Ontario NDP accused of violating party constitution
Joey Schwartz and Michael Laxer
ndpdemocracynow@gmail.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Ontario NDP acting like a rogue state
(March 18, 2010) - Why does the party have a constitution, if it doesn't follow it? Is it a gimmick? A show constitution? The current Ontario New Democratic Party provincial executive has, seemingly, unilaterally, extended their term of office by an extra year, without any compelling constitutional reason.
This is significant, because it is a group of people that must face re-election every two years. This group controls the policy and major decision-making machinery in-between the party's conventions. Conventions are the party's highest authority, similar to the House of Commons and the Supreme Court all wound-up-in-one. This is essentially proroguing convention for a year, for no evident reason.
The democracy issue is paramount, because the rules for ratification exist to prevent the party from acting by imperial fiat. The process being used to ratify this decision seems to be arranged happen-stance, because there has never been a vote carried out via email. The Provincial Council, is being urged to ratify the executive's decision by this Friday morning, without any clear means of counting the vote, or allowing for free debate. Dissenting views have not been circulated and the process for counting appears to be highly flawed.
If the ONDP needs to hold a convention in an opposite year of the federal party, then they should move it up to 2010, and not unilaterally give the executive an extra year of power. A November 2010 convention would be almost two years from the previous one. Why are the executive and the provincial office acting in such an undemocratic manner?
If the party succeeds in proroguing Convention, they should hold elections by mail-in ballot to ensure that the legal term of office for elected officials is maintained. Also, since they're bending the rules anyway, resolutions from riding associations should be debated and voted on at all Provincial Councils leading up to whenever the convention is held.
This is a lot less than clear. Some questions:
Most NDP sections have biennial Conventions. Is that the case with the ONDP, and when was the last one?
There is normally a lot of slack and variation. For example, even without elections or election scares getting in the way- a Convention in September 2008 might routinely be followed by one in February 2011. Its not at all unusual for election uncertainties to turn that into 3 years or 3 years plus between Conventions.
And the likelihood of a Federal election matters greatly to the timing of an ONDP Convention. So Summer 2010 would be possible, but Fall of this year is out. Too likely for deposits on venues and other costs to be tossed out the window.
[When is the provincial election? Whenerever it is- its fixed at least.]
I guarantee you that Convention is not being delayed to extend the terms of the executive. Thats a goofy notion. It is a by-product of other concerns and agendas that aren't being relayed here.
There is plenty of legitimate reason for disputing- and disputing vocieferously- the dealaying of Convention. It isn't necessary to make gratuitous additions of phantom agendas.
As noted, the extension of terms of office is an effect of delaying Convention... but I think its a stretch to say the Constitution is being violated even about the shifting of proposed Convention dates. I'm pretty sure the Exec has the authority to do that on its own. My guess is that they are polling Council delegates because the last minute nature of this is not the norm. What are the reasons given that things have supposedly changed enoough that delaying was not brought up at a previous or the next Council? Put another way: is this really a consequence of factors beyong control shifting, or is there some crisis mode lack of planning going on here?
If the party succeeds in proroguing Convention, they should hold elections by mail-in ballot to ensure that the legal term of office for elected officials is maintained. Also, since they're bending the rules anyway, resolutions from riding associations should be debated and voted on at all Provincial Councils leading up to whenever the convention is held.
The legal term of office is Convention to Convention. Thats when elections are. In fact, mail-in ballots are probably simply not allowed- and would get far fewer people voting even if they were.
And resolutions can be brought to debate and vote at Councils, it is not a case of must be. IF it is customary in the ONDP that a certain number of resolutions have always brought to Council, and the present Exec has not beeen doing that, it would be a direlection. But no one has said that is happening. But not bring resolutions to Council is not a "bending of the rules".
I don't know anything about what is going on within the ONDP these days. But I do have a knowledge of NDP Constitutions, and people seem to be making unfounded claims about the Consitution and "rules".
There are two things I don't understand:
1) Would it not be possible to move the convention up to November 2010 as the Laxer/Schwartz letter suggests?
2) Why is an emergency executive and council meeting needed to postpone the convention which is over a year away? Surely there's enough time to deal with this through regularly scheduled meetings which would allow for full discussion and debate.
There's also a facebook page on this issue
Not sure about the internal constitutional stuff but maybe it's something simple like...the party is broke.
Convention and large conference space often has to be booked two and three years ahead of time. Could be that they've looked at the finances and decided they can't immediately afford it...and so easier to postpone the convention/elections.
There are two things I don't understand:
1) Would it not be possible to move the convention up to November 2010 as the Laxer/Schwartz letter suggests?
2) Why is an emergency executive and council meeting needed to postpone the convention which is over a year away? Surely there's enough time to deal with this through regularly scheduled meetings which would allow for full discussion and debate.
There's also a facebook page on this issue
The facebook page has even less information- not there is any really in the letter in the opening post- and even more tenuous claims about process.
There may be lots of legitimate beefs with ONDP governance, but this stuff sounds just plain flaky so far.
As I already said- the idea of a Convention this Fall is a non-starter. Federal election way too likely. [And proposing it as if it was simple undermines the credibility of the proposers.]
There is the question of why was this not brought up in a previous Council, or could not wait until the next one. But the fact that the Convention was expected to be a year from now is not a lot of time. There may be compelling reasons that if there is a postponement it needs to be done very soon. That isn't to say people can't expect that enough was known to have expected it to be brought up earliere- but a year is not a lot of time for bookings.
The question is why was this turned into an emergency resolution? They knew the finances two weeks ago. They knew the deal with booking venues two weeks ago. Why was this motion not presented two weeks ago at Council?
No matter how you try to spin it, the voting process being used does not foster democracy and inclusion. Lots of people got their ballots late because they were forgotten about, and many delegates and alternates still have not received their ballot. The results of this vote should not be deemed acceptable.
At the heart of this controversy is that many of our members are feeling alienated. People do not find the decision making to be participatory any longer. The lack of trust is not coming from the bottom but from the top. The top does not appear to trust the membership to arrive at decisions that are best for the party. This is suppose to be the people's party... where are the people? The NDP always does well when times are tough - yet our membership continues to drop.
The problem is not a lack finances folks, it's democracy. It's time to build a party we can all be proud of.
