Sponsored by:
1 The Guelph EDA, GPC
2 Frank De Jong, Bill Hulet, Ian Whyte, Doug Woodard
As the GPC enters a new era as one of the major political institutions
of Canada we need to "tighten up" some serious problems in our constitution.
Most of the issues identified could cause significant problems in our future
if left unchanged. With our recent successes, we are now a considerable asset
both in terms of finances and power. This means that we will increasingly come
under attack by organizations and institutions that will want to either destroy
us, or co-opt us in order to gain our resources.
This is a massive rewrite of a fundamental document, but I am submitting
it as an omnibus resolution simply because our time is so limited and the issues
so important that we may have no "second chance" if we do not institute
these major changes at this General Meeting. I would strongly urge all people
who plan on attending the Calgary convention to study this resolution very carefully
and contact me ahead of time if you have any concerns. I am very open to friendly
amendments if I feel they make the document stronger. We need to do this work
before the General Meeting, however, as there will simply not be enough time
to settle all disputes on the plenary floor.
Bill Hulet
(519) 821-6958
policyresearch@greenparty.on.ca
Canadian Greens / Green Party of Canada Constitution
Adopted September 1988.
Amended August 1996, August 1998, August 2000, August 2002.
Change:
I have created and inserted a logical numbering system into the Constitution so it should be possible to quickly identify each single clause by a series of digits. For example 8.2.2. refers to the 2nd sentence of the 2nd point of the 8th article of the constitution. As it currently stands, there is no consistent system, which makes it quite difficult to refer to a specific part.
Add:
Index
|
12 Implementation of Resolutions 16 Removal of Officers and Units |
ARTICLE 1
1. The Body Constituted
1.1. The body constituted is the Green Party of Canada. It is also known as the Canadian Greens. Hereafter in this document, it will be referred to as "the party".
ARTICLE 2
2. Scope of the Constitution
2.1. This constitution shall govern the activities of the party, all officers of the party operating on its behalf and the rights and responsibilities of its recognized units and membership.
ARTICLE 3
3. Basis of Unity (preamble)
3.1.To enhance the effectiveness of the Global Green Movement in creating a Green Society by providing an evolving social and political structure that embraces, includes and supports Green Values and offers itself as a voice for the broader Green Movement.
It is the purpose of the party:
4.1. to advance the party's platform, policy, values and basis of unity, and to contribute to the welfare of Canada, Canadians and the community of life in Canada by fielding candidates in federal general elections and by-elections, by electing Green Party members to the Parliament of Canada, by debate and legislation in Parliament, and by participation in the Government of Canada;
4.2. To develop policy and platform consistent with its values and basis of
unity;
4.3. To advance the party's platform, policy, values and basis of unity outside
of electoral periods;
Change to:
4. Purpose and Goals
4.1. The purpose or mission of the Green Party of Canada is to move the state of the natural world and of human society and its economy in Canada and the world toward the Party's goals by methods consistent with the Party's principles and values, especially through electoral politics, the election of Green Party candidates to the Parliament of Canada, debate and legislation in Parliament, and participation in the Government of Canada.
4.2. The goals of the Green Party of Canada are:
4.2.1. The protection, preservation, and restoration of the natural world and its community of life.
4.2.2. The development of a sustainable and non-exploitive human society and economy, nested within the natural world, and functioning so as not to harm or degrade it.
4.3. The Green Party of Canada recognizes that the community of life will not be safeguarded without a thriving and healthy human community which knows that its interests are ultimately inseparable from those of the rest of the community of life in which it is embedded and which it is a part.
[There has always been a conflict within the Green Parties of Canada about what the real focus of the Party should be. For some members consensus decision-making process and commitment to decentralization seem to be far more important than environmental sustainability. (From listening to debates, it sometimes it seems to me that I have joined the Consensus Party and not the Green Party.) I have adopted this suggested wording from Doug Woodard, Mike Nickerson, Sharon Labchuck, Ted Mosquin, etc, because it seems to neatly encapsulate the idea that our primary focus should be environmental sustainability; but tempered with a commitment to an equitable human society. WDH]
4.4. To form and maintain party organizations at the federal, provincial and
electoral district levels;
4.5. To work in solidarity with green parties globally.
5.1. The policies of the Canadian Greens, in agreement with the Charter of the Global Greens, are founded upon the principles of:
1. Ecological Wisdom;
2. Social Justice;
3. Participatory Democracy;
4. Nonviolence;
5. Sustainability;
6. Respect for Diversity;
5.2.Activities, policies, and statements made on behalf of the party must be
consistent with the values.
See following Appendix A for the Charter of the Global Greens.
6.1. All units and individuals within the party are accountable to the membership in general meeting and to the federal council when the membership is not in general meeting.
The following units of the party have official standing under this constitution:
7.1.. Member: An individual meeting membership criteria.
7.2. Electoral District Association: An association in which all party members
residing within an electoral district as constituted under the Canada Elections
Act have voting rights.
7.3. Provincial/Territorial Association: An association in which all party
members residing within a province or territory as constituted under the Constitution
of Canada Act have voting rights and membership.
7.4. Regional Association: An association in which all party members residing
within a group of contiguous Electoral Districts have voting rights and membership.
Delete:
7.4. Regional Association: An association in which all party members residing within a group of contiguous Electoral Districts have voting rights and membership.
[This is a unit of organization that simply does not exist and probably cannot exist any time soon. In addition, it has no standing within this constitution as this is the only place it is mentioned. WDH]
Add:
7.4. Regional Councilors: These are officials elected by the rank-and-file membership to represent the Provincial/Territorial Associations.
7.5. Federal Council: A council comprising officers selected through a process in which all party members have voting rights and representatives selected by smaller units of the party.
CHANGE TO:
7.5. Federal Council: A governing body consisting of both
Regional Councilors and the Federal Executive. It is the job of the Federal
Council to oversee the Party between General Meetings in accord with the Constitution,
Key Values and the best interests of the rank-and-file membership.
7.5.1. Federal Council consists of three levels that overlap with decreasing individual power and increasing oversight responsibilities as one goes from centre to periphery:
1: Administration (Leader, Executive Director, Chairperson)
2: Federal Executive (Administration plus Governance)
3: Federal Council (Federal Executive plus Regional Councilors)
Each of these three layers has a different level of independence and accountability. The Administrative layer is empowered to make immediate, independent decisions that control the day-to-day life of the Party. The Goverance layer is charged to oversee the day-to-day work of the Administration and give strategic direction to the Party. The Regional Councilors are charged with overseeing the entire Executive and to represent the specific interests of the geographic areas they represent.
[If you look at the numbers involved, each layer of our organizational structure is designed to outvote the layer below it. So the administrative layer has 3 votes, the governance layer has 10, whereas the Regional Councilors have 13, which means they have the same votes as the entire Executive. This, plus the inquisitorial power I have given the governance layer, means that there are very strong "checks and balances" included to ensure that the administrators and staff do not end up running the party. At the same time, I have centralized the day-to-day operations in the hands of the party Administrators to ensure that we do not end up with "process lock" making it impossible for the Party to make timely and/or tough decisions. WDH]
7.6. Federal Committee: Any other body selected by the Federal Council or a process in which all party members have voting rights.
ADD
7.6.1. Any time the phrase "Federal Council" is used in this Constitution it may also refer to a committee appointed either directly by the Federal Council or on its behalf by the Federal Executive.
[It was pointed out to me by Manon Gaudreau that it is ambiguous to refer to specific committees, such as the "Election Preparedness Committee", without actually spelling this out in the Constitution. To this end, she has suggested that I substitute the phrase "Federal Council" where-ever a committee is being mentioned in the document. The above clause is aimed at making it abundantly clear that this does not mean that I am suggesting the entire Federal Council should be involved in every day-to-day decision that the Party has to make. WDH]
7.7. Delegate: A Member from an Electoral District Association, as defined by Elections Canada, who carries the proxy votes of one or more other members to a General Meeting.
7.8. Federal Executive: this is the leadership of the party. These positions
consist of two types with different mandates:
Administration
1. Executive Director
2. Chairperson
3. Leader
Governance
4. Party Secretary
5. Official Languages Advocate
6. International Green Ambassador
7. Chief Financial Officer
8. Communication's Advocate
9. Policy Development Advocate
10. Fundraising Advocate
11. Membership Advocate
12. Organizing Advocate
13. Technology Advocate
[It has been pointed out to me by a member of the Federal Council, Kevin Coulter, that it is very important that some people on the Executive have the specific responsibilities of making sure that the Party does Organizing work and also that the Party makes maximum use of emerging internet and other technologies. I had thought that in the interests of keeping the Executive a manageable size the Organizing Advocates job could be assumed by the Executive Director and an appointed person could do the job of Technology Advocate. However, it is necessary to defer to the experience of people who "have already done the job", and it is obvious that we need to put a lot of energy into organizing and it is also obvious that the Internet is increasingly important to our growth. So I have accepted this as a friendly ammendment and made the necessary changes. WDH]
7.8.0.1. The Federal Executive's job is to manage the Party's business and ensure that it continues to function in a businesslike and prudent manner between General Meetings while staying true to the Constitution, Key Values, wishes of the Regional Councilors and the rank-and-file membership (as expressed in the decisions of the General Meetings.) It is split into two separate, yet important groupings.
7.8.0.2. The Leader, Executive Director and Chairperson fill the roles of being the administrators of the party. They each represent the traditional legislative, executive and judicial roles of governance. They have specific jobs that require that they are responsible for day-to-day decisions in the party. Because they are each elected by the rank-and-file membership, and have completely different jobs, each exists as a counterbalance to the other.
7.8.0.3. The other 10 members of the Executive fill the role of governing the Party. As such, they have only three tasks.
First of all, they are to set the strategic direction of the party. This involves deciding exactly where the party wants to go and deciding only in a general way how it should get there.
Secondly, they are to "manage the managers". That is to say, they are to keep an eye on the Leader, Executive Director and Chairperson in order to ensure that each of these three individuals doesn't stray from the strategic vision of the party, as defined by the Executive, the entire Federal Council, or the General Member's will, as expressed in the General Meeting. Because each of the three administrators may be removed and replaced by a vote of the Federal Council, the governors ultimately have the power to "fire" them.
Finally, they are the "contact point" between the Party leadership, bureaucracy and rank-and-file members. When a member has a question about a specific issue, they should be able to email or phone at least one of the governors in order to have their concerns listened to and investigated.
[I've been involved with several NGO boards and attended training sessions on organizational theory dealing with these issues. Both my experience and expert advice all say that the job of a board is simply to set policy and manage the administrators. If it tries to do anything else, it usually ends up making a hash of things. Moreover, by asking board members to get involved in day-to-day operations the types of people who will run for the office are dramatically limited. This is because the most qualified almost invariably have very little time and simply cannot get involved in the day-to-day management of the Party.
Moreover, other parts of the Constitution are very upfront about the power of the Federal Council to replace elected officials who abuse their mandate. This means that even if the other people on the Executive do not have much involvement with the day-to-day governance of the Party, they do have the ultimate power to "pull the plug" on those members who do (ie: the Leader, Executive Director and Chairperson.) This again, is a "checks and balances" element to the party. I should point out that no other Canadian political party that I know of goes to such great lengths to ensure that the Leadership is accountable to the will of the rank-and-file. WDH]
7.8.1 the Executive Director's job is the management of the party infrastructure. In particular, this refers to the hiring, firing and management of all volunteer and paid staff and the disbursement of money to pay for particular Party business.
[Many people have suggested that the Leader's role should be limited in order to avoid sliding towards a presidential system. It has been suggested that this limitation be achieved through a variety of mechanisms, including electing a co-leader, having automatic rotation of the position through several different people, and limiting the length of time that a Leader may hold office. My suggestion is that we need to clearly distinguish the job of representing the Party during elections and in the house of Commons from that of managing the Party bureaucracy (ie: the staff who manage the database, answer the phones, organize recruitment drives, create pamphlets, organize campaign schools, etc.) To this end, I suggest that we create the position of "Executive Director" and give him/her the job of being the "CEO" of the party. This will dramatically lessen the workload of the Leader while at the same time giving staff a different person that they are accountable to. This will give the Executive Director a significant amount of power which will counterbalance the power that will naturally adhere to the Leader. This is a classic "checks and balances" method for controlling too much centralization. Please note that in other parties an enormous amount of power ends up in the Leader's hands simply because all the party's key positions are filled by him and his supporters. WDH].
7.8.2 the Chairperson's job is the maintenance of proper order during meetings of the Executive, Federal Council and General Meetings. S/He will be tasked with the job of defending the constitution and dealing with interpersonal disputes between individual members which threaten to disturb the harmony of the Party.
[We need to create a "judicial" branch of the Party to be able to deal with disputes in a timely manner. Up until now we have tried to use a committee of council, called the "Ombuds Committee", to police itself. This has proved to be extremely ineffective because it was incapable of making tough decisions in a timely fashion. Some members of the party have submitted resolutions that would strengthen the Ombuds committee by having it created by election during the General Meeting. I believe that this would be a bad move for two reasons. First of all, the sorts of people who are good at dealing with messy interpersonal disputes are fairly rare and I doubt if we would be able to get enough good people at a General Meeting. This is far too important a role to simply fill by acclamation with "the only people who volunteered". Moreover, in order to come to a fair and timely decision, the people ruling on these cases will have to have some awareness of the ongoing business of the Federal Council. There is no reason to believe that people who are not members of the Federal Council would be able to truly understand the implications of the issues at hand and any solutions they may suggest. Finally, since the Chairperson is tasked to make sure that the Federal Council actually "works", s/he will have to consider the practical results of a decision as well as the formal merits of the different points of view. Because the Chairperson will be able to settle disputes between members and control the process of Federal Council meetings, s/he will also become a significantly powerful person. This means that the Chairperson will be able to exert "counterbalancing force" against both the Executive Director and the Leader, which again creates "checks and balances" against the creation of a Presidential system. In addition, I have added on the task of being "Speaker" at General Meetings, which will not only further enhance the authority of the Chairperson, but will also ensure that s/he is intimately aware of the will of the rank-and-file members. WDH]
7.8.3 the Leader's job is to represent the Party to both the media and Parliament, recruit the members of the shadow cabinet, and work with both candidates and elected MPs to create a government for the Canadian Parliament.
[Whether we like it or not, the Leader is going to be the major focus of attention by the media, the general public, and the rank-and-file membership. This means that the Party is going to have to make sure they s/he doesn't end up running everything by default. Moreover, simply giving speeches, building the shadow cabinet, and doing outreach for the party is probably more than enough work for any one person. WDH]
7.8.4 the Party Secretary's responsibility is to ensure that meetings of the Executive have full and accurate minutes which will be archived for future use of the Federal Council, that correspondence with organizations both within and outside of the Party is recorded and also archived for future reference, and that upon request the membership is provided with copies of the minutes of all non-incamera Executive and Federal Council meetings.
[In light of the above description of the role of non-administrative members, the job of the Party Secretary is not to sit down and actually write the minutes of meetings, per se. It is instead to make sure that someone (ie: a volunteer or paid stenographer) actually does. Moreover, it is his or her job to ensure that these records are complete and available for use. Enormous control over organizations comes from the management of the records, as this is the only way someone can tell what was or was not decided at a previous meeting. Unless there is an objective record, many important issues come down to disputes over people's memories. WDH]
7.8.5 the Official Languages Advocate's job is to ensure that, as resources permit, all activities of the Party are supported in all official languages.
[It was pointed out to me by a member that the existing language assumes that the Executive will be dominated by Anglophones instead of the other way around. It certainly could be the case that a Party Secretary could be Francophone, and in that case the job of the Official Languages Advocate would be to ensure that English language members are serviced. Moreover, it since occurred to me that Nunavut has Inuktitut as an official language; and the North-West Territories have Dene, Slavey, Dogrib, Chippewa, Cree, etc. Of course, we cannot afford to translate all our correspondence into all of these languages, but at least we can acknowledge that it would be a good idea if and when it ever became practical. WDH]
7.8.6 the International Green Ambassador's job will be to create, maintain, and strengthen relationships between the Party and the International Green Party movement.
[This is more of a "hand's on" job than the others simply because it does involve a great deal of political acumen. As such it is the sort of job that should be directly done by an elected official. This is why I've designated the job as "ambassadorial" instead of as being an "advocate". As well, the job will probably come to involve some overseas travelling paid for by the Party. As long as it is an elected position we prevent it from becoming a patronage appointment. WDH]
7.8.7. the Chief Financial Officer's job is to oversee the fiscal health of the Party and ensure that it conforms to both the letter and spirit of the Election Finances Act. It is his/her job to ensure that the Executive Director hires a bookeeper/accountant with sufficient expertise to keep track of Party finances and an Official Agent as per the Election Finances Act; and that the Party has: an annual budget in place, provides Election's Canada with the necessary annual reports, and, that the Party rank-and-file membership is provided with an accurate annual accounting of the Party's financial situation.
[As in the case of the Party Secretary, the job of the Chief Financial Officer is not to do the books per ce, but rather to ensure that they are being done in a responsible manner. This includes making sure that the Executive Director appoints an Official Agent for the Party as per the Election Finances Act, prepares an annual budget for the party, and gives the membership an annual financial report. The party is quickly becoming too big for these positions to be filled by an elected amateur, but instead should be dealt with by staff members with specific skills. However, it is important that this whole process still be overseen by an elected official who is accountable to the rank-and-file members. WDH]
7.8.8. the Communications Advocate's job is to make sure that a profile for the Party is being created through the news, computer and other media.
[Again, the important point is that this person doesn't have to do this work his or herself, just ensure that it is being done, and to participate in the creation of a general strategy through debate with the rest of the Executive and the membership at large. WDH]
7.8.9. the Policy Development Advocate's job is to make sure that a system for the systemic development and ratification of both policy and platform exists. In doing so, s/he will be balancing the need to consult the general will of the membership and the informed opinions of relevent experts both within and outside of the Party.
[As I've been saying with the other positions, the job of the Policy Development Advocate is not to write the policy, but instead to make sure that someone is doing it. This is an important job, because policy needs to reflect the will of the membership while at the same time being informed by expert opinion. So the Advocate must defend the rights of the membership to make the ultimate decisions; but s/he must also defend whatever expert staff the party consults to make sure that we have policy that makes objective sense instead of merely appealing to popular delusions. WDH]
7.8.10. The Fundraising Advocate's job is to ensure that the Party has both centralized fundraising campaigns and programs that help EDAs do localized ones. It is also his/her job to ensure that conflicts do not arise between these two different projects.
[Sometimes conflicts occur between centralized fundraising campaigns and localized ones. Since money raised for the Party bureaucracy does not come back to candidates for their campaigns, and vice versa, there is an inherent conflict at play here. Because of this fact, in addition to the general job of making sure that fundraising takes place, the job of the Fundraising Advocate is to ensure that this inherent contradiction does not cause problems for the Party. WDH]
7.8.11. The Membership Advocate's job is to make sure that the membership has a database, the privacy of members is protected, to ensure that the list is accessible when deemed necessary and appropriate, and make sure that frequent membership drives occur.
[As in the case of the Fundraising Advocate, in addition to making sure that membership drives take place, there is an added responsibility. That is that the membership lists be protected. This means that the Membership Advocate is responsible to make sure that the lists are only given out to responsible parties who will use them for tasks of benefit to the Party (for example, we may want to send out email for Fair Vote Canada if they are organizing a drive to support proportional representation, or if we want to organize anti-war rallies such as happened before the Iraq invasion.) As well, during internal elections the Membership Overseer will be responsible for making sure that only messages that will benefit the Party are sent out, and that these messages are awarded in a fair and even-handed manner to all candidates. WDH]
7.8.12. The Organizing Advocate's job is to make sure that the Party is constantly working to create new EDAs and other institutions necessary to ensure a GPC presence in every community of Canada. S/he is also responsible for ensuring that the Party is constantly improving existing GPC organizations through education, network-building and the creation of resources for the use of these organizations.
[This is an extremely important position in the Party and I hope it would be filled by someone with a great deal of energy and experience. Of course, there will have to be full-time staff doing the "on the ground" work. Having said that, there is a need to have an elected official pushing for this important work during Executive meetings. Moreover, we need someone working as an Inquisitor on the behalf of the membership to make sure that this important work is being done in a way congruent with the values and interests of the EDAs. WDH]
7.8.13. The Technology Advocate's job is to make sure that the Party is using emerging technology to the greatest extent possible to both promote the Green message to the Canadian public and to also extend the reach of internal democracy within the Green Party.
[This is a special case position and not something that most political parties would have on their Executive, but the Internet is so essential to the growth of the Green Party that it has been persuasively argued to me that we need to have someone on the Executive who's job is to make sure that the implications of emergent communications technology are always a part of Green decision-making. WDH]
7.9.1. Federal Executive governors are all empowered to interview all volunteer and paid staff in pursuit of their portfolio responsibilities. These staff members must answer all enquiries that are not in conflict with basic legal and moral privacy issues. Moreover, all Federal Executive governors must be available for any Party member who wishes to consult them with concerns about the way the Party is being managed.
[It is very important to avoid the creation of a culture where staff manage elected officials by controlling their access to information. To this end, the Federal Executive governors should be given permanent inquisitorial powers. Moreover, whenever someone gets elected to the Federal Executive, they should understand that they are there to be the eyes and ears of the rank-and-file members. As well, I have had the experience of attempting to contact members of a Green Party executive to only find out that they were squeamish about letting the public have their phone numbers and email addresses. This cannot be allowed to happen, as the job of the elected politician is to "be there" for his or her constituency. Of course, the Executive Director and Leader may simply be too busy to anwer all calls, but everyone else on the Executive should be available whenever a member wants to contact them. WDH]
7.9.2 The job of the Executive as-a-whole is to ensure that the plans and operational requirements of all the portfolios fit together.
[I realize that this system creates a bit of overlap in functions and ambiguity about the jobs of the people involved. But I think it is impossible for any organization to completely eliminate the "human element" from management. This way the Executive itself will be given a bit of leeway to figure out the best way to do things. At the very least, I think my new wording has avoided the implication of the current situation, which seems to be that the Party Leader either has no power at all vis-à-vis the Federal Council; or else he is a defacto dictator because no one else has enough authority to make the "one hundred and one" essential decisions that simply cannot wait until the next Federal Council meeting. Both situations, IMHO, are unacceptable. WDH]
7.10. Regional Councilors: these are the members of the Federal
Council who's job it is to represent the geographic areas of Canada and oversee
the actions of the Federal Executive between General Meetings. They will defend
the Key Values, Constitution, and authority of the EDAs between General Meetings.
8.1. Any citizen or resident of Canada is eligible for membership in the party provided s/he is not a member of any other political party registered under the Canada Elections Act.
Change To:
8.1 Any citizen or resident of Canada who has reached the age of 16 years is eligible for membership in the party provided s/he is not a member of any other political party registered under the Canada Elections Act.
[I've added an age requirement simply because not specifying a minimum
age is yet another opportunity for abuse. We need to stop people from buying
memberships for all their children and then voting on their behalf. Originally,
I suggested that the age of majority be the cut-off, but several members pointed
out that we need to get teenagers involved with the party and they might find
that cut-off annoying, so I changed the minimum age to 14. At that point, other
folks complained that this was too low. The age of 16 seemed to be something
that both sides could live with. WDH]
8.2. A person may apply either to federal council, an electoral district association,
a provincial/territorial association, a regional association or a federal committee
the latter having been specifically mandated to accept memberships and upon
acceptance by that body shall become a member.
CHANGE TO:
8.2. A person may apply either to an Electoral District Association (EDA) or the Party bureaucracy (i.e.: the hub office) and upon acceptance by that body shall become a member.
8.2.1 Those members who apply for membership directly through the hub office
will be assumed to have joined their local EDA and will have their contact information
assigned to the that EDA executive so they may integrate them into the local
Green Party community.
