Motions Proposed Regarding EDA Responsibilities Will Strip EDA's of Local Autonomy

Well, Dave, again it looks like you're refusing to engage in a conversation on the specifics in these motions.  I write about my specific concerns, and you offer generalizations.  I'm getting tired of asking you why you think the specifics of these motions are good for the Party.  I've laid it all out there.

And now you ask me a question in which you want me to identify even more specifics.  Fine. 

We in Sudbury adopted the "template" Constitution recommended by our Organizer back in 2008, when it became apparent that either the previous Executive hadn't adopted a Constitution or they did so with the name of a different EDA in the title (likely it was that).

In March of 2009, the Central Party told EDA's to follow the Rules for Candidate Nomination processes, and to have a Candidate in place by the middle of June.  Our template Constitution required us to follow the rules and processes set out by the Central Party for nominating candidates.  Whether we felt that the timeline was appropriate or not, we were bound to follow those rules, and so we did.

The Rules, though, were extremely problematic with their lack of flexibility in terms of timelines.  Further, the rules indicated that potential candidiates would have to apply to Campaign Committee to be pre-screened, and that Campaign Committee would then notifiy the EDA whether there were any acceptable applicants.  We had a real problem with the "star chamber" quality to these rules, but we didn't have a choice but to follow them.

The Rules also limited voting for our candidate to only those members in good standing, which was in contravention to the Party's own Constitution.  The application of these rules which we were required to follow led to the direct resignation of a very key member of our EDA Exec.  Other members also began to lose interest.

We nominated an excellent candidate before the end of June, 2009, and watched on with horror for the next several months to find that so very few of the EDA's out there were following suit.

Based on our experience with handling these Rules for candidate nomination, the members of Sudbury voted to amend our Constitution to remove the requirement that we follow the Party's rules for candidate nomination processes.  In its place, we included an article which indicates that we will develop our own processes, which will be handled by a Nomination Committee.  And that's the kind of local autonomy that I would be reluctant to give up.

Further, we have a fairly large EDA Executive.  It's a new one, now, as we just held our AGM a few weeks ago.  All of the positions occupied on the Executive are outlined in our Constitution.  We still have a few vacancies which can be filled should anyone else step forward who wants to become involved (and I suspect that there will be some).

Our Exec positions, as established in our Constitution, act as Chairs of Committees which may or may not be active at any given time.  Further, some of the positions are unique for our circumstance.  For example, we have an Elections Readiness Chair, as well as an EDA Liason Chair.  Also, we allow the Young Greens Association in Sudbury to appoint a member to our Executive, which is, I believe, an extrordinary power for the Young Greens to have, but one which shows how serious we are about the voice of youth in our community.

If we have to rescind our Constitution and adopt a basic model supplied by the Party, we will likely have to have some of our current Exec members step down from their positions, due to numbers, and also because it's doubtful that a "template" would list the same sorts of positions which we've created here, and which work for us as an organization.

And all of that goes to the notion that the best level of governance to decide on local structures is really the local level.  What works here in Sudbury may not work in Trinity-Spadina or the Yukon.  But it works here in Sudbury.  Why tamper with something which is working well?

So, Dave, those are the specific provisions that I can think of off of the top of my head which I would be reluctant to give up in Sudbury's Constitution.  And that's one of the reasons that I'm opposed to these motions - but it's not the only one.  This isn't just about us holding onto our Constitution.  It's about local autonomy, and having local people on the ground build the sorts of organizations which they want, and which they can make florish.  It's about receiving the buy-in of local members, because if they know that they can influence the structure and direction of an organization, they're far more apt to be committed to it than if it is something which is thrust upon them from some outside force.

Again, I agree that there needs to be responsibility and accountability, but these motions go too far.  They create a process where one unit of the Party can dictate to another unit, and if the first unit doesn't like what the second is doing, they'll have the authority to withhold funds or de-register.  And that sort of process is ripe for abuse.

So, Dave, I'll ask you once more: do you wish to tell me why you think these specific motions are good for fostering local democracy, for contributing to the grassroots nature of the Party?  I think that maybe one or two of the motions, on their own, are probably ok.  I think that the one which requires an EDA to hold an AGM every 15 months is appropriate.  But most of the others go too far, and taken together with the two "punishment" motions which could impose withholding RSA funds and de-registration, well that's just too much.  Indeed, even the AGM every 15 months motion is problematic, should and EDA find itself in the 15th month of its mandate and not having held an AGM, and a federal election gets called!  There wouldn't be any flexibility for an EDA to postpone the AGM. 

If we're going to create these sorts of requirements, we need to put some good thought into things.  I don't believe that there was a lot of good thought put into the Benmurgi motions.  Sure, the intentions might have been great, but the wording is terrible, and the repercussions are unacceptable.

What we need to do is establish an amicable process involving EDA's and the Central Party to develop mutually acceptable processes.  That hasn't happened here.

Ron, I appreciate your comments, but you're wrong on at least two counts here:

1) Dates for meetings.  Yes, regular meetings of the EDA will still be determined locally, but two of the bigger sorts of meetings EDA's currently call on their own initiatives will now be mandated by the Central Party: an AGM will have to occur within a certain timeframe, which may or may not make sense locally; and, a candidate nomination meeting will be called on the Central Party's schedule, not before, not after (at least if an EDA wants to maintain compliance and not miss out on their RSA transfer or risk being deregistered).

2) Fundraisers.  While local decision-making will still allow fundraisers to happen, should these motions pass, there may be an audit process which EDAs will have to undergo at the request of Central Party.  No one knows what that might look like -- whether really detailed or not, or even if it will happen at all.  But the motions change the playing field.  Currently, EDAs are accountable to themselves for funds raised, and to Elections Canada with regards to yearly filing.  Should these motions pass, in the future the Central Party might also get involved, requesting information pertaining to funds raised locally and which stay in local coffers.

With regards to local candidates not deviating from the national platform, these motions don't address that issue, and as far as I can tell, there is no process in place to remove a candidate who does in fact deviate from the Green Party's platform.

Anyway, the Benmurgi motions are not about delivering a message.  They're about structure and reporting, with-holding funds and de-registration.  Not about the way in which policy or messaging is conveyed at all.  Maybe you should take a look at what these motions actually seek to do.