OK. Given that there have been a lot of accusations floating around, some of which sound pretty loose.... I'd like to hear confirmation that there was a Council meeting 2 weeks ago.
Even if the convention was delayed due to party finances, the circumstances under which this vote was held, if true, are very odd. I am not even addressing whether or not, in fact, what they did was even legal.
As for the election timing issue, under our system, an election in any legislative body could be called, in theory, at any time, so that argument is not overly convincing (minority governments notwithstanding).
That all being said, nothing that gets passed at convention ever makes it into any policy statements during elections, so, I guess, once could argue that by delaying the convention, it won't really have any consequence in terms of party functioning.
I don't know the details of this case, but I do know that it is very routine for conventions to be post-poned for various reasons (i.e. election timetables etc...). For example, the federal NDP is supposed to have a convention every two years. They had one in January 2003 when Jack Layton became leader. They then scheduled one for summer 2005 - but it became apparent in early 2005 that parliament could fall at any time and in fact, had Belinda Stronach not switched parties, we would have gone to the polls in July '05! in which case having a convention two weeks later would have been crazy. So, the party decided to postpone the 2005 convention to 2006 and that was held in Quebec City. Another should have taken place in the summer of 2008 - but once again as it became clear that 2008 was going to be an election year - that convention was also quietly postponed to summer 2009 - which was held in Halifax.
The fact is conventions are very expensive - both in terms of direct costs and the time involved. The ONDP had a convention one year ago in March 2009 when Horwath won the leadership - it would be crazy to have another election just one year later in 2010. I suppose you could have won in spring 2011 with an eye to the Fall 2011 - but there is also the problem of timing of a potential federal electionm in Fall 2010 or Spring 2011. Without knowing ANYTHING about the reasons given for postponing the convention - it makes sense to me that you schedule the next one for early 2012 - that way it can also be a bit of a post-election post-mortem.
OK. Given that there have been a lot of accusations floating around, some of which sound pretty loose.... I'd like to hear confirmation that there was a Council meeting 2 weeks ago.
The last council meeting happened on Saturday, March 13th via conference call.
As I understand it, the reason why an immediate vote was called was because the venue (where?) was on hold for a limited time, and council needed to act now rather than wait for the full council in May.
There are two issues here:
Two things I would note:
1. Full Council meetings is when you would want to have this kind of discussion. a telephone conference as there was 2 weeks ago is not much better than what they are doing now.
2. As to whether they could have known there was a problem with the tentative date... its difficult to know what is a reasonable expectation of anticipation without knowing [a] how long ago the last full Council meeting was, and [b] what the tentative Convention date was thought to be.
Given that Fall 2010 would be 6 months short of 2 years [not 'the almost 2 years' claimed in the opening post, and likely to be during an election- it never should have been seriously proposed. [And yes, there might always be an election... but that doesn't mean you pay no attention. You stay away from chunks of time where elections are likely such as Fall 2010 and Spring 2011, which always leaves times where the chances are remote... such as Summer 2010 or Winter 2010-11.]
If people can make allegations they should be able to come up with simple facts like when the Convention had tenatively been pegged.
Actually the meeting on Saturday March 13th was a Provincial Executive meeting and NOT Provincial Council. The executive meeting was called as an emergency to discuss delaying convention.
Provincial Council, when all the delegates meet in person and vote, took place Saturday February 27 and Sunday February 28. There was also a Provincial Executive meeting Friday February 26.
So why are we circulating an email vote when we could have voted on it in person two weeks earlier at council? Also, is this vote constitutional considering many delegates and alternatives have not received their ballots and many people received their email ballots on different days?
OK. Given that there have been a lot of accusations floating around, some of which sound pretty loose.... I'd like to hear confirmation that there was a Council meeting 2 weeks ago.
The last council meeting happened on Saturday, March 13th via conference call.
As I understand it, the reason why an immediate vote was called was because the venue (where?) was on hold for a limited time, and council needed to act now rather than wait for the full council in May.
Hi Mike...
Well someone had to say it.
If people can make allegations they should be able to come up with simple facts like when the Convention had tenatively been pegged.
No one is making allegations - we're stating the facts! Quit the spin Ken
Crisis management and episodic planning can go hand in hand with anti-democratic manipulation. But they are not neecarily related. Given the lack of dates and other info to work with, I've yet to see evidence of crisis management. But if that exists, it still doesn't mean there is manipulation.
KenS - for dates please see post #14
As a provincial council delegate I am profoundly insulted by Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Laxer's allegations that asking those elected by their riding associations to represent their interests withing the party are not to be trusted with making a decision like this. Provincial Council delegates were provided with a great deal of information, including the pros and cons of making the decision to move convention. It was all very straight forward and simply made sense to this delegate. It is arrogant and dismissive of Council members in a way that does not speak very highly of these two individuals, or their respect for the committment and work of people on Council or the Executive.
Democracy does not mean I get my way all the time, which some of these folks seemed to have never learned. It means there is an open process for people to make decisions that effect them. In every respect this decions, which has a time issue with the holding of a venue for convention that could cost the party unnecessary costs. Not everything is an effin conspiracy for goodness sake. If you kept your contact info up to date with the party as you are responsible for doing as a Council delegate you got this email with plenty of time to think over the contents.
What spin? More to the point- where are the facts?
I'm not assuming at all you don't have a solid case. I just haven't seen it yet. My questions about the dates are simple.
Slow response of computer: I see the Council mtg was less than 3 weeks ago, and 2 weeks before the ad hoc process for changing direction- I agree, what could change that much in 2 weeks?
But theres still the question of what the tentative date for Convention was or was thought to be.
I don't by the way dismiss that there is a case because people don't have the facts straight or make over the top allegations as I think are in the opening post.
It needs to be noted here that I'm not in Ontario, but I know that the vast majority of ONDP members would not know any more of the background than me... so my questions are relevant.
Bookish, I don't think anyone said that Provincial Council was not capable of making such a decision, just that the process in which they are being asked to make this decision is questionable and does not permit a full discussion.
It's also odd that party officials suddenly realized this month that 2011 might be a problem. What new information has come to the fore now that wasn't available in three weeks ago? At best this suggests bad planning.
Hi everyone, I hope what I have to offer helps. This is what my region rep on exec had to say and I have no reason to not belive her, eventhough she admitted she voted in favor.
I always though that convetion should be postponed but I am so insulted and embarassed by this process that I voted no.
Exec members only had 2 days warning for the call. Some exec members did not find out about until afterwards.
Some exec members complained they were specifically told there would be Nnot be a vote on the call, just a discussion, but a vote was held anyway.
Exec members did nit get a chance to cosnult theire members fo the vote. These last two were most disturbing to our rep.
She felt that those not infavor were treated unfairly and shut down.
The email vote was emailed to delegates 3 days later but there was never an email vote process created.
Not all deledgates have recived ballots. The party doesn't have email addresses for all delegates and not all delegates have emails.
Sorry to get mad at the end but this just steams me up.
The email vote was emailed to delegates 3 days later but there was never an email vote process created.
I can't speak to the rest of what you wrote, however, with the utmost respect possible, I have to say this is emphatically not correct. The email Council delegates received explicitly explained how to vote yes or no by putting your vote in the subject line of a reply email and also in the text.
While many people probably would have supported delaying convention, many people are dissatisfied with the voting process. For many, it was the straw that broke the camel's back. People are feeling alienated. People are feeling shut down. People are feeling that the only consultation they get from the party is when they are asking for donations. It's time to change the way things are done in the ONDP.
We have a document called The Road Ahead. It contains an in-depth consultation processes with party members. We need to start implementing that report. In the very least, decisions should be measured against the report. We need to use our executives, committees and riding associations effectively. If this direction does not come from the top then we need to start a grassroots movement from the bottom. Email your regional rep.s and tell them you want a regional council before next council at the end of May. Work with neighboring ridings to share resources. Demand an open discussion at the next provincial council to talk about democracy and participation in the ONDP.
Hello bookish--what I emant was that theparty does not have an email voting method in place and should have created on first before testing on a sucha n importnat issue. In my riding we have not been able to confirm if all our deledtes have ballots and we will not be able to before 9 tomorrow morning.
If the president wanted to introduce email voting into the party, she should have asked the scertaryto created process, bring it to exec and bring t to coucnil for a vote.
I want to know if this is the new way we will make decsions or only the importnat decsions.
I will bring a motion to the next counicl, if it is not cancelled, to get rid of councils and convetions altogether because they are expense and take up time.
Does nayone know who will be counting the votes?
Actually Olive is correct. My understanding is that executive was denied the opportunity to discuss what the voting process would entail, although a few executives tried to broach the subject. It was not well thought out and therefore not everyone got the email. Not everyone has email!
The email vote was emailed to delegates 3 days later but there was never an email vote process created.
I can't speak to the rest of what you wrote, however, with the utmost respect possible, I have to say this is emphatically not correct. The email Council delegates received explicitly explained how to vote yes or no by putting your vote in the subject line of a reply email and also in the text.
is it just us ondy people that wonder where the leader is on all of this? she had no problem slapping down dionovo and no problem cutting off prue. she talked about open dialogue and debate. is this not important enough for her?
where does she stand on all this and how did she vote?
btw not all ondy delegates got ballots. this all smells really bad to me
j
Mike what you mean is a some people were upset or question it, you do not speak for, nor could you possibly know how many. Nor do many people I see in the party jump to full on conspiracy theory at the drop of the hat. You speak for no one but yourself and maybe a few other friends and acquaintances as I can only speak about the people I know.
I am involved in a large, national organization, we vote on emerging issues by email, exactly in this form all the time. Maybe some of you need to get up to date instead of throwing around accusations like then mean and cost nothing.
BA, I haven't seen anyone suggest a "conspiracy theory", just a lack of democracy and poor planning.
Actually Olive is correct. My understanding is that executive was denied the opportunity to discuss what the voting process would entail, although a few executives tried to broach the subject. It was not well thought out and therefore not everyone got the email. Not everyone has email!
No actually she isn't correct and niether are you. You are mixing up the Executive with Provincial Council. Provincial Council delegates who made sure their contact information was up to date with the party received emails. Delegates from out riding all recieved them. The process for voting was very clear and only took a simple process of replying once you considered your vote- which as a Council delegate is all I can comment on first hand.
The not everyone has email conmment, is correct. However, I have to assume that they considered this and are taking steps.
@bookish
i have no problem voting by email. but i think what olive an dmike are saying is that theer should be a process for voting by email laid out and communicated to your voters ahead of time
you say your group votes by email. was it a surprise the first time? do you have rules? were you told what the rules are?
i think it is mean to say that your fellow party members see conspiracies when they are concerned with process. i gues that means ondy is full of crazy paranoid kids.
even if one person brings up a legitimate concern about process and the concern is not disucssed, then your process is flawed
BA, I haven't seen anyone suggest a "conspiracy theory", just a lack of democracy and poor planning.
Did you read your opening post, talking about the NDP being like a rogue state and the executive giving itself an extra year of power. Call it what you want but that smacks of tinfoil hatism to me.
Poor planning maybe, but then I will bet a lot of those complaining have never tried to plan a big event like a convention. You routinely need to book several years in advance, especially if you want to avoid even heftier charges. The organization I belong to and have helped to plan large national and provincial conventions for routinely books three years in advance and even then, if we try to move the location to other cities and so on, you can have a really hard time getting a date you want. The farther out you go, the better it is for planning and cost savings. It is basic large even planning 101, but instead some people are just assuming you can whip up a convention in no time flat. Full of it is that notion.
@bookish
i have no problem voting by email. but i think what olive an dmike are saying is that theer should be a process for voting by email laid out and communicated to your voters ahead of time
you say your group votes by email. was it a surprise the first time? do you have rules? were you told what the rules are?
i think it is mean to say that your fellow party members see conspiracies when they are concerned with process. i gues that means ondy is full of crazy paranoid kids.
even if one person brings up a legitimate concern about process and the concern is not disucssed, then your process is flawed
Again the instructions for voting were contained in the email. They were simple, straightforward and easy to follow if you bothered to read them.
And the first time we used it was when something came up that needed to be dealt with right away and the staff of our organization came to the conclusion it was easier than trying to arrange a conference call with everyone one. So in some ways it sure sounds similar actually.
is it just us ondy people that wonder where the leader is on all of this? she had no problem slapping down dionovo and no problem cutting off prue. she talked about open dialogue and debate. is this not important enough for her?
where does she stand on all this and how did she vote?
btw not all ondy delegates got ballots. this all smells really bad to me
j
And the minute she did the same usual suspects would be whining she was trying to influence the outcome and bemoaning how the NDP is so autocratic.
