Constitution
I'm going to have to take a closer look at this issue, but my current understanding is that Federal Council made a decision not to call a leadership race, despite the fact that our Constitution requires them to do so, and that we ought to be having a leadership race right now given that Ms. May's term expires next month. Who is the "party lawyer" referred to in this article? I'd like to read the opinion on whether Ms. May would have to step down, and whether she could be reinstated in the event of a snap election:
SourceAccording to the party’s constitution, Ms. May’s four-year term expires next month.
But Ms. May said Monday the Green Party council decided seven months ago that the rules around leadership needed to be changed and it made no sense to set four-year terms with no consideration given to election timing.
[...]
A party lawyer has also pointed out that the financing rules of the Canada Elections Act make it all but impossible for a standing leader of a political party to stay on in that position during a leadership race. That would mean Ms. May would have to step down and there would be no mechanism for reinstate her in the case of a snap election call.
SourceBylaw 2.1.4.5 The Leader shall be elected in 2006 and every four (4) years thereafter.
- Michael Vaillancourt's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
What happens after E. May's term expires?
Thanks for the comments and the negative point. I'm uncertain what happens after E. May's term expires next month if the motions to extend her term fail. Would Federal Council appoint an interim leader and then call a leadership race, so we'd be several months without a leader? Isn't the possibility that we could be leaderless during a federal election the excuse we've been hearing for Federal Council disregarding the Constitution? Why didn't they call a race a few months ago to avoid this situation? It appears too late to ask for extensions at the BGM - should have done that at the last one. It's obvious a good portion of the membership is not happy with this situation and it isn't healthy for the party for the people tasked with governing to disregard the rules they are supposed to govern by.
Let's not self destruct for the sake of purity.
Problem: We have been in a state of suspended elections for the last two years. Any decision to call a leadership contest could have left us leaderless during an election.
Surely we are capable of temporarily suspending a single constitutional statement to preserve electoral integrity?
If we have no leader when the September election comes around it will take years to recover all that effort and the prestige we and the leader have garnered.
A certain element of self immolation might be justified for integrity but if it achievies absolutley nothing and simultaneously makes us look inept, what's the point?
Making us look inept?
Our current situation makes us look inept!
We have the potential to be a great party, we bring great new ideas to the table but man do we look bush league right now.
What was it I heard the other day "If they can't even run their party, how do they expect to run the country"
Did it ever occur to us in all this time we could have an election at the end of the 4 year term, who crafted this in the first place? Did no one think that perhaps the older parties might have had a good reason for the way they do it? And Federal council should have it's collective head examined, what do they think will happen after the next election, there are only a few possibilities;
- Conservative Minority(likely) - in which case...oh no we can't have a leadership contest we might be leaderless in the next election!
- Liberal Minority - in which case...oh no we can't have a leadership contest we might be leaderless in the next election!
- Liberal majority - Miracles happen but I would not hold my breath but in this case we could have the time for a leadership campaign.
- Conservative Majority - Don't worry about a leadership race because Harper will pull our subsidy faster then you can say What happened! and we won't be able to raise enough from our members to launch an e-mail campaign!
Serious Questions that need serious answers;- Why do we have such a hard time raising money?
- Why have we not elected a single MP/ MPP / MLA?
- Why have more of our EDA's folded then other parties?
- Why did an entire Provincial Green Party Collapse?
- What is our retention rate for members and I know it's not good in my Riding so what is it Nationally and why?
- Why are these questions not being asked at higher levels, and if they are why don't we know about it?
- What problems have we identified that we are addressing to produce a different result in the next election?
- Will anybody speak to these questions?
I have been banging my head against this wall for a couple of years now, I think my head is likely to cave in before the wall comes tumbling down!Confusing Leadership Contest motions:
Motion G10-d11 on Leadership seems to make the most sense to me as it contains this:
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this timeline cannot be altered unless a federal general election has been called and that election is occurring concurrently to the leadership race,"
Otherwise we are always in suspended animation awaiting the next election which can come at any time due to the high probability of many minority governments to come. And who can be sure there will be a fall election?
If handled properly, a 'Federal' Leadership Race can act as a springboard before an election to catapult the Green Party into public awareness, regardless of who is chosen. And if another candidate is chosen, surely he or she will have enough grace and common sense to praise Elizabeth as an absolutely essential member of the party. (In my opinion, in the running for the best environmental advocate in this hemisphere.) Would people stop voting for her in her riding? I don't think so, they know what she stands for.
Thinking ahead, if we wait until we get that 1 seat for E.May, how can we then humiliate her in the house of commons; by having a leadership race and her possibly losing? Sitting in parliament no longer as the leader of the GPC she would be the subject of ridicule in that unseemly chamber. That's a worse scenario than having the leadership race asap, hopefully before an election.
Constitution and Leadership term
Ah, now things are making a bit more sense to me: Definition of a Year. So, although it's been four years, it *isn't* the case that Elizabeth May's term expires next month, because her term doesn't end "until a successor is elected" (2.1.4.2). However a successor is to be elected in 2010 ("shall be elected in 2006 and every four (4) years thereafter") (2.1.4.5).
While it could be worded better, the leader's term is to be about 4 years (could be a little less, could be a little more), but the ultimate length in number of days depends on when the next leader is elected (or current leader re-elected).
There isn't a federal election right now, and no signs of one as the polls aren't favorable to the Conservatives or the Liberals, so Council ought to be preparing for a leadership race to conclude in 2010.
EDIT: Thought I should clarify, I'm still of the view that Council should have initiated this process earlier and that an official leadership race should be on right now. I find it odd that the leadership candidates weren't announced months ago. They should be giving speeches at the BGM - explaining their vision for the party. What a wasted opportunity.
Please read the Federal Council Minutes of Feb 21, 2010
Federal Council Meeting - Feb 21
This explains everything. It is very clear. (You might have to join the Members Group or the Federal Council group or something to see the file but I think you should just be able to see it.) Council understands the Constitution and understands the current rules and that a Contest must conclude in 2010, under the current rules. Council went further and called for the planning to take place for a contest including a Convention to take place before the end of 2010.
Council also decided to allow a chance for the rules to be changed by not initiating the required contest before the upcoming BGM.
There was no consensus on this and the individual vote records are there for reference in case you are interested in the votes of the individual members of Council. It was not a unanimous decision of Council, but it was a legal and proper decision of Council.
Rob Brooks, Council at Large Member Federal Council
Some Clarity There
Well that helps understand the thinking a little, but I still find the thinking very wrong headed. It appears to me that a group on council attempted to start the leadership contest as per constitution and another started to block it with worries of being leaderless in the next federal election, so in their wisdom they thought "hey lets just hold a review and if that passes we can keep the leader we have, rather then deal with the real problem which is the potential concurrence of elections". Now there are a few problems with this, first of which is that with no contest there are no other views or visions and no other candidates to consider, and that is a lack of democracy.
I contend that what should have been done and maybe still could be, I don't know all the rules is elegantly simple;
- announce that a leadership campaign will begin on the last day of the BGM
- prior to the last day pass some form of amendment that deals with the concurrent elections problem, I would suggest something as simple as "in the event of a writ drop the contest is suspended, and the incumbent is automatically re-instated as interim leader for the election, in the event that person does not want to be or cannot be interim leader Federal Council shall select an interim leader and the contest shall resume after the election" (let a lawyer put it in legal speak)
- allow the contestants 30 minutes each to outline their views at the end of the BGM and record it on video and put it up on this site.
Notes: By giving the "existing" leader the interim tag that could help them win the contest and seem unfair to the other competitors however this is a double edged sword, if the interim leader performs poorly in the election they would be unlikely to get elected again as leader, the reverse is true as well. Some have suggested that if Elizabeth wins her seat and becomes the first Green MP and has to face a leadership contest it would be "silly", and to this I strongly disagree, democracy is never "silly" and must be cherished above all things political, it is true that in this event it is highly likely that Elizabeth would win that leadership, but the race is more important then the winner, in democracy it is the ideas and vision that comes from this process combined with the right to select your leader that makes this rather messy system work!Bending or Breaking
Recall: the original bylaw says that the leader shall be elected every four years, not that a leadership contest should be started every four years. i.e. it should be over and done with, within approximately 48 months from the leader's election in 2006.
If the council motion 5.4.1, to delay the leadership contest until after the BGM in August was made for logistical, economic or other practical reasons and there was *every intention* of holding the leadership contest as soon as was practical, after its due date, after the general meeting, then the membership would most likely accept this as a reasonable ‘grace period’ under the circumstances
However it is clear as witnessed by the subsequent council motions, that the purpose of delaying the leadership contest; was to be able to introduce a motion at the General Meeting which would cancel the leadership election by-law (2.7.4.5). So that - there could be no leadership contest at all until after a Federal election.
Thus it is unmistakable that there was no sincere intention to abide by the constitution "as it stands". (You cannot justify a motion on a possible future change to the constitution, it must be consistent with the present constitution.)
And therefore the motion 5.4.1 breaks not only the letter of the law, but the intent and spirit of the rules of the constitution.
- - -
post script: Since the leadership election has been delayed 'in contradiction to their own bylaws', meaning the council has not executed its duty to call a leadership contest or shown evidence or intention to do so, but has shown an intention not to; then it follows that the general motion presented to change the rules so the leadership election takes place after a Federal election is null, void and invalid. It can only become valid once the present constitutional rules are first fulfilled, albeit late. Only after that can a general motion be made to change the leader election by-law. (Motions like this cannot be retroactive. Otherwise you can ignore any rule and deadline on the premise and hope of passing a general motion to cancel it later retroactively, 'after the fact'.)
Moving forward
Council has been moving forward with the notion of holding a leadership contest in 2010 should the motion they've put forward fail. Maybe they haven't done all that much, or as much as you or I might like. But they still have time to get the job done.
(note: this reply has been edited in response to an edit made earlier in the thread)
"Sudbury" Steve May
You are correct, I have
You are correct, I have replaced the term 'illegal'. (Although I had defined it 'in the context' of the by-laws, it still had other connotations.) Thanks Steve for bringing this to my attention.
Because I misspoke, I think I caused you to miss the main point: If you can ignore any rule and deadline with the premise and intention of passing a general motion to cancel it later, retroactively, 'after the fact'. Then what force do rules have?
You can say, "Well, we don't like this by-law anymore. Hmm, lets make a council motion to delay it until after a general meeting, where we will propose to and hopefully cancel it." "But if our general motion loses, OK, we will begrudgingly honour the rules of the constitution at a later date."
Once that precedent is set, you can do that with any by-law, even if the next general meeting is in 2, 3, years later. Its a very bad precedent.