Public Meeting: The NDP and Party Democracy

108 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Tue, 2010-03-23 12:21

aka Mycroft

The Ginger Project: The Ginger Project Present: The NDP and Party Democracy

Quote:
The Ginger Project Presents:

The NDP and Party Democracy

The Library Pub, Toronto, Wednesday, April 7th, 7 p.m.

A little over a year ago, the Ginger Project was initiated by New Democrats concerned by the current state of the Ontario New Democratic Party. The concerns expressed by the Project's participants primarily related to two areas: the lack of a public policy platform document available between and during elections and the state of party democracy.

Since those initial meetings, events have occurred that suggest to us that in both these areas objective conditions have become worse, not better. Within the last two weeks, we have heard of a potential Federal NDP candidate disqualified for making critical comments of the party. In addition, we have seen the Ontario NDP Executive extend its term and, quite possibly unconstitutionally, delay its convention, in a vote conducted by e-mail, seemingly without quorum, and apparently without any objective observers to count the votes.

Both of these actions are profoundly undemocratic. They suggest a disturbing type of party leadership; one that expects their members to tolerate infractions of the rules, when committed by their leaders, with silence, if not approval (while reaching for our cheque books of course), while holding any who are not of the ruling clique to a totally different standard.

We are inviting all New Democrats who are concerned with these, or other issues with their party, as well as other like minded individuals, to a public meeting at The Library Pub, at 7 p.m. on Wednesday April 7th. If the party leadership won't have a discussion regarding it's own voting processes, then we will! Agree with those who think the party has made a terrible mistake or not, you are welcome here. We always practice democracy at our events!

It is our responsibility to have that discussion ourselves.

We want to hear how all New Democrats or like-minded leftists feel about these incredibly important issues. Our views do make a difference.

Join us.

We hope to see you all there!

(p.s. if you are on Facebook click here to link to the Facebook event page!)

Tue, 2010-03-23 12:30

KenS

Let a Thousand Factions Flower!

[seriously]

We could start by having at least one or two.

aka Mycroft wrote:
In addition, we have seen the Ontario NDP Executive extend its term and, quite possibly unconstitutionally, delay its convention, in a vote conducted by e-mail, seemingly without quorum, and apparently without any objective observers to count the votes.

highlight added

You could help the cause, or at least refrain from shots to self, by sticking to legitimate claims.

If not, you get who you self select for.

Tue, 2010-03-23 12:35

Bookish Agrarian

apparently without any objective observers to count the votes.

This group has lost any and all respect and should be loudly denounced. Questioning Jack Murray's integrity is beyond legitimate debate. Disgusting, just disgusting.

Tue, 2010-03-23 12:44

edmundoconnor

I've just taken a quick gander at who's confirmed to attend and who is not attending, I'm going to take a guess that it's going to be those who were already hacked off at the party attending in the main. A lack of a published agenda suggests a gab-fest with no real clear direction, except that they're hacked off at the party and want it changed.

Looks like they mail-bombed everyone with any connection to the NDP in Toronto/SWOnt. Nine yeses and 47 noes at this stage (12:45 on March 23rd) doesn't look good.

Tue, 2010-03-23 12:45

edmundoconnor

Given the tone of the piece, I'm going out on a limb and saying those who wrote that delightful little press release earlier wrote this, too.

Tue, 2010-03-23 12:46

KenS

Lets see now.

While it is possible that Jack Murray's impartiality in this case could be called into question... nobody did that. So repeating the assertion as in the opening post is indeed to simply question Jack Murray's integrity without even the courtesy of offering any substantiation for it.

And the purpose of such inflammatory comments is what now?

Makes the self selection process appear to be deliberate.

Tue, 2010-03-23 13:22

Mike from Canmore

Sandra Clifford APPOINTED Jack Murray to scrutinize the vote. The executive was not consulted on this appointment. Several executive members asked the scrutinize the vote and received no response addressing the request. Jack is not a council delegate nor is he a member of executive nor was he properly appointed. Sandra was wrong to have appointed him without anyone's consent. No one is questioning Jack's integrity. We are questioning Sandra's.

Tue, 2010-03-23 14:07

KenS

For all the faults the Pres may have, she was within her rights on this. Several scrutinizers are not required. If it was me I would have asked some of the known oppenents if Jack was acceptable. But a.] she may have asked around some; and b] IF there was an ommission it is not close enough to being something to warrant an unqualified claim that there were no "objective observors" to count votes.

Let alone that even if you have that strong a case it is unacceptable to make such a bald unqualified statement in a public invitation where no one will have had the benefit of any information you might have.

He did not have to be a delegate or a member of Executive and its legitimate that she appoint him. IF she consulted with no one- and you have not the definitive information or the credibility to say that is the case- then she made a mistake.

But I'm wasting my breath. Why should I care if you gratuitously piss off people who might otherwise want to hear what you have to say?

Tue, 2010-03-23 14:11

aka Mycroft

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

apparently without any objective observers to count the votes.

This group has lost any and all respect and should be loudly denounced. Questioning Jack Murray's integrity is beyond legitimate debate. Disgusting, just disgusting.

Bookish, you're denouncing a straw dog. The criticism isn't of Jack Murray's integrity but of the fact that members of the executive asked if they could observe the vote as scrutineers and were refused.

Tue, 2010-03-23 14:11

#10

Bookish Agrarian

Bullshit.

Using a term like objective observer directly implies he was acting on Clifford's direction in terms of how the vote was tabulated. The insinuation is disgusting about someone with the integrity of Jack Murray. Any support on legitimate concerns this group might have will be gone with anyone who has any common decency. This back-biting smear campaign smacks of the tatics of the right. Disgusting.

Jack Murray is the quintesential impartial observer who would be the exact perfect person to ask - he also oversaw the recent leadership election vote so has the credibility and respect of anyone with any decency within the party to ensure that any vote tabulation was fair and above board. Absolutely disgusting.

Tue, 2010-03-23 14:13

#11

Bookish Agrarian

Mycroft -Bullshit again. That is not what your precious little release says. It says quite clearly that Jack Murray was acting on some direction from Clifford. That impugning of a someone like Jack Murray is beyond disgusting and you defending it reduces my considerable respect for you by several miles.

Tue, 2010-03-23 14:17

#12

KenS

No straw dog Mycroft. Read the invitation.

It is a statement that Murray was not an objective observor. Nothing more and nothing less.

Tue, 2010-03-23 14:22

#13

aka Mycroft

Wow, the fact that you two are willing to circle the wagons and start "denouncing" people is a symptom of the problem about which a lot of people in the party are complaining.

Tue, 2010-03-23 14:37

#14

wage zombie

Agree with Mycroft, nothing wrong with concerned party members getting together (on babble or elsewhere) to discuss the state of party democracy. If people feel that facts are being presented inaccurately then they should offer facts where they have them. If people that language is being used counter productively, then they should offer constructive criticism and a bett presentation.

Denouncing, as a way of going about things, does not add to the process.

Tue, 2010-03-23 15:09

#15

Bookish Agrarian

Mycroft, the only people doing 'denouncing' are the authors of the media release you posted, without comment and so presumably support. They are tarring an individual's integrity without an ounce of evidence, or decency, to further their own agenda. They deserved to be called on that behaviour. I never suggested they should not meet, or have the right to meet, I suggested, with the evidence of their own words, that they have lost all credibility for what might have been legitimate concerns. Their actions are appalling.

Tue, 2010-03-23 15:25

#16

Mike from Canmore

Ken - just because you do not like what I have to say does not constitute my concerns as illegitimate. I have a copy of the constitution and it does not say the president has the authority to overrule the constitution. The constitution states that any area the constitution does not cover Robert's Rules will be used. Robert's rules includes several methods of voting but does not include email voting. For email voting to be constitutional Robert's Rules states that the society must vote on it. Offence #1 Sandra had no right to implement an email ballot.

According to Roberts Rules the motion must be presented to the floor for debate. In Sandra's email vote this did not happen. Offence #2 The vote was out of order because there was no opportunity for debate.

In order to amend the constitution 17.04 of our constitution states: this constitution may be amended by a two-thirds majority vote of all delegates present and voting at a PROVINCIAL CONVENTION. Office #3 the email vote is out of order because it was a meeting of council not convention. Anyway, it didn't even stand up to the test for a valid vote by council which 11.05 of our constitution states that "At each meeting of the Provincial Council, fifty per cent (50%) plus one of the registered delegates shall constitute a quorum.

SO KEN - I hope you find our constitution to be "legitimate" and "credible" to your liking.

Tue, 2010-03-23 15:41

#17

Mike from Canmore

BA and Ken - you two make me laugh. You are so desperate to strip our concerns of creditability that you are proving our concerns outright - this party lacks democracy. You have nothing substantive to offer - nothing to point to - nothing to show that well thought out measures were taken to ensure the vote was constitution, democratic and fully inclusive. You are so desperate to dismiss our concerns and yet, you have nothing.

And BA - does your face turn red when you type your swear words... cuz that's how I picture it ;o)

Tue, 2010-03-23 15:58

#18

Bookish Agrarian

The only people that should have a red face are the people impugning the integrity of someone like Jack Murray and it should be from embarrasment. And calling you and others on your smear campaign of someone like that is very substantive.

By all mean meet, complain to your hearts content, organize if you want to take the party in another direction, but keep your tactics out of the gutter - which is where they are when you belittle someone like Mr. Murray.

If you cannot see how it instantly takes away any credibility you might have for your list of grievances than you are fooling yourself.

Tue, 2010-03-23 16:03

#19

Mike from Canmore

BA - no one has belittled Jack. In fact it was you who first mentioned his name on these threads. You're trying to put words in our mouths. And you look silly doing it. You also look funny typing swear words... with your face turning red

Tue, 2010-03-23 16:09

#20

aka Mycroft

BA and KenS, you're both trying to be overly literal in order to read things into the announcement that aren't actually there in an attempt to create a pretext to "denounce" the group behind the letter. I guess since you can't "denounce" the letter on its criticisms of party process you are instead grasping at straw dogs in order to give you something to mercilessly beat into the ground. However, your literalism is actually illiteralism since the request was for someone to act as an objective observer of the vote count. Obviously, the vote counter and someone observing the vote count are two different things and thus there was no implication that Jack wasn't objective, rather that as the vote counter he wasn't an observer. Please drop the semantic silliness.

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Mycroft, the only people doing 'denouncing' are the authors of the media release you posted,

Look at your first post in this thread where you said quite clearly

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

This group has lost any and all respect and should be loudly denounced.

(emphasis added)

BA, I understand why you want to quickly forget your call for denunciation but this is clearly what you did.

Tue, 2010-03-23 16:31

#21

Bookish Agrarian

How about apologizing for calling into question the integrity of Jack Murray, the individual you are attacking, instead of building strawmen arguments. It might go a long way to restoring any credibility. And Mycroft, I don't give a flying fig about the group meeting, organizing, or holding a fondue party - could care less. I don't buy any of the arguments, but knock yourself out.

What I do care about is good people having their integrity questioned as has been done in two different threads now. First by a poster and then in this thread by a clear inference in the opening media release, that while not having the courage to name who it is talking about is clearly identifying Jack Murray because he is who did the vote counting. That is what I take strong offense too.

And calling taking offense to characterizing someone like Jack Murray in the way you have, (as lots of people will have received the email from the party and know who the person overseeing the vote was), silly makes your credibility on any other issue plunge and plunge. My father taught me that you rarely fill up a hole by digging deeper - perhaps your little group might learn that lesson and withdraw the character assination attempts you are making on Mr. Murray who is the person you identify, whether you had the courage to do it by name or not.

Tue, 2010-03-23 16:32

#22

Bookish Agrarian

Mike from Canmore wrote:

BA - no one has belittled Jack. In fact it was you who first mentioned his name on these threads. You're trying to put words in our mouths. And you look silly doing it. You also look funny typing swear words... with your face turning red

Yes bullshit is the strongest swear word anyone has used ever on babble. I am starting to think the only reason you joined babble was to attack people in the NDP as you clearly seem to know little about how people post around here.

Tue, 2010-03-23 16:33

#23

Kloch

So now one can be denounced for demanding the NDP follow it's constitution.

You know, the fact that we are unelectable suddenly doesn't seem so depressing.

Tue, 2010-03-23 16:34

#24

Bookish Agrarian

What is being questioned is the way people are attacking the individual charged with overseeing the vote. But please do keep making stuff up.

Tue, 2010-03-23 16:35

#25

Bookish Agrarian

double post

Tue, 2010-03-23 16:35

#26

Mike from Canmore

I now dub you Angry Agrarian

Tue, 2010-03-23 16:40

#27

Kloch

Can you please indicate where the personal attack is, BA?

Tue, 2010-03-23 16:41

#28

aka Mycroft

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

What is being questioned is the way people are attacking the individual charged with overseeing the vote. But please do keep making stuff up.

For the last time NO ONE is attacking the individual charged with overseeing the vote except you by putting words in other people's mouths. Or are you suggesting that Jack is one of those rare individuals who inhabits two bodies and thus can both count the vote and observe the counting of the vote? Or perhaps you're suggesting he had an out of body experience while counting the vote?

Tue, 2010-03-23 16:44

#29

Bookish Agrarian

Why am I even wasting my time expecting common decency from people who clearly don't even understand it. And Mike the last refuge of those who have nothing legitimate to offer is to attack babblers for the way they post. I am objecting for a substantive reason because I believe that attacking a person's integrity in the way this group has is wrong, even if I might agree with some of their wider points. However, people like me, who might agree on the need for some reform, will not support your concerns when you come across as arrogant and attack people who have given a lot of years to the party and is well known and respect by a lot of people as caring, professional, even-handed and of the highest ethical standards.

You do your cause no good in your behaviour and in excusing the behaviour of others who attack without thinking.

Tue, 2010-03-23 16:50

#30

Kloch

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

What is being questioned is the way people are attacking the individual charged with overseeing the vote. But please do keep making stuff up.

The only people making anything up are the individuals who are interpreting a call to review whether or not the NDP acted in a constitutional manner as some kind of vindictive personal attack.

Tue, 2010-03-23 16:51

#31

Bookish Agrarian

Mycroft you are making that up. I posted the comment in post two. (which will answer your question too Kloch). How about instead of digging the hole deeper you get the authors to apologize for questioning people's integrity, because whether you want to deal with it or not that is what they did. That would be a step forward. You will note within moment of each other and quite independently KenS and I read the comments exactly the same way. That should suggest something if you weren't looking for strawman to attack instead.

It is quite ironic to see people who are saying democracy is being attacked and they are being marginalized and want strict adherence to a document be so loose in their rhetoric and not having the common decency to step back and apologize when they take their rhetoric too far.

Tue, 2010-03-23 16:54

#32

Bookish Agrarian

No Klock that is a complete mischaraterization. You are confusing objecting to the manner in which that call is being made to the call itself. If people want to question the way the decision is reached that is their right, I don't agree, but knock yourself out. But that does not give them the right to claim that the indivdual charged with overseeing and counting the votes was not objective and acting in the interests of the President. That is questioning the integrity of a good person who would not behave in such a way and should be called out by anyone with even a minor sense of common decency.

Tue, 2010-03-23 16:56

#33

aka Mycroft

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

I posted the comment in post two.

The comment in which you (deliberately?) mistook someone counting the vote (Jack) for an observer watching the vote being counted?

Would this also be the comment in which you clearly called for people to be "denounced" despite later claiming that "the only people doing 'denouncing' are the authors of the media release you posted"?

Good thing you're using a pseudoynm; if you were using your real name you'd be too embarassed to continue posting.

Tue, 2010-03-23 16:57

#34

aka Mycroft

No one is doing this except you.

