Policy/Constitutional Committee "Elections"

[Ipberg2]

If things were done like that Connie, some members may get the impression that policies and constitution are to be adhered to.

Cant have that.

As I understand it, these committees will have the power to choose which resolutions make it to the convention floor.

That's a powerful job.

Unless the Conservative caucus just ignores the resolutions which were passed.

cough, cough Fortier cough

[khori_wan_kenobi]

Some background issue for this topic:

Prior to the March 2005 convention the party started a policy and constitutional development process.

Personally, I was pretty happy with the process and felt it was fair and true to grassroots principles; however some people felt that it needed to be improved.

These people who weren't happy with the process made a push at the 2005 convention for National Council to set up on-going constitutional and policy development committees which will develop recommendations to be voted on at future conventions (as I understand it they won't be deciding which policies make it to the vote).

The NC agreed to do this, however as I understand it, since the constitution doesn't recognize or provide rules for such comittees, the NC set up this process on an ad-hoc basis.

The idea is that these committees and the process of selecting its members will be formalized and voted on at the next convention.

[reformthesystem]

Connie,

If it helps any most EDAs weren't given much notice of this.

The process seemed like it was rather rushed to me and it would have been nice if NC had informed the general membership of it.

In cases such as this where the NC or LO don't really come through I feel its up to the EDAs to ensure that the process is as grassroots as possible.

Unforunately, the EDA weren't given much notice ahead of time to do some thing like a mailout ot members or organize a nomination meeting. My EDA did its best to notify its members of this nomination process however there wasn't enough time to have a formal meeting.

Somebody asked what they saw the function of the EDAs as being. I see the main functions as:

1) facilitating grassroots participation in the party (attract members, keep them informed, develop local policies to bring to national votes etc.)

2) attract and assist candidates (fundraise, hold nominations, develop infrastructure such as CIMS and organizational structure, promote the "brand" locally)

If anybody is disappointed in there EDAs I'd recommend that they join their board and make some changes that they feel are needed.

Many EDAs will be having their AGMs in the coming months and from what I can tell most EDAs are desperate for dedicated people who can help and aren't interested in the EDA as a "social chit-chat club".

Even if they aren't having an AGM soon contact them and they may be able to place you in a non-director position where you could help out.

Uh... so we both agree that the purpose of an EDA is to push the CPC brand...

then why is so many EDA's just cheering sections for MP's or MP wanna be's??

See I got no problem with supporting the MP or the people that want to run but what comes first the chicken or the egg here?

Many people seem confused in my opinion.

Funny that Enn didn't answer me on this either?

[Connie Fournier]

Some background issue for this topic:

Prior to the March 2005 convention the party started a policy and constitutional development process.

Personally, I was pretty happy with the process and felt it was fair and true to grassroots principles; however some people felt that it needed to be improved.

These people who weren't happy with the process made a push at the 2005 convention for National Council to set up on-going constitutional and policy development committees which will develop recommendations to be voted on at future conventions (as I understand it they won't be deciding which policies make it to the vote).

The NC agreed to do this, however as I understand it, since the constitution doesn't recognize or provide rules for such comittees, the NC set up this process on an ad-hoc basis.

The idea is that these committees and the process of selecting its members will be formalized and voted on at the next convention.

Khori, I have a lot of respect for you, but all of that is just spin. Tell them to try again.

[khori_wan_kenobi]

What part of that is spin Connie?

This whole thing originated at the Montreal convention.

Does your EDA president keep you informed of what is announced in the presidential mail-outs which includes copies of NC meeting minutes (though they're pretty bareboned)?

[khori_wan_kenobi]

then why is so many EDA's just cheering sections for MP's or MP wanna be's??

See I got no problem with supporting the MP or the people that want to run but what comes first the chicken or the egg here?

It is very much a Chicken and egg situation actually.

An MP or candidate is an EDA's greatest asset.

Without a hardworking candidate its hard to attract new members, volunteers or funds which make for a strong EDA.

Conversely, without a strong EDA its often hard to attract a hardworking candidate.

It can be hard to break that cycle.

[reformthesystem]

then why is so many EDA's just cheering sections for MP's or MP wanna be's??

See I got no problem with supporting the MP or the people that want to run but what comes first the chicken or the egg here?

It is very much a Chicken and egg situation actually.

An MP or candidate is an EDA's greatest asset.

Without a hardworking candidate its hard to attract new members, volunteers or funds which make for a strong EDA.

Conversely, without a strong EDA its often hard to attract a hardworking candidate.

It can be hard to break that cycle.

Valid points, but when you don't have an elected MP in a riding then a strong EDA is useful.. right?

Also I've observed that the party in theory should exist long after the local MP is gone...

At least I think we both agree that there is a tradeoff here but in some ridings.. too often somebody hi-jacks the EDA for their own personal agendas, which happens in the weaker ridings.

Head office doesn't care because these ridings are not on the radar screen and they are happy that any life exists out there.

Let me be frank, I know ridings where the entire executive was hand picked by the MP wanna be and elected by his/her flunkies with the express view to entirely support what the MP wannabe wanted to do.

I know this thread isn't specifically geared to EDA issues but the reason I brought this up is that the kind of EDA I mentioned goes a long way to creating the problems that this thread was created to address in the first place.. thats all.

[Connie Fournier]

It's all spin, Khori. What we are being told is:

a) The policy/constitutional committee selection process was screwed up because there was nothing in the constitution instructing them how to do it. But, I know the kind of experienced political professionals we have on National Council. They know how to run an election! This was executed so poorly that they weren't even able to fill all of the slots. There is no excuse for it. They were not under a tight deadline, and they had the knowledge and tools to make it an open, democratic process. For some reason, they chose not to.

b) We are told 'nothing to see here', the policy/constitutional committees aren't going to make any decisions about what resolutions will make it to the vote. Well, this either means that National Council wasted their own time, as well as the time of the nominees and elected board members to create a useless bureaucracy (a sickening thought)...or they are lying about the actual function of these committees.

In any case, this was a botched-up mess, and the membership deserves a clear explanation as to what went wrong, and why they are choosing to cover it up.

[khori_wan_kenobi]

a) The policy/constitutional committee selection process was screwed up because there was nothing in the constitution instructing them how to do it. But, I know the kind of experienced political professionals we have on National Council. They know how to run an election! This was executed so poorly that they weren't even able to fill all of the slots. There is no excuse for it. They were not under a tight deadline, and they had the knowledge and tools to make it an open, democratic process. For some reason, they chose not to.

I agree it was done poorly. I expect it to be more organized next time.

b) We are told 'nothing to see here', the policy/constitutional committees aren't going to make any decisions about what resolutions will make it to the vote. Well, this either means that National Council wasted their own time, as well as the time of the nominees and elected board members to create a useless bureaucracy (a sickening thought)...or they are lying about the actual function of these committees.

They don't make decision on what will and won't go to a vote.

The system the party uses to decide what gets voted on is a weighted system which allocates points to resolutions according to the number of members who vote in favour of a resolution at local policy development meetings.

To these policies chosen by the members, the party will add policies developed by the caucus. I'm not sure if the policy resolutions recommended by the new committees will be in addition to or in place of the caucus resolutions.

Either way, these committee policy resolutions will not be replacing or approving of member-initiated policy resolutions.

The committee policies will be IN ADDITION TO member-initiated (grassroots) policies.

[Psycho]

Julian Martin from Alberta is a great choice; absolutely impressive guy...

[George is back]

In the West at least it looks like mostly Reformers. Big conspiracy. The consitution side will be the EDA one that states it expired as of the last convention. The national consitution and policies only need tune-ups as they're pretty fresh and in middle of being implemented.

The convention will probably be early next Spring, nominations just after in time for the Opposition attack on our second budget and a possible election. C & P are not high priorities right now.

[TalkAboutIt]

I can appreciate the frustration that communications between the EDAs and the national office can be, and should be, improved. An example of such frustration is that the preceding discussion used terms like "us" and "them".


What I wonder is whether the current alleged situation is due to:


a) a learning curve the party is going through to integrate itself from its roots to its top. After all, the party is relatively new, and certain processes may still need to be developed.

b) disdain by top management of grassroots concerns and party democracy

c) a conspiracy by the national party to ignore the grassroots and dictate policy as they choose

d) other <provide your opinion>


I doubt that the current perceptions are due to devious or un-democratic plans by the national party, rather than to growing pains. After all, the party's success has been its foundations, and will likely continue to be so.

My recommendation would be to improve communications across the party.
As previously stated, the party is relatively new, so that beyond constitutional and policy reform, there may be a myriad of logistics that need to be worked out by due process.

If EDAs feel they do not have sufficient voice at the national level, and if they care, it is their responsibility to make their voices heard.

At the same time, it is incumbent on the national party to seriously consider the opinions of the grassroots, in particular through the EDAs, and be proactive in respecting the party's democratic foundations.

Please forgive me if I lose it at some point and become extremely harsh in criticizing your ideas as expressed in your post. I am teetering between harsh versus diplomatic response because your gentle and apparent understanding tone towards the national office are either naively genuine or are pure unfettered BS meant to thwart some of the legitimate criticism of the backroom BS of the party that we have joined and have been lead to believe that we belong to.

"Poor communication" of a "new party"? No, there has been a war of values between the backroom PCs and the grassroots populists of the former Alliance during the foundation of the party. The Alliance was stronger in terms of numbers of MPS and members, but the old PC backroom mechanisms gained disproportionate weight in the policy of the Conservative party.

If you are truly new to this, then don't be offended when those of us who have been involved for quite some time rant about the underhanded, backroom abuse of democracy that many of us have witnessed first-hand within the party. On the other hand, if it becomes obvious that you are BSing about your naivete, then be prepared for sustained electronic napalm.

When hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars are involved in the running of the party, and when core principles are involved in the processes, you can be sure that such significant actions are not "mistakes", or mere "growing pains".

As you have mentioned, the success of the conservative movement has been the grassroots involvement, so when decisions are made in positions of power, they are well aware of what sort of an impact there will be. There has been a history of those within conservative politics acting too much like the very socialist dictators that we oppose in the liberal/Liberal camps. They, like the liberals they claim to oppose, believe that they are most capable of making the "right" decision and don't trust "common" members to collectively make the best decision through an open and transparent democracy.

Let me clarify, your motive is not the issue here, I only referred to it to explain why I have taken the time to 'splain why many of us react with passion to the situation described at the start of this thread. We also know that Connie is a woman of great principle and integrity so she would not express this without due cause for concern.

The issue here is whether Mr. Harper would be at the helm when the Conservative party either dies like Mulroney's term after one minority term, or if he will lead it to a majority like Mr. Diefenbaker did.

If those in power in the party cut the grassroots off from decision-making in the party, then they will be tightening a tourniquet around the neck of the party, as Mulroney did, and they will lead to yet another extended era of decline within the "Conservative" party and will see the birth of yet another populist party.

It is time for the people "at the top" of the party to not act like all-powerful idiots.

They need to recognize the depth of the term "grassroots": The roots of grass collect and deliver the water and nutrients necessary for the growth of the "lawn". If the tops of the grass grow too high, they are burned by the heat of the sun. If there is a period of drought, the tops of the grass burn off, but it is the grassroots that survive to rebuild the lawn.

The analogy may be simplistic, but the message to the current people in power in the Conservative party is that they better smarten up and encourage the direct and active involvement of the grassroots or the party will die.

[Connie Fournier]

In the West at least it looks like mostly Reformers. Big conspiracy.

Did I say there was a 'conspiracy'?? I said it was poorly run. If you would like to address that point, I will respond. But, I can do without your patronizing attitude.

[dbreadner13]

So does that mean I didn't make it in, despite the fact that I made this cool looking pic to promote myself:

[Connie Fournier]

Well, it's been another two weeks since this thread died, and still no official word on the results of this 'election'.

If anyone thinks that the CPC has any respect left for the grassroots membership, you are living in a dream world.

The fact that they would have the gall to pull off a farce like this and try to pass it off as an 'election', shows clearly that they think the membership is stupid, impotent, or both.