Comments for Not an Official Green Party Canada Site http://greencanada.wordpress.com An unofficial take on all things Green Party of Canada Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:08:52 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on The Green Party of Canada’s Leadership race conundrum. by bluegreenblogger http://greencanada.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/the-green-party-of-canadas-leadership-race-conundrum/#comment-725 bluegreenblogger Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:08:52 +0000 http://greencanada.wordpress.com/?p=831#comment-725 Hi Ken, Our dilemma is that the general election is unpredictable, but the leadership race needs predictability. We ought to bite the bullet, and live with the consequences I suppose. What I am trying to avoid is a deliberate obfuscation, and a delay in order to confound the non-insider candidates. If we sit silently awaiting the maturation of the current 'leaderships' succession plans, then we'll be presented with a fait d'accompli Hi Ken,
Our dilemma is that the general election is unpredictable, but the leadership race needs predictability. We ought to bite the bullet, and live with the consequences I suppose.
What I am trying to avoid is a deliberate obfuscation, and a delay in order to confound the non-insider candidates. If we sit silently awaiting the maturation of the current ‘leaderships’ succession plans, then we’ll be presented with a fait d’accompli

]]> Comment on The Green Party of Canada’s Leadership race conundrum. by Ken Summers http://greencanada.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/the-green-party-of-canadas-leadership-race-conundrum/#comment-724 Ken Summers Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:39:55 +0000 http://greencanada.wordpress.com/?p=831#comment-724 I'll mull over what you said- but that includes deep skepticism about what kind of accounting EC expects from leadership contendors, AND that they know they won't be grilled. But while I'm on a roll with having correct predictions, I think a Spring election is unlikely. Thats not the sort of thin you can plan a leadership vote time around- but it has its relevance and implications to people thinking about what it would mean to various possible leadership contendors. I’ll mull over what you said- but that includes deep skepticism about what kind of accounting EC expects from leadership contendors, AND that they know they won’t be grilled.

But while I’m on a roll with having correct predictions, I think a Spring election is unlikely. Thats not the sort of thin you can plan a leadership vote time around- but it has its relevance and implications to people thinking about what it would mean to various possible leadership contendors.

]]> Comment on The Green Party of Canada’s Leadership race conundrum. by bluegreenblogger http://greencanada.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/the-green-party-of-canadas-leadership-race-conundrum/#comment-723 bluegreenblogger Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:38:30 +0000 http://greencanada.wordpress.com/?p=831#comment-723 Ken, I'm surprised you didn't even say, 'I told you so'. You've commented often enough about this exact scenario here. I intended to imply. It's a reminder to all concerned that the Elections Act regulates the use of resources by contestants. It's only permitted if the resources are freely offered to ALL contestants equally. Eventually Adrian will have to declare, and it's beneficial if she understands that there will be an accounting with Elections Canada. She will have to justify everything that she has done this year, and support her obvious contention that her spending activities, and her personal control of the BC Provincial division, are not at all related to her leadership race. There will be intense scrutiny in fact. Of course the race is stacked in EMays favour. Why else would she have filled every single slot in the TO with Adrian and Elizabeth loyalists? Competence is irrelevant, loyalty is the only criteria. As far as SGI goes, you are right that lots of Greens have deluded themselves on that score. There's still a slim chance, and I think that a delay until Spring actually gives them a shot. There's the rub. Spring, summer or fall, there's a lot of work needs to be done for a leadership, and the people in control have an enormous incentive to pretend it doesn't matter, and then pull a favourable last minute campaign rulebook out of their bag of tricks. Ken,
I’m surprised you didn’t even say, ‘I told you so’. You’ve commented often enough about this exact scenario here.
I intended to imply. It’s a reminder to all concerned that the Elections Act regulates the use of resources by contestants. It’s only permitted if the resources are freely offered to ALL contestants equally. Eventually Adrian will have to declare, and it’s beneficial if she understands that there will be an accounting with Elections Canada. She will have to justify everything that she has done this year, and support her obvious contention that her spending activities, and her personal control of the BC Provincial division, are not at all related to her leadership race. There will be intense scrutiny in fact.
Of course the race is stacked in EMays favour. Why else would she have filled every single slot in the TO with Adrian and Elizabeth loyalists? Competence is irrelevant, loyalty is the only criteria.
As far as SGI goes, you are right that lots of Greens have deluded themselves on that score. There’s still a slim chance, and I think that a delay until Spring actually gives them a shot. There’s the rub. Spring, summer or fall, there’s a lot of work needs to be done for a leadership, and the people in control have an enormous incentive to pretend it doesn’t matter, and then pull a favourable last minute campaign rulebook out of their bag of tricks.

]]> Comment on The Green Party of Canada’s Leadership race conundrum. by bluegreenblogger http://greencanada.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/the-green-party-of-canadas-leadership-race-conundrum/#comment-722 bluegreenblogger Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:58:22 +0000 http://greencanada.wordpress.com/?p=831#comment-722 Thanks Erich, for bringing clarity to the table. One quibble, I would characterise it as a reasonable and provocative assumption ;-) As it reads, we have to have a leadership race in 2010. There are problems with running a leadership during a general election. I suspect that Elections Canada would be stumped in how to fairly interpret the rules when EDA's and non-general election campaign spending is supposed to be frozen during the writ period. Do you simply suspend the leadership campaign? We cannot go sleepwalking into 2010. If we do, then the transfer of power will be quietly arranged, instead of seriously contested. We've all been observers, or even participants in the arbitrary conniving that seems to spring up in the Green Party. It turns my stomach, and I'm normally tolerant of sharp tactics. I posted because I am trying to prepare for the Leadership campaign, and beyond broad strokes, we cannot readily determine campaign structure even. There's a big difference between an all volunteer $50k campaign, and a semi-professional $500k. In the one we focus on existing membership, in the other we go out and recruit 10,000 members. Which one would you like to see? Especially if there are 3-4 big recruiting drives in competition. Thanks Erich, for bringing clarity to the table. One quibble, I would characterise it as a reasonable and provocative assumption ;-)
As it reads, we have to have a leadership race in 2010. There are problems with running a leadership during a general election. I suspect that Elections Canada would be stumped in how to fairly interpret the rules when EDA’s and non-general election campaign spending is supposed to be frozen during the writ period. Do you simply suspend the leadership campaign?
We cannot go sleepwalking into 2010. If we do, then the transfer of power will be quietly arranged, instead of seriously contested. We’ve all been observers, or even participants in the arbitrary conniving that seems to spring up in the Green Party. It turns my stomach, and I’m normally tolerant of sharp tactics.
I posted because I am trying to prepare for the Leadership campaign, and beyond broad strokes, we cannot readily determine campaign structure even. There’s a big difference between an all volunteer $50k campaign, and a semi-professional $500k. In the one we focus on existing membership, in the other we go out and recruit 10,000 members. Which one would you like to see? Especially if there are 3-4 big recruiting drives in competition.

]]> Comment on The Green Party of Canada’s Leadership race conundrum. by Ken Summers http://greencanada.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/the-green-party-of-canadas-leadership-race-conundrum/#comment-721 Ken Summers Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:23:38 +0000 http://greencanada.wordpress.com/?p=831#comment-721 This is a test of the email notifiction, because that "subscription manager" is awfully vague what it is doing [or isnt]. This is a test of the email notifiction, because that “subscription manager” is awfully vague what it is doing [or isnt].

]]> Comment on The Green Party of Canada’s Leadership race conundrum. by Ken Summers http://greencanada.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/the-green-party-of-canadas-leadership-race-conundrum/#comment-720 Ken Summers Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:15:39 +0000 http://greencanada.wordpress.com/?p=831#comment-720 I also would interpret that to mean only that it has to be some time in 2010. But I don't see how that flexibility helps. I noticed that you explicitly recommended a big increase in the spending limits, but only implied some rules about contendors using party funds during the race... that even what they do strictly speaking for the party is an issue. Did you mean to only imply? And/or, is that a consequence of seeing the inherent problem of how to clearly and fairly draw a line? My two cents would be that the race is stacked in May's favour, more than it would always be for a sitting Leader, until after the general election. Not to mention that its pretty likely she would clear the air by not running once she loses in SGI. [I realize you all can't think that way- just file it, if she wins in SGI, there's no issue.] Not that I can imagine there is a way to postpone it past the end of 2010. Let alone whether likely contendors would want that if it was doable. I also would interpret that to mean only that it has to be some time in 2010. But I don’t see how that flexibility helps.

I noticed that you explicitly recommended a big increase in the spending limits, but only implied some rules about contendors using party funds during the race… that even what they do strictly speaking for the party is an issue.

Did you mean to only imply?

And/or, is that a consequence of seeing the inherent problem of how to clearly and fairly draw a line?

My two cents would be that the race is stacked in May’s favour, more than it would always be for a sitting Leader, until after the general election. Not to mention that its pretty likely she would clear the air by not running once she loses in SGI. [I realize you all can't think that way- just file it, if she wins in SGI, there's no issue.]

Not that I can imagine there is a way to postpone it past the end of 2010. Let alone whether likely contendors would want that if it was doable.

]]> Comment on The Green Party of Canada’s Leadership race conundrum. by Erich Jacoby-Hawkins http://greencanada.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/the-green-party-of-canadas-leadership-race-conundrum/#comment-718 Erich Jacoby-Hawkins Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:08:27 +0000 http://greencanada.wordpress.com/?p=831#comment-718 I think you are making a reasonable but false assumption. The constitution's by-laws state that the Party must have a BGM every 2 years; it must have a leadership race every 4 years. However, these need not be held at the same time & place, nor even by the same method. (Practically, a BGM must have an in-person component, while the leadership race could be by mail-in ballot with no meeting). So it is possible to have (for example) an August BGM and a fall leadership race. (Or a spring one). In past this has not been the practice, but the current situation represents our first major leadership race during a shaky minority gov't situation*, and the first under this version of the constitution (featuring a 4-year term). So there may yet be other firsts. Timing of leadership races is specified in two places: 2.1.4.2 All Council members shall be elected to serve a two year term or until their successors are elected, except the Leader who shall serve a four year term or until a successor is elected. 2.1.4.5 The Leader shall be elected in 2006 and every four (4) years thereafter. I think it is reasonable to read 2.1.4.5 to mean the leadership race has to be held in 2010, which is 4 years after 2006; I don't think it can be categorically asserted that it must be in August 2010, or specifically on August 26, 2010. The codicil at the end of 2.1.4.2 even seems to indicate a bit of run-over of the term, should one election fall later in its year than the previous election did (or should it need to be re-run). I notice that 2.1.4.2 rules out your suggestion of an interim leader during the leadership race. (Note that I'm not commenting on whether or not that's a good idea, just how it is specified in our by-laws). I expect that 2.1.4.2 was intended to apply in case of a leader resigning with a by-election, whereby the new leader would serve out the remainder of the 4-year term. However, as written, it seems to do the opposite - a leader elected in a mid-term by-election could make the case that this by-law specifies that a new 4-year term has commenced. That would conflict with 2.1.4.5, however, so it would be a quandry. I guess we hope it never happens (until after we clarify the rule). * Technically, 2004's race was during a minority, but Martin had only just been elected and wasn't in danger of imminent fall. And the race was serious only to Tom Manley, who ran a respectable campaign; John Grogran ran a token protest campaign, while Jim Harris, coming off our largest growth election ever, barely campaigned at all yet still managed to win in the first ballot vs. Manley, Grogan, and NOTA. I think you are making a reasonable but false assumption.

The constitution’s by-laws state that the Party must have a BGM every 2 years; it must have a leadership race every 4 years.

However, these need not be held at the same time & place, nor even by the same method. (Practically, a BGM must have an in-person component, while the leadership race could be by mail-in ballot with no meeting). So it is possible to have (for example) an August BGM and a fall leadership race. (Or a spring one). In past this has not been the practice, but the current situation represents our first major leadership race during a shaky minority gov’t situation*, and the first under this version of the constitution (featuring a 4-year term). So there may yet be other firsts.

Timing of leadership races is specified in two places:

2.1.4.2 All Council members shall be elected to serve a two year term or until their successors are elected, except the Leader who shall serve a four year term or until a successor is elected.

2.1.4.5 The Leader shall be elected in 2006 and every four (4) years thereafter.

I think it is reasonable to read 2.1.4.5 to mean the leadership race has to be held in 2010, which is 4 years after 2006; I don’t think it can be categorically asserted that it must be in August 2010, or specifically on August 26, 2010.

The codicil at the end of 2.1.4.2 even seems to indicate a bit of run-over of the term, should one election fall later in its year than the previous election did (or should it need to be re-run).

I notice that 2.1.4.2 rules out your suggestion of an interim leader during the leadership race. (Note that I’m not commenting on whether or not that’s a good idea, just how it is specified in our by-laws).

I expect that 2.1.4.2 was intended to apply in case of a leader resigning with a by-election, whereby the new leader would serve out the remainder of the 4-year term. However, as written, it seems to do the opposite – a leader elected in a mid-term by-election could make the case that this by-law specifies that a new 4-year term has commenced. That would conflict with 2.1.4.5, however, so it would be a quandry. I guess we hope it never happens (until after we clarify the rule).

* Technically, 2004’s race was during a minority, but Martin had only just been elected and wasn’t in danger of imminent fall. And the race was serious only to Tom Manley, who ran a respectable campaign; John Grogran ran a token protest campaign, while Jim Harris, coming off our largest growth election ever, barely campaigned at all yet still managed to win in the first ballot vs. Manley, Grogan, and NOTA.

]]> Comment on The Green Party of Canada’s Leadership race conundrum. by bluegreenblogger http://greencanada.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/the-green-party-of-canadas-leadership-race-conundrum/#comment-717 bluegreenblogger Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:14:18 +0000 http://greencanada.wordpress.com/?p=831#comment-717 Yes, my contact with Sharolyn was through the EMay campaign. I represented her campaign in a couple of different instances. Fortunately, the contribution limits are set in the elections finance act and the maximum contribution is $1,100 total contribution to a Leadership contestant. Right now, I believe that the Party collects 20% of all directed donations to EDA's. Not sure though. I think that the campaigns would rather collect the money themselves, and remit a tithe back to the Party. (For obvious reasons). Yes, my contact with Sharolyn was through the EMay campaign. I represented her campaign in a couple of different instances.
Fortunately, the contribution limits are set in the elections finance act and the maximum contribution is $1,100 total contribution to a Leadership contestant. Right now, I believe that the Party collects 20% of all directed donations to EDA’s. Not sure though. I think that the campaigns would rather collect the money themselves, and remit a tithe back to the Party. (For obvious reasons).

]]> Comment on The Green Party of Canada’s Leadership race conundrum. by Mark Francis http://greencanada.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/the-green-party-of-canadas-leadership-race-conundrum/#comment-716 Mark Francis Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:53:38 +0000 http://greencanada.wordpress.com/?p=831#comment-716 And then I look you up and see that you're Matthew Day. LOL. You weren't on my short list. And then I look you up and see that you’re Matthew Day. LOL. You weren’t on my short list.

]]> Comment on The Green Party of Canada’s Leadership race conundrum. by Mark Francis http://greencanada.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/the-green-party-of-canadas-leadership-race-conundrum/#comment-715 Mark Francis Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:51:52 +0000 http://greencanada.wordpress.com/?p=831#comment-715 "I can tell you first hand that it was very equitable, and impartial. " Hmmmmmm... I have that short list. LOL. Anyway, If the limit was raised to $500,000 (I don't disagree) there would need to be individual contribution limits (5K, no more), or the race will be hijacked. I could even name names. “I can tell you first hand that it was very equitable, and impartial. ”

Hmmmmmm… I have that short list. LOL.

Anyway, If the limit was raised to $500,000 (I don’t disagree) there would need to be individual contribution limits (5K, no more), or the race will be hijacked. I could even name names.

]]>