TDH Strategies has been doing a good job in recent days of documenting the scandal brewing with the Young Liberal club at the University of British Columbia. This letter from Braeden Caley was passed on to me from a friend in B.C., I’m sure they wouldn’t mind if I post it here.
You can also get more background on this situation at TDH. For myself I’ll just say this kind of underhanded politics, lack of ethics and just downright asholiness is quite in line with my experience with the Young Liberal organization in B.C. There’s a culture of entitlement there, and it carries-on into the regular organization as well. They’re all about politics for politics’ sake and winning whatever the cost. Anything to win, no matter how undemocratic or underhanded. I really don’t think many of them came into politics with any firm convictions or principles, other than power.
Back during the leadership race (if you can call it that) I got a call from one of the Young Liberal/Youth for Martin organizers (same thing really). They wanted me to be president of a couple of newly created college campus clubs in my riding. But I’m not a student, I said. Doesn’t matter, they said. What would I have to do? Nothing, just call a couple of founding AGMs and pass some constitutions, we’ll send them to you. Where would I have these AGMs? Just have them in your apartment. I live in a small one bedroom. Doesn’t matter, they said, no one will show up. So, I said, you want me to by myself hold AGMs for non-existent campus clubs in my apartment for schools I’m not a student at and where I’m the only person in attendance? Yep, pretty much, then just send us the minutes to make it official.
You see, every additional campus club got to send delegates to the leadership convention. And every vote was needed, you know, just in case Sheila made a run somehow. They didn’t just want to win, they wanted to crush her. I’m no Sheila fan, but this race had been decided years ago. These kinds of tactics were stupid and unnecessary. What’s more, no local delegates would actually be elected by these clubs. The spots would be filled by delegates from Vancouver and Victoria, where enough spots weren’t available locally. Anyway, they ended up finding someone else to be their paper president, so I was off the hook. And a few Lower Mainland delegates did end up going to Toronto as youth delegates from these campus clubs.
I’ll save the story of how I was screwed out of attending the convention by these people and was yelled at and insulted over the phone by a senior organizer for another day. For now, here’s Braeden's letter. I think the only way to fight this kind of crap is publicity.
*****
Dear Friends,
As some of you may know, the AGM for the UBC Young Liberals was called this week. The decision that was made to call this AGM in this manner invalidates the voting rights of 77 new members who signed up to be part of renewing the party and who support my potential campaign for President, which has been dealt a blow from which I'm not sure how to recover. If fact, the undemocratic manner in which events have played out has left many Young Liberals disillusioned and the entire process seems to be in shambles.
I feel that it's important for members to know what has taken place this week. Here's a timeline of what has transpired so far:
DISCUSSIONS:
After first meeting with YLCBC President Coco Lefoka on Monday to express my interest in running, I sat down with Coco again on Tuesday to discuss the upcoming UBC AGM, this time accompanied by Taylor Briggs. Coco proposed that one of us be President and the other Vice President. Taylor pointed out that this was his last chance to be president, while I raised the point that I had been actively involved in the club much longer, and objected to trading away a vice presidency without speaking to the incumbent, Michael Crook. Coco also told us the AGM should be called Friday to avoid having this drag on, but we all agreed to meet the next day to discuss the situation further.
MEMBERSHIP HEADACHES:
I tried contacting Jon Loewen, the UBC Membership chair, who is responsible for processing membership forms, to no avail. Members had been signing up over the past few weeks in preparation for the possibility that I might run. I also tried to contact Sana Shahram and Coco, but he refused to accept membership forms saying he believed it could somehow be a "conflict of interest." I ended up having to resort to dropping off 77 memberships at Jon Loewen's house before midnight on Tuesday, Feb 28th. To Jon's credit, I did eventually receive email acknowledgement of the forms and the attendant money.
NEGOTIATIONS STOP:
Coco called me only about half an hour before the scheduled meeting on March 1 to abruptly cancel.
CONFUSION! AWKWARD AGM CALL:
The AGM was called by President Sana Shahram initially for Wednesday, March 8th, 4-5:30pm; this call was made at 3:20 pm on March 1. Oddly, a second notice was sent out at 3:42 pm changing the meeting call to Thursday March 9th from 4-5:30pm - Presumably and unfortunately then, there was little interest in having a fair fight or any meaningful discussion beforehand. The goal was simply to stop me from running, as they saw that I had support that might out do their own. By calling the AGM for the 9th they invalidated the votes of nearly 80 new members to the club as well as 3 current executive members who will be unable to vote or run for re-election.
SERIOUS CONCERNS:
I have serious concerns about how a club that has no solid membership procedures or reliable list can conduct an AGM fairly and I have serious concerns about how we can have an AGM after two notices have now been sent out indicating two different days of voting (first Wednesday, then corrected to indicate Thursday). This problem has also arisen in the past and it has not been sufficiently addressed even after members of the executive have raised concerns a number of times over the past year.
In addition and probably most importantly, there is much talk in the party right now of renewal and debate and rebuilding. It is foolish to think that we can build an open and inclusive party where people have a reason to be excited if at every opportunity doors are slammed in the face of those who hope to make a difference. I think every measure should have been taken to enfranchise these new members. These are people who would like to get involved in our club and who share our values. The fact that their involvement and energy would be turned away with such little regard for the value of their voice and contribution saddens and concerns me.
It is certainly not a democratic move.
Much debate in our party has centred around how to increase the perceived value of a Liberal party membership. I think the best way to do this would be to stop thinking of our members as names and numbers on paper, and to start thinking of our members as real, living, breathing, thinking people with a valid contribution to make. This takes inclusion and enfranchisement. After all, a party isn't very much fun if everyone isn't invited.
MOVING FORWARD:
At this point, I am really unsure what I intend to do next. As I think you know, I've worked my guts out for this party for the last half decade, and have attended UBC Young Liberal meetings since before I even set foot on this campus as a student. I've invested a great deal in democracy, including a campaign for School trustee in Richmond that earned me the support of nearly 7000 voters, and I have done a great deal to strengthen this party, and raise youth voices to their fullest potential. For examples of this, see Coco Lefoka's endorsement of me for the national Young Liberal of the Year Award (attached below).
All I would like is a chance to do more, but I am really not interested in participating in a process as unproductive and undemocratic as this one may be shaping up to be. I am not prepared to see myself, any of you or other friends, or any more enthusiastic and energetic Young Liberals get any more disillusioned by all of this. I like and have enjoyed working with Coco Lefoka and Sana Shahram. However, these sorts of undemocratic practices must come to an end if we want the Young Liberals to be respected, and if the party as a whole wants to win elections ever again. Please let me know where you think I should go from here.
Many thanks,
-Braeden
Braeden Caley
braedencaley@hotmail.com
Young Liberal of the Year (Award Nomination by Coco Lefoka) 2005
Dear Awards Committee,
It is with great pride and honor that I nominate Braeden Caley for the YoungLiberal of the Year Award.
I have had the opportunity to work with Braeden for the past year since he joined the Young Liberals at UBC as a first year student. And I must tell you that never in my years as a Young Liberal have I known any individual with the idealism, leadership, intelligence, and integrity of Braeden. His achievements are notable and commendable given that he is only seventeen years of age.
Braeden's involvement in the young liberals began at a young age when he joined the Party when he was fourteen. When most his age were concerned with the other distractions Braeden enrolled himself in something I believe every citizen has a responsibility to enroll in, public service. Braeden's strong involvement with the Richmond riding association has won him the trust, respect and loyalty of leaders in the riding.
Braeden's first major achievement was playing an integral role in shaping public opinion through letter writing campaigns in local media that effectively articulated the Liberal Party of Canada's values and vision for Canada. Hisefforts contributed to the Party's defense during times when the media and public opinion were heavily critical of the Liberal Party. Braeden was at the cornerstone in raising public awareness of the Party's outstanding successes in public policy while in government, when the media was heavily focused on the sponsorship scandal and other issues.
Braeden has been integral to YLCBC's campaign on same sex marriage and missile defense. Earlier this month Braeden led and organized a very successful rally for same sex marriage held at the Vancouver Court House. Braeden established a network of community advocacy groups that worked in collaboration on the rally. The rally, which gained significant coverage from local ethnic media helped raise awareness to the debate being a Charter issue and dispelled the myths of the Conservative Party campaign on the issue.
Braeden is a true Liberal, a committed fighter to the pursuit of a society that is governed by the principles of equality, fairness and multiculturalism. His personal values and commitment to our cause are inspiring.
I feel the Young Liberal of the Year Award could go to no better qualified and deserving a person than Braeden Caley.
Sincerely,
Letlotlo Coco Lefoka
Saturday, March 04, 2006
More on the UBC Young Liberal scandal
Friday, March 03, 2006
CBC: Ethics watchdog will investigate Harper
The CBC is reporting Ethics Commissioner Bernard Sharpiro will investigate Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his conduct in inducing former Liberal David Emerson to cross the floor and join his cabinet.
Said Shapiro: "...the subject of this inquiry is the prime minister..."
Oh, the fun questions this raises. Here's just two, off the top of my head:
1/ Will Harper find the time to speak with with Shaprio in person, or will he send his latest lobbyist turned communications director to speak for him instead?
2/ Will Harper resign until the results of the investigation are released?
Well, back to (pretending to) work, but that was fun!
Ethics watchdog to examine conduct of Harper, Emerson
Last Updated Fri, 03 Mar 2006 15:11:45 EST
CBC News
The federal ethics commissioner says he is opening a preliminary inquiry into conflict-of-interest allegations against Prime Minister Stephen Harper concerning his formerly Liberal cabinet minister David Emerson.
Emerson ran as a Liberal in the campaign leading up to the Jan. 23 general election, but was a surprise appointment to Harper's Conservative cabinet on Feb. 6.
(more)
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Emerson earns an Olympic DNF
Actually, make that a Did Not Show Up.
Remember the reasons the Conservatives and the turncoat himself gave for David Emerson's crossing the floor to the comfy, fur-lined welcome mat of Stephen Harper's cabinet?
The government needed a voice from Vancouver (the suburbs don't count, sorry James Moore), especially with the 2010 Games coming to Vancouver-Whistler. Emerson would be the government point man on the file, and was named Minister responsible.
It would seem natural then that, as the federal Minister responsible for the games, and as the federal Minister for Vancouver, he'd be there Tuesday when the official Olympic flag was raised at Vancouver City Hall, right? After all, it's a pretty big deal, marking the official beginning of the countdown to 2010. His provincial counterpart found time to make it.
Unfortunately though, David didn't show. Apparently he was in Ottawa and terribly busy in meetings and what not, and wasn't available for media comment (perhaps he got caught in that notorious Ottawa traffic, and the phone in his limo wasn't working?).
He did send a lovely statement though, saying, "that the flag-raising ceremony is a proud Olympic tradition." Just not proud enough, I guess, for him to get on a plane. I'm sure Gen. Hillier could have gassed-up a Challenger for him.
Was David perhaps afraid of confronting his constituents (those he hasn't had arrested) who are peeved at his betrayal by crossing the floor? Or maybe he didn't want to face difficult questions about the additional $55 million 2010 organizers are looking for from the feds, and that Emerson has been hemming and hawing on.
So, let's see. David crossed the floor to be the Vancouver guy and the 2010 guy, but he's too busy to attend major 2010 events in Vancouver. Why else did he cross over? Oh right, to solve softwood lumber. But wait, didn't he recuse himself from the softwood lumber file for being in a conflict of interest relating to his Canfor pension? So much for that one too.
Seems like you have time to run in that by-election you're "sure you'd win" after all David. Or you could just pick up your marbles and go home. The world will keep on turning without you at the cabinet table.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
The award for making an ass of yourselves by failing to do even basic research goes to…
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation! Congratulations to Ann Coulter wannabe and CTF Ontario director Tasha Kherididdin, and all the little people that made her unsurprising victory possible.
The CTF is honoured for the following entry in their annual Teddies Waste Awards, awarded on Parliament Hill today to “give the people who fleece Canadian taxpayers the recognition they so richly deserve.” Here’s one of their “nominees”:
Good Night, and Good Luck (Finding the Paperwork) -- Nominated For: Achievement in Special Effects
In this tale, a $132,000 contract is awarded by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to Ottawa-based Totem Hill Inc on an “oral” basis. Paperwork? Negative. Value for money? No idea. Taxpayers getting hosed by an out-of-control federal department? Affirmative.
A leading actress for the department says the contract complies with all the rules. And on this point the movie takes a powerful turn when former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien enters to verify the contract’s legitimacy with one of his all time famous quips: “A proof is a proof. What kind of proof? It’s a proof. A proof is proof. And when you have a good proof, it’s because it is proven.”
It’s ironic they would name this nomination for a movie that chronicles the fight of one of the giants of journalism against McCarthyism. You don’t need to be Edward R. Murrow to know a little basic research before running the story is a good idea.
The movie's tagline is "You got it right." And the CTF got it so wrong. As I blogged here two months ago. Or perhaps they might have caught the reality check that ran during the campaign on the CBC National news. Former minister Andy Scott wrote Harper a letter about it, perhaps he should have cc’d the CTF.
To briefly recap: Paperwork? Positive. I don’t have the PDF document anymore and the link on the Liberal site is dead, but hundreds of pages are publicly available, Tasha, and have been for many, many months. Call up your friend, Jim Prentice. He’ll e-mail them to you. Value for money? Maybe you should try READING the reports before you decide. Taxpayers being lied to by a lobby group shilling for the Conservatives? You betcha.
Oh, and by the way Tasha, the Chretien “proof” quote wasn’t talking about contracts, but the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, before the invasion by your hero George W. Bush that your leader Mr. Harper would have had Canada join.
Thanks for coming out.
Raising Liberal membership fees? Well that's stupid
My on the ground political experience came as a riding association executive member in British Columbia, and being on the ground in a rural riding it offered an interesting perspective on the schism between the Vancouver/Victoria-dominated party apparatus and the rural ridings.
The urban/rural divide aside however (and I'm sure it's the same in Ontario with Toronto vs. the rest of the province, for example) a far greater disconnect existed (and no doubt still does) between the LPCBC party executive and the grassroots, as represented by the riding association presidents.
I bring the topic up because I see Sean Hollman at Public Eye Online has posted the details of the next BC Federal Liberal Council meeting, this Saturday at the Plaza 500 Hotel in Vancouver. The Federal Council includes the LPCBC executive and the BC riding association presidents. Being numerically superior, in theory the riding association presidents could wield a fair bit of power. If they ever chose to use it. Think of them as the House of Commons to the executive's minority government.
The executive will be looking to use Saturday's meeting to rubberstamp some changes to the membership rules. By way of brief background, the Martinite LPCBC was brought into disrepute during the leadership wars for both sharply restricting access to forms by non-believers and being very lax with the koolaiders. There were huge groups of people on the list at the same addresses that knew nothing about it; there was a dog in Victoria that got a Christmas card from Paul Martin. The media had a field day. Rules were tightened around creating a paper trail and restricting cash payments as a result.
On to the proposed changes. The first is to increase the number of forms any member can be issued at one time from five to ten. Why not 20 I say, but a step in the right direction. As long as it's followed of course. I heard stories of people having a hard time getting their five, depending on where their allegiances lay. It is also mentioned the LPC is working on allowing online membership signup. It's high time, the LPC has lagged far behind on using the Web for both membership and fundraising.
Here's the more controversial change though. They want to raise membership fees from $5 to $10/year for youth and from $10 to $20/year for adults. LPCBC prez Jamie Elmhirst says:
"This, we believe, is reflective of a desire in the party to place a higher value on a Liberal Party membership card."
Umm, here's an idea. Want to place a higher value on a Liberal Party membership card? Try having a fair, open and vibrant leadership race that proposes innovative, dynamic policies, and start paying some respect to the grassroots grunts that are the workhorses of the party between and during election campaigns. That would be a start.
With all that has gone on it hasn't exactly gotten easier to sign people up for the Liberal Party. Do we really want to double membership fees as well? Our brand is tainted; it's just plain stupid.
Give Jamie credit though, at least he does say what this is really about:
"It also is designed to at least partially recoup funds that will be lost due to a drop in our per vote money from Elections Canada so that the party office can continue to deliver a high level of service to ridings and party members."
I'm annoyed that the LPCBC gets all the revenue from membership fees in the first place. I don't know how it works in other provinces or with other parties, but in BC Liberal riding associations don't get a penny from membership sales, even though the vast majority of sales happen at the riding level. All that cash goes to the LPCBC.
Also, all of the per vote subsidy from Elections Canada also goes to the LPC and the LPCBC. The riding associations get none of that money. Hardly seems fair, does it?
The executive will counter, 'well, after campaign finance reform the central party can't fundraise, that's strictly the domain of the riding associations, and the corporations are now all yours.' Well sure, but how many corporate head offices are in 100 Mile House or Port Hardy? That's great for Vancouver and Victoria area ridings, but it does nothing for the rural associations.
It's time for the riding associations to stand up and say 'this isn't fair, we aren't going to accept this inequity anymore.' The way to start is by vetoing this stupid idea to double membership fees. If the LPCBC has a cash crunch let them present a budget and the federal council can help them identify places to cut.
If our party it's going to be reformed it's time to start doing things differently. There's power in numbers, and it's time for the grassroots to stand up to the party aristocracy and flex its muscle.
P.S. If you're going to be in the area Saturday (and want to pay the unspecified entry fee) the meeting is open to the (paying) public. Rumour is Stephane Dion will be making an apperance.