Goldilocks and the Liberal constitutional amendments

The actual honest to goodness text of the much speculated Liberal constitutional amendments with respect to leadership timing were finally released to the membership last night via an e-mail from party president Alf Apps; after one final round of media leaks for tradition’s sake.

Here they are in their entirety:

PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
JUNE 18, 2011 EXTRAORDINARY CONVENTION

1. The members of the Party assembled in convention, as a Special Resolution, amend the Constitution to add as section 82(1) the following:
Notwithstanding anything else contained in this Constitution (including, but not limited to, section 54):

(a) the meeting of the National Board of Directors required by subsection 54(3) as a consequence of the resignation of the Leader in May 2011 shall be held at any time on or before October 1, 2012; and

(b) at the meeting referred to in Paragraph (a), the National Board of Directors, in consultation with the Caucus and the Council of Presidents and on five (5) months' notice to the Party, shall set a date for a Leadership Vote between November 1, 2012 and February 28, 2013.

This subsection (1) shall no longer be of force or effect on the later of the conclusion of the Leadership Vote contemplated by Paragraph (a) and February 28, 2013.

2. The members of the Party assembled in convention, as a Special Resolution, amend the Constitution to add as section 82(2) the following:

Notwithstanding anything else contained in this Constitution (including, but not limited to, section 65), the next biennial convention of the Party (which is the rescheduled biennial convention of the Party originally called for June 17, 2011) including the related in-person meeting of the Council of Presidents shall be held on January 13 to 15, 2012 at Ottawa, Ontario.

This subsection (2) shall no longer be of force or effect on January 15, 2012.

This conforms to previous media leaks, and my view on these dates still stands: I’m disappointed, because I don’t want it delayed this long. My preferred timing is to go next spring, which would be about a year from the last election. I’d be willing to compromise and go next fall. Neither option is on the table though. Instead, it’s winter 2013, as long as 21 months from the last election. It’s too long.

The board would have us believe they can put a clamp on campaigning, and we’ll all focus on renewal and rebuilding until the next board sets the date with five months notice. Poppycock. Let’s be honest here; the race began before the votes were cast for the last election. People are organizing, signing up members and getting commitments for donations.

Let’s also consider the short-term timeline here. Constitutionally, the board needs to call a leadership vote for October. They hope to delay that by up to two years if 2/3s of delegates vote in favour of the amendments next month, but they need to put out the call for October and be ready in case the vote fails. And it’s very possible it will fail. Either way, if you’re a leadership contender you need to start organizing now, in case the October date turns out to be real; if it ends up being real every week is crucial. Do we really expect people to gear-up now, and then down tools for two years if the amendment passes?

The fact is, this would not be a five month race in two years, it would be a two-year race beginning now that everyone will say they're trying to pretend isn’t really happening. But leadership maneuvering will dominate every election for a party position from national executive to riding association, and every debate about policy and renewal will see leadership influence. It’s unavoidable.

That’s why I’ve favoured a middle-road timeframe: not a five month race voting in October, but one-year voting next spring. And without a phony war phase: let candidates campaign openly until a spring 2012 vote, criss-crossing the country visiting riding associations and meeting members.

Instead, we’re left with two bad options: this October, or winter 2012. I don’t know yet which bad option I’ll choose, but I’m strongly learning toward getting it over-with and going in October.
I feel like Goldilocks: one bowl of porridge is too hot, and one is too cold. Where’s the just-right porridge?

What about amendments?

I’m hoping though, that there could be another way. I’m hoping that an amendment to the executive’s motion can be moved to allow the delegates to the extraordinary convention to consider another date: say, spring 2012. If that amendment were to pass (with a simple majority), then we’d vote on the main motion as amended reflecting the new date. If not, then we’d vote on the original date. This way, members could have more say into timing. We could even consider two amendments – say, spring 2012 and fall 2012 – but I’d settle for one.

I’m not sure yet if amendments will be allowed, or if so how that process will work – who can move them, deadlines for submission, etc. I’ve been promised answers soonish on these important details.

I will, for now, say this: if the board tries to play games by not allowing amendments, making it near impossible to introduce them or passes silly rules governing their consideration and passage (there’s precedent for that one), they’re going to have a major s**tstorm on their hands.

They need to let amendments be fairly moved and fairly considered, and allow the chips fall where they may.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Constitutional amendments (Now with dates?)