Tue, 2010-03-23 16:59

#35

Bookish Agrarian

Mycroft, try apologizing for questioning the integrity of the person overseeing the vote tabulation. Is it really so hard to show a little restraint in trying to tarnish someone because you have a problem with the President and some of her actions.

The action on the part of the authors of the media release may have been totally unintended, but it still happened. The proper thing to do is to withdraw that comment and focus on the process parts you didn't like. Not only would that be more accurate it would show a bit of humanity.

Tue, 2010-03-23 17:01

#36

aka Mycroft

Jesus wept.

Tue, 2010-03-23 17:01

#37

Bookish Agrarian

aka Mycroft wrote:

No one is doing this except you.

What a waste of time. You are so focused on what you object to, you can't see the damage you are doing to others just trying to do the right thing with the role they were asked to do. It is beneath you Mycroft, it really is.

Tue, 2010-03-23 17:23

#38

Mike from Canmore

I wonder if Angry Agrarian knows how obvious his SPIN is... someone needs to get a life... just saying

Tue, 2010-03-23 17:25

#39

Mike from Canmore

Angry Agrarian - why do you agree with the way things were done? How do you find them in line with the constitution?

Tue, 2010-03-23 17:26

#40

Kloch

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

No Klock that is a complete mischaraterization. You are confusing objecting to the manner in which that call is being made to the call itself. If people want to question the way the decision is reached that is their right, I don't agree, but knock yourself out. But that does not give them the right to claim that the indivdual charged with overseeing and counting the votes was not objective and acting in the interests of the President. That is questioning the integrity of a good person who would not behave in such a way and should be called out by anyone with even a minor sense of common decency.

So the authors should have attacked the President, instead of the person observing the vote, correct?

Tue, 2010-03-23 17:32

#41

Life, the unive...

Mike from Canmore wrote:

I wonder if Angry Agrarian knows how obvious his SPIN is... someone needs to get a life... just saying

and

Mike from Canmore wrote:

Angry Agrarian - why do you agree with the way things were done? How do you find them in line with the constitution?

Before you start attacking and mocking a long time poster around here, maybe you should read what they wrote. BA is clearly objecting to what you are saying with respect to an individual(s), not about your right to question the process, but then given this thread nuance seems totally lost on you.

Tue, 2010-03-23 17:33

#42

wage zombie

Seems like this is the passage that some have issue with:

aka Mycroft wrote:
In addition, we have seen the Ontario NDP Executive extend its term and, quite possibly unconstitutionally, delay its convention, in a vote conducted by e-mail, seemingly without quorum, and apparently without any objective observers to count the votes.

Maybe there is a miscommunication there. Does anyone have an alternate wording that would've been more appropriate?

Tue, 2010-03-23 17:39

#43

Bookish Agrarian

Kloch wrote:

So the authors should have attacked the President, instead of the person observing the vote, correct?

Kloch I will try to answer this as it is a legitimate question. I don't know if I would use the word attack, question would sit more comfortable with me, but that would at least be honest and reflective of the concerns being raised. Others were just doing a job they were asked to do whether they be staff or Mr. Murray and questioning their integrity is way over the line.

Tue, 2010-03-23 17:53

#44

Mike from Canmore

Nothing is clear about BA's objections. Indeed, what exactly am I saying about individual(s)? The fact that you don't know if I have commented on an individual or plural individuals illustrates that BA is not clear. BA is putting words into our mouths. We have a problem with processes. Not with Jack.

And yes, BA is a long time babbler. A quick look at his posts demonstrates that he has a long history of being condescending and crapping on anyone who questions anything about the party.

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

BA is clearly objecting to what you are saying with respect to an individual(s), not about your right to question the process

Tue, 2010-03-23 18:18

#45

Polunatic2

Quote:
You are confusing objecting to the manner in which that call is being made to the call itself.

Kind of like those who don't like to use the word "apartheid"? (couldn't resist)

Tue, 2010-03-23 18:21

#46

Life, the unive...

Polunatic2 wrote:

Quote:
You are confusing objecting to the manner in which that call is being made to the call itself.

Kind of like those who don't like to use the word "apartheid"? (couldn't resist)

How is that helpful or even useful to the conversation?

Tue, 2010-03-23 18:23

#47

Life, the unive...

Mike from Canmore wrote:

Nothing is clear about BA's objections. Indeed, what exactly am I saying about individual(s)? The fact that you don't know if I have commented on an individual or plural individuals illustrates that BA is not clear. BA is putting words into our mouths. We have a problem with processes. Not with Jack.

And yes, BA is a long time babbler. A quick look at his posts demonstrates that he has a long history of being condescending and crapping on anyone who questions anything about the party.

No actually I used the (s) because I was not sure if you all were also refering to staff too, as indicated in the last thread. So I gave the benefit of the doubt between two thread conversations.

Not that BA needs me to speak for him, but my guess is he is too dignified to respond to attacks on him personally.

And so- actually BA has a long history of not putting up with crap when people go overboard in their attacks, and some who are all macho and stuff like you appear to be, don't like it when they don't get to have the floor all to themselves. What you call condescending others would call bluntness and being straightforward. And if you had really bothered to look at a posting history you would find all kinds of criticisms of the NDP, but those criticms tend to be much more balanced than the histronics some like to use when attacking the NDP. I myself have taken him to task for going at the NDP when I felt it was warranted.

Tue, 2010-03-23 18:30

#48

KenS

wage zombie wrote:

'... and apparently without any objective observers to count the votes. "

Maybe there is a miscommunication there. Does anyone have an alternate wording that would've been more appropriate?

Given that this was talked about extensively here, so that extra objections to this in particular were obvious, that it isn't a central substantive issue with the facts a lot in dispute, and you can't do the point justice in such a brief space... leave it out.

Intenral politics isn't so radically different to politics in the braod public... when a particular item you raise gets a lot of flack, when it distracts even people who don't reject the rest of what you say.... irregardless of how 'right' you see yourself, maybe you should drop it?

Tue, 2010-03-23 19:17

#49

aka Mycroft

Well I suppose to satisfy BA it should be changed to "and apparently without any objective observers to observe Jack Murray counting the votes". Though I suppose if it did say that BA would make up some other straw to madly grasp at in an attempt to denounce the meeting without actually addressing the issue it is being called to address.

Quote:
when a particular item you raise gets a lot of flack, when it distracts even people who don't reject the rest of what you say.... irregardless of how 'right' you see yourself, maybe you should drop it?

It's hard to deal with tunnel vision in advance. If some are so determined to look for something, anything, that they can object to furiously they will inevitibly find something to leap upon no matter what chasms of logic stand in their way.

Tue, 2010-03-23 19:22

#50

Polunatic2

Quote:
How is that helpful or even useful to the conversation?

It's an observation. People are often dismissed around here (and in the "real" world - government bureaucracies are really good at this) for not complaining in a manner befitting those who are being complained about or their defenders. Looks like a pattern to me. Critics of Stuart Parker. Critics of Cheri DiNovo's actions around IAW. Critics of the ONDP for how a vote was conducted. Different issues. Different levels of the party. But it looks like a similar approach to discrediting people. "Please fill out the form in triplicate, do not go public, do not copy anyone, mail it in and wait for a reply. If you don't hear from us in 3 months, repeat from Step 1." Why would anyone would want to be a proxy defender of this kind of bureaucratic nonsense? Where is the accountability?

Tue, 2010-03-23 19:38

#51

kropotkin1951

The words in black are certainly causing quite the tempest in a teapot. May I suggest that if asked the authors might actually agree that better wording would be; "for the vote count." I am not from Ontario but when I read this I thought they were complaining about process issues not anyone's integrity. But I do get the point that the grammar in the sentence sounds like it was written for a babble post.

Quote:

In addition, we have seen the Ontario NDP Executive extend its term and, quite possibly unconstitutionally, delay its convention, in a vote conducted by e-mail, seemingly without quorum, and apparently without any objective observers to count the votes.

[for the vote count]

Pages

Topic locked