8.2.2 Those members who apply for membership through their local EDA will be assumed to have joined the Green Party of Canada national organization and will have their contact information sent to the hub office with an annual membership as set by the Federal Council.
[What we need to avoid at all costs is the creation of a class of members who have no connection to the local EDA and who only see the party as the national leader plus a mailing address they send money to. We also need to avoid the creation of "local fiefdoms" where an EDA has minimal connection with the Federal Council. WDH]
8.2.3 Membership in the Party shall be considered to begin with the date on the postmark of the letter conveying payment to the Hub office---whether it be a direct payment from the member or a transfer from the EDA.
[There have been problems in the past with associations signing up members in the Party and not forwarding the money to the Party bureaucracy. If this happens the "member", should not be able to vote. In contrast, if the head office is tardy with depositing money and filling out the forms, this is their problem and not that of whomever sent the cheque in to Ottawa. WDH]
8.3. Every member shall uphold this constitution.
8.4. All of the above mentioned bodies have the right to set the amount of
their own membership fee insofar as
8.4.1. it is the responsibility of the Federal Executive to maintain a register
of members; and
8.4.2. The Federal Executive may require a membership fee from each body mandated
to receive members to cover the costs of servicing the member.
8.4.3. The Federal Council shall ensure that members are notified as their membership
fees are due.
REPLACE WITH:
8.4. The Federal Executive will set and require a membership fee from each member to cover the costs of servicing that member.
8.4.1. The Federal Executive shall ensure that members are notified when their membership fees are due.
[The existing language is prone to abuse as it would suggest that an EDA
could sell memberships for one cent per person and use fundraising to service
these members. This would allow an unscrupulous group of individuals to sign
up hundreds of bogus members and then exert influence well beyond their actual
position in the eyes of members. This already happens with other major parties,
which do things like sign up the membership of another organization and then
use these members to swamp leadership races. As well, it is a simple fact that
the Hub office has been setting a defacto membership due structure already.
WDH]
8.5. A person shall cease to be a member of the party
8.5.1. by delivering her/his resignation by mailing or delivering it to an address
of the party; or
8.5.2. on her/his death; or
8.5.3. On being expelled; or
8.5.4. On having been a member not in good standing for 12 consecutive months.
8.6. A member may be expelled by a resolution of the federal council or a general
meeting of members. The person who is subject to the proposed expulsion shall
be given an opportunity to be heard at the meeting - before the resolution is
put to a vote.
CHANGED WORDING:
8.6. A member may be expelled by a resolution of the Federal Council or General Meeting. The person who is subject to the proposed expulsion shall be given an opportunity to be heard at the meeting in question (i.e.: either of the Federal Council or a General Meeting) before the resolution is put to a vote.
8.6.1 In cases where s/he believes time is of the essence, the Federal Executive Chairperson may issue a temporary "cease and desist" order against any member when s/he is acting in a way that the Chairperson decides is damaging to the party as a whole.
8.6.2 In cases where a "cease and desist" order has been issued, the Chairperson is empowered to issue press releases to the media announcing this fact and any other statements that s/he deems necessary to repair any damage s/he feels has been done to the good name of the party.
[There have been instances in the past where members of Canadian Green Parties have been unhappy with decisions that were made entirely according to proper constitutional procedure. Instead of going through a democratic process to change this decision, these members went on the offensive against the party. This has included giving interviews to the media, writing letters to the editor, bulk emails and so on. In some cases these individuals even identified themselves as official spokespeople for the Green Party. We also need to deal with situations where members may be involved in criminal or unconstitutional behavior that would besmirch the good name of the GPC. WDH]
8.6.3 In cases of alleged financial impropriety, where democratic process may be being subverted or criminal activities may be taking place, the Chairperson is allowed to issue "cease and desist" orders that will temporarily suspend the constitutional power of any party official---elected or staff---pending the next meeting of the Federal Council.
8.6.4"Cease and desist" orders shall be automatically referred to the next meeting of the Federal Council. At this point Council shall decide to either overturn the decision of the Chairperson, expel the offending member or take any other actions deemed necessary for the good of the Party.
[Originally I thought the Executive Director should have the right to kick people out of the party, but in retrospect the power to order "Cease and Desist" orders should be sufficient as they clearly point out to the media that the person in question has no right to speak on behalf of the party and could be issued with sufficient speed to deal with quickly evolving situations. Moreover, I have switched the power from the Executive Director, who would be tasked with the management of Party staff members, to the Chairperson, who is more involved with the proper functioning of the "office politics" of the party. The idea is that this power should be enough to "shut down" any sort of sleazy behavior as soon as it is brought to the Chairperson's attention, and will create a counterbalance to the power of the Leader and Executive Director. Ultimately, as I read the proposal, the Chairperson should be able to issue a "Cease and Desist" order against both the Leader and the Executive Director if she felt they were acting in a flagrant and outrageous manner to the detriment of the Party. I've added an "any other actions deemed necessary" phrase because there may be situations where the Federal Council may want to take different sorts of actions. For example, if an EDA executive is subverting the democratic process used to appoint delegates, breaking the Election Finances Act, supporting another political party, or simply acting in a flagrantly incompetent manner, the Federal Executive should be able to take actions up to and including shutting them down and rebuilding the EDA from the ground up. WDH]
8.7. All members are in good standing except a member who has failed to pay her/his current annual membership fee.
DELETE:
8.7. All members are in good standing except a member who has failed to pay her/his current annual membership fee.
[This is implied in sections 8.5.4 to 8.6.4. and is therefore redundant.
In addition, it is important that we remove as much ambiguity as possible from
the constitution. As it stands, this clause would seem to contradict other clauses
which indicate that some members will have their "good standing" jeopardized
because of their behavior. That is, members who have been expelled by order
of the Federal Council or a General Meeting. WDH]
9.1. All meetings shall be conducted under the rules of procedure of the party which must be adopted at each general meeting. Decisions at a general meeting or of a council meeting may be in person, by post or electronic mail, or by telephone conference call.
CHANGE TO:
9.1. All meetings shall be conducted under the rules of procedure as outlined by this constitution.
[As the party becomes larger and more influential, it is important to realize that outside groups may want to "take it over". This is the point to make sure that any substantive changes to the way it operates have to "jump through hoops" that will require significant support amongst the rank-and-file membership. WDH]
9.2.1 Decisions at a General Meeting must be by face-to-face
consultation either by Members or Delegates holding proxy votes.
[An extremely important organizational issue is at stake here.
There is a belief among some people that the only way a form of "participatory democracy" can come about is by having mail-in ballots deciding as many issues as possible. My experience with such systems is that they give extraordinary power to the people organizing these votes because they get to decide many of the "details" such as who gets to set the agenda, how to present the final wording of the resolution, what information does or does not get sent to the voters, etc. In effect, what purports to be a very democratic process is in fact very much its opposite.
This is because democracy does not only reside in the right to vote. It also requires some sort of "community" for the voters to reside within. This community provides the information that will allow voters to make an informed choice instead of a merely random one. (If you look at organizations that try to govern themselves through mail-in democracy, such as the Mountain Equipment Co-op, you will find very low levels of member participation---primarily because most members are fully aware that they lack enough information to make an intelligent choice.) As well, democracy is preeminently a process of negotiation and compromise. In a mail-in system, there is not only no avenue for public debate to inform voters, there is no avenue for compromise and consensus-building. This magnifies disputes by removing mechanisms for making compromises between different points of view. This is potentially dangerous because it means that disputes within the GPC will never be settled by compromise, but always be sheer weight of numbers in a vote. I cannot see how such a system cannot help but create unnecessary antagonisms between members.
As well, since only the Party Executive has access to the entire membership list, this means that people with "the ear" of the Executive will have an enormous tactical advantage when it comes to lobbying the membership to either pass or fail a mail-in ballot. (I have heard complaints of this already happening with the mail-in leadership contest in one Canadian Green Party.)
Even internet-based systems leave a great deal to be desired as they invariably only allow a very small amount of communication as compared to a direct face-to-face meeting. And because the people using the internet tend to "self-select", there is a strong tendency for such venues to become nothing more than "echo chambers" where only people of like mind congregate and begin to think that everyone agrees with them---even though they often represent a tiny minority of the general public. As a result, I hope to set the GPC on a course committed to face-to-face democratic debate instead of mail-in ballots and other types of what I would suggest are"pseudo-democratic" process.
We are on a "crossroads" in the party's life. We have to decide if we want to have a centralized party where the Federal Executive and a paid bureaucracy end up running the party; or whether we want to create a nationwide collection of strong Green Party "communities" based on the local Electoral District Associations (EDAs). The fundamental point is whether or not the EDA acts as an intermediary that will defend the political authority of the individual member; or whether the central party apparatus will end up having the only real control of the party. The grassroots members will only retain control of the party if they have an organizational base to offset the centralizing tendencies of the Party Executive. I suggest that we try to make local EDAs as powerful as possible in order to maintain the influence of the membership.
Originally, all of Canada's political parties were organized with real power resting in the EDAs. But with the increased power of the Prime Minister's office and the importance of national fundraising, advertising, etc, power has steadily been taken away from EDAs and MPs; and instead put into the hands of the party leader and his appointed officials. In effect, our parliamentary system is "morphing" into a Presidential system; and the House of Commons is becoming little more than an American-style electoral college (i.e.: a mere rubber-stamp for the leader.)
If we are going to fight against the drift towards a presidential party, we are going to consciously fight against any move to take away power from the local EDA---whether it is to put power directly into the hands of the Party Leader, or indirectly through cutting the EDA out of the relationship between the Federal Council and the rank-and-file membership. WDH]
9.2.2. Federal Executive and Federal Council meetings may
take place by face-to-face, post, telephone conference or internet.
[Having written the above, there is a place for non-face-to-face communication in small groups and when the membership is spread across the country. But I suspect that the people on Federal Council would be the first to admit that it is very difficult to have a good meeting over the internet or by conference call. WDH]
9.2.3. General meetings
The party must hold a general meeting a minimum of every second year no more than 30 months subsequent to the previous general meeting.
9.2.4. A general meeting may be called by:
9.2.4.1. A committee specifically mandated by a previous general meeting to
do so;
9.2.4.2. Federal Council.
9.2.4.3. a petition presented to the Federal Council bearing the signature of
ten (10) percent of the members in good standing of the Party, of which no more
than half may reside in a single province or territory, or
9.2.4.4. a resolution of a General Meeting of the Party.
ADD:
9.2.4.5 10 percent of the EDAs spread over at least three provinces/territories.
[There is an intrinsic problem with having General Meetings being called by petition drives. We cannot allow the membership access to the membership lists because to do so would leave us vulnerable to the machinations of outside groups---such as other political parties---which could use access to the membership lists to destroy us. For example, the NDP mounted a very nasty "dirty tricks" campaign against us in the last Federal Election. If they had had access to our membership contact information they would probably have "carpet bombed" our membership with misleading statements which we would have had to expend great energy in counteracting. But if we cannot allow access to the membership lists, then it will be extremely difficult to organize a petition drive. I have added in a provision that the Membership Secretary will send out messages to the membership when called upon to do so (14.7.6.1-14.7.6.6) with regard to elections to the Federal Council. This could also be done for petition drives for emergency General Meetings. But the problem is that if something sleazy was done, it was probably done with the collusion of the Federal Council, who would then refuse to allow the Membership Secretary to do a mailout. Conversely, if we create a provision that will force him/her to do a mailout every single time someone complains, we run the risk of allowing people to deluge the members with mail-outs calling for emergency General Meetings every time a controversial decision has been made.
To this end, I've allowed for a General Meeting being organized by the EDAs. Since EDAs will be able to sign onto this drive simply by having an executive meeting, I think that this provision allows people the chance of quickly calling a General Meeting after a sleazy trick has taken place without having to go through a very time-consuming and difficult petition drive. If one EDA in ten is sufficiently upset to ask for a General Meeting, then the party certainly does need to "clear the air". I believe that this provision dramatically increases the power of the rank-and-file members without creating undue hardship for the Federal Executive. WDH]
9.3.1. Quorum at general meetings shall be 20. Notice, postmarked 60 or more days prior to the general meeting, must be sent to every member in good standing.
CHANGE TO:
9.3.1. quorum at general meetings shall be members and delegates representing
at least 10% of the membership.
[A major political party simply should not have such a small quorum for deciding important constitutional and policy issues because it makes it very easy for an outside group to take it over. It is true that it is very hard to get people to come to conventions, but if we cut down on the organizational chaos that comes from trying to do things in an unstructured style, we should stop turning people off on coming to conventions. As well, if we allow each delegate to carry as many as 100 proxy votes even 20 people could conceivably represent a large chunk of the membership. Either way, 10% is still low for a well-run party. The hope is that we will be able to progressively raise the quorum as we become better at attracting delegates to the general meetings. WDH]
ADD
9.3.2. In the event that a properly announced and organized
General Meeting fails to achieve quorum, within 30 days the Federal Council
shall mail out to the membership a referendum ballot which will ask the general
membership to either "pass" or "fail" the decisions of the
General Meeting that failed to achieve quorum.
[This is an "escape hatch" if we find that the 10% quorum rule
is too ambitious. It will allow us to "tinker" with the size of quorum
or wait until the party grows organized enough to be achieve it. Either way,
the constitution is protected from being modified without substantive support
by the membership. I have set a specific deadline for the Federal Council to
mail out the ballot to ensure that this is not delayed to the point where the
membership do not have time to inform themselves about the issues involved.
Thirty days should be more than sufficient for a new Federal Council to print
up a very simple ballot and mail it out to the membership. Especially as they
will probably be warned ahead of the General Meeting by the conference organizers
if it appears that quorum will not be met. WDH]
9.3.3. The deadline for the vote will take place 120 days after the General Meeting.
[I have set a 120 day campaign for the pass/fail referendum to ensure that there will be sufficient time for an organized lobbying campaign to contact the rank-and-file membership if something "funny" did indeed take place at the General Meeting. This way, people who were at the General Meeting will have a full 120 days to organize; and people who only found out about the events during the ballot mailout would still 90 days, or three months, to educate themselves. It would be extremely difficult, but organizers would be able to contact the local EDA executives and use this avenue to contact the membership to ask them to "fail" the results of the General Meeting. Again, this is designed for situations where something very slimy has taken place. If this is the case, then such a big undertaking should be possible to organize over a three month period---especially if everyone has access to the results before them. WDH]
9.3.4. A ballot will be sent to all Party members in good standing which shall ask the simple question of whether or not they support ratifying the decisions of the General Meeting in question as a whole (no item by item voting allowed.)
[A key part of democracy is the ability to debate, negotiate and compromise. Many times people will agree to support one resolution only if another resolution is also passed. As well, people very often will change their vote based upon the explanations offered by the people supporting resolutions. The folks voting by a mail-in ballot will not be part of the deliberations and discussion leading up to the votes on contentious issues, so I don't think it would be fair to ask them to vote for each individual item "in a vacuum". The mail-in ballot, therefore, is only designed to be a safeguard against attempts to change the direction of the party by trickery; or if the General Meeting has been left stranded because it could not achieve quorum. This way we avoid the dangers of having a quorum that is either too low or too high, while still keeping the real democratic imperatives of allowing for debate, negotiation and compromise. WDH]
9.3.5. Decisions and/or minutes of the General Meeting shall be posted on the Party website within 10 days of the end of the General meeting, the address of which shall be clearly marked on the Party website and, if a pass/fail referendum is required, on the ballot sent to the membership.
[Ideally, we should be able to mailout this information to the membership in hardcopy. But this would cost a fortune. Most people in Canada have access to web-browsers either from home, at work, the public library, the post office or cyber cafes. In the rare cases of people who honestly cannot access any of these facilities, they should be able to contact someone in the party (either locally or the hub office) who can print off a copy for them. Actually, the Party should be able to post this document within an hour of the end of the General Meeting. But we need to make allowances for "burnout" and travel after a Party conference. WDH}
9.3.6. There shall be no quorum for this mail-in ballot
[This may seem a bit odd, but if the reason we are having a mail-in ballot is simply because of lack of interest, as opposed to willful malfeasance, there may not be anyone interested in organizing a campaign to "get out the vote" for the pass/fail referendum. In this case, if we had a minimum quorum for the vote, it might easily fail. If there is some nastiness afoot, on the other hand, then people would be willing to "move heaven and earth" to get people to vote, at which point the quorum would be irrelevant. The long time frame between sending out ballots and casting a vote; plus the fact that there is a provision for a mail-in referendum at all; will hopefully prevent attempts to change the Party through an organizational "coup d'etat". WDH]
9.4. notice, postmarked 60 or more days prior to the general meeting, must be sent to every member in good standing.
9.5. Federal Council
9.5.1. Federal Council must meet a minimum of four times per year, no more than 120 days subsequent to its previous meeting. Quorum for Federal Council is 2/3 of the officers.
9.5.2. Any motion opposed by two thirds or more of the provincial/territorial delegates at a federal council meeting will be automatically defeated.
CHANGE TO:
9.5. Federal Council
9.5.1. Federal Council must meet a minimum of four times per year, no more than 120 days subsequent to its previous meeting. Quorum for Federal Council is 2/3 of the officers (including both Regional Councilors and Executive.)
9.5.2. Federal Council shall consist of Regional Councilors plus the Executive.
9.5.2. Decisions at Federal Council shall be made by a simple majority vote.
[I've changed the words "provincial/territorial delegates" to
"Regional Councilors" in order to clear up any confusion about the
Executive versus the other representatives on Federal Council and the new position
of "Delegate" to the General Meeting I've added. Originally I kept
the idea that motions may be defeated by 2/3rds of the Regional Councilors.
But a member from BC pointed out to me that with that rule in place it could
be possible to have a situation where a majority of people on the Federal Council
(ie: Executive plus Regional Councilors) were on one side of a resolution whereas
2/3s of the Regional Councilors were on another. This could cause "hung"
decisions, which would stymie process. He also pointed out that the power of
Regional Councilors shouldn't be overwhelming simply because the entire membership
has voted for the Executive whereas the Regional Councilors are elected in a
very non-proportional manner (ie: there are a lot more people and members in
BC and Ontario versus PEI and Nunavut). As it is, there are 13 votes on the
Executive and 13 for the Regional Councilors, which gives the latter enormous
power on the Federal Council. WDH]
10.1. Proposed amendments to this document must be submitted by five or more individual party members, or an organization or unit representing five or more party members, but in any case the names and addresses or names and membership numbers must be provided to the party.
10.2.Members must receive notification of the intent to amend and the text of the proposed amendments with the notification of the general meeting at which they will be tabled.
10.3. This document may be amended only by a process in which all members have a fair opportunity to participate and vote upon the amendment.
CHANGE TO:
ARTICLE 10
10. Amending Formula
10.1. Proposed amendments to this constitution must be submitted by five or more EDAs, three of which must reside in different provinces or territories of Canada.
10.2. Members must receive notification of the intent to amend and the text of the proposed amendments with the notification of the general meeting at which they will be tabled.
[Because the Party is now in a situation where it is "worth taking
over", it would be prudent to make it harder to substantively change the
constitution. As well, by forcing amendments to go through EDAs instead of individuals,
we will be forcing proposals to go through a defacto "workshopping process"
before they are sent to the membership. Hopefully this will result in much better
resolutions. In addition, because the proposal says that these endorsements
must be spread across three provinces or territories, it will mean that the
people framing the amendments will have to have some experience connecting with
the Party-as-a-whole as opposed to their region only. This, again, will hopefully
raise the quality of what is being proposed. In addition, it will ensure that
at least some minimal lobby effort has been made to support the passage of this
resolution at the General Meeting. (Incidentally, this is the stage when advocates
of "consensus building" and "electronic democracy" will
have the opportunity to fine-tune resolutions---most debate should already be
done before anyone arrives at a General Meeting.) WDH]
10.3. Notwithstanding anything in this constitution, article 21 and this point (point 10.3) can only be amended or removed by a resolution to this effect passed at a General Meeting followed by 90% of the total membership passing an identically worded resolution conducted by mail-in ballot, with a ballot return date of no later than 120 days following the General Meeting at which the resolution to amend these articles and/or points was passed.
10.3.1. Only members who joined the Party at least 720 days before the date that the above amending referendum was cast will be able to vote in the said referendum to modify clause 10.3.
[It has been pointed out to me a couple times that the "poison pill" provision of section 21 will only work if we specifically disallow its removal from the constitution. WDH]
ARTICLE 11
11. Other Resolutions at a General meeting
A general meeting may receive and debate other resolutions which do not modify this constitution respecting the activities, administration, policy and platform of the party which may be submitted:
11.1. By the procedure for submitting constitutional amendments as above;
11.2. from the floor at a general meeting.
All proposals submitted as per (a) will receive priority in the general meeting agenda.
REPLACE WITH:
Article 11
11. Other resolutions at a General Meeting
A General Meeting may receive and debate other resolutions which do not modify this constitution according to the following, less stringent rules:
11.1. all resolutions of a non-constitutional nature must receive the endorsement of a least two EDAs.
[While not as stringent as the requirements for constitutional amendments, there is a specific "hoop" being imposed here. Anyone wishing to get a resolution to the General Meeting must be able to connect up with at least two EDAs and get them to endorse it. This way they will have "workshopped" the resolution ahead of time. This will raise the quality of resolutions and send an important message to the membership that if they want to have influence in the Party they have to be involved in the day-to-day life of the EDA. The last thing we want to see is a class of party leaders which has no connection to the grassroots communities (i.e.: the EDAs) that make up the Party. WDH]
11.2. Resolutions, exception made of the provision in 11.5,
must be submitted to the General meeting committee far enough in advance of
the General Meeting that the status of the Sponsors and Cosponsors may be verified
by the Party administration (the deadline being set by the party Secretary.)
11.3. in addition, at the discretion of the General Meeting organizers, the
original text of resolutions must either be sent directly to all the Membership
of the GPC, or placed on a website which will be accessible to and the address
advertised to all the membership.
[Obviously it would be ideal if all resolutions were sent to all members. But there are significant costs involved in mailing out long submissions---such as this one. We have to allow the organizers some leeway. Moreover, resolutions placed on websites allow for change as friendly ammendments are accepted by the resolution framer. This means that a great deal of the debate, negotiation and compromise may take place before the General Meeting, which will greatly improve the process at the conference. WDH]
11.4. The order of the agenda of the General meeting will be arrived at by way of a ranked, mail-in vote of the membership prior to the General Meeting.
11.4.1. This shall be done by sending each rank-and-file Party member a ballot which will list the resolutions by title. At each title the member will place a number that will rank it from either "1" to the maximum number of resolutions offered.
11.4.2. The membership will mail in these ballots to the organizing committee
at a date prior to the General Meeting.
11.4.3. Prior to the General meeting, the Organizing Committee will average
the numbers assigned to the individual resolutions to ascertain the order of
resolutions on the agenda. In cases where more than one resolution gets the
same number, order within that rank will be assigned by random selection.
11.4.4 All ballots that deviate from the method above, either by only selecting one resolution, or by assigning the same number to more than one ballot, or any other means, shall be considered "spoiled" and shall be discarded without being counted.
[This may seem harsh, but if we allow people to deviate from the prescribed method, they will be able to have undue influence on the final agenda by altering the mathematics used to set the order. A relatively small number of people could move an item to the end of the list, for example, by simply placing the largest number against the item they didn't like and not filling out the rest of the ballot. WDH]
[One of the standard ways in which party executives exert subtle but significant control over General Meetings is by controlling the agenda. This comes about because the mechanism arrived at usually involves a committee, which tends to be taken over by apparachniks. Anything that the party bosses dislike ends up being put at the end and if there is any chance of the delegates discussing it, someone filibusters until the clock runs out. I've personally seen attempts to do this in a Canadian Green Party and I think that it is very important that we avoid giving the opportunity to people of ill will. Moreover, this is a form of mail-in democracy that gives rank-and-file members some control over the process without tying the hands of delegates. It seems to work well for the Green Party of Ontario and is quite popular. WDH]
11.5 Resolutions may be submitted to the plenary from the
floor.
11.5.1 Such resolutions will be accepted from the floor only in case of emergency, exceptional or unforeseen circumstances, or matters arising from a debate on a proposal already on the agenda.
11.5.1.1. These resolutions must be raised as points of order during the General Meeting and voted on by the delegates and members attending
11.5.1.2. A vote of 75% yeas will be necessary to add a resolution from the floor to the agenda.
[It is important that the emergency power to add a resolution from the floor isn't abused and simply become an "opt out" for people who cannot "get their act together" to send in resolutions ahead of time. The higher thresh-hold vote will hopefully prevent this part of the constitution from being abused. WDH]
11.5.1.3. Once accepted, since this resolution will be immediately
discussed and supercede all other items on the General Meeting's agenda until
it is dealt with.
[It has been suggested that since these emergency resolutions have not been sent to the membership, they should be ratified by the membership. I think that this is based on a misunderstanding of what the mail-in agenda ranking is all about. It is not, per se, an attempt at participatory democracy, but rather a safe-guard against Party officials manipulating the General Meeting through controlling the agenda. With the use of a delegate system, even members who are unable to attend the General Meeting will be represented by delegates who presumably have the trust of the people who have awarded their proxies to them. Moreover, in those rare cases where emergencies have arisen that require that resolutions get added to the agenda from the floor, time will probably be of the essence and there will simply be no time for a referendum to ratify the vote. WDH]
12. Implementation of Resolutions
12.1. In all matters other than party policy, all resolutions of a general meeting and of federal council are binding on all other units except where a general meeting specifically exempts a unit from a resolution of the general meeting or where federal council specifically exempts a unit from a resolution of federal council.
ARTICLE 13
13. Candidate Selection
13.1. In an electoral district where there is an Electoral District Association, selection may be conducted by the association.
13.2. In an electoral district where there is no Electoral District Association but where there are party members, selection will be conducted by a meeting or other process mandated by general meeting or federal council in which all members in the constituency may vote and equally participate.
13.3. In an electoral district where there is no Electoral District Association and there are no party members, selection will be made by general meeting, federal council or by some procedure or committee mandated by one of these bodies.
CHANGE TO:
ARTICLE 13
Candidate Selection
In an electoral district where there is an Electoral District Association (EDA), selection will be conducted by the EDA.
[I have removed the provision where Party members could nominate a Candidate without first forming an EDA. It isn't that hard to create an EDA and they are essential to the long-term, grassroots presence of the party. If people don't have a long-term commitment to the Party or they cannot "get their act together" enough to organize an EDA, then they are clearly not people we will want to select our candidates. WDH]
13.1. The selected candidate may be refused by the Federal Council on the basis of his/her perceived suitability.
[It is simply the law of the land that the Leader of the party has the
right to refuse to sign the papers of a specific candidate and there is nothing
we can do to stop it. More to the point, there are excellent reasons for this
rule to exist in the first place. All political parties have had the experience
of EDAs that are "thin" nominating people who simply should not be
representing the party in an election. (The Alliance Party was notorious for
doing this.) From a practical point of view, the people who already run the
EDA set the tone for the party in the community. If they discourage interested
people from getting involved, they can effectively keep control of the EDA (i.e.:
being "big fish in a small pond".) The party needs to control this
tendency by exerting some "quality control" over the internal culture
of local EDAs. This is not a trivial issue, as at least one Canadian Green Party
has already had to kick the entire executive of one local association out of
the party and reconstitute the CA for this very reason. WDH]
13.2. If the candidate selected by the EDA is refused, it is allowed to submit the name of another candidate, but it must do so in a timely manner so the party will have a candidate in that electoral district.
13.3. If in the opinion of the Federal Council the EDA will not be able to find
a suitable replacement candidate in time to be included on the ballot, the party
leader will be empowered to appoint a candidate for that EDA.
[Some may be concerned that an unscrupulous Executive may simply disallow
a candidate at the last minute so they can parachute in someone of their own
choice without allowing the EDA a chance to find an alternate. The wording above
leaves the onus on the EDA to nominate their candidate well before the election,
at which time they can then ask the Leader to sign the papers accepting him/her.
Once they have these in hand, the Leader will not be able to refuse the candidate.
If s/he refuses to sign the nomination papers, there should be time to nominate
a replacement. This means that we are still adhering to the letter and spirit
of the Elections Canada rule, while giving the EDA far more power to choose
candidates than the other parties do because we are specifically forbidding
the Leader from "parachuting" candidates into a riding against their
wishes. If the EDA waits until the last minute to nominate a candidate and apply
for the Leader's OK, that is their fault, not that of the constitution. WDH]
13.4. In an electoral district without an EDA, the campaign committee will appoint
a candidate to run for the party.
Change To:
13.4 In an electoral district without an EDA, the Federal Council will appoint a candidate to run for the Party.
[It has been pointed out to me that there is no definition of the "campaign committees" in the Constitution, so it would be better to simply substitute the phrase "Federal Council" in every case that a committee has been used. The implication is not that the entire Federal Council will handle all of these details, but rather that a committee duly constituted by either the Federal Council, or, the Party Executive on its behalf, will do the actual work. WDH]
ARTICLE 14
Selection of Officers
14.1. All members in good standing 45 days prior to election day shall be eligible to vote in the selection of Federal Council officers.
14.2.All eligible members within a province or territory shall be able to vote for the representative of that province or territory. The assignment of a member to a province or territory shall be based on the mailing address on file 45 days prior to election day.
14.3. Ballots must be mailed out 30 days prior to election day.
14.4. In elections of officers of the Green Party of Canada, including the leader, where one place is to be filled, and where there are more than two candidates, the preferential ballot shall be used.
14.5. Federal council has authority to fill any vacancies by appointment until the next general meeting. All council members shall be notified of the vacancy within 7 days of any officer learning of the vacancy. Notice shall be posted on the official Green Party of Canada website and on the party's general electronic mailing list within the same 7 day period. Appointments to last more than 90 days cannot be made until 60 days after the notice of vacancy has been dispatched to the latest notified of the entities listed above. Interim appointments made before 60 days from full notice, must expire within 90 days of appointment.
REPLACE WITH:
ARTICLE 14
Selection of Officers
14.1. All Party members in good standing 60 days prior to election day shall be eligible to vote in the selection of Federal Council officers (ie: Federal Executive plus Regional Councilors.)
[Originally, I expanded the time period for voters to 120 days because I was concerned about the ability of third parties to "swamp" Leadership races by selling memberships to outside groups who then enter the party to vote en masse for a specific candidate. For example, the Alliance Party joined the Progressive Conservatives as a block and then proceeded to vote for the merger of the two parties. But in discussion with some members, they pointed out that candidates for internal office often go to great lengths to sell memberships in order to secure votes. If we set the time period too long, then there is no reason why candidates would try to expand the membership base. It was also pointed out that a well-organized outside group could always sell lots of memberships 120 days before the election anyway. So I've dropped the time period back down to 60 days and added Article 21, as a "poison pill" to protect the party from hostile takeovers. WDH]
14.2. All eligible members within a province or territory shall be able to vote for the Regional Councilor who will represent that province or territory. The assignment of a member to a province or territory shall be based on the mailing address on file 60 days prior to election day.
14.3. Ballots must be mailed out 30 days prior to election day.
14.4. In elections of officers of the Green Party of Canada, including the leader,
where one place is to be filled, and where there are more than two candidates,
the preferential ballot shall be used.
14.4.1. In all ballots the option of "none of the above" shall be offered.
14.4.1.1. All ballots shall include the following explanation of the "none of the above" option: "None of the Above does not mean that the position will not be filled, only that in your opinion none of the candidates is competent for the position and you would rather see the position filled by an appointment made by the other members of the Federal Council."
[I have repeatedly seen people who should never have been elected to positions in Canadian Green Parties simply because no one else applied and the people voting did not understand the idea behind the "none of the above" option. This should not have to be part of a constitution, but the fact is that I have never seen people organizing a vote explicitly state this fact. WDH]
14.5. Federal council has authority to fill any vacancies by appointment until
the next scheduled election.
