Ontario NDP accused of violating party constitution

@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! 

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

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.

Mike from Canmore wrote:

@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?

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

@ Jason

Don't use words like tricked - that would be a good start.

Deleted because it is really messing up the formating for some reason

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Kloch wrote:

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

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 Agrarian wrote:

Kloch wrote:

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.

Kloch wrote:

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Kloch wrote:

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.

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Kloch wrote:

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Kloch wrote:

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.

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

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?

It's not just you, B.A. Something's wrong with the thread formatting.

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. 

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. 

@ 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?

exec reps i spoke with reported any discussion on how to conduct the email vote were shut down

Quote:

Give your rhetorical excesses a rest and maybe people might start listening.

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. 

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.

It's actually post #63 that did the most damage. He has two extra "end quote" codes there.

Formatting all fixed!  Thanks Unionist for pointing me in the right direction.

@ 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.  

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?????

aka Mycroft wrote:

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)

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.