(Scroll down for updated information)

As mentioned, today was supposed to be the day Liberal members found out that constitutional amendments they'd be voting on as part of the extraordinary convention to be held via teleconference next month.

In fact, today was the membership deadline to join the party if you want to vote for to select delegates to that convention, or be a delegate yourself. Unfortunately, that deadline seems to have passed without people getting to know what they'd be joining to vote for or against. As mentioned, a message and page has been posted with some information on the process, but not the resolutions themselves.

I have obtained a copy of what appears to be the close to final amendments we'll be asked to vote on but they're missing one key detail, which I've bolded: the date we'll be voting to move the leadership to. I pass these on to you because I believe all members should know where we're apparently at, even if it's not complete yet.

1. The members of the Party assembled in convention, as a Special Resolution, amend the Constitution to add as section 82(1) the following:

Notwithstanding anything else contained in this Constitution (including, but not limited to, section 54):

(a) the meeting of the National Board of Directors required by subsection 54(3) as a consequence of the resignation of the Leader in May 2011 shall be held at any time on or before [date to be inserted];

(b) at the meeting referred to in Paragraph (a), the National Board of Directors shall set a date for a Leadership Vote between [insert date] and [insert date].

This subsection (1) shall no longer be of force or effect on the later of the conclusion of the Leadership Vote contemplated by Paragraph (a) and [insert date].

2. The members of the Party assembled in convention, as a Special Resolution, amend the Constitution to add as section 82(2) the following:

Notwithstanding anything else contained in this Constitution (including, but not limited to, section 65), the next biennial convention of the Party (which is the rescheduled biennial convention of the Party originally called for June 17-18, 2011) including the related in-person meeting of the Council of Presidents shall be held on January 13 to 15, 2012 at a location to be determined by the National Board of Directors. This subsection (2) shall no longer be of force or effect on January 15, 2012.

Here's a link to the current constitution for reference. As I said, some key information is missing from the above. Namely, the dates the leadership would be delayed to. If the above is accurate though, we will be asked to vote on a specific date range, which is in line with what I've been hearing.

I know the date issue has been a contentious one. My preference is to have the leadership vote in spring 2012, about one year from now. I'd compromise and go fall 2012, but I would vote against a proposal that pushes it beyond next fall. We'll also vote, of course, on delaying the biennial to January 2012.

We can also glean from above that, rather than change the constitutional leadership process permanently, we seem to be authorizing a one-time exception to the rules to extend this leadership race only, and that this exception will sunset. This is probably a positive; we should consider a more fulsome reform of the process for future races though through the normal biennial process. This ad hoc amendment thing isn't ideal.

So, I await the actual final proposed amendments, including the hopefully not too late dates, to be publicly released and communicated to the membership.

Hopefully soon, please.

UPDATE: CP's Joan Bryden is tonight reporting the dates will be filled in as follows:

Federal Liberals will be asked to postpone electing a new leader for 18 to 22 months.
...
The proposed amendment calls for a new leader to be chosen sometime between Nov. 1, 2012, and Feb. 28, 2013.

I'm still digesting this, but my first reaction is negative. I want a longer race, yes. But as long as 22 months? No way. For me, 18 months would be pushing it, and is as far as I'd be willing to bend on this. But potentially 22 months? No.

Now for me the question will be which is better, picking a leader in 22 months of this October? I don't particularly like either option, so the question for me will be which bad option do I like less.

Also, this section here demonstrated incredible naiveté:

Party president Alf Apps says rules will be issued to ensure prospective leadership candidates don't start actively campaigning or fundraising before the official starting gun goes off.

Let's be serious here, shall we? The leadership race has already started and it will continue, and nothing the board says or does is going to change that. Nor should it. We're not voting on delaying the leadership, we're in essence voting on extending it. It is underway and it will continue until whenever the vote is held.

I favoured extending the race so candidates could take the time to really criss-cross the country, visit every riding, meet every member, and have a robust, fulsome debate on the future of our party. Trying to keep the genie in the bottle for as long as a year-and-a-half is patently absurd, and not overly productive.

I'm going to let this marinate in my mind a little (and get back to the Canucks game), but consider my initial reaction not happy at all.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Renewing the Liberal Party: Leadership

I'm a Canadian first and foremost, and as a Canadian I'm nervous about what Stephen Harper's Conservatives will do with majority government. That's not fear-mongering because to do so would be pointless now; it's how I honestly feel. But as a Liberal, there is something to be said for having four years, and likely quite a few more, to begin a rebuilding and reforming process that has long been needed and has been postponed partly due to the nature of minority governments, but primarily because of a lack of will.

I'm disappointed that we lost a lot of good Liberals Monday night. Ujjal Dosanjh is a principled man that got into politics for all the right reasons. Glen Pearson, Rob Oliphant, Mark Holland, Gerard Kennedy and Siobhan Coady are also among those that I'll miss. There are quite a few other defeated Liberals that, frankly, I won't be sorry to see go. It was time to see the winds of change blow through many areas, particularly Scarborough, where the need for renewal is strong. There are also a lot of good young people in the old OLO finding themselves out of work; they had a good young crew doing a lot of interesting things around the web and social media.

While Michael Ignatieff, to use a phrase, didn't get it done, this isn't Ignatieff's fault any more than it was Stephane Dion's of Paul Martin's. It's deeper than leadership, and while leadership will be part of the way forward it's only one piece of what's needed.

Rather than depressed, I'm actually excited for the years ahead. The prospect of power has held back needed changes and soul-searching. The next election may be four years away, but realistically I think it's a decade before we're a viable contender once more. Not only does that mean we have the time for a deliberative process of reflection, reform, and rebuilding, it means those that truly want to build a better, more democratic Liberal party will be free to do so without being weighed-down by the resume paders and title-seekers just looking for quick path to jobs and power. With no prospect of either in these quarters, they'll move on and leave the rest of us to get some work done.

As I see it, we need to focus on three areas: leadership, internal party reform, and policy/what we stand for. Today, I'll tackle the first one: leadership.

Leadership

It's too early to start talking names, although of course some names are already being bandied about. I believe it's time for generational change within the Liberal Party. It's time for a dynamic young leader who will energize and engage younger Canadians, and who can make the commitment to a multi-election building process without the prospect of electoral success any time soon. There is no quick path and there can be no messiahs: we need someone committed to a decade of hard slogging, and someone with the energy to spend those next 10 years criss-crossing 308+ ridings across Canada building and supporting local riding associations.

I'm not convinced the leader need come from within caucus. It would be more ideal, of course. I don't see someone resigning from our depleted caucus to let a new leader run, so it'd be four years before they'd have a chance to get into the House. We're in a re-building phase though, and being third-party leader in a majority parliament isn't the most high-profile gig anyway, particularly when the real work will be on the road.

If it is within the caucus though, a few obvious choices emerge that fit my generational change requirement: Dominic Leblanc and Justin Trudeau. I'd have included Coady if she'd held her seat. Both bring compelling traits to the table: good constituency people, young, reform-minded. I've tended to think Trudeau needs more seasoning, but with the chance of governing out of the picture I no longer have that concern. I think both would make very interesting candidates.

Outside the caucus, I have no idea. I hope some names come forward. I doubt it will be any of the usual suspects though. The Manleys and the MacKennas aren't interesting in party-building, so don't hold your breath. And besides, they're the old guard. We need to look forward. Perhaps some interesting candidates could emerge from the provincial ranks.

Many have argued for a long leadership process. I understand that inclination, although constitutionally it would seem impossible as it requires a convention within six months of the leader's resignation. That may not be a bad thing though. While we need to pick the next leader in a deliberative process, we also need to get on with the process of reform. Leadership is only step one; there are many more to come. Let's not rush through step one, but let's not spend years there either.

This will be an interesting race for another reason: it will be the first with the weighted one-member, one-vote system we adopted at the last biennial in Vancouver. I supported this change, but I think it's particularly useful to our renewal process. With each riding equal and each member having a vote, candidate will have to try to visit all 308 ridings across Canada and sign up members in each. It can help fuel coast-to-coast rebuilding.

It will also have to be a campaign on the cheap. It will be another campaign under the new restrictive fundraising and financing regime, and donations will be hard to come by. Which means it will have to be candidates travelling the country by themselves, meeting members and prospective members in small groups, relying on local unpaid volunteers. Back to basics, and back to the grassroots.

So in short, my leadership candidate check-list includes generational change, long-term commitment, committed to party reform and renewal, understands importance of personal connections and constituency service, and committed to an open policy development process. I look forward to seeing who emerges.

Tomorrow: reforming the Liberal Party from top to bottom.

UPDATE: Forgot to mention, I don't think the interim leader should be a candidate for permanent leader. Yes, Ignatieff did it. I thought that was wrong, and I said so at the time. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers