some serious soul-searching, I think.
---
A Personal Note to Stuart:
Stuart, I think that you might have gone too far by filing a formal complaint with Elections Canada. But I do understand that the on-going frustrations you have been experiencing with this process might have led you to believe that you sincerely had no where else to turn. That being said, I think that it will be shown that processes were largely followed correctly here. I do look forward, however, to reading about your complete experience, and hope that you blog about it comprehensively when this is all over, as others who are a little involved with the Party will no doubt benefit from your observations.
"Sudbury" Steve May
Why there is a minimum "residency" requirement
Steve wrote:
Normally, contested nomination contests are to be used as opportunities for nominees to sign up new members, yet the provisions of the GPC’s Constitution indicate that only members who have been so for 30 days or more will be eligible to vote. So, the SGI nomination process will result in no new members who can vote to determine who will be the candidate.
The reason why a riding association would have this in their constitution is because it prevents a weak EDA from being taken over by another group that has no interest in the well-being of the party. There have been lots of examples in other political parties where at the last minute several buses of people arrive from a Temple, Labour Union, or other organization; a pile of memberships get dumped onto a table; and a total "dark horse" ends up with the nomination.
Another political party would love to highjack a riding association in order to sabotage a campaign where a significant votes split is at issue. Of course, the Leader can veto the nomination, but that will set back the EDA and almost always leaves a bad taste in the mouths of voters.
I suppose it comes down to your view of what politics is all about. Does the EDA "belong" to the people who built it up, fundraised, etc? Or does it belong to the candidate? I would argue that the former attitude is more in line with grassroots democracy, whereas the latter is more about "playing the game". One of the key values that I believe in is the idea that people need to be "rooted" in a community---both social and ecological. If someone will not get involved in the life of an EDA until the last minute, I do not think that they have earned the right to have a say in who runs in the election. They have the option to make a commitment and vote in future contests, but I want to see a commitment to the party and the Green movement first.
30 Days Good; 19 Days Less Good
Bill, thanks for providing some important information as to why there is a 30 day membership requirement built into the structure of the Party’s constitution. I just wanted to clarify that I believe that the 30 day requirement for members to be able to vote is a good idea, as per the reasons you’ve identified.
My only concern with regards to the requirement as it applies to the SGI contest is that, given the length of the contest, there is no chance to sign up new members who will be eligible to vote. My concerns here have everything to do with the short duration of the contest, and not with the 30 day requirement.
"Sudbury" Steve May
Oh, my mistake
Oh, my mistake. 19 days does seem to be inordinately fast. But, on the other hand, if someone is really interested in getting the nomination, they should realize that an election is coming and not feel that they have to wait for a formal process. They can be organizing any time that they feel like it. That can and should include selling memberships. If Stuart were running for any other reason than to shove a sharp stick in Elizabeth May's eyes, he would have had lots of time to build a campaign. That should prove his bad faith if nothing else---.
But, as has been pointed out on other blogs, the opportunity to do this stems from a decision to try and build media coverage with a "dribs and drabs" news campaign. Perhaps people will know better next time---.
Good response
Dear Steve,
Of all the opinions and responses I've heard on this topic yours seems to sum up the issue the best. Clearly Stuart should be congratulated for his courage to contest the nomination(this is line with our principles), other details are hard to judge from afar.
Sometimes in the heat of the moment it's good to take a step back and try to look at the situation objectively, even within our own party. I'm always a little bit dismayed when I see Greens fighting each other, that is truly counterproductive and I've got no stomach for it.
I joined politics to shape the future of the country not fight my friends.
I've been a member for two years so I guess I'm still relatively "new." Let's hope everyone is taking this as a very good learning experience.
Matthew Piggott
Kitchener Centre
"People of good faith, figuring out where we are, not falling victim, making choices, based on our values, with the best available information." These views are my own and do not represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada.