Liberal Party of Canada presidential candidate interview: Anna Gainey

From February 20-23, federal Liberals will gather in Montreal, and one of their tasks will be to elect a new national executive. Last week, I published interviews with some of the table officer candidates. This week, I finish with the candidates for party president.

Two contested elections will be held for national board positions at the Montreal biennial – national membership secretary, and party president. The two candidates seeking the office of president – Brian Rice from Vancouver and Anna Gainey from Montreal -- both offer impressive ideas and distinct visions of how they see the role, and what they’d like to do in the position.

I recently spoke with Anna Gainey about her campaign, the challenges facing the party and the role she sees the president playing in meeting those challenges. The following is an edited transcript of our conversation. My interview with Brian Rice ran yesterday.

How do you define the role of national president?

First and foremost, the role pf the party president is to represent the membership at senior levels of the party. For the next two years we’ll be focused on election readiness going into a campaign, so a lot of the interactions at the senior levels of the party will be with the national election readiness committee and the party to make sure we’re prepared.

Why would you like to be national president?

I’ve been involved with party for a long time. Most recently I was involved with Justin’s (Trudeau) leadership team. When I understood that Mike (Crawley) wasn’t going to be running again it gave me a moment to consider if that would be a good time to expand my commitment and involvement, and after some reflection over the summer I decided it would be. We had a lot of momentum and a great organization built around Justin’s leadership campaign and I had the opportunity to build on that momentum and bring those people into this organization and build towards winning in 2015.

What’s your first priority should you get the job?

My platform has some overarching themes, and four broader categories of where I see our priorities. I put forward some specific ideas under those. But they’re just that – suggestions. It will be up to a broad group to look at that, to do some feasibility studies and decide how we prioritize and move forward as a team. I don’t see the president as someone there to drive personal priorities. I want this to be a collaborative effort. I want to put forward some ideas on what I believe people see, but we will need to come together to see what resources we have. It needs to be a product of collaboration with the team.

How do you propose to put the ridings at more of the centre of the party?

I think one of the biggest challenges I hear from people, and I’ve experienced this myself as a riding president, is we could do a better job communicating and coordinating through all levels of the party. We could improve our cohesiveness. Sometimes there’s just a lack of clarity. When you become a riding president, where do you go to learn what that job means?

We need to clarify the lines of communication to make sure information is available to volunteers, and they know where to get it. If we can be better coordinated and improve our communications, that’s going to help our volunteers do better, and find a niche where they can contribute and get the training and resources to do that role, whether its canvassing of setting up an EDA (electoral district association).

It will be different from riding to riding, depending on the health of the riding, whether it’s urban or suburban. Every riding has its own needs, and it’s up to the party to listen to what those needs are and ensure the people on the ground prepared to do the work have access to the tools they need.

(My blogging colleague Scott Tribe recently wrote about the frequency of party fundraising emails and hadn’t received a reply from the Gainey campaign by his deadline, so I asked the following question.)

How can the party better coordinate fundraising efforts so members and supporters receive less pitch e-mails, and nomination candidates, riding associations and PTAs as well as the national level all have room to raise for their respective needs?

To me it goes back to preparation and election readiness, and the room for improvement communicating through different levels of the party. As a riding president, I’ve had the experience of planning an event only to have it bumped by something at another level of the party. I can also relate to the frustration of repeated asks.

I think there’s technology and analytics we can use so we can be targeted with our asks and be more surgical, and we’re not hitting the same people over and over again with the same message. That’s something we need to improve on.

When it comes to different levels of the party not making it difficult to raise the money needed for the campaign, that’s going to come through awareness of what’s going on on the ground and the national party trying to be sensitive to the efforts of volunteers working to support their local candidates. That’s an area where the national president can be helpful. I intend to be accessible to help through those situations as they arise.

It won’t be perfect all the time, but I think if we have people committed to solving problems through dialogue and communication it will go a long way to smoothing out potential hiccups.

 (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 for national membership secretary
• LPC national board candidate interview: Chris MacInnes for vice-president, English
• Exit Interview: Liberal Party of Canada national membership secretary Matthew Certosimo
• Exit interview: Liberal Party of Canada president Mike Crawley

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Liberal Party of Canada presidential candidate interview: Brian Rice

From February 20-23, federal Liberals will gather in Montreal, and one of their tasks will be to elect a new national executive. Last week, I published interviews with some of the table officer candidates. This week, I finish with the candidates for party president.

Two contested elections will be held for national board positions at the Montreal biennial – national membership secretary, and party president. The two candidates seeking the office of president – Brian Rice from Vancouver and Anna Gainey from Montreal, both offer impressive ideas and distinct visions of how they see the role, and what they’d like to do in the position.

I recently spoke with Brian Rice about his campaign, the challenges facing the party and the role he sees the president playing in meeting those challenges. The following is an edited transcript of our conversation. My interview with Anna Gainey will be published Tuesday.

What’s your background in the Liberal Party of Canada?

I joined the Liberal Party of Canada in January of 2009. That was the first time I managed to find someone who would accept my $10; I’d tried to join several times before that but back in the day it was a little harder. I realized that if I wanted to see a Liberal government, and if I believed in the values of a Liberal government I couldn’t sit on the sidelines anymore. All Liberals in the country need to get involved.

I called my (Pit Meadows-Maple Ridge-Mission) riding president, and he swore at me for five minutes that he was a Conservative and had been trying to get the party to replace him, and then he asked me if I wanted to be the president. My initial reaction was hell no, but I was turned around when I went to my first biennial in Vancouver in 2009. I met with people and learned more about what the party was about, and what riding presidents are supposed to do. Other than the past candidate, who wasn’t really that involved, I was really the only active member in the riding when I became president.

Over the course of three years I pretty much worked full time as a volunteer, and worked as hard as I could to start recruiting more active people, using social media to find like-minded Liberals in the community, build relationships with them and get to take positions om the executive. I’m extremely proud of what I did there; it was a dead riding and we turned it around and gave Liberals a voice.

Shortly after becoming a riding president, I was working in the New Westminister-Coquitlam by-electio  for Tim Beck Lee. I’d worked on a provincial election, but just doing data entry. I was full time and I learned a ton; it was a great first federal experience being able to shadow someone with the experience of (campaign manager) Greg Wilson.

During that campaign I went to my first BC Federal Council meeting (composed of federal riding presidents in BC). I was nominated as deputy chair – what no one told me was the chair would soon be leaving – so I ended up as chair two weeks later, which put me on the LPC(BC) executive about nine months after joining the party. I started working in turning the BC organization around. Then I ran for vice-president of LPC(BC) and got that, and when David Merner stepped down to run for the leadership, I was president.

Why would you like to be national president?

There’s a personal side, and a party side.

I’ve discovered that I really like this. I was on the national board (as LPC(BC) president), and at first I was quite nervous. I’d heard stories about the way politics was done on the national board. I got there with some trepidation, but I found I was actually pretty good at the politics at that level, and I’m good at working with my colleagues to find a course that addresses everyone’ concerns and brings people together around common ideas. I really enjoyed my time there. I’m running because I think I have something to contribute, I’m good at the job, and I enjoy what I’m doing.

Then there’s what I want to accomplish. My focus has always been on the riding associations. I don’t see a path to victory on a modern campaign that doesn’t require well-organized, well-trained volunteers on the ground, making contact with voters in personal ways. That mean we need to have local organizations managing the recruitment and training of volunteers, making sure they’re welcomed and valued. In my experience, and from the stories I’ve been told by riding presidents with longer, the party has never really been interested in riding associations, been in interested in what they should ne doing, and never provided them adequate training. We’ve been running the party from central for so long we’ve forgotten how to empower the volunteers on the ground to do the work they want to do.

I’ve been travelling a lot, and I haven’t found a riding without two or three volunteers that want to help make Justin (Trudeau) prime minister. They’re asking how they can help. They want to know what they can do. I hope to answer that question as president, and change the way the party and the board answer that question, so we can be much more of a service organization and give them the tools they need to be successful.

How’s your French coming along?

It’s coming along very slowly. I’ve learned that trying to learn French in the middle of a national campaign; they’re mutually exclusive activities. I wake up in the morning and have an hour to make calls or learn French; I’ve been choosing calls. My wife and I are doing an immersive program with our kids in the spring in French. We’re going to go to Quebec and take an immersion program for one month. My goal is to, by the end of the summer, understand enough to be able to hear and understand what I’m being asked, and hopefully soon respond too, and chair meetings without translation.

How do you define the role of national president?

Constitutionally it’s pretty clear what the president’s job is: to chair the national board. As a result of being chair, they’re ex-officio on every commission and every committee of the national party. I think implicit in that role, one of the main jobs is to listen to what’s going on in the party and sit at all those tables not from a micro-management perspective but to hear what all those organizations are doing, find ways for them to work better together, and look for areas where they’re duplicating their efforts.

Staff also report to the national board through then president, and the president is constitutionally responsible for the administration of the party. We delegate a significant amount of the organization to the national director, but it’s still the president’s job to make sure the national director and the staff that report to the national director are doing what the board has asked of them. The board sets out the broad direction and they work out the details. I’ve witnessed on my time on the board motions being passed to direct staff to do something, and the president not making it a priority for staff.

Those are the two constitutional jobs; the other role the president has is to meet with the caucus and leader, meet with key stakeholders, and go to caucus when they have concerns about the party.  

The second side of it is the fact I’m a full time volunteer and, while the president’s role is not full time, I have the ability to be full time. The national board and national director will have to device, when it comes to activities over and above the role of president, how I can be of service.

In BC, I walked into the office each day and had a conversation with the executive director with my president’s hat on, working through his problems and providing guidance. When that meeting was over I took off my president’s hat, put on my volunteer’s hat, and asked how I could help. I was able to fill a lot of gaps in BC by being a volunteer with a good understanding of what’s going on and being available.

I hope that’s the same experience I’ll have with the national director. I’ll be able to use my experience going across the country, meeting Liberals in their ridings and providing training, to help the party provide those services I’ve discussed. It will be up to the national director and the board; that’s not my decision.

What’s your first priority should you get the job?

A strategic plan. The party doesn’t have a strategic plan right now. I come from a project management background and I still can’t believe we don’t have a plan. We asked the ridings and the commissions to generate a plan in the last term and we still don’t have a plan. That, to me, is inexcusable.

It’s the plan that gives staff direction, but the plan also defined what the board thinks our success criteria are, and it’s how the members can hold us to account. If we don’t tell the members what what we’re going to do, how can the members hold us to account for doing it?

I’m big on accountability. The Council of Presidents is an organization with some challenge, but I’m hoping we can get it active again and they can hold us to account.

We need strategic planning. We’ve got two years, there will be an election in 2015 and we can’t just approach it willy-nilly. We need to actually create a plan.

(Other party office interviews)

• 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 for national membership secretary
• LPC national board candidate interview: Chris MacInnes for vice-president, English
• Exit Interview: Liberal Party of Canada national membership secretary Matthew Certosimo
• Exit interview: Liberal Party of Canada president Mike Crawley

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

My problems with Chong’s Reform Act and my own preferences for reform

Having finally gotten around to reading Michael Chong’smuch-ballyhooed Reform Act, which is being pushed by the media pundit class with a fervor that would make most partisans blush, I feel that, while well-intentioned, what the act proposes is flawed and suffers from a narrowness of view that has trouble looking south of the Queensway.

The act deals primarily with four things: the ability of the caucus to fire the leader, the nomination process (ending the ability of the leader to veto a candidacy by refusing to sign their nomination papers), the removal of MPs from caucus, and the election of the caucus chair. I support the last one, so I’ll instead focus on the first three.

Nomination of candidates

With regards to nominations, the act would create the position of “nomination officer” who would be elected by the riding association to oversee the nomination of a candidate. The riding association would set the time and date for the nomination contest, and the nomination officer would report the name of the party’s nominee to Elections Canada, thus eliminating the ability of the party leader to effectively veto a nominated candidate by refusing to endorse them to Elections Canada.

This sounds good from a distance, as for all parties the nomination process is a serious mess, open to abuse by party officials who can seek to influence the outcome by setting timelines that favour certain candidates or refusing to “greenlight” the candidacy of others. I’m not wholly opposed to removing the formal veto, although I don’t recall the last time it was used and, in the today rare instance of a single-issue takeover of a contest, it may be nice to have. Nevertheless, we can probably lose it.

However, the Chong solution is trading one set of problems for another. Unsurprisingly for a caucus-driven proposal, it would serve to entrench the position of incumbent MPs at the expense of a more open nomination. All parties have a range of riding associations across the country, from the non-existent and dormant, to the open and inclusive, to the ones ran as closed-shops, tightly controlled by an incumbent MP or a past MP or other prospective future nomination candidate.

By and large, his proposal would merely shift the tinkering and jury-rigging of the nomination process from the hands of the leader and his or her appointees to the MP or one prospective candidate that controls the riding association. That may be an improvement for the MP, who can better ensure their nomination is safe, not just from the party leader but from other challengers, but it’s not an improvement for an open and transparent nomination process nor for the party members and citizens of the riding at large.

Firing the leader

The part of Chong’s bill that has gotten the most attention is giving caucus the formal ability to fire the leader that was duly elected by the party’s members (and, in the case of the Liberals, its supporters). It would allow for 15 per cent of caucus members to trigger a vote of confidence in the leader by the caucus, with a majority vote firing the leader and triggering a leadership race, with the interim leader to be selected by the caucus.

I have serious problems with this proposal and, like its solution to nomination contests, its bias is that it ignores the party membership and focuses solely on the prerogative of the caucus. The leader is not elected by the caucus; the leader is elected by and derives its mandate from the party membership (and supporters). This includes the caucus members, but also party members across the country. Caucus members have an influential voice in any leadership contest, but they have one vote, just like any other member. Such a reform would make more sense in the context of the leader being directly elected by caucus itself, but that reform is not on the table and is a bad idea for a whole other column’s worth of reasons.

As proposed, this reform is an anti-democratic usurping of the rights and prerogatives of the party membership that is far more representative of the nation than any parliamentary caucus. If the proposal was to make it easier for the party membership (which, again, includes caucus members) to trigger a leadership review, I’d be open to debating that. But allowing tens of caucus members to override the wishes of tens of thousands of party members is a non-starter for me.

Also easy to overlook here is that this bill would give the right to select the interim leader to the caucus. Today, in the case of the Liberal Party, for example, while the advice of caucus is sought and is undoubtedly highly influential, it is the national board of the party – elected by and answerable to the party membership – that selects the interim leader. This was the case when Bob Rae took over for Michael Ignatieff. While it’s unlikely the caucus choice would not be accepted unless the circumstances were extraordinary, I don’t support this change.

Removal of MPs from caucus

Today, by convention, removing an MP from caucus is essentially the prerogative of the party leader. Chong’s bill would instead rest that power with the caucus. The only way an MP could be removed from caucus would be by a majority vote of the caucus, a process that can be triggered by the request of 15 per cent of the caucus.

I’m not as wholly opposed to this reform as I am to the two above, but I’m not sold yet either. In my view, removal from caucus should only happen in extreme circumstances, when a member has acted or voted contrary to a fundamentally-held principle of the party, on an issue the caucus itself has agreed by majority vote is a matter of confidence. Such occasions should be rare, but they do exist: it’s easier to get elected under a party banner, but it also means sharing a few certain core principles of what that party and its candidates and members stand for. These should be known going in and, if you can’t agree, maybe you’re running for the wrong party. I want MPs free to speak and vote as they wish on 99 per cent of issues but, if you’re going to represent a party, you do need to share its values, and not just view it as a convenient banner to get elected under.

So in essence I guess I’m likely fine with this one, although I do still feel a certain weariness for reasons I’m unable to articulate.

My own thoughts on reform

Allow me to offer a few possible alternative proposals for reform as a jumping-off point for discussion that may more effectively address some of the wider issues Chong’s Reform Act seeks to address.

On nomination reform, there are two ways we could go.

• Within the party system, it could be mandated that nominations for all ridings open on a pre-determined and publicly known date, with set deadlines flowing backward from that date for membership cutoff, approval as a nomination candidate, submission of nomination papers, and so on. In combination with the removal of the leader veto with the creation of the nomination officer as envisioned by Chong, and a transparent process for approval as a candidate, this would remove the ability of the party leadership (as today) or the MP or possible candidate that controls the riding association (as under Chong’s proposal) to manipulate the process for a favoured candidate. Everyone would have a level playing-field under which to contest the nomination.

•  If we want to think bigger, we could move to an Elections Canada-run primary system for nomination races, where every resident of the riding has the option to register as a supporter of a party and vote in only one nomination race, which could all happen at the same time on a pre-determined and known timeline similar to that outlined above, but ran by Elections Canada to ensure transparency and fairness. My concern with this scenario is the dilution of the privileges of party membership, similar to the concerns I expressed when the Liberals debated the issue in the leadership selection context in 2012.

Both scenarios address the core issue Chong sought to address – leaders keeping caucus members under the whip by threatening to veto their nominations – without having the side-effect, as his proposal does, of making it more difficult for members/citizens to exercise their democratic prerogative to nominate another candidate for the next election.

On the issue of caucus firing the leader, I’m less inclined to propose radical reform because I fundamentally oppose what Chong is proposing to do. As mentioned, the caucus doesn’t elect the leader, the membership (and supporters) do, and caucus should not have the right to overrule the democratically expressed will of the membership by fiat. We members would like to reserve that right for ourselves. If caucus members don’t like that, perhaps they should consider how they’re going to get re-elected without thousands of loyal volunteers to knock on doors, stuff envelopes and make donations. Chong’s bill shows a pretty fundamental disrespect for the party loyalists, volunteers and workers without whom they would not be in Parliament. The party is bigger than just the caucus.

While the ability to fire the leader must remain with the membership, I would be open to considering making it easier to trigger a leadership review vote. Currently, in the case of the Liberals, a leadership endorsement vote is held with every member having the option to vote as part of the process of selecting delegates to the first biennial after an election in which the party did not form government.

As far as I’d be willing to consider going towards what Chong proposes is to allow a majority vote of caucus to trigger a leadership endorsement vote by the membership of the party. If the leader is endorsed, the leader stays on. If the leader is not endorsed, a leadership race is triggered. And, of course, the leader could chose to quit having lost the support of caucus, triggering a leadership race. But the ultimate power should rest with the party membership, not with caucus. If you’re a caucus member that doesn’t like the leader the party membership wants, maybe you’re in the wrong party, or need to accept that in a democracy you don't always get your way.

It’s not all about Parliament Hill

I’ve gone on too long already, so I’ll leave the need to think beyond Ottawa when it comes to political reforms for a future post. Instead, I’ll just close by saying I do support reforms to empower individual MPs, to allow them to speak to constituency concerns and stray from the party line when it’s not on an issue of fundamental principle. When considering how to accomplish such goals though, we can’t merely look at Parliament Hill, at MPs and leaders, in isolation.

Party leaders and MPs are (unless they’re independents) members of a political party. Parties include a leader, they include (hopefully) caucus members, and they include members (and even supporters). They’re all united by common goals, and a common idea and vision, and by policies they come together to debate and discuss and then go forward and support. The party doesn’t exist just on Parliament Hill – it exists right across the country, and any reform worth considering will acknowledge this.

I want to devolve power in our political system. But I don’t see a devolution from the party leader to the caucus as a particularly desirable step forward – instead, I want it devolved to the party membership itself, whether it’s picking our nomination candidates and our leader, or developing our election platform. 

If MPs have a stronger mandate from their party membership and local residents they’ll be able to exercise more independence from the party leadership, while still recognizing there are issues that bind all party members together.

That’s the kind of reform I could get behind. In the mean time, while I understand the desire for change in many quarters, that doesn't mean we should blindly hop in the first piece of reform that comes along. And far from behind an imperfect step forward, this bill seems like an ill-advised step in the wrong direction.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Parliamentarians and the yoke of party discipline

A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of attending a screening of Whipped, a documentary on party discipline by former BC legislature reporter Sean Holman. You can now stream the doc on the CPAC web site, and it’s well worth a look.

While it’s focused on Victoria and BC politics, the issues Whipped raises are universal. It looks at what parties do to keep their MLAs towing the party line, what happens to those that break from the pack, how rare such mavericks are, and speaks to former politicians about their experiences with party discipline, and how it impacted their ability to represent their constituents and be satisfied and fulfilled in their jobs.

The arguments for and against party discipline basically boil down to this: for is you run and are elected on a party platform and so need to vote to implement it once elected and the place for argument is the privacy of the caucus room; against is parliamentarians are elected by and answerable to their constituents first and should be able to represent them to the legislature, not represent the legislature to their constituents. Holman avoids directly pronouncing party disciple just or unjust in the doc, although a certain picture does certainly emerge from the interviews.

I believe there needs to be a balance between discipline and freedom. After all, when you agree to run under a party banner, you’re agreeing to a set of principles and policy platform, and are elected on that basis. So it’s not unreasonable to expect that you work to implement that agenda you ran and were elected on. Not everything, though, should be one of those core principles.

While Holman didn’t offer policy prescriptions for reform, one of his fellow panelists, Your Canada Your Constitution’s Duff Conacher, called for systematic and regulatory reforms to reduce the power of party leaders and allow more freedom for parliamentarians. The British system of MPs firing the leader was mentioned.

While I agree with the sentiment, I strongly rejected the need for legislative action in this area. As I said in my comment/question, there’s no law today that says parliamentarians have to do whatever the party leader says, and aren’t free to vote their conscious whenever they choose. If parliamentarians are under the whip, it is because they have willingly submitted to it. And they can just as easily throw off the whip if they choose too – Holman’s doc talked to several who have.

Parliamentarians submit to party discipline willingly, if sometimes grudgingly, because of the carrots and sticks party leaders employ. Toe the line and you can get a critic spot, a nicer office, to go on a cool junket or join your favoured committee. Don’t toe the line and you can find yourself on the outside looking in. At the extreme, the leader might refuse to sign your nomination papers for the next election.

So yes, being a maverick can have a cost. But parliamentarians need to ask themselves, would the freedom be worth the cost? They’re only whipped if they want to be. This isn’t about legislative change to grant parliamentarians freedom – they have the freedom today, if they’re willing to risk the consequences of exercising it. And I suspect they’d find strength – and freedom – in numbers.

While I don’t think legislative reforms are necessary, I do support moves to allow more freedom for parliamentarians. For example, a system of open nominations would make it more difficult for party leaders to hold their nominations over their heads. Parties should restrict whipped votes to matters of confidence and core platform planks. And the media, punditry and politicians should no longer paint a parliamentarian deferring from the official party line as a maverick repudiation of the leadership. Disagreement and debate should be welcomed and celebrated as normal and not worthy of hyperventilation. A big part of the problem here is one of perception – any difference of policy opinion is labelled by press and pundits as disloyalty and weak leadership, so leaders clamp down to prevent any such displays and the resulting bad press. Parliament should be about debate.

I strongly oppose the idea of letting caucus pick the leader. Besides reducing members to nothing but unpaid envelope-stuffing labour, it will not elect a leader representative of the country as a whole. And it’s also unnecessary – yes, caucus can’t technically fire the leader, but if most of caucus withdrew its support the leader wouldn’t be able to lead for long.

I also think a larger issue is one of public perception, or misconception, about the role of the parliamentarian in our political process. Technically, we're electing an individual representative to speak for us and act on our behalf; there may be a party name on the ballot, but we're electing Joe Blow the individual. More and more though, people see the individual and secondary and irrelevant next to the party brand and vote based on the leader. This is because discipline has rendered the individual indistinguishable from their peers, further fueling the argument for discipline because the individual owes their position to the party and leader, not the people. It's a vicious cycle we need to break. It's why I oppose banning floor crossing -- whatever voters base their votes on, they are still electing an individual and not a party, and that individual doesn't cease to represent them if they change parties.

Several times during the debate, party leaders were called to “give” or “allow” more freedom for parliamentarians. It’s not something for leaders to give – parliamentarians have the freedom already. They just need to take it.

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

Kyle Harrietha's speech to Liberals about membership

As I speak Kyle Harrietha, who I'm proud to support for Liberal membership secretary this weekend, is speaking to the nearly 3000 delegates at the Liberal biennial convention about his vision for membership and for the Liberal Party. Here's his speech, which so far I have to say he's knocking out of the park...

• Delegates…members…amis Liberaux

• Bienveue à Ottawa and thank you for your dedication to our Liberal Party.

• My name is Kyle Harrietha and I am asking for your support in my campaign for National Membership Secretary.

• Over the past 15 years I have had the honour of working on Liberal campaigns from Nova Scotia, to Ontario, to Saskatchewan and now in Alberta.

• And what I have learned is that leadership does not begin with a select few – Leadership must be embodied by all of us.

• I would like to talk about the ways in which we can empower every Liberal to spearhead the ideals that will transform our Party and our country.

• Leadership is about individual responsibility, mutual trust and  accountability.

• Yet, until now, we have allowed for the development of two parallel parties.

• A party for insiders and another for the rest.

• That…must end.

• We must commit ourselves to becoming a Party that promotes the empowerment of the many and puts an end to control by the few.

• We should not mimic the Conservatives who are governed by one decision maker at the top. We can’t wait for a messiah; it’s up to each of us.

• Real change requires policies that inspire every member to build local organizations in their communities.

• Nous avons des choix à faire. We have choices to make.

• The choice between confidence and doubt.

• The choice between optimism and frustration.

• And the choice between success and stagnation.

• We must create a fair, open and honest Party that generates change from the bottom up – and captures the hopes and aspirations of every community in our great country.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Kyle Harrietha’s eight-page plan for Liberal membership

Before Christmas, when I wrote about why I was supporting Kyle Harrietha for Liberal membership secretary I spoke about his dedication to the Liberal cause, working for the party on the ground in Atlantic Canada and in Toronto, helping to rebuild a Liberal riding association in Northern Alberta, and working as a staffer on Parliament Hill. I also mentioned he was preparing a rather detailed policy agenda that spoke to not just his priorities as membership secretary, but to his ideas for building a more member-drive Liberal Party. I’m pleased to say that platform has now been released, and I encourage you to take the time to give it a read:

'Open Platform for Liberals' by Kyle Harrietha

Since he first sent me a copy I’ve been teasing Kyle about the length, but the fact is it’s a very detailed and comprehensive document that shows how much he has thought about the issues facing our party, and how seriously he takes the challenges ahead. Presidential candidate Mike Crawley also has a pretty detailed platform but otherwise, I think Kyle's is the most meaty on offer from any of the candidates by a healthy margin.

The platform is divided into four sections. The first focuses on “values & principles” and makes a very simple point: if we’re to be successful as a party we need to lead with our values and our principles and our members need to be able to articulate and carry those values forward. That’s why Kyle would work with members to create a plain-language “Red Book” for Liberals, a ,member’s handbook if you will, outlining our values and principles, our history, our structure, and other information to help members engage in a conversation with Canadians and grow the party.

The second section is focused on “dialogue & relationship building” and recognizes the importance of providing our members the training, tools and skills they need to succeed in whatever they wish to in the party, whether its policy development, communications, or campaign organization. Too often, I can tell you, we’re just tossed into a campaign to sink or swim and any training is ad hoc. Kyle’s proposals include creating a comprehensive curriculum for all aspects of riding and campaign management and an online forum for sharing best practices. I had no formal training before I became a campaign manager in the last election; Kyle’s proposals are very necessary.

The third section is called “transparency & integrity” and addresses an issue dear to my heart: reforming the nomination process. There will be some tinkering around the edges in Ottawa with a constitutional amendment proposed to limit leader appointments to 25 (including any incumbents he or she wishes to protect) but we need to do much more. While he doesn’t commit to supporting an outright ban (I’ll keep pushing him on that) he does suggest a number of other very needed reforms publishing all cutoff deadlines at least three months in advance, having clear and consistent guidelines for nomination candidates, make the “greenlight” process ongoing and timely and approving candidates to seek a nomination in any riding, not just a specific one. While there’s been much debate around candidate appointments, and rightly so, the secretive “greenlight” candidate approval process has been abused for years by the Liberal establishment to stack the deck for their preferred candidates. Kyle is absolutely right to recognize this process needs both serious reform and the disinfectant that is sunshine.

Finally, the fourth section is dedicated to “organization & leadership.” Recognizing the advent of the permanent campaign (well, it’s been here for a little while now but we’re catching-up) Kyle has a number of proposals to modernize our voter identification and mobilization systems, such as micro-targeting data for predictive vote modeling, continuous voter and brand research and creating an open, data-driven culture. I also like his ideas for a 36-36-36 approach to campaign organization, with planned action increasing in intensity in the 36 months, days and weeks leading up to election day. This includes a strategic communications plan utilizing our caucus members into all ridings, regular events across the country, and working with every level of the party, EDA, PTA and national, to define their responsibilities and help them deliver against them.

I think this is a great platform that shows a depth of understanding of the challenges facing our party developed from years of working for the Liberal cause in the trenches, and puts forward concrete deliverables that can begin to move us in the right direction. And it all comes down to membership: recognizing that as members we have not just rights, but responsibilities. This platform will help arm members with some of the tools we need to fulfill that responsibility, and that’s one of the reasons Kyle has my support for membership secretary.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Endorsing a roadmap from an old Liberal executive before electing a new one

Over the last few days I’ve dissected the 36 proposed amendments to the Liberal constitution that delegates will consider a the biennial in Ottawa, and I’ve taken a look at 10 of the more semi-interesting policy resolutions on the agenda.

We’ll also be asked to endorse the “roadmap to renewal” document prepared by the national board, which contains a number of resolutions asking the delegates to endorse decisions taken by the board or urge take certain directions in assorted reform-related issues. It’s important to note that, by my read, the actions in these resolutions are largely things the board has the direction to do on its own (with the exception of the constitutional amendments dealt with separately), with or without the endorsement of the membership. And as these aren’t constitutional amendments, only a simple majority is needed for passage.

So, in a sense these resolutions are largely symbolic. There are two ways of looking at this exercise. The more charitable one is that the board is presenting a vision for party reform, gathered after its own consultative process, and is seeking an endorsement/mandate from the delegates for this planned vision of party reform. The less charitable way would be to say any consultation has been minimal and rushed with more media leaks than member engagement, pushed down on the membership by a lame duck board that won’t be in a position to implement any of this and is seeking to bind the incoming board (to be elected in Ottawa) to a vision when they’re probably campaigning on their own ideas.

Personally, I feel it’s a little of column a and a little of column b. I believe the current board does genuinely want to put its vision forward, and I think we should discuss it. But I think it feels rushed and top down, and asking us to vote on it is unnecessary. Let’s discuss the range of options and move forward with a new executive and a new, more consultative process with ideas following up as well as down. (The LPCO resolution for a renewal commission is suddenly more attractive to me) The way this is presented seemingly seeks to put an end to a process that is really just beginning. So I’m not comfortable with this process.

That said, the Roadmap PDF is here (the resolutions are sprinkled throughout). They’ll be discussed in a Q&A session “sense of the convention” on Friday afternoon which competes with several other break-outs, and then voted Saturday at noon in the main hall. Comments on process aside, here are my thoughts on the specifics of what’s on offer. I’m ignoring those that discuss constitutional amendments because I’ve addressed those separately, as constitutional amendments.

2. That the Convention endorse the decision to build and maintain the “Strong Start” campaign, a special cash reserve for the purpose of promoting and defending its next permanent Leader;

I’d like to know more first about what I’m being asked to endorse here. Just what does this “Strong Start” campaign involve, how much cash are we talking, and how are you going to raise it? I agree allowing the Conservatives to bombard us with negative ads is one of the reasons we’ve had such a hard time the past two elections; we started with a handicap. That said, we’re not going to be able to match Conservative spending in a pre-writ ad war. If you can convince me you have a tactical strategic plan to counter the inevitable attacks, I’m inclined to be supportive.  If the price is right, of course.

I’m currently undecided but supportive in spirit.

3. That the Convention endorse a special, nationally co-ordinated, all-electoral district fundraising campaign in the spring of 2012 with the sole target of raising funds to enable the Party to make the investments required to fast-track the deployment, population and utilization of its universal database technology (i.e. Liberalist) in support of national and local organization, communication and fundraising efforts;

This sounds great on the surface. Database technology is critical to modern campaigning, and we need to get better in this area. And that costs money. But here’s the thing. This is two resolutions in a row now that propose major fundraising operations, with all of the money being sucked up to the national level. My concern is that Ottawa is going to tap-out the donor base and leave the riding associations dry. And ridings need to do their own fundraising to fund trivial little things like signs, literature, advertising and other local campaign expenses. And central already sucks up money through keeping much of the campaign expense refunds and requiring a fee for a riding services package of usually limited local value. The preamble had language about the importance of EDAs, and while they will benefit from the technology (which we already paid for in the last election’s riding services package, and probably will in the next one too), so far all I see is a lot of money going to Ottawa. That has me concerned.

I’m currently undecided.

4. That the Convention endorse the decision of the Party to establish, properly support and enforce targets with respect to Victory Fund and Laurier Club participation in all electoral districts, with such targets to be set in consultation with the EDAs based upon a national goal of doubling participation in both programs in each of the ensuing 3 years by July 1 of each year;

OK, now I`ve graduated from concerned to annoyed, and maybe even peeved. After two major spending initiatives at the national level , we get Ottawa demanding the ridings pay for Ottawa’s spending spree by requiring they go out and raise money and send most of it to Ottawa (Laurier cash is 100% Ottawa, and Victory Fund 50% to Ottawa). Instead of perhaps working *with* EDAs to help them fundraise for both local and national needs, Ottawa wants to unilaterally hand-down orders to the ridings on how much cash they’re required to send to Ottawa. Oh, and punish them if they don’t meet their quotas. Yeah, I’m sorry but no. This is indicative of the top-down attitude this party needs to lose. Work with ridings and support their local efforts, don’t treat them as cash cows to be milked. And I don’t like the idea of board members in Ottawa who have never been to Northern Vancouver Island telling our executive how many Laurier Club members they need to find at $1000/pop if they want to avoid execution. It’s ridiculous.

I’m voting no.

6. That the Convention mandate each EDA to undertake a comprehensive and nationally-supported voter registration drive in its electoral district between April 1, 2012 and March 31, 2013 to recruit new Members and Supporters;

This is fine in spirit, but again the language speaks volumes about the attitude that resonates throughout the resolutions in this document: mandating EDAs to do things. At least they toss in a line about national support; I want to know more about what that will actually entail.

I’m currently undecided.

9. That the Convention affirm the principle of requiring all LPC candidates for the House of Commons in any election or by-election to face an open nomination contest in their electoral districts in order to stand for election as an LPC Candidate in any election or by-election, subject to the Board’s right to approve specified exceptions to the rule at the request of and on the recommendation of the Leader.

This resolution is such a meaningless farce that it’s a shame it will be printed on even recycled paper. Never mind restricting or ending appointments – this is the opposite. Basically it says open nominations are great, unless the leader and the board want to appoint some hack or so-called star, so please delegates, confirm the status quo. It’s a pathetic attempt to appear to support open nominations to someone that doesn’t pay too close attention. If the board really did support open nominations, they’d have put a constitutional amendment on the table. But they didn’t. There’s only amendment that comes close to restricting appointments (and not neat far enough for my liking) and it came from the Ontario wing (see #21), not the national board. This is a farcical status quo resolution with no place in a supposed renewal document.

I’m voting no.

10. That the Convention affirm the Party’s decision to maintain a permanent virtual and real-time policy development process accessible to all Members and Supporters of the Party through its website, with management of the process and content delegated to volunteer expert policy working groups to be organized, maintained and supported by Caucus critics, assisted by Caucus staff;

Is this happening? Is this the web site with the stale policy resolutions and comment boards? That’s fine I suppose, but while the online stuff is nice what we really need is more in person policy workshops and debates. As I’ve said before, we need a complete overhaul of the policy process to make it inclusive and actually relevant to the platform we run on. This resolution just says “here’s a web site you kids can go play in.”

I’ll vote yes because it’s harmless, if woefully inadequate.

11. That the Convention endorses a streamlining of Party decision-making and operations as follows…(truncated because it’s really long, check the PDF for the text).

This is a long one with eight different items all under the general headline of streamlining decision-making, which in effect means setting out which level of the party (primarily, the national level and the provincial wings) does what. For example, uploading banking and compliance functions to head office. If that’s proven more cost-effective then it makes sense and I’m onboard. It envisions the PTA focus shifting more to helping the riding associations build their membership and resources, a focus which has been lacking until now in this  document. It envisions setting provincial targets for Laurier Club and Victory Fund members although, unlike with the EDAs, there’s actually talk of cooperation on setting the numbers. It talks about hiring field workers to help EDAs, who would report to both the PTA and Ottawa. As long as they work with (and not dictate to) *all* ridings, not just a target list drawn up in Ottawa, I like it.

I’ll vote yes, somewhat on faith.

12. That the Convention endorse the Party’s decision to appoint a Director of Digital Operations accountable to the Board to oversee the development, maintenance and utilization of the Party’s unified communications platform.

It’s curious that this person is reporting specifically to the board, and not the national director. This reads like a mash-up of buzz-words; I want to know more about just what they plan for this position and what systems are involved before deciding if this is flash or substance.

I’m undecided.

13. That the Convention endorse the Party’s decision to consolidate and integrate:

(i) all Party organizational and fundraising data into a single database; and

(ii) all technology operations at the National Office of the Party where feasible

14. That the Convention endorse the Party’s decision to fast-track the deployment, population and utilization of its universal database technology in support of LPC’s national and local organization, communication and fundraising efforts based on an implementation and investment plan to be approved by the Board.

Does the biennial convention really need to take the time to weigh-in on your database choices and the roll-out schedule from development to production? Just go and do it, fellas.

I’m voting yes but wondering why I’m voting on this at all.

17. That the Convention endorses the Party’s request that the new permanent Leader of the Party be requested to reconstitute NERC no later than September 1, 2013.

It took me a few seconds to translate NERC as National Election Readiness committee, at which point I was pissed-off NERC wasn’t some kind of secret red election-winning robot. Anyway, sure, get that sucker up and running and lets start recruiting, screening and nominating candidates.

I’m voting yes on this one.

18. That the Convention endorse the Party’s request that nominations for LPC electoral district candidates be opened (i.e. the freeze be lifted) no earlier than October 15, 2013.

What I said a second ago.

I’m voting yes.

19, That the Convention endorses the Party’s request that the next Biennial Convention of the Party be focuses on the policy and platform of LPC and be held no later than May 30, 2014.

I trust the typo will be fixed at some point. Anyway, we pick a leader in 2013 so I’m not sure what else the biennial would be focused on besides what conventions are always focused on: policy, constitutional amendments and executive elections (pending several  constitutional amendments under consideration) and sipping root beer in hospitality suites. If calling out policy is meant to mean prioritizing it over election readiness, then I have a problem with that. We need to do both. Yes, policy has been overlooked for too long. I want a strong focus on policy too. But we’ll also be one year from a campaign. We can, and must, do both. But I’m probably just quibbling with language. I’m fine on the timing, but I’d love to see a straw poll on host city. My top three: Halifax, Quebec City or, if we’ve finally annexed them, Turks and Caicos.

I’m voting yes.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

36 proposed Liberal constitutional amendments dissected and explained

Happy New Year to all; I hope you enjoyed the holidays. Especially Christmas.  I won’t say I’m resolving to blog more this year but I will try, and I’m sure I definitely will be in the next few weeks as we head into the 2012 Liberal Biennial convention in Ottawa, beginning January 12^th.

I’m on vacation for another week, and so I’m spending some time preparing for the convention. Yesterday it was poring over 27 pages of proposed constitutional amendments, and cross-referencing with the current constitution to try to figure out what it all means. Below is my analysis of each proposed amendment and my current thinking on each; I welcome your thoughts in the comments. A future post will tackle the policy proposals.

For your reference, here's a PDF of the full list of proposed amendments and here's a PDF of the current constitution. To be adopted, each amendment must be approved by 2/3s of delegates voting at the biennial.

Amendments proposed by the the national board of directors

 1.  Elimination of the National Revenue Committee and Appointment of Chief Revenue

Officer

I feel the professionalizing of our fundraising is long overdue. This would see one person hired with

direct responsibility and accountability for fundraising planning and implementation, and would seem to constitute needed reform in this area.

I’m voting yes.

2. Registration of supporters of the Liberal Party of Canada

This is to allow the creation of the primary system, which I oppose for leadership selection. That’s voted on separately though. I do support experimenting with primaries for riding nominations, so I’m willing to support creation the supporter category. I do have a few concerns, though.

You can join the Liberal Party at age 14, but you need to be 18 to register as a supporter. The supporter rules seem to mirror those for voting in a general election. But if this is about nurturing and building support, why exclude youth? Why not try to involve them early, and try to convert them into members and/or general election voters when of age? I’d support an amendment to lower the age.

Other concerns: there’s no time-period on being a supporter, it lasts until you opt out, your snail mail bounces back, or you’re kicked out. Also, they seem to anticipate making PTAs process all the supporter applications, which will cost money. The only mention of a fee is in the section on supporters voting in the leadership selection, but no fee seems anticipated to simply become a supporter. What will it cost to process these applications? And it LPC downloads it to PTAs, will they download resources to pay for it too?

I’m voting yes, with reservations, and hoping for amendments.

3. Participation of supporters in leadership vote

This is the one that has gotten all the attention, and my previously noted objections to the primary system for the leadership still stand. Instead of re-hashing them, I’ll direct you to this article where Iexplain my objections at length.I think weighted one-member one-vote is a better system, we adopted it at the last convention and we should at least try it once.

It should be noted the final proposal eliminates the idea of making the Council of Presidents function as an electoral college, which is a positive change. It’s a preferential ballot, weighted by riding, 100 points, with lowest candidates dropped off overall until we get to 50+1. Same as current weighted one member, one vote system so that’s good.

The imposition of a fee for voting is up to the national board. But here’s the thing.  According to these amendments, members have all the rights of supporters. In many new sections, supporters is used to mean both members and supporters. Could this mean members could have to pay a fee to vote for leader? I would be massively opposed to that. While I’m voting no anyway, that should be clarified.

I’m voting no to this amendment.

4.  Participation of supporters in candidate selection meetings of their EDAs

This proposal allows “supporters” as created by the earlier amendment to vote in their riding’s candidate nomination contest. As mentioned, I’m opposed to this system for the leadership but I’m willing to give it a try for riding nominations, and I think it could be more effective generating excitement and attracting candidates at the local level.

I do have some concerns with this proposal as written, though. The biggest is that, while the leadership vote requires supporters to be signed-up 41 days before the vote, for riding nominations no timeline is specified. Instead, it leaves the timeline up to the national election readiness committee. I dislike leaving discretion in these things, particularly when nomination rules have been so abused in the past. I’d like to see wider reforms to the nomination process. We have fixed election dates; I want fixed dates where all nominations are opened and meetings held, with all the related deadlines fixed too. But that's a reform for another day.

I’m voting yes, but I’d like to see this section cleaned-up and approved.

5.  Annual strategic plan and annual report tabled by national board of directors

Requires the board of directors to table an annual strategic plan and an annual report on progress against the strategic plan, to be reviewed by the Council of Presidents and released to all members, and posted online. Makes sense, seems basic, and odd it wasn’t required already.

I’m voting yes.

6. Untitled, relates to candidate nominations

Requires a nomination candidate to have been nominated by 100 members of the riding association or at least 15 per cent of the riding members (supporters excluded, apparently), whichever is less.  I’m fine with that, requiring candidates to get support from existing riding members is important. I’m curious though how this would interact with leader’s power of appointment. I’d imagine an appointment would probably supersede this rule, although requiring some riding support before allowing an appointment would be nice.

I’m voting yes.

7 and 8. Removing the leader’s veto over the content of the policy platform

These sections amend several sections that give the leader an effective veto over the content of the party’s election platform. It’s important to note there are two separate policy processes: the policy passed by the biennial convention from the PTAs and commissions, and that developed by the policy and platform committee. These amendments deal with the latter; the former is still too unlinked from the actual platform creation for my liking and I want the next national policy chair to lead further reforms in this area.

Under these reforms, the leader can still propose policy for the platform but can’t veto other proposals from the committee outright; policy will be decided by the policy and platform committee. The leader still appoints many of its members though, and it seems rather large and unwieldy. This committee also existed before, yet the leader still seemed to always circumvent it by appointing a few MPs to go off and write the platform on his orders. 

So I’m sceptical how effective these reforms will be, and they’re but a drop in the bucket of the reforms we need to make to the policy process. But this is a small step in the right direction.

I’m voting yes.

9. Election of executive officers using a weighted “one-member, one-vote” system

This is one proposal that wasn’t included in the original roadmap to renewal proposals, and I was glad to see it in the final list of amendments. It would institute a weighted by riding OMOV system to elect the national executive, instead of delegates doing it at convention. This is an important step in the democratization of our party, just as implementing WOMOV for leadership was. My only quibble is that it’s not a preferential ballot; that would be a nice addition.

I’m voting yes.

10. Prioritization of policy resolutions using a weighted “one-member, one-vote” system

Moves the policy development process from the delegated biennial convention to a weighted by riding one-member, one-vote system. I’m supportive in principle, but I have concerns because this will, by necessity, largely mean moving from an in-person process to a more impersonal electronic one.  The benefit of the biennials is that it allows in-person debate and interaction, which has benefits you just can't replicate online.

Before I decide to support this, I want to know how the policy process will be reformed to encourage/require in-person debates on policy across the country, perhaps regionally. This can’t be done online alone. If I’m not satisfied this can/will happen, I’m inclined to vote no.

I’m undecided.

11. Untitled, relates to EDA accountability

Allows the national board of directors to put a riding association into trusteeship if it fails to meet its constitutional obligations. Rogue, closed, unresponsive and dormant EDAs are an issue. I’m a little leery of this proposal, though. However, with PTA approval required as a check on the national board, I’ll support it.

I’m voting yes.

12. Electing a leader using a system of staggered regional voting days

A key part of the primary system for leadership voting, instead of one day/weekend of voting across Canada it seeks to create drama and media attention by having the votes over a period as long as two months, with groups of regions voting in as many as six blocks. So, for example, Ontario may vote five weeks after British Columbia does.  The preamble makes clear this has nothing to do with democracy, and is all about preening for media attention. Like PDO, I find this proposal highly undemocratic.

I have several concerns. First, not everyone will get to vote for the candidate of their choice. If a candidate shows poorly in the first group of provinces, they’ll be pressured to drop out. Fundraising will become challenging. Look at the U.S. primary system we’re trying to copy. I want to be able to vote for the candidate of my choice; I don’t want New Hampshire to narrow the field for me.

Second, the order in which the provinces will vote isn’t set by this amendment; presumably this would be determined by the national board of directors, or a body appointed by them. This creates a huge opportunity for conflict, as leadership candidates lobby the board, or try to get slates elected to the board, to set an order that favours them by putting their strong regions first to show momentum, pressuring opponents to drop out. We have enough drama of this sort as it is, without creating the opportunity for more.

We also shouldn’t be trying to create a system for the purpose of giving the media something to report about; it should be about the best way to get the best leader possible. And this isn’t it.

I’m voting no.

The following amendments are from the party’s Ontario wing. Several deal with reforming the Council of Presidents, which primarily consists of the riding association presidents, and that many feel is a meaningless, powerless body.

13. Officers of the Council of Presidents

Several reforms to CoP here, particularly changing the CoP president to be elected by CoP members and be either a riding or commission president, instead of automatically being the party president as today. The deputy president will be similarly elected. I agree, it should be an EDA-led body.

I'm voting yes.

14. Chair of the Council of Presidents as a member of the National Board of Directors

This makes the CoP president a non-voting member (can attend and speak) of the national board of directors. If it was voting I’d definitely vote no. The board is big and unwieldy as it is. My concern is with making the board bigger, and the cost that generates for the party. I’d rather go smaller, not bigger.

I’m undecided but leaning no.

15. Meetings of the Council of Presidents

This section seems to remove some of the flexibility  for holding CoP meetings virtually, with an eye to more in-person meetings. My concern here is how much will this cost us, and if it’s worth the expense. The proposal calls for partial subsidies for some attendees, but seemingly not all. If this body is to have meaning, cost can’t be a barrier to all eligible members taking part. But your talking 308 riding presidents and additional members, and  I’m not convinced we can afford to do this in person, outside of maybe a biennial, and that it would be worth the cost. What’s wrong with improved virtual or teleconference meetings?

I’m leaning no.

16. Untitled, more CoP reforms

Seems housekeeping to me.

I’ll vote yes.

17. Candidate selection meeting to be held at the request of an EDA

Requires a candidate nomination meeting to be called within 120 days of the request by a riding association. I’ll support giving more power to the ridings, but my preference is still to see set identical dates for all ridings across Canada.

I’m voting yes.

18. Withdrawal of nomination contestant or nominated candidate following criminal charges

Seems obvious to me.

I’m voting yes.

19. Election of a National Campaign Co-Chair

Instead of both co-chair being appointed by the leader, one would be elected by the membership the same way we elect the national executive, with the leader appointing the second. Since the members go first, that means the leader must satisfy the English/French, Man/Woman rules by appointing the opposite of the membership. If (9) passes, WOMOV will elect the first co-chair. I like this amendment, as it takes some power back from the leader for the members, as this is a position that sets many of the rules that govern nominations. Letting members pick one is a good balance.

I’m voting yes.

20. Representation of PTAs on the National Election Readiness Committee

Adds representatives from each PTA to the committee, which sounds good to me.

I’m voting yes.

21. Appointment of candidates of the Party for election to the House of Commons

Seeks to limit the leader’s power to appoint candidates to 20 per election maximum, and no more than 25% or five in any one province whichever is lower. I support the spirit here; my worry is if this would encourage appointments up top that level. I’m not sure appointment have been that high in past (presumably it would be if you include protecting incumbents). Why not propose lower caps? Personally, I’d rather remove the leader’s power of appointment all together, and just leave the leader the ability to veto any crazies (who should be screened out by the greenlight committee anyway).

I’m undecided but leaning yes.

22. Rules of Order for the conduct of a biennial convention

This would allow a biennial convention to amend the proposed rules of order that will govern its proceedings, such as how sub-amendments can be proposed and voted on. Currently, these rules are set by the national management committee and cannot be amended by the convention delegates. Before the Vancouver convention, the committee tried to implement unacceptable rules in order to influence the voting on constitutional amendments. Only an outcry from the membership forced them to back down. This amendment would mean members wouldn’t have to rely on the committee’s willingness to bend to public outrage.

I’m voting yes.

23. Policy prioritization process at a biennial convention

This seeks to force policy workshops and policy debate to happen in person, at the biennial convention with online engagements as a supplement, not a replacement. The last two biennials (including Ottawa) have dumped the former in-person prioritizaiton workshops and much of the real debate happened there, not on the plenary floor. This amendment seeks to bring that back. This would seem to be in conflict with (10) and I’m curious how they’d be reconciled if both passed. I’d like to see the best of both, more in-person debate, including at biennial, with provision for all members to vote in a weighted system.

I’m leaning yes.

24. Amendment to the Preamble of the Constitution

Essentially adds a line about making electing MPs part of our reason d’etre to the constitution’s preamble. No real impact but sure, why not.

I’m voting yes.

The following amendments are proposed by the party’s British Columbia wing.

25. Liberal members’ initiative

This seems to allow a member at large to propose constitutional reform or policy to members directly and get it on the biennial agenda, if they can gather a threshold of support form the membership. Today, it has to filter up through a commission or a PTA. It’s an option to cut the red tape and allow direct engagement, which I think is a great idea.

I’m voting yes.

26. Inclusion of priority policy resolutions in Party Platform

This requires that at least three priority policy resolution (coming from the PTA/commission to biennial policy process) be included in the next election platform. I’d like the number to be higher, but it seems to be the first proposal to link the biennial process to the platform process, which I feel must happen to make the member-driven policy process meaningful. So it’s an important step.

I’m voting yes.

27. Election of Executive Officers using an unweighted “one member, one vote” system

This would be seen as competing with (9) but with two key differences: it’s preferential, which I support. But it’s unweighted, which is a huge deal-breaker for me. I’m astounded BC would propose a system, that, essentially, would see member-rich Toronto pick the national executive. I think this is a horrible idea.

I’m voting no.

These proposals are form the National Women’s Liberal Commission

28. Removal of membership fees specific to the National Women’s Liberal Commission

This would remove any possibility for the NWLC requiring an additional membership fee to be in the NWLC. I don’t know if they’re currently charging a fee. If they are, as long as they don’t expect funds form general revenue to make up for the loss of this fee, I’m fine with it.

I’m voting yes.

29. Fundraising plan for the Judy LaMarsh Fund

Seems like housekeeping.

I’m voting yes.

Now some from the Seniors Liberal Commission

30. Untitled, member rights

Adds boilerplate about membership and EDAs to rights of members section. Seems purely symbolic, and without real effect and, while I’m not keen on fattening the constitution with pabulum, I’m not too worked-up about it.

I’ll vote yes.

31. Untitled, caucus rights

It basicallty seeks to encourage caucus members to remember they’re party members too. But again, it’s largely empty symbolism.

I’ll vote yes.

32. Authority to amend the Constitution of the Liberal Party of Canada

Essentially, this section requires constitutional amendments to be voted or ratified by all members electronically, instead of by delegates at a biennial convention. Two amendment avenues are proposed: a special electronic vote, or a traditional biennial with ratification of the result by a member electronic vote required. I’d support extending the weighted one member, one vote system envisioned in earlier amendments to constitutional amendments, but this proposal from the Seniors is for an unweighted system. I cannot support a system that doesn’t have riding weighting; I’d rather keep the biennial system as delegates are at least weighted by riding. I’d support an amendment to weight it by riding.

As written, I’ll vote no.

33. Policy approval and prioritization process

This requires the policy and platform committee to write guidelines to help EDAs with policy, which I’m fine with. But I don’t like attempt to standardize the PTAs’ policy processes; they should be free to set their own processes. It would also seem to contradict some of the sections in (7)/(8) removing the leader’s policy veto.

I’ll vote no.

Finally, it’s the turn of the Young Liberals of Canada.

34. Free of charge membership to the Liberal Party of Canada

The title says it all. Just processing a membership has a cost. I feel it at least needs to make it cost-recovery. $10 is hardly a barrier to membership. I’ve heard this proposal may be a backup in case the primary leadership proposal fails, but it’s unclear it would be withdrawn by YLC if it passes. I’m also leery of the section that seems to indicate campus clubs would be looking to the party for some sort of help or subsidy to make up for their lost membership revenue. In some provinces, riding associations also get a piece of membership fees and would lose that under this proposal. At a time when we’re cash-strapped as a party this proposal makes no sense to me.

I’m voting no.

35. Period of membership required to vote in Leadership Vote

Currently, you need to be a member of the party 41 days before a leadership vote to be eligible to vote in the leadership contest. In another amendment that seems to seek to replicate a primary system if it’s rejected by members, this amendment seeks to lower that time period to 14 days. The same dates would apply under the primary system, presumably backdated from the staggered regional votes (if approved). I oppose this under either scenario.  For one, I don’t want the leadership period to be totally dominated by a focus on membership sign-ups. I want those 41 days (at least) to be focused on winning over new and existing members instead. This proposal would see campaigns focused on sign-ups to the exclusion of nearly all else until nearly the very end. And logistically, it would be helpful to have the time to plan the logistics of the vote knowing how many eligible voters you have; two weeks isn’t that long. And finally, as a general principle I want to encourage long-term membership over last minute drop-in voters. This proposal goes the other way.

I’m voting no.

36. Regional Voting Days

Just when I was growing dispirited with my YLC friends, they redeemed themselves with this proposal. This proposal would amend the proposed system of staggered regional  leadership votes to pre-set the order the provinces vote in, instead of leaving it up to the board which, as I explained, is fraught with issues. This proposal addresses that concern, and also requires the full results of each regional voting be posted within 48 hours, instead of only the first place support. I’m still voting no on the original regional voting proposal, but if it passes I’ll support this change to make it more fair.

I’m voting yes.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers