(UPDATED: See bottom of post)
If you're a Liberal who was acclaimed as a delegate to the upcoming extraordinary convention to change/set the timing for the next leadership race and you're not satisfied with the choices on offer (voting No and picking a leader in October, or voting Yes and letting it drag out as late as late February of 2013), I need your help.
I'm proposing a sub-amendment to the amendment proposed by the National Board of Directors (read their original here) that would see a permanent leader selected next fall, between September and November of 2012.
Here's the text of my sub-amendment:
Whereas the leadership selection timeline proposed by the National Board of Directors would leave the party for too long without a permanent leader,
and Whereas it is desirable to have a permanent leader in place by the end of 2012 to join with the grassroots in the rebuilding of the Liberal party of Canada,
Be It Resolved That proposed constitutional amendment number one be amended as follows:
i. in (a), strike “October 1, 2012” and replace with July 1, 2012
ii. in (b), strike “November 1, 2012 and February 28, 2013” and replace with “September 1, 2012 and November 30, 2012”
iii. in (b), strike “February 28, 2013” and replace with “November 30, 2012”
Moved by: Jeff Jedras, Scarborough-CentreAs mentioned, this change would move the timeline forward by three months and prevent us from going into 2013 without a permanent leader. My originally preferred timeline was spring 2012, but I think Fall 2012 is a good compromise between those who want a shorter timeline (but feel going this October is crazy) and those who want a longer race. Three months sooner may not seem like much, but I feel we can't allow this to drag out into 2013. This timeline would allow for a long enough race to allow for fulsome open debate in ridings across the country and for new entrants to consider throwing their hats in the ring, while allowing us to also move past the leadership issue and move forward on rebuilding the party together.
If delegates are to have a chance to vote on this compromise position though, I need your help. To be put to delegates my sub-amendment needs the written support of at least 25 delegates to the extraordinary convention.
Delegates: Need your help ASAP
If you were acclaimed as a delegate and would like to see this sub-amendment voted on at the extraordinarily convention:
* You need to send an e-mail indicating "I support the sub-amendment proposed by Jeff Jedras" (paste the text of the sub-amendment into the e-mail to be safe) to the Liberal Party at firstname.lastname@example.org.
* Please cc. me at jjedras(at)gmail.com so I can track the number of submissions.
* The e-mails must be received by LPC at Noon Eastern Time this Friday, June 17, so please send it now. Won't take but a second.
* Note: you must send the e-mail from the e-mail address you used to register for the extraordinary convention or it won't be valid and counted.
(UPDATE): Please use the subject line "Support for sub-amendments submitted by Jeff Jedras" for your e-mail to help LPC classify them.
Give delegates a better choice
Right now, like many delegates I feel I'm being forced to choose between two bad options.
The timeline as proposed is much too long. Even if the race won't officially be called for some time, the unofficial race will begin immediately and I don't want to see our party distracted by leadership drama when we should be focused on re-building.
At the same time, if we vote against the executive's proposal we'll be forced to pick a leader in just four months, which is far too short to allow for a proper race with a full field of credible candidates campaigning across the country.
Instead of being forced to hold our noses and pick the lesser of two bad options, let's give party members a third choice: a better choice. That's what I hope to do with this sub-amendment.
How will it work
Before voting on the main amendment proposed by the executive, the sponsors of any sub-amendments will be given a chance to speak to their proposal, and delegates given a chance to debate it, followed by a vote. If the sub-amendment is passed (by a simple majority) then debate proceeds to the main amendment as amended. If it fails, debate proceeds on the original unchanged amendment. The amendment itself will require 2/3s support to be successful. (Read the rules here)
Happy to answer any questions by e-mail or in the comments. But if you're an approved delegate and want to see delegates given a third option, please follow the instructions above. And thanks!
UPDATE: One little wrinkle to my amendment was pointed-out in the comments by Peter.
I just moved all the dates back a few months from those in the main amendment, but I also cut the window for the leadership vote from four months to three. In doing so, the date in (a) is one month past the five-month notice window to meet the end of the three-month window I set in (b). It doesn't invalidate the amendment I've proposed, but it does make it a little less neat than it should be.
Therefore I've informed the party I've changed the (a) date of my amendment to July 1, 2011, and I've asked those who have already e-mailed their support to resend reflecting their support of the changed amendment. The text above has been edited to reflect the change.Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers