LPC national board candidate interview: Chris MacInnes for vice-president, English

From February 20-23, federal Liberals will gather in Montreal, and one of their tasks will be to elect a new national executive. In the coming days, I’ll be publishing interviews with some of the candidates seeking election to the party’s national board.

Chris MacInnes won a contested election at the 2012 Liberal Party of Canada biennial convention in Ottawa as vice-president-English and, with no one running against him this time around, has been acclaimed to a second term, which will begin at the Montreal biennial later this month.

MacInnes, who calls Halifax home, brings some East Coast flavour to the party’s national board and was a key player on Stephen McNeil’s Nova Scotia Liberal team which won a surprise majority government in 2013.

I recently spoke with MacInnes about his first term as VP-English, his plans for the next two years and, going into 2015, some of the lessons the federal party can learn from the success of our provincial cousins. The following is an edited transcript of our conversation.

How would you describe the role of VP-English?

It’s in large part determined by who your president is, and it flows from that. And the role is what you make of it.

In my case, Mike Crawley has been my president, and right off the bat he asked me to be the board’s point-person on the party’s response to riding redistribution. It’s an interesting file, a very important one and one I’m glad he gave me. It was one of immediate interest to me because of the change it would have to the House of Commons.

Constitutionally, the role is to support the president and chair meetings in their absence, but in large part it’s what you make of it.

What would you say were the key accomplishments of your first term?

I think the party’s response to the challenge of redistribution is something I would point to as an accomplishment. Given our diminished presence in the House and the strength of our opponents in the House, the redistribution process could have been much worse than it was. Because of the hard work of our EDAs (electoral district associations) and the hard work of the party offices we had a response that far outweighed our presence in in the House. At each stage where we were allowed to make presentations, the party was very well coordinated.

It was great to see how well the PTAs and the national office worked together on that file. Also, the leadership, the membership and supporter initiatives.

What were some of the challenges you faced?

I think as a board, the whole supporter class issue was a major challenge, because it had never been done before as a party. It took a lot of effort by the national membership secretary and the party office to make it happen, and they worked night and day to make it as successful as it was.

Why did you decide to run again, and what are your priorities for the next two years?

There’s a couple of reasons. I debated whether or not to run again, but I decided I would because I wanted to finish some of the initiatives I started. Redistribution is largely done and the ridings are in the process of having founding meetings, but building ridings takes time.

I had the perspective of being co-chair for the 2009 and 2013 Nova Social Liberal campaigns, and seeing the hard work it to us to get to a majority government. There’s a lot of work to be done and I want to be a part of it and with Mike (Crawley), Imran (Ahmad, VP-French) and Matt (Certosimo, national membership secretary) departing I thought I could offer some continuity.

The national fieldworker program is still in its infancy and it’s a very important initiative. We did it on a smaller scale in Nova Scotia with great results, and it can fundamentally change the way the party organizes.

Are there any lessons you can take from the Nova Scotia success to the federal level?

Some of the lessons we used at the Nova Scotia level were ones we used at the federal level. They modernized their infrastructure by investing in Liberalist and field workers. Nothing substitutes the hard work of the leader. In Nova Scotia, (Stephen McNeil) spent seven years going end to end in the province, and there’s no harder worker in the party right now than Justin Trudeau. He’s everywhere. I think there’s lessons to be learned both ways.

Any final thoughts?

I was very pleased to be associated with the people I was associated with on the national board and in the national office, particularly (national directors) Ian MacKay and now Jeremy Broadhurst, and their teams. There’s a great group of people at the national office and I’m proud to be working with them.

(Other party office interviews)

• Liberal Party of Canada presidential candidate interview: Brian Rice
• LPC national board candidate interview: Maryanne Kampouris for national policy chair
• LPC national board candidate interview: Arif Khan for national membership secretary
• LPC national board candidate interview: Leanne Bourassa fornational membership secretary
• Exit interview: Liberal Party of Canada president Mike Crawley
• Exit Interview: Liberal Party of Canada national membership secretary Matthew Certosimo

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Exit interview: Liberal Party of Canada president Mike Crawley

When Mike Crawley won the presidency of the Liberal Party of Canada in January 2012, defeating Sheila Copps, Alexandra Mendes and Ron Hartling at the party’s biennial convention in Ottawa, the party faced a number of challenges: declining public support, a weary volunteer base and a worrying fundraising gap. Add to that running a leadership race, and creating a supporter system at the direction of the delegates as part of that leadership process.

Two years later, as Liberals prepare to elect Crawley’s successor in February at the next biennial convention in Montreal, it’s a very different scenario. The party is riding high in the polls under a popular new leader, volunteers are engaged, the party just had its best fundraising quarter in recent memory and the supporter system brought 300,000 Canadians into the Liberal fold.

I recently interviewed Crawley about his term as president, and his advice for his successor. The following is an edited transcript of our conversation.

What do you see as the role of party president, and has that changed since you took the job?

The role of the president depends on what the party is going through at that given moment in history. For the first portion of my term I was a very active president. The board had to manage the decisions around the leadership selection process, and one of my roles was to ensure there was a number of candidates contesting the leadership, and encourage candidates to seek the leadership. Later the role changed somewhat, and was much more about acting as the voice of the membership, speaking to the leader on the wishes of the membership, and providing oversight of the party for the members as well.

What were you seeking to accomplish when you took on the job?

I wanted to create a much more cohesive party. PTAs (provincial and territorial associations), ridings, and the Liberal Party national office need to work together as one, not as separate silos. I think that’s been a chronic problem the party has had for years. I think we’ve made great progress in breaking down a number of those barriers, particularly between LPC and the PTAs, and they’re working much more in concert than I’ve ever seen before.

The second was to build an on the ground political organization, which to a great extent the party hasn’t had in many years. We’ve made great progress getting a network of field organizers across the country, and uploading paperwork and administration from the provinces so they can focus on field organization.

Third was to improve our fundraising capacity and modernize the fundraising infrastructure of the party. On that score it’s been great progress. The recent fundraising results are a result of the leader and his popularity, but were also aided by the enhanced infrastructure we’ve created.

Finally, the selection of the leader was critical, at a key juncture for the party, and we took the time to have a truly open and competitive process.  I think we had the most open leadership process any party has had in Canada at the federal level. Over 300,000 people were engaged and became involved. We accomplished a lot of what we set out to in that regard, and taking the time to run an open leadership process has served the party well.

Was there anything that was unexpected?

There were a lot of people eager to be part of the change, and really renew the party.

I was probably a bit surprised at some of the resistance there was to some of the (organizational and administrative) changes. Probably more resistance than I’d thought, but we got there in the end. It was difficult sometimes. We tend to cling to what we’ve got. My view at the time was that we needed to make the big changes we’ve been putting off. Different parts of the party should act as one. Having separate PTAs with boards that are accountable to ridings is not exclusive of working together.

There’s still a lot to be done creating channels and vehicles for open policy discussion and debate within the party. The Justin Trudeau campaign did some great stuff with SoapBox during the campaign, and bringing some of those processes over into the party would be a good thing.

Was the supporter system a success? Should it be reformed?

The supporter system was a big success. It brought a lot of new people into the party. We’re having some success converting them into more active participants in the party. In terms of opening up the party, it achieved what we needed it to, it was the right vehicle. We won’t be in a leadership race for years so there’s time for tweaks but we’re making good progress, and we’re looking at new, different and creative ways to engage with supporters.

Is the party ready for the end of the public subsidy provided to political parties?

We certainty are. We’ve had that date fixed in our minds since the beginning of my term. Staff, and Mr. (Bob) Rae when he became interim leader, were very fixed on that looming date. We’ve come a long ways to relying solely on individual donations. We’ve had our best December, our best quarter in Q4, and all the evidence is the party is able to compete with the Conservatives on fundraising without this public subsidy.

What would you say is the biggest challenge facing your successor?

The obvious challenge is winning the 2015 election. That we put forward as strong a campaign as possible, that we’re as organized as possible across the country. That’s the obvious challenge for the next president, working in concert with the leader and the election readiness team.

What advice would you give your successor?

My advice would be take the big steps to open up the party, to build a more cohesive party, and be vigilant in making sure the organization doesn’t slip back into some of those old bad habits.

Any final thoughts?

It’s been an honour to be president of our party at such a critical juncture in its history. I truly enjoyed working with Mr. Rae, Mr. Trudeau and the board of the party in moving it forward.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Liberal leadership procedure and process update from Mike Crawley

Today was the Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario)’s Toronto region day, where Liberals from the ridings of greater Toronto gathered to  talk organization, policy and rebuilding. A few items of interest to share, particularly on the leadership front.

Speaking of leadership, as I believe in full disclosure I’ll say that I’m supporting Deborah Coyne for the leadership and have been helping on her (pre)campaign since mid-summer.(I’ll write more about why I’m supporting Deborah and what I like about her platform and vision soon.) So I’ll naturally be careful and selective in my leadership commentary, and I’ll try to stick to reporting what others said in this post rather than offering too much commentary. Let me stress though that any opinions expressed on my blog are, as always, mine and mine alone.

Anyway, today our post-lunch speaker was Liberal Party of Canada president Mike Crawley, who gave attendees an update on where things are at with the leadership process. I’ll assume you’ve read the rules that were posted recently as far as entry fee and spending caps, so I won’t  rehash that. He did share some new items of interest though, but I’ll stress these items are still fluid and aren’t yet official. I’d guess he was discussing the evolving thinking of the adhoc rules committee (committee member Christine Innes was also present), which will make recommendations that must be approved (and could be modified) by the national board. So it’s all subject to change.

First, he indicated the leadership vote will probably be an online and telephone vote, instead of physical paper balloting. I’ve written previously about the challenges of both systems, and the importance of verifying the identity of the voter, and that the vote is cast by them and without coercion. The details of how that vetting will happen and security assured are still being determined.

Second, Crawley and Innes floated the idea of a $1 or $2 vote fee to cover the cost of the voting system. It’s unclear if this would apply to members and supporters, or just supporters. We're not talking about a fee to attend a debate (there would likely be a cost-recovery fee for attending the debates, and the speech showcase events, and that's generally accepted), but to cast your vote, whether online or over the phone.

The reaction to this idea in the room was pretty negative. One person likened it to a poll tax, while others noted it ran contrary to the whole spirit of the supporter system (all our literature around supporter signup touts how it’s easy and free and you get to vote for leader). It was also suggested by one questioner that the $75,000 entry fee for leadership candidates and 10 per cent cut of all donations to leadership candidates taken by the party was meant to cover the costs of running the race. Crawley and Innes indicated though they wanted those funds for general revenue as it will be difficult for the party itself to raise money during the race, and they still wanted to consider recovering leadership vote expenses in another way.

Third, there will be five leadership debates across Canada from January to March. Cities to be announced, but the string will end in March in Montreal. Each will have different formats and themes. Then, the final major leadership speech event will be in Toronto on April 6^th. Immediately after the speeches, voting will likely open and remain open for the following week. There may be the option to vote onsite at the event after the speeches are over (likely on laptop stations, as the NDP did) and ridings will be encouraged to hold their own voting events during the week. And then, at another event in Ottawa on April 14^th, the results will be announced and the new leader will give her or his maiden speech to the nation.

In other more minor notes, he affirmed that while he may have wanted to shorten it, as I wrote last week the 41-day cutoff for supporter and member sign-ups is a constitutional requirement. The suggestion of an extraordinary convention (a la last summer) to amend that requirement that wasn’t looked on favourably by Crawley and Innes, due to the need for time to allow the party to verify supporter and member identities.

Other notes

Those were the major news items on the leadership front. Over lunch, Borys Wrzesnewskyj gave us an update on Etobicoke-Centre. In short, no idea when the Supreme Court will finally rule on Ted Opitz’s appeal of the ruling Borys won in the lower court. But while Opitz and the Conservatives are blanketing the riding with taxpayer-funded mailers (and launching robocalls), he says the Liberals are actively canvassing door to door and at events and meeting people, speaking about the last election and the court challenge, and getting very good feedback.

Finally, we elected members to the communications, organization and policy committees of the LPC’s Ontario wing. Most of the races were hotly contested, but I had the good fortune to be acclaimed as the member of the communications committee for Area 3 (the east side of Toronto, essentially Scarborough and Don Valley). I’m looking forward to working with the ridings in my area to help us communicate better, both to our fellow Liberals and the general public.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Both hope and fear drove Liberal delegates in Ottawa

Looking back on my three days in Ottawa for the 2012 Liberal Party of Canada biennial convention it’s impossible to craft one clear narrative – did delegates embrace bold change or put their faith in the status quo – because the evidence is highly contradictory. And that, I suppose, is typically Liberal: hard to and pin down and define clearly.

On the hopey-changey side, delegates elected as president a candidate who promised a “bold new red,” Mike Crawley, over a veteran party stalwart of the 1980s and 1990s, Sheila Copps. For the first time in Canada a political party will let a new category of members, called supporters, into the fold to vote for its next party leader without actually taking out a membership. Instead of the leader appointing both national campaign co-chairs, one will now be directly elected by members. And not only was a controversial policy on marijuana legalization actually passed by delegates, the *interim* leader put aside his earlier opposition on the issue to signal he had been swayed by the debate and would advocate for the policy and defend it against the inevitable Conservative “soft on crime” onslaught.

On the other side is an equally impressive list of actions delegates took to timidly embrace the status quo and avoid taking power from the leadership for themselves. Delegates rejected a plan to end the leader’s ability to veto any policy developed by the membership they don’t like. The leader can still appoint all the candidates they want. A total ban on appointments wasn’t on the table, and even a compromise proposal to limit appointments to 20 was rejected. A “ballot initiative” proposal to allow any Liberal to put a constitutional amendment or policy on the agenda at a national convention if they can gather the support of 5000 members, bypassing the need to get the support of a provincial wing or party commission, was rejected. Delegates even rejected an amendment to allow them to set their own rules of procedure for conventions.

There was also a balancing on the supporter front. After welcoming supporters to vote for party leader, delegates rejected letting supporters help pick local riding candidates. And the leadership race will happen across the country on one weekend, not over successive weeks in a series of rolling regional votes.

Taking it all in, I’m left with delegates expressing an odd combination of hope and fear. The sense that we needed to do something big and bold was prevalent. They recognize the party is at a crossroads, and will either return to relevance or fade away. Underlying it all was a current of fear. Time after time, delegates expressed concern over what the media headline would be Monday if they didn’t do something big and bold, whatever that may be. Be bold, or the Ottawa pundit class will pounce. Members were even scared of themselves, insisting the leader continue to be vested with power on policies and appointments members can’t be trusted with themselves. “How can you expect a leader to run on a policy they don’t believe in?” one Liberal asked me when ending the leader veto was rejected. Sure, but how can a party expect to engage and mobilize thousands of supporters and members to campaign for a platform they have no stake in?

This week’s convention was never going to be the final verdict on the great Liberal rebuilding project, but it was important as both a starting-point and to set the tone for the task ahead. With the mixed results, we’re clearly pinning our hopes on a new national executive, a leadership race that is still over a year away, and opening up that leadership race to every Canadian that’s not a member of another party that would like to participate. In a sense, we’re putting a lot of our eggs in a few key baskets.

I opposed opening up the leadership selection to supporters for a range of reasons, such as the devaluation of membership. I stand by those concerns, and I’m disappointed other initiatives that would have helped strengthen membership’s relevance, and the responsibility of members in our success or failure, were rejected. I’m willing to put those concerns aside and work to help make this supporter system a success. However, my concern is that it’s not the panacea its advocates, including much of the party caucus and establishment, expect it to be.

That’s because I believe many Liberals still don’t yet fully understand why we were rejected soundly by Canadians not just last May, but in several successive elections. There’s a sense that if we just throw open our doors by making it easier to get involved as a supporter, people will come flooding in. It’s not that simple though. We want them to sign up so we can get their data and market to them, but we’re not asking WHY THEY would want to come to us.

It was easy enough for Canadians to mark an X for us in the last election, but they didn’t. Why? We weren’t offering anything that was relevant to them and to their lives. One non-Liberal observer made a salient point to me: partisans think everyone wants to be partisans. But most people don’t. They couldn’t care less about how we pick our next leader. They just want to live their lives. If we want to mobilize them it’s not enough to just let them vote for our leader. We need to find a way to speak to the issues that matter to them and their lives, and convince them that we are the vehicle that can bring change on the issues they care about, or they won’t be interested.

That is the challenge the party is facing, and on which the verdict of our future, or lack thereof, will hinge. We have made it easier than ever before for people to get involved with the Liberal Party of Canada. But now, we need to give them a reason to want to. If we do, this bold experiment will be proven a success and we’ll look back on this weekend as the beginning of a great comeback. If we don’t, our slide from public relevance will continue. The delegates left Ottawa excited about the promise of the future, but the hard work is only beginning.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Meeting the LPC presidential candidates, and why I like Mike

The Edward Blake Society, a group of Toronto-area no longer young except at heart Liberal professionals, hosted four of the five candidates for the Liberal Party of Canada presidency on Monday in Toronto (Charles Ward couldn’t make it) and around 100 Liberals packed the Pauper’s Pub to hear what they had to say.

I didn’t take any notes so I’m going on recollection; blogging compadre BigCityLib also shared his thoughts yesterday. I thought it was a great event, and it helped me make my decision on whom I’ll be supporting in this race, which I believe is an important part (although just one part) of our rebuilding process.

I liked some of the things that each candidate had to say, and disagreed with some things as well. For reference, earlier I wrote on what I’m looking to see in our party’s next president.

Ron Hartling

As a big believer in making riding associations the key focus and vehicle for re-building the party and reconnecting with the community, I like the example of what Ron helped to do in Kingston and his plans for helping riding associations across Canada replicate that process.

Ron wasn’t the most polished speaker on offer but I’m fine with that; it’s not what I’m looking for from a party president and it’s not their job. But as much as I like his plans for riding associations, I didn’t sense he has as strong a grasp on how to manage/what needs to change at the central party level. We need a little more balance.

Sheila Copps

I liked what she had to say about multiculturalism, how the Liberal Party has taken ethnic communities for granted and how that needs to change. That definitely needs to be a priority for the party, although I think that’s something that would be led more out of the leader’s office. And that encapsulates my biggest concern with Sheila: I’m not sure she’s clear on which job she’s running for. I think she sees herself being a very high-profile spokesperson for the Liberal cause and for policy issues. That’s more the job of leader and caucus. The party presidency is an organizational role, behind the scenes working with members to reform and restructure the party and ensure it’s ready organizationally to fight and win an election.

I think we have different ideas of what the job is meant to be. I also think she’s too polarizing a figure, unfair as that may be, for a party moving forward. In her speech, her references to leadership coronations and unfair nominations couldn’t help but bring to mind her own biography. I also find her apparent stumping for a non-existent Bob Rae leadership campaign frustrating and unhelpful.

Alexandra Mendes

Alexandra spoke well and she provided the ying to Ron’s yang when she noted planning at the riding level isn’t everything; as a former MP in Quebec her own seat was wiped-out this spring in the NDP’s unplanned orange wave. She wants to make attracting more female candidates to the party a priority and I agree with that; I think the massive number of unheld seats presents a massive opportunity new candidates of all sorts.

In addition to her experience not just as an MP but also as a former riding association executive, I like her private sector experience in the non-profit sector and what she had to say about team-work really struck home with me. As much as I want to know about the candidates' ideas, much more important for me is what kind of manager and team-builder they’ll be. The next president is going to have a lot of cats to herd, and change management skills will be key. As important as the end result is, how we get there is as important if we want to stay united and grow as a party. I sense Alexandra recognizes this, which is critical.

Mike Crawley

In my “what I’m looking for” post I mentioned the need for enough insider knowledge to know what works and what doesn’t without being captured by the system; it’s a fine line but I think Mike’s experience with the federal party’s Ontario wing may offer that balance.

I liked what he had to say about embracing big ideas. I debated this with BigCityLib, and I don’t think big ideas and pragmatism are mutually exclusive. When I say big ideas, I’m not saying latch onto politically-popular gimmicks. Just the opposite. I’m saying stop playing it safe. Take the bold position and defend it; take the position that’s right, even if it may be unpopular or difficult. Say what needs to be said. I don’t know what all these ideas will be, and that’s fine. They should percolate up organically from discussion in the party and in the community. But let’s keep our infamous pragmatism while taking advantage of this third-place status to become the risk-takers that do what needs to be done, popular or not. Let’s become the party of ideas again. I’ve digressed, but point I agree with Mike on embracing big ideas.

I also liked what Mike had to say about getting more people involved in the party and opening up riding associations. If we have one area of disagreement, it’s that I sense he isn’t open to re-considering the need for commissions and PTAs as part of our structure going forward. He didn’t say this in as many words, mind you, but certainly his background as a PTA president informs his views there. I’m not saying we should shed PTAs and commissions, mind you, but I think everything should be on the table as we consider what is the best way to deliver value with the resources we have.

I did, however, like some of his thoughts on making commissions more effective. He spoke about tasking the womens’ commission with recruiting more female candidates, looking into why more women don’t seek nominations, and fundraising not just to support nomination female candidates, but female candidates seeking nominations as well. I think that’s a key part of the puzzle to seeing more strong, quality female candidates elected in winnable ridings.

My pick for party president

I went into the evening trying to decide between Alexandra and Mike, and while I like Alexandra and think she would make an excellent president, in the end I’ve decided to support Mike. I think he knows what the job is and what needs to be done, and I think he has the experience and the background to make it happen. I’ll be voting for him at the convention in January, and if you’ll be a delegate I encourage you to do the same.

I’ll end though by saying that the success or the failure of the party and the rebuilding process doesn’t rest with the party president or even the leader. It rests with each of us; it rests with every member. Too often in our party we look for messiahs; we idolize them when they succeed and crucify them when they fail. That needs to change. We must each take personal responsibility for both success and failure. It’s the only way.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

What I’m looking for in a Liberal Party of Canada president

A key part of the Liberal Party of Canada’s reform process will be electing the next national executive at the biennial convention in January, and I’m glad to see we have four capable candidates seeking the position of president: Sheila Copps, Mike Crawley, Ron Hartling and Alexandra Mendes.

I’m looking forward to hopefully getting a chance to meet all four and hear their ideas for reforming the party. And if you’re in Toronto, the Edward Blake Society is hosting a free event where you can meet all four candidates on November 28 at 7:00pm at Pauper’s Pub, 539 Bloor Street West.

In the interim, here are a few things I’ll be looking for from the presidential candidates should I be a voting delegate. These aren’t meant to include or exclude anyone, and some may even be contradictory, but then I’m a complicated fellow.

STAY OFF TV: I like to play a little game with my political friends. Who, I ask them, is the president of the Conservative Party of Canada? No smartphone googling allowed. Most draw a blank. A few will offer-up Don Plett, but he’s a past-president and better known as a Harper patronage appointment Senator. None can come-up with the correct answer – John Walsh – without Google.

And, frankly, that’s the way it should be. Walsh doesn’t do the pundit circuit on Power Play and Power and Politics, he’s not quoted in the Globe and Mail. He just focuses on quietly doing his job: building and growing the Conservative Party organization across the country. And he seems to be doing a fairly decent job.

That’s what I want from a Liberal president. It’s not your job to be on TV as the public face of the party. That’s the job of the party leader and the parliamentary caucus; let them be the public face. This isn’t a job for the limelight, and if that’s what you seek you should drop out. Focus on reforming the organization and communicating with members: directly.

COMMUNICATE WITH MEMBERS: I’ve come to believe lately that one of the biggest problems our party executive has had is one of communication. They may have the best of intentions, and arrive at the right decisions, but the process has been tainted by a failure to communicate openly, which breads suspicion and mistrust even if we’re all happy with the end result.

There have been some efforts lately at more communication, including regular e-mails to members from membership secretary Rob Jamieson. And there was a tele-town hall last weekend. But still, far too often Liberal Party members hear about party decisions and proposals second-hand, through media reports and leaks, instead of directly from the party. For example, apparently there’s a white paper on party reform floating around, according to media leaks. I haven’t seen it though. (UPDATE: It's now public.)

That is unacceptable, and it must change. We should never read about major party proposals or news in the media before we hear about it directly, as members, from the party itself. Anything else is unacceptable in an era of e-mail, social media and instant communication.

We’ll be debating our party structure through this process, but whatever happens to the national/provincial/territorial association/riding association model, I want the next party president to commit to not relying on this structure to communicate information and decisions down to the membership. Use it and leverage it, yes. But you must also communicate directly with members.

And note I said with, not to. Engage directly with members. With modern technology, there’s no excuse not to.

MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE: Now more than ever, this isn’t a job for a title hunter, resume padder or favoured insider. It’s time for the Liberal Party to be run like a corporation and we need a proven manager, ideally one with experience managing distressed assets. We need a turnaround specialist.

One of our biggest challenges is also one of change management. Ask any private sector organization that has undergone major change: the biggest obstacle has been getting their people onboard and helping to drive the change, rather than obstructing it. How you manage the change is as important asthe change itself, and crucial to its success.

I want to see management skills and experience in our next president, and a demonstrated commitment to open, consultative leadership.

A NEWCOMER, BUT WITH INSIDER EXPERIENCE: Contradictory? You bet. But like I said, I’m complicated. And as with all things, it’s a matter of balance.

I don’t want someone beholden to the current power structure, or too wedded to the way we do things that they’re unwilling to consider major changes. Because I believe everything about the way we do things needs to be on the table. What services should be delivered by the national party? What services by the PTAs? How much resources should go to the ridings? Should we starve the national office to feed the PTAs and decentralize, or eliminate the PTAs to save resources and centralize, putting more resources into ridings? Do we really need, and can we afford, the youth, seniors, aboriginal and womens’ commissions?

I don’t know; I’m still considering those issues and I welcome the debates. But there can be no taboos in this process. No sacred cows. Everything must be open for consideration, and I want a president who isn’t closed off to any possible course of action entering the debate or beholden to one part of the organization for their support.

At the same time, I don’t want a complete outsider. They need to be familiar enough with the party, its structure and its people to know its strengths and weaknesses, what it does well and what it doesn’t, what should stay and what should go, and what we’ve tried in the past that worked and didn’t work.

It’s a balancing act. I don’t put much value on institutional memory when it’s a memory of failure. But we need to know enough about the past so we don’t repeat those mistakes.

AND MORE

Of course, I'll want to hear their specific ideas and proposals. But while that's important, it's not the most important. Change and ideas should be coming from the bottom-up anyway. More important for me are these intangibles I've laid-out to recognize what kind of leader they'll be.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers