Leadership Issues and the 2010 BGM

Home / Blogs / Robert Routledge's blog /
By Robert Routledge on 30 June 2010 - 12:56pm

I received an email yesterday from Elizabeth May promoting the 2010 BGM. I was initially glad to see it, as there is a strong mix of important internal issues being discussed and a variety of training options available to members.As I read the email, and discovered that Ms. May was actively campaiging against a constitutional leadership motion, I became pretty angry.

The email I am referring to states "We also have other resolutions which erode the leadership. Resolution G10-c001 would change council's structure and place the leader, in more of a staff position, with no vote. I ask for your support that the Leader may continue to have a vote on council" (E. May, June 2010).

I should disclose that I have been a fan of Ms. May's strengths as a candidate, but have been unhappy with her internal leadership skills and her experience with strategic voting. As a result of this unhappiness, I had decided that although I did not want to work towards 'forcing' Elizabeth May out of office, I did want to start working with a potential candidate to replace her when a leadership race started. I feel this race should start six months after the next federal election, as I do not feel the party as a brand would be left in a very strong position if Elizabeth May was forced out before an election.

With that said, I want to somewhat publicly register my dissapointment and anger that Ms. May is using the list of GPC members to campaign on a BGM motion, while the author and sponsors of that motion do not have the opportunity to do so as well. Ms. May demonstrated similar disregard for equality and fairness last year, when she used the GPC members list to support federal council candidates.

The GPC is a young party, still establishing internal norms and policies while forming a national reputation in Canada. This is what attracted me to the party, I felt that we had the potential to bring communities together in a way that other parties can not. The actions taken by Elizabeth May are not actions that demonstrate values that I want to be associated with. There is both a growing rift in the party, and I sense our leader is doing more to increase the chasm between us and less to bring us together.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Immediate leadership race

Submitted by Michael Vaillancourt on 30 June 2010 - 3:06pm.
Well said, though I believe an earlier leadership race would be best for the party in the long term so I support motion G10-d11. We may as well have a leadership race as soon as possible and use both that and the next election to raise the media profile of the new leader.

Also, the election learning experience should go to the new leader. That's valuable on the ground training. Why waste it?

Thanks for commenting

Submitted by Robert Routledge on 30 June 2010 - 3:22pm.

Thanks for commenting Michael!

I should state clearly that I am for motion G10-C10, C11 &C1.

I absolutely agree that a leadership race would likely energize the group behind the winners of the race, but would likely 'turn off' the groups supporting losing candidates. Not only this, but we I do not have data available to support my assumptions about Ms. May, that being that she is well liked and respected by most Canadians. This creates a situation where a 'forced' removal of Ms. May leaves room for Canadian media to create a narrative where the Green Party is described as incompetent and incapable of managing itself. We would likely not have the money or expertise to spin this story in a more constructive way.

Sincerely, Robert Routledge

Leader's Email to all Members

Submitted by Huguette Allen on 30 June 2010 - 4:26pm.

I agree with your assessment and also feel completely dissasociated from the action of Ms. May.  I joined the GPC truly believing we were against such actions. After all our leader wrote the book "Losing Confidence: Power, Politics and the Crisis in Canadian Democracy"!

As a member and as a member of Council I have openly shared my reaction to E May's email with the members' list but here it is again. 

I think it is wrong for the leader to use party apparatus to influence the vote and certainly wrong for a small group to have called themselves the "party"  to give opinions regarding resolutions.

Now the leader herself tells members to vote against certain resolutions and misleads the membership by saying that our constitution is now in conflict with elections rules. It is not. New Elections rules may make it more difficult for a leader to remain leader and receive a salary during the race but certainly does not prevent a leadership race from happening!

As well the leader's email warns members that this year's elections are "crucial" since those running for council have very different visions, and then proceeds to tell members to look at the contestants facebook pages while at least one of them lists a council slate. This is too close to endorsement for my level of comfort.

If fairness was to be, all constestants should now have access to the same membership list so they can send their own emails. I find these elections flawed to say the least and agree they should be stopped and that a complete review of the failure of any sort of reliable democratic process should be initiated under the supervision of independent outside assistance.

Utter Nonsense!

Submitted by Drew Fenwick on 1 July 2010 - 2:52pm.

If you were to stand up in a social gathering and complain because the leader of the political party you belonged to sent you an email with her perspective on the importance of voting on resolutions including one about her leadership and that folks are aggregiously offended that this is an undemocratic use of a communications tool by that leader - you would be laughed out of the room -or at least looked at little funny. 

There is my mind nothing wrong with what has happened if anything we actually may see more people participate in the resolution voting which was clearly the intent. She has used a legitimate tool at her disposal to communicate to her party. Every other party leader of every other party does this. It is in fact her job and perogative. She is the leader.

In the Green Party you won't find a single cheque paying for a mass registration of delegates like Brian Mulroney did when he intentionally usurped the leadership away from Joe Clark; You won't see Pots of money being put into party bank accounts from billings to the government for work un performed like the Liberals under Cretien and Martin. You won't see Labour Organization delegates being counted as being more important than un-unionized laborers and riding association delegates. Other party's wouldn't allow the blogs of their members on the same party site - unvetted.

There is nothing anti democratic about her using this tool even if she has exclusive use of it! This tool is legitimate and at her disposal - so she has elected to use it.

 

 

Drew Fenwick

interesting thoughts Drew

Submitted by Robert Routledge on 1 July 2010 - 4:21pm.

Hello,

Does your signature mean that you are one of the party organizers? I sense a hostile tone in your message, and I'm wondering if there's something in what I posted that offended you?

The point that I think we may disagree on is that Elizabeth has used a tool that other members do not have access to as a way of advocating against a motion. Similarly to you, I would love to hear from not only Elizabeth but the hard working staff of the GPC far more often, without them asking for money, as a way of staying current with what is going on with the party. 

With that said, Elizabeth is the leader of a party with strong internal divisions (as all political leaders are). Her action with this email is both an unfair use of a tool that that the proponents of the motion can't use, and does more to divide the party than unite. I am sadly dissapointed in both. 

Sincerely, Robert Routledge

Look who likes your

Submitted by Dave Bagler on 8 July 2010 - 11:16am.

Look who likes your blog:

http://www.calgaryliberal.com/2010/07/08/the-next-green-party-leader/

thanks Dave!

Submitted by Robert Routledge on 11 July 2010 - 3:21pm.

Does this mean you've got a Google Alert search out on my name ;)?

Sincerely, Robert Routledge

Leadership term motions

Submitted by Constantine Kri... on 16 July 2010 - 5:44pm.

I believe a leadership term extension is of value to the party in that we do not go into an election with an interim leader.

If you vote for the resolution that has mandated leadership races after any general election, we never run into the problem of conflicting leadership races and general elections at the same time. Two resolutions allow for leadership questions to wait until after the general alection, but one resolution forces any challengers to go through a hurdle before they can run.

There is to be a "leadership endorsement vote" where the leader can avoid an election contest with 60%. But it is still possible for a challenger to beat an incumbent leader even if thge incumbent got the 60%. But with this resolution, we will never know. Challengers to leadership will often be just barred from running.

Constantine Kritsonis