Let Sylvie Lemieux email all members about motion G10-d11

Agree fully

I have only recently started becoming politically engaged, and only recently joined the Green Party, so my opinion is perhaps naive. But frankly, you'd be crazy to switch leaders now. The party's profile with people like me, and with Canadians generally, is better than it's ever been, and that's in very large measure due to Elizabeth's prominence and leadership. It would be an act of self-sabotage to tamper with this success with an election on the horizon. I do acknowledge the principle that constitutions must be observed, but I think Steve May has made clear above that the constitution doesn't require it.

I believe Michael, if I may be allowed the liberty of interpreting the memberships intentions, that the rationale behind extending the leaders term from 2 years to 4 was to match the new federal fixed election dates to 4 year intervals. The intention was, I believe to ensure that there would be a leadership race in the post election period. 

With respect to Steve's contentions, Elizabeth May did not feel the need to seek permission to use the private information gathered by the Party to send emails supporting a motion to indefinitely extend her leadership term. The Party, very improperly, allowed her access to the lists to assiste her in campaigning for an indefinite extension to her leadership term. She did it on Party letterhead, and campaigned directly against motions made by members in good standing. A call to level the playing field, and permit the proponent of the motion she attacked equal access to the same resources to defend her motion sounds pretty reasonable to me.

We all read Elizabeths note, and it mischaracterised Sylvies motion as an attempt to force her to resign!! As you note, the party by-laws obligate her to face a leadership contest in 2010, and significant Party resources, to whit, staff time, and membership lists have been used liberally to campaign to change the constitution, and bylaws. This is clearly a case of the tail wagging the dog, as Council, and the leader both derive their authority from the by-laws and constitution. Council can decide they would like to see them changed until they are blue in the face, but the changes come from the membership, through due process. Until such time as the membership changes the rules, the leaders term expires at the end of August, and that is that.

Were we actually in a Leadership Campaign, the elections act would legally oblige the party to offer equal access and resources to all contestants. It is a convenient technicality that we are not actually in a race, and the only reason for that is that the council has failed in their duty to enforce the rules as they are written.

You may characterise a motion to enforce the party's by-laws, and constitution as a stab in the back if you like. I beg to differ. That is immaterial to the discussion here, because we are talking about equity, and parity. If you truly want to argue the points raised in this thread, then kindly explain why Elizabeth May should be granted access to the membership lists to campaign for an indefinite extension of her leadership term, while the proponents of maintaining the existing rules should be denied access to the same resources.

I think the question of intention is an important and valid consideration.  In 2006, we were presented with an omnibus-style replacement of the constitution, in order to correct a large number of inconsistent elements, questionable mandates for change and poor wording.  Council urged us to support that change, and most of us did.  That solved a whole bunch of issues related to the constitution, and I think that was the primary intention in 2006, not the particular wordings of all the clauses.

Regarding leadership terms, the change from 2 years to 4 years was a step in the right direction.  Had the fixed election law actually created fixed election dates, then perhaps it would have been optimal (although I suspect not).  In 2008, our Prime Minister made it quite clear that there are no fixed election dates, so our matching fixed term immediately became obsolete.  We should have addressed this at the last BGM, but did not, I suspect because we were all on high alert for another election which has not yet come and many were fatigued from the previous two years of readiness.

I believe it is in the best interests of the party to revise the leadership contest date to something which works with the reality of Canadian politics to optimize the success of the party.  I expect that we will move there incrementally, and that this is only the first debate on the right way to do it.  I will be supporting the review after election option.

I strongly believe that this entire situation is a direct result of the way in which we approach our BGM as a time for resolutions, directives and constitutional amendments to come raining in from the sky from all corners of thought.  We are now faced with the interesting possibility that we could end up with several contradictory resolutions all passing.  For an interesting perspective on this, have a look at Dermod Travis' blog entry http://www.greenpartystrategy.com/articles/no-matter-how-much-things-cha... .  Dermond is a former director of communications for GPC.  In part, he says that we tinker too much and we don't allow the new changes time to work.

The solution to this dilemma, imho, is that we need to turn our attention to finding a way to have the debates before we propose "legislation", and to be clear that when we are presenting alternatives, that we choose only one.  In short, we need to move away from this frenetic smorgasbord of change and begin to move in a measured and systematic way towards better governance.

The House of Commons requires three readings of a bill, with the opportunity for amendments in between.  Perhaps there is an intrinsic wisdom in this approach which would help us in future.

Steve, you are certainly entitled to voice your personal interpretation and I respect your intentions and efforts. However we are talking, not about strategy, but a contract (a constitution is a contract between all the members). The term ‘years’ by itself is a measure of time.  (As in the example I already used; most people are familiar with mortgages or loans.  A 25 ‘year’ mortgage means just that, the length of time, as does a 2-year loan mean 24 months.)

If the intention is to designate a reference to a particular ‘calendar year’ then that is the precise term that must be used. They are two entirely separate things.  Its not my interpretation.  Sorry, you just can’t argue with the English language, which does have strict interpretations concerning any contract.

To address your thoughtful arguments:

1. You are correct, 4 years means the number of days, 1460. The convention is often to allow a grace period, providing all the members of the contract agree at the time the period elapses. (If there are no disagreements about grace periods, then there is by definition, no contest and no breach, because there is a modifying verbal agreement.) As far as a leap-year goes, you have me there. In this case there would be one leap year, so perhaps it could mean 1461 days.

2. Your second argument, if I understand correctly, is that the by-law was deliberately left ambiguous in order to allow for flexibility. That is speculation and conjecture on your part. But right or wrong, it makes no difference, it has no weight at all. The written word in an agreement becomes the sole authority. If it was a mistake then it should be or should have been corrected/amended. The other part of this argument; that in a constitution, it is advisable to leave grey areas, up to different interpretations, in order to give flexibility? I would think the debate here and others would invalidate that. Experience shows that ambiguous agreements should be avoided at all costs, as they lead to conflicts down the road. If flexibility is desired, it is written into the agreement.

3. Bram’s argument that it could have been written more precisely and giving examples of how. Good examples, yes it could have. But it was written as it is, and that’s what you have to abide by. Although I agree, it is a very fine point that it hinges on.

4. As for having the leadership race a few days later or earlier being ‘technically’ a breach of contract. Its only a breach if members contest it.  Most members of an agreement would allow that; if preparations were being made for a leadership contest - and delays occurred or events preceded the exact date by a number of days, or even many weeks. And if these variations were seen as being ‘reasonable’, beyond control, not intentional. And that the party was in fact showing ‘due diligence’ to work as best as possible towards the date and within the spirit of the by-law. Then it would be very difficult to make the case of a ‘breach’ and in fact most members would not object or even challenge the executive of the party as breaking the agreement. So the question would not come up. Again, its only a ‘breach’ if someone contests it.

Conversely, as Bram points out, the party is currently making no visible effort to fulfill its obligations nor even to make arrangements for a leadership before the end of 2006.  So even if I concede that there needs to be a lot of flexibility allowed due to the imperfect wording, and we accept that it is reasonable to have the leadership race a number of months later - where is there any evidence of an intention to do so? This is further evidence of a breach of trust.

When you ‘join’ the party and ‘pay’ your dues, you in fact are deemed to have signed-off on/agreed to, the constitution of the party which is a written contract. If the executive members of the party do not abide by the constitution, then they are breaking the contract: and you are not getting what you paid for. Its that simple.

You are making it more complex than it is.  Any agreement is a contract. They are one in the same. A ‘contract’ just sounds more official. Whether verbal or written. (The problem with verbal agreements is there is no base to compare if different interpretations arise, that’s why its better to write agreements down.)  A ‘constitution’ in our case, is in fact, just a fancy name for a written agreement for members of an organization.  

Please don’t try to compare and confuse the GPC’s ‘constitution’ with ‘Constitution of the United States.’ or our ‘Charter of Rights’ because in these latter cases, there are in addition: masses of competing parliamentary acts, provincial acts, municipal by-laws and centuries of case law, all conflicting with each other, that set up infinite court challenges and decisions about which rights supercede which etc. Those conflicts don’t apply here, its all laid out in one document containing conditional ‘rules’ of membership (not ‘laws’). 

By the act of joining, signing and becoming a member of the GPC, you intrinsically agree to abide by its rules as laid out in the ‘constitution’ – because that is a condition of membership. You don’t need to swear an oath. Its up to you to read the rules, and if you don’t agree, to not become a member, or cancel your membership. You can't be charged with breaking a Canadian 'law' if you do break a rule, its just a condition of membership.

Its not a strictly volunteer organization because you paid money to join and the executive members are paid a salary. If the paid executives severely break the rules, then you are not getting what you paid for and the agreement/contract is breached. Its not a criminal offense, it’s a civil matter. I don’t need to prove that there is no leadership contest being prepared, its not a criminal case as in ‘innocent until proven guilty’. The GPC needs to prove that they are keeping their end of the ‘bargain’. I’ve paid my dues and I can prove that.

(Unanimous consent is not a pre-condition to classify an agreement as a contract, that’s just your perception because its more often the case. In this case its been agreed by all that 60% is sufficient. That doesn’t mean its not a contract.)

But to compromise, I’ve already conceded to you and Bram that because the wording is imperfect, that it would be reasonable to allow for a number of months flexibility for a leadership contest. But since there are no visible preparations for one, it is further ‘evidence’ of a breach of contract either having occurred, or taking the most liberal view, in the making. 

I hope this makes more sense. 

(I can’t comment on your aside about ‘oaths’. But at first glance, it seems like a mechanism to get rid of people. Everyone makes mistakes. I do not know how the hiring/firing works in the GPC but it does seem ominous. But this is an entirely separate issue.)

I want to correct something that Matthew stated above:

"So you see Steve, and David, and every other person reading this has sworn, and entered into a contract to be governed by the constitution of the Party."

We should all be aware that anyone can read these member blogs. Only logged-in members can publish new blog posts or comments. Readership, however, is unrestricted. That's worth remembering if we are speculating on ways in which shills for other parties could throw monkey wrenches into our party mechanisms.