Bookish I think you are not hearing what we are saying. The email ballot instructions were clear, but the entire managing of the voting procedure is not clear and is unknown.
If stephen harper suddenly called an election and said everyone will vote by email. herei syou ballot, email it in in tow days. what woudl you say to that?
Would you argue that he has caught up with the times and he has been clear and fair in calling the vote? would you say because theer clear instructions in the ballot the process is fair.
In all my years with this party, this scares me. Why not consult members on cretaingthis process?
Don't denounce our concerns by labeling them as conspiracy theories. People have valid concerns about democracy. Don't dismiss our questions about the voting process by calling us out of date. Not everyone has access to a computer. It's demeaning, dismissive and arrogant attitudes like these that shut people down and have people wondering what happened to the democracy in our party.
Don't denounce our concerns by labeling them as conspiracy theories. People have valid concerns about democracy. Don't dismiss our questions about the voting process by calling us out of date. Not everyone has access to a computer. It's demeaning, dismissive and arrogant attitudes like these that shut people down and have people wondering what happened to the democracy in our party.
I agree completely that your arrogant, demeaning attitude to those of us on provincial council who don't agree with your assessment sure undermines democracy in the party. If you were raising legitimate concerns, then go to it, instead you are throwing around wild accusations without a single shred of evidence.
And as I have said the access to a computer is a legitimate issue. But you see the difference between us I assume the best of the people who devote a good deal of their time and resources in working for the betterment of the NDP, while you seem to assume they are just a step away from the jack boots. Unless and until you provide some evidence that party officials did not do something to make sure those without computers were not consulted in some way you are grasping at straws to bolster your general negative attitude towards the good people who work as hard and care as much about democracy and the NDP as you do.
BA, I haven't seen anyone suggest a "conspiracy theory", just a lack of democracy and poor planning.
Did you read your opening post, talking about the NDP being like a rogue state and the executive giving itself an extra year of power. Call it what you want but that smacks of tinfoil hatism to me.
Yeah, I did read the opening post and I don't see anything in it that justifies this response by you:
As a provincial council delegate I am profoundly insulted by Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Laxer's allegations that asking those elected by their riding associations to represent their interests withing the party are not to be trusted with making a decision like this.
The opening post doesn't mention provincial council at all so I don't see where you read insulting comments directed at that body.
I know for fact that not every delegate has received a ballot. Again, not everyone has email. Emails also end up in the Trash bin. People may be away. I know several alternates who have not received their ballot. I know of a president who has not received his ballot and only just learned of the vote today. Many of the executives received their ballots a day late after they emailed in and requested them. Doesn't sound like a democratic process to me. Maybe the president and prov. secretary should not be testing this out on such an important vote.
Actually Olive is correct. My understanding is that executive was denied the opportunity to discuss what the voting process would entail, although a few executives tried to broach the subject. It was not well thought out and therefore not everyone got the email. Not everyone has email!
No actually she isn't correct and niether are you. You are mixing up the Executive with Provincial Council. Provincial Council delegates who made sure their contact information was up to date with the party received emails. Delegates from out riding all recieved them. The process for voting was very clear and only took a simple process of replying once you considered your vote- which as a Council delegate is all I can comment on first hand.
The not everyone has email conmment, is correct. However, I have to assume that they considered this and are taking steps.
@mike, bookish's tactics are not surprising. ondy reps reported the exact same tactic used on exec at the time of the call. i think this is the new regime for the party an i find it offensive
when my membership runs out, that is it and i can tell you lot's of other ondy members are saying the same thing
@bookish, you are right with keeping up with the times. lucy for us today we have other choices and can express our political will in other places, other parties, in civil society and what not
the party should always pay attention to what its youth wing has to say because they are the times
Mycroft - Because that is the body entrusted with making this decision. Provincal Council delegates are democratically elected by riding associations, and affiliated organizations. They have been democratically entrusted with representing the interests of those organizations and riding associations, the open media release is suggesting, by implication and explicitly that those delegates can not be trusted to make a decision and that decision would be undemocratic if they decided differently than what the authors suggest and they somehow those democratically elected Councillors are not up to the job of making a correct decision so they have to intervene. It is arrogant, dismissive and profoundly insulting.
And please comparing the NDP to a rogue state is supposed to be open and just them being nice folks? C'mon.
@mike, bookish's tactics are not surprising. ondy reps reported the exact same tactic used on exec at the time of the call. i think this is the new regime for the party an i find it offensive
when my membership runs out, that is it and i can tell you lot's of other ondy members are saying the same thing
@bookish, you are right with keeping up with the times. lucy for us today we have other choices and can express our political will in other places, other parties, in civil society and what not
the party should always pay attention to what its youth wing has to say because they are the times
This is the kind of crap that makes me despair for the future of the NDP, but more importantly progressive politics in Canada. Disagree with those who have appointed themselve as the font of all knowledge and what it means to be progressive or democratic or what have you and immediatly you are part of some conspiracy, working in concert with some malicious agenda or worse. It happens all the time.
I am going soley on my experience within the NDP and in other organizations and on the information contained in the email. That's it. There is no tactics, no nothing other than I have to wait for a repairman and so am spending more time than usual on my computer. But of course every time you suggest that maybe, just maybe all these conspiracy theories are hooey you get accussed of all kinds of things and called names. I haven't discussed this with anyone but people in my riding so that as a Council member I could vote in tune with their thoughts. My entire focus has been on the question raised and what the best balance is for finances, party structure and the reality of how you go about creating a convention. But please do continue to put jack boots on me.
i do not agree with rogue state comparisson. i would have used a banana or people's republic instead. it may not be a coup but it smells like one and that is bad enough
bookish can you answer olive's question a while back, who will be counting the vote?
@Bookish I did try to find out what was being done to collect the votes of those without email. I got no response. What did you do to make sure this vote included everyone? I haven't demeaned the attitudes of council delegates. I have been asking questions about the legitimacy of the processes. So far ONE delegate - bookish Agrarian - has been dismissing my concerns as conspiracy theory and has been trying to shut me down. Maybe start answering some of my questions. Explain to me how everyone delegate was contacted. Email doesn't cut it. Explain to me why executive was not allowed to discuss the voting process. Sandra and co making up the rules as they go doesn't cut it. Explain to me why this was suddenly an emergency resolution that had to be circulated through email when we had council two weeks before hand? The onus is on you to prove why this was a well thought out and inclusive process. Why are you so determined to fight with everyone on here and defend this crappy voting process rather than hear us out and start working toward a solution that addresses these concern? You hear babblers like JasonNDP saying they are leaving the party over this. Stop shutting us down and start listening.
I only saw rhetorical questions from Olive
But the answer I assume it party staff and/or the Executive as a body. But of course those at those positions are just plain evil and we can't trust their power hungry designs. After all it is such a sweet deal to be an unpaid member of the executive putting in endless hours and hours of unpaid work to better the NDP and the issues we care about as a party that they will probably appoint themselves for life if we don't watch them carefully - roll eyes here
@Bookish I did try to find out what was being done to collect the votes of those without email. I got no response. What did you do to make sure this vote included everyone? I haven't demeaned the attitudes of council delegates. I have been asking questions about the legitimacy of the processes. So far ONE delegate - bookish Agrarian - has been dismissing my concerns as conspiracy theory and has been trying to shut me down. Maybe start answering some of my questions. Explain to me how everyone delegate was contacted. Email doesn't cut it. Explain to me why executive was not allowed to discuss the voting process. Sandra and co making up the rules as they go doesn't cut it. Explain to me why this was suddenly an emergency resolution that had to be circulated through email when we had council two weeks before hand? The onus is on you to prove why this was a well thought out and inclusive process. Why are you so determined to fight with everyone on here and defend this crappy voting process rather than hear us out and start working toward a solution that addresses these concern? You hear babblers like JasonNDP saying they are leaving the party over this. Stop shutting us down and start listening.
There is no onus on me at all. I am not the one making wild accusations. If you simply wanted to ask questions to make sure the process was a good one, you could do that without all the rhetoric. I have no objections to the questions -it is the characterization of motive and action I object to. And please- trying to shut you down. All I did was disagree with you. I have no more power to shut you down then I do to move a 10,000 lb rock. Give your rhetorical excesses a rest and maybe people might start listening.
Mycroft - Because that is the body entrusted with making this decision. Provincal Council delegates are democratically elected by riding associations, and affiliated organizations. They have been democratically entrusted with representing the interests of those organizations and riding associations, the open media release is suggesting, by implication and explicitly that those delegates can not be trusted to make a decision and that decision would be undemocratic if they decided differently than what the authors suggest and they somehow those democratically elected Councillors are not up to the job of making a correct decision so they have to intervene. It is arrogant, dismissive and profoundly insulting.
Again, no one said Provincial Council is not competent to make a decision. People, including provincial council delegates, are saying that this is being done in a way that doesn't allow the body to properly deliberate and also that the vote is not being conducted in a way that allows for everyone to participate. it's a bit like saying instead of allowing the legislature to debate a bill we're going to ask MPPs to vote by email without a proper discussion.
@Bookish I have been talking with Exec. members. Those that I have spoken with did not like the conference call last Saturday. They do not think the current voting process is democratic. Have you spoken with any of the exec.s? I think you are really missing it. No one is saying council can't make a good decision - we are saying that the decision making process has not been properly administered so the results can not be considered legitimate.
Well Mycroft that might be your reading of it and fair enough, but please accept that it can be read another way in good conscious too.
Hello Bookish, I am probably a lot older than most of you and think I have given a lot of my time to our Party. Whya are you so angry that people are concerned with the process? If you truly worry about progressive politics in Canada, should you not encourage all of us to ask more questions, not less, always be vigilant about our democracy on every leve, not just accept what we are told.
The progressive politics I fought for was never to give up all my trust in a party, even my own. It has always been to have the right to continuously and constantly ask questions of governments, politicians, and power and expect to get answers.
Bookish, I am saddened that an obviously intellegent man such as yourself so passionately defend a process you say you have no hand in making and against us that have conerns.
Olive
@Bookish I have been talking with Exec. members. Those that I have spoken with did not like the conference call last Saturday. They do not think the current voting process is democratic. Have you spoken with any of the exec.s? I think you are really missing it. No one is saying council can't make a good decision - we are saying that the decision making process has not been properly administered so the results can not be considered legitimate.
No you are specificially saying, assuming you are involved in the opening media release and/or support it as you seemingly too that this was some sort of naked power grab to extend the exec postions for a year. Which on the face of it is beyond silly.
@Bookish Agrarian
What are the wild accusations I am making? What is the rhetoric I am using? You did not "disagree" with me - you denounced my concerns by labeling them as conspiracy theories. What's ironic is that I have not heard a valid argument out of you. All you keep saying is that our concerns are conspiracy theories. How weak!
Here Here!
Hello Bookish, I am probably a lot older than most of you and think I have given a lot of my time to our Party. Whya are you so angry that people are concerned with the process? If you truly worry about progressive politics in Canada, should you not encourage all of us to ask more questions, not less, always be vigilant about our democracy on every leve, not just accept what we are told.
The progressive politics I fought for was never to give up all my trust in a party, even my own. It has always been to have the right to continuously and constantly ask questions of governments, politicians, and power and expect to get answers.
Bookish, I am saddened that an obviously intellegent man such as yourself so passionately defend a process you say you have no hand in making and against us that have conerns.
Olive
But of course those at those positions are just plain evil and we can't trust their power hungry designs. After all it is such a sweet deal to be an unpaid member of the executive putting in endless hours and hours of unpaid work to better the NDP and the issues we care about as a party that they will probably appoint themselves for life if we don't watch them carefully - roll eyes here
Endless hours of unpaid work? What endless hours do the members at large have? Or the regional representatives? What kind of riding association outreach, development or administrative work are they doing that demands that sort of commitment?
Incidentally, has the party made public any policy documents, or position papers outlining what we would do if elected government? If so, I can't see how you can say one way or the other, what issues "we care about" or how their work is advancing them.
The hyperbole of the press release notwithstanding, this is the second time in the last two weeks that the party has acted in a way that shows, frankly, a certain contempt for the membership. Last week, they terminated Stuart Parker's candidacy because of his criticism of an NDP action 15 years ago that almost no one remembers. This week, we have an e-mail vote to move the convention date. That is astonishingly undemocratic. If this was not done deliberately in order to stifle debate, or as part of some other agenda, it shows a lack of planning and basic management skills on a scale that defies any standard of measurement.
Hello Bookish, I am probably a lot older than most of you and think I have given a lot of my time to our Party. Whya are you so angry that people are concerned with the process? If you truly worry about progressive politics in Canada, should you not encourage all of us to ask more questions, not less, always be vigilant about our democracy on every leve, not just accept what we are told.
The progressive politics I fought for was never to give up all my trust in a party, even my own. It has always been to have the right to continuously and constantly ask questions of governments, politicians, and power and expect to get answers.
Bookish, I am saddened that an obviously intellegent man such as yourself so passionately defend a process you say you have no hand in making and against us that have conerns.
Olive
Olive, young I am not. Nor am I angry. What I am sick to death with is this overwhelming tendancy to think the worse of people who do a lot of heavy lifting in the party. The opening media release is full of accusations that are not supported, or I expect supportable. I too have been around a long time and the sniping and back-biting is only getting worse and I am so very weary of it. I see it constantly and it driving a lot of good people away from the party and progressive politics in general. I took new people to the last convention, as we always try to do, and by the time they left they were so disgusted by the antics on many of those people they will never be back. If you and I have been around as long as we both seem to have been, I would be willing to bet we could both name them by name and give at least half of their usual speeches.
I have no problem with legitimate questions, I do however, object to those who presume to speak for me and others in attacking good folks who work hard, when they do not speak for me or even many others.
@ Bookish You are wrong to assume I was involved in the media release. You are also wrong to assume that I support it. If you read my posts you would see that I am simply questioning the legitimacy of the voting processes. I have not once said that it's a power grab. Please stop assuming thing about me and base your reactions to me based on "my" posts. Thank You.
@Bookish Agrarian
What are the wild accusations I am making? What is the rhetoric I am using? You did not "disagree" with me - you denounced my concerns by labeling them as conspiracy theories. What's ironic is that I have not heard a valid argument out of you. All you keep saying is that our concerns are conspiracy theories. How weak!
And yet in the very post above this I outlined something very specific. Who is it that isn't listening?
What I am sick to death with is this overwhelming tendancy to think the worse of people who do a lot of heavy lifting in the party.
So I guess you must have been really pissed off at all those ungreatful people demanding that Stephan Harper go back to Parliament?
Deleted because it is really messing up the formating for some reason
so now i have spoke with each of the 3 dissenters of the exec call. fisrt, i don't know if it has been poited out that all 3 of their emails were left off the ballot?!
i have also spoke with 2 more execs that originally voted yes but changed their ballot vote to no
here are 5 execs that say that they feel they have been tricked at some point:
1. for the exec call they were told there would not be avpte but just pros and cons talked about. so how come ther was a vote
2. how come execs did not get a chance to talkto their people before voting? why not have a email vote after a couple days?
@bookish you siad there are ways to bring up legitimate concerns. how exactly?
3. all exec members is poke to say there was no way to discuss concerns and they are not getting answres now. one exec asked to help cout votes and got no answer. the 3 no voters say there is never a way to discuss concerns at exec
hope this helps-j
What I am sick to death with is this overwhelming tendancy to think the worse of people who do a lot of heavy lifting in the party.
So I guess you must have been really pissed off at all those ungreatful people demanding that Stephan Harper go back to Parliament?
Do you even know what you are talking about in this post, because I sure don't and it doesn't make a lick of sense.
@ Jason
Don't use words like tricked - that would be a good start.
I am listening Bookish. I hadn't had a chance to read your post as I was typing. But I did respond - and have since responded that your "assumptions" of me were exactly that "assumptions".
@ Bookish
Don't use word like conspiracy-that would be a good start.
What I am sick to death with is this overwhelming tendancy to think the worse of people who do a lot of heavy lifting in the party.
So I guess you must have been really pissed off at all those ungreatful people demanding that Stephan Harper go back to Parliament?
Do you even know what you are talking about in this post, because I sure don't and it doesn't make a lick of sense.
I thought it was actually pretty obvious, but since there is at least one person who doesn't understand, I'll explain.
Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament for 3 weeks in order to "recalibrate" as he put it. It was a perfectly legitimate Parliamentary tactic, done many times before by other Prime Ministers. However, some people concluded that his motives for doing so were not sincere, and because of this, they were upset.
In the case of the ONDP, we have a sudden, last minute, e-mail based vote in order to change the date of the convention. Changing the convention date is a significant decision, and this was done electronically, with no basis for discussion or dissent. Because of the way in which this was done, people are, again, skeptical of the motives of the individuals who initiated this vote.
The analogy between the two instances, is that though the actions were seemingly legal and proper, they were done in a way that suggests to some people that other motives were involved. At the very least, they suggest a lack of respect for the democratic process.
I then implied that, since you are upset about people questioning the motives of the ONDP folks who initiated the vote, you must also be upset at protestors who question Stephen Harper's motives. Again, in both cases, we have only the appearance of a lack of respect for democracy. Yet, for some reason, people have a tendancy to question the motives of people who do things to avoid discussion and open debate. Some people are a bit touchy about that.
Let me know if you need any further clarification.
@ Bookish, why yo gotta be so rude dude?
btw: the ballot reads: postpoing convention into 2012, no timeframe of when in 2012
Let me know if you need any further clarification.
Not thanks it is quite clear you don't know what you are talking about.
Let me know if you need any further clarification.
Not thanks it is quite clear you don't know what you are talking about.
Really? In what way was my analogy not valid? In both cases, a deliberative body had it's meeting suspended for a future date. In both cases, people questioned the motives of the people involved in making the decision.
I wasn't even arguing that what the ONDP did was wrong, merely arguing as to why people would think that it was wrong? If I follow your reasoning correctly, then you think it is inappropriate to even question the motives of the people who run the party. I really don't think you mean that, but if you can't address the points I make with anything other than insults, I (and probably other participants) will probably be forced to conclude that it is wrong to question the motives of the party.
@ Bookish, why yo gotta be so rude dude?
btw: the ballot reads: postpoing convention into 2012, no timeframe of when in 2012
Who's being rude. I object strongly to the implications that this is some sort of jack boot action designed to stamp out democracy in the NDP. I also object passionatly to the statements in the opening media release. I find them arrogant and demeaning. I also am tired of way people always attack others motives without cause. I am no fan of some on the Executive, but that does not mean I think they deserve to be characterized the way they are. It is a kind of bullying I have seen too much of on babble lately and I have always reacted to bullies.
as for you btw - one has to assume they are working out dates, but it will dependent on the vote. In my experience booking large conventions the dates are time limited for acceptance and even over a period of this time will likely be subject to multiple enquiries from different groups. People don't realize, until you actually try to book this stuff, that there really aren't a lot of places large enough in Ontario, that can also offer reasonable rates, to hold events this size. So I am sure they have their eyes on some times and places, but will not have anything firm enough to offer. If you are willing to not worry about costs to delegates then I suppose it isn't as hard, but I know that will be something upper in the minds of those charged with organizing an NDP convention.
Let me know if you need any further clarification.
Not thanks it is quite clear you don't know what you are talking about.
Really? In what way was my analogy not valid? In both cases, a deliberative body had it's meeting suspended for a future date. In both cases, people questioned the motives of the people involved in making the decision.
I wasn't even arguing that what the ONDP did was wrong, merely arguing as to why people would think that it was wrong? If I follow your reasoning correctly, then you think it is inappropriate to even question the motives of the people who run the party. I really don't think you mean that, but if you can't address the points I make with anything other than insults, I (and probably other participants) will probably be forced to conclude that it is wrong to question the motives of the party.
It is not valid because Harper was trying to avoid scrutiny and there is no evidence of that in the case of the NDP convention. So no I was not being insulting, I was being blunt about your analogy. But no worries there seems to be lots of misunderstanding of the difference between blunt and rude in this thread.
And I am going to quit with this thread because there is something so messed up about the formatting it is hurting my old eyes. There Olive does that help to date me
Let me know if you need any further clarification.
Not thanks it is quite clear you don't know what you are talking about.
Really? In what way was my analogy not valid? In both cases, a deliberative body had it's meeting suspended for a future date. In both cases, people questioned the motives of the people involved in making the decision.
I wasn't even arguing that what the ONDP did was wrong, merely arguing as to why people would think that it was wrong? If I follow your reasoning correctly, then you think it is inappropriate to even question the motives of the people who run the party. I really don't think you mean that, but if you can't address the points I make with anything other than insults, I (and probably other participants) will probably be forced to conclude that it is wrong to question the motives of the party.
It is not valid because Harper was trying to avoid scrutiny and there is no evidence of that in the case of the NDP convention. So no I was not being insulting, I was being blunt about your analogy. But no worries there seems to be lots of misunderstanding of the difference between blunt and rude in this thread.
How do you know the ONDP are not trying to avoid scrutiny? If you don't have an open and transparent process, you can't really argue one way or the other whether or not anyone is hiding anything. Another way of reading that is: we can do away with proper democratic process as long as we trust our leaders. Again, I really hope you don't mean that. Proper democratic procedure, including discussion and debate are to be followed all the time, not just when we think people are behaving well.
@Mike from Canmore:
Thanks for the clarification. Given the amount of committees and caucuses I'm involved in or know people who are involved in, it's difficult to keep track sometimes.
My two cents: The press release is waaaaaaay too excitable. 'Imperial fiat'? Ooooh! Scary! And 'proroguing' just because it's the Canadian word du jour. And there *is* an evident reason, thank you – that being of getting a decision made sooner rather than later for convention. It should have happened at Provincial Council, but just because you don't like the way things were done doesn't mean there wasn't a reason.
So: ONDP screwed up by not bringing this up at council, but the critics have been hyperbolic. 2012 is better than 2010, which at the very latest would just be over 18-20 months after the last one, which is too soon. In any case, fees for booking places will shoot way, way up. We would reserve places with what money? Funds, as you may have noticed, are in rather short supply at the ONDP these days.
i just recived this on fb from the lgbt rep:
Hello All,
I voted against this proposal at the Executive meeting and in the email vote of Council. I opposed the process because of constitutional, fairness and transparency concerns that I still believe have been properly addressed.
This is to inform all Queer/LGBT Caucus Members that if tomorrow's vote is in favour of pushing back the ONDP Convention tomorrow, it will mean automatic extension of each Member of Provincial Executive's term; and by extension, by each member of our Caucus Executive.
I believe it looks bad to have Executive Members vote to extend their mandates by up to a year (date unspecified on ballot).
Therefore I will step down on the date originally specified (when Convention should have occurred). At that time I will decide as to whether or not I will seek re-election.
I challenge all other Members of the Provincial Executive, including the President and the Members of the Admin Committee to do the same as a sign that their decisions were made in good faith. (Now that we have established a precedent for email voting, it can be applied to every vote).
I also ask Members of our own Executive to conciser doing the same.
In Pride and Solidarity.
at least one person on exec is trying to stay true to our prinicples. i think ondy reps will follow. how many other execs do you think will willingly put themslevs up for reelection after this mess
The hyperbole of the press release notwithstanding, this is the second time in the last two weeks that the party has acted in a way that shows, frankly, a certain contempt for the membership. Last week, they terminated Stuart Parker's candidacy because of his criticism of an NDP action 15 years ago that almost no one remembers. This week, we have an e-mail vote to move the convention date.
Whoa. Don't mix up the federal and provincial parties. Two separate organisations. The Stuart Parker thing is federal, this thread concerns the provincial party only. Both parties have their problems, but they won't get solved by mixing problems together.
Jason how is it being true to our principles, by which I assume you mean the NDP, by not respecting the outcome of the vote or losing an argument at Executive about the process. To me that seems more like petulance than integrity. I mean if things are so bad in the process of this situation, why not step down right now? That would at least be a move a person could respect.
And Klock your analogy still does not work, not even a little bit.
And I really do have to quit this thread it is driving my eyes buggy. What is with the weird formatting, or is this a problem on my computer alone?
2 bookis, all i am suggesting is that this seems like a good idea that exec members run again before the extension. how could that hurt?
It's not just you, B.A. Something's wrong with the thread formatting.
LGBT Caucus, among other exec.s did not "lose an argument" - discussion on the voting process was denied - it never happened. Exec.s were not given any information on delaying convention prior to the phone call. Therefore, they were unable to bring it back to their respective caucuses and regions. Exec.s where told not to worry about not having info. because it was going to be a discussion NOT a vote. Once on the conference call a vote was called. Where are our principles? And since when is this party about winners and losers?
Jason how is it being true to our principles, by which I assume you mean the NDP, by not respecting the outcome of the vote or losing an argument at Executive about the process.
How could that even happen? If the vote to extend goes through, the convention will be in 2012, so when and where would members 'run' for re-election before that? At provincial council? That might be fine for one or two specific positions to be dealt with there, as has happened in the past when someone stepped down and the position needed to be filled until next Convention. But the whole Exec being chosen at Council, even on an interim basis - now that would be undemocratic in my mind.
And since when is this party about winners and losers?
Ever been in an election? Seems to me that is how those works, same with a vote. I checked on your account with some friends on the Exec and their account differs from the one you give. I am having a hard time squaring that circle as I respect and know them enough to believe them, but also have no reason to think your account isn't true from the person(s) perspective.
That can happen in life, but it seems to me this is much ado about nothing. Does it really matter if convention is delayed a year compared to issues we need to be concentrating on like poverty, hospital cuts, job losses, education issues, what is happening in our food system and the loss of farmers to feed this province and on and on. I know it is for some of us policy and process wonks (which I am one too), but in the larger scheme of things I really have to wonder. But that is an open question that some will rightly answer differently than me.
Mind being a little more clear on how "my account" differs the supposed exec.s you spoke with. It's not just my account. Several people on this forum have spoke with exec.s and are all hearing the same story. You are the only one with a different story Bookish. It's actually kind of funny to watch you fight with everyone.
The hyperbole of the press release notwithstanding, this is the second time in the last two weeks that the party has acted in a way that shows, frankly, a certain contempt for the membership. Last week, they terminated Stuart Parker's candidacy because of his criticism of an NDP action 15 years ago that almost no one remembers. This week, we have an e-mail vote to move the convention date.
Whoa. Don't mix up the federal and provincial parties. Two separate organisations. The Stuart Parker thing is federal, this thread concerns the provincial party only. Both parties have their problems, but they won't get solved by mixing problems together.
Thanks Edmondo.
@ bookish when would elections happen!? r u kidding!? they wuld happen when original convention was slotted ofr dude!
... and how? by email! what;s wrong with that?
bookish, r u on exec?
@ bookish when would elections happen!? r u kidding!? they wuld happen when original convention was slotted ofr dude!
... and how? by email! what;s wrong with that?
bookish, r u on exec?
That sounds awfully familiar. Are we talking about IAW again?
I couldn't resist because that's such a typical way of shutting down discussion. Not all that different than parents who come up with all kinds of reasons for not listening to what their kids are really saying when they're upset.
I was on the executive of a provincial organization that used email a fair bit for decision making. There was a definite process that everyone knew. Once a motion was tabled, there was a 4 or 5 day discussion period which was periodically extended when the debates were not leading toward a consensus. Once the debate period closed, the voting period opened and lasted a day or two. We were all satisfied with the process to the best of my knowledge. And yes, sometimes the staffperson was outvoted and respected the results.
exec reps i spoke with reported any discussion on how to conduct the email vote were shut down
exec reps i spoke with reported any discussion on how to conduct the email vote were shut down
Let's assume that party activists on both sides of this divide mean well and are mostly interested in seeing the party succeed. Could we not find some kind of compromise by having a scaled down convention at the scheduled time where we simply focus on Executive elections and debating riding resolutions. We would spend less money on the usual trimmings and just complete the necessary business of Convention.
Caritable sentiment. But in practice there is no such thing as "scaled down Convention". Too many process that have to be observed. Among other reasons.
mike from canmore's post at 56 is the reason why the formatting is screwed up in this thread.
not that there is any point in fixing it now as it is so close to a 100 posts, but if "mike" reads this he could edit it so the thread was actually readable, not that there is anything to read in it either though.
It's actually post #63 that did the most damage. He has two extra "end quote" codes there.
Ontario NDP dissidents accused of violating thread construction.
Formatting all fixed! Thanks Unionist for pointing me in the right direction.
Sorry everyone! It's fixed now - babble away!
I could almost endure this tedious "certs is a candymint, no certs is a breathmint"-style debate if it was actually about something important and consequential. If people were lobbing hyperbolic complaints about policies on nationalizing heavy industry or on a single school system - I might not like but at least it would be a substantive issue. But when I see all these people who apparently have WAYYYYY too much time on their hands arguing back and forth about a silly thing like whether to have a convention in 2011 or 2012- I just feeling like even arguing about this only diminishes people in my eyes. WHO CARES?????
@ Stockholm - the conversation isn't about when to have the convention - it's about the lack of a democratic voting process being used.
One important issue is being missed here. The decision to move the conventio to 2012 means that there will be no convention until after the next election and thus no real opportunity for the party membership to have any input on the NDP's election platform. It also means that there will have been no real policy convention since before the last election. 2009 was a leadership convention and while, in theory, it was also a policy convention in practice there is very little time or attention given to policy resolutions during a ledership convention.
Is it really healthy for a party to go into an election without having had a thorough review of policy or without consulting the grassroots on policy? (Incidentally, this also means that the review of the school funding issue is pushed past the next election)
i was emailed hthis petition:"Keep the ONDP Open and Transparent"
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/openandtransparentondp/
As long as I have been involved in the NDP I have been agitating and working for a more substantive policy and platform development and review process.
But given the one we have, there wouldn't be a meaningful review of policy, and nothing to do with platform development whether or not there is a Convention before election. As far as policy goes, our Conventions are limited to being debating societies. A very limited number of issues are debated at all- and the process often militataes against reflection on even those... unless a huge portion of floor time is devoted to them, which in turn diminishes the quality of discussions on everything else. Its a mugs zero sum game.
And it is absolutely antithetical to the big picture reeflaection of platform development. The consequence of that vacuum is the only alternative to ad hoc inside the bubble development of the platform is handwringing on the outside. The process sucks, but what passes for 'criticism' is just bleating.
There's a lot to be said for sticking to Convention scheduling- or at least minimizing the number and length of delays. Whatever the flaws and limits, it is the democratic process we have. Sustaining that is vital.
But fantasy obsessing about what in particular will or will not happen if we do have Convention at a particular time... invites ridicule because people know its not true.
Long.