14.5.1 All Federal Council members shall be notified of the vacancy within 7 days of any officer learning of the vacancy.
14.5.2 Notice shall be posted on the official Green Party of Canada website and on the party's general electronic mailing list within the same 7 day period.
14.5.3 Appointments to last more than 90 days cannot be made until 60 days after the notice of vacancy has been dispatched to the latest notified of the entities listed above.
14.5.4 Interim appointments made before 60 days from full notice, must expire
within 90 days of appointment.
14.5.5. an individual may not hold more than one Federal Council position concurrently, unless appointed to fill a vacancy on a temporary basis not to last more than 90 days. A federal council member holding two posts exercises a single vote on council.
14.6.1. The Party Executive shall be elected using a staggered system. All members
except the Leader and Executive Director will be elected for two year terms,
of which the following will be filled on even years: Chairperson, Party Secretary,
Official Languages Advocate, Communications Advocate, Policy Development Advocate
and Organizing Advocate. On odd years, the following positions will be elected:
International Green Ambassador, Chief Financial Officer, Fundraising Advocate,
Membership Advocate and Technology Advocate.
14.6.1.1. Every second even year, there shall be a question on the ballot asking for a confidence vote by the membership on the Leader. If 30% or more mail in ballots request a Leadership election, the Federal Council is required to call an internal election for the Leader within 12 months.
14.6.1.2. Every second odd year, the Executive Director will be elected.
[It is important that our entire Federal Council doesn't get replaced all at once. By staggering the terms, we will be allowing continuity between administrations. We have a very large Executive and many of these positions will tend to overlap in their responsibilities, so I have split them up in a way that where responsibilities may overlap one person will stay when another goes. For example, there is a good chance that the International Green Ambassador will be fluent in French and English both, which means s/he may be able to help out the Official Languages Advocate during the transition period and vice/versa.
It may be that at a future date we should consider making these offices four year terms, as people are probably just getting good at the tasks when they stand for reelection. WDH]
14.6.1.3. To be nominated to run for the Party Executive, a candidate must receive formal endorsement from three EDAs, each of which must be in a different province or territory.
[As the Party grows, it is important that make sure that only candidates with a real connection to the Party grassroots get elected to the Federal Council. In the past, there have been many problems because too many important positions were filled by "the only person who applied". If someone cannot get the endorsement of three EDAs spread across the country, we do not want him or her making decisions on behalf of the rest of the party. Remember, if no one gets elected, the Federal Council can always appoint someone to fill the position. WDH]
14.6.2. The Regional Councilors will also be elected using
a staggered system for two year terms as follows: Newfoundland and Labrador,
New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba, Alberta, Nunavut and Yukon on even years; and
the representatives of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Ontario, Saskatchewan,
British Columbia and the Northwest Territories on odd years.
14.6.2.1 To be nominated to run for a position as a Regional
Councilor, a candidate must receive formal endorsement from three EDAs in the
province to be represented, or 20% of the EDAs in the province to be represented,
whichever is less. Candidates in Territories must receive endorsement from at
least five members in good standing.
[Again, we need to avoid getting incompetent individuals acclaimed to office. Territories offer specific organizing problems, so I think we should allow much easier nomination requirements for these positions. It was pointed out to me by Tom Cornwall that some of the smaller provinces might find the "3 EDA" rule unfair, so I've added the "or 20%----whichever is less" bit. WDH]
14.7.1. The Party Leader shall remain in office until such time as s/he resigns, 30% of the members represented at a General Meeting, or two thirds of the Federal Council, 30% of the EDAs, or 30% of a mail-in Leadership review request a leadership election. At this point, the Federal Council shall set a date for a Leadership race at some time within the next 12 months.
[Leadership races are the most important internal election for the party.
Moreover, to be done well, they must become "dress rehearsals" for
general elections. To this end, we need to make sure that we do not have them
too often, but when they do happen they should build the power of the party
by being occasions to raise the profile of the party, sell memberships, and
train members in how to fundraise, organize rallies, deal with the media, etc.
I have not allowed for a petition drive for Leadership races because they
would raise the issue of who does or does not have access to the membership
lists. If we restrict access to the lists, then we have made it difficult almost
to the point of impossible for anyone to conduct a credible campaign. If we
allow anyone who wants the right to have the lists, we create a grave danger
for the party. Since the EDA contacts are readily available to everyone, it
allows people who wish to organize a campaign a lot more accessibility. Moreover,
it strengthens the power of the EDAs vis-à-vis the leadership, which
again makes the Green Party more of a "community of communities" and
less of a presidential organization. WDH]
14.7.2. Candidates for the position of Party Leader must receive the endorsement of at least ten EDAs spread over at least five provinces or territories to be placed on the ballot.
[Several years ago the old Conservative Party allowed anyone who could scrape up $10,000 the right to run for the leadership. As a result, some extremely odd characters by the name of John Long and Wally Tucker ended up being included on the national debate and being extensively covered by the national media. We do not want similar things happening with our Party. This clause would stop that from happening as it means that only people with real connection to the grassroots level would be considered. WDH]
14.7.3. Leadership votes must take place no later than 180
days after being announced.
[We don't want to have leadership contests that take forever to resolve, but on the other hand, we want them to be long enough that we can schedule debates between the candidates all across the country. This will not only make elections real races, they will also raise the profile of the party. Six months should be long enough to have a real campaign---especially as all credible candidates will be assumed to already have organized campaigns in place before the official notice is given. WDH]
14.7.4. Closure of the nominations must take place no earlier than 60 days after being announced.
14.7.5. The Leader shall be chosen by a vote by the rank-and-file members according to the same rules and regulations as normally used to elect other members of the Federal Executive.
14.7.6.1. The Executive Director of the Party shall be elected for a term of office of four years.
14.7.6.2. To be officially nominated and placed on the ballot, candidates for the position of Executive Director must receive the endorsement of 10 EDAs spread over 5 provinces or territories.
[The position of Executive Director is so important that it will no doubt immediately become a paid position. Moreover, it is extremely important that people filling this position be people that actually have the confidence of the rank-and-file membership, so we need to make nominating a candidate just as difficult as a Leader. Finally, it will take some time to become really good at doing the job, so we shouldn't be expecting these folks to run for office every two years. WDH]
14.7.7.1. Duly nominated candidates for positions on the Federal council, including the incumbent, are not allowed access to the membership list.
14.7.7.2 However, the Membership Advocate shall issue mailouts, both Canada Post mail and e-mail, for any candidate who is willing to pay the expenses for such a mailout.
14.7.7.3. These may only be allowed on an equal opportunity basis. "Special deals" are expressly forbidden.
14.7.7.4. Any mailout must be examened and accepted by the Membership Advocate, who reserves the right to edit or forbid outright any submission which in its opinion defames the good name of the party or will discourage members from participating in the electoral process by being unduly negative in nature.
14.7.7.4.1. In situations where a conflict of interest either occurrs or is argued to be occurring (for example because the mailout is specifically for the position of Membership Advocate, or because the Membership Advocate is supporting one specific candidate for another position), the Chairperson shall make the decision about what is or is not suitable to be sent out to the membership.
[There have been mailouts sent to EDA contacts in past elections that were extremely negative in nature and attacked the motives of other candidates. Such mailouts discourage rank-and-file members and almost always end up fueling acrimonious debate. This does no one any good. I've given the authority to decide what to send out to the Membership Advocate alone, simply because if we leave it up to more than one person it will take forever to make a decision. If the Membership Advocate does anything fishy, complaints may be presented to the Chairperson, who can take action against the Membership Advocate if s/he is showing bias. In the specific case of a conflict of interest, we can let the Chairperson make the decision because s/he will be elected in a different cycle. WDH]
14.7.6.5. In addition, the Membership Advocate is empowered to limit the number of mailouts to the membership in order to support our general commitment to reducing the amount of "junk mail" and "spam" inflicted on Canadians.
ARTICLE 15
15. Financial Procedures
15.1. Agency: Federal Council or a general meeting may appoint a registered
agent (as per the Canada Elections Act) to issue tax receipts and maintain books
for any recognized unit. Agency may be revoked by Federal Council or a general
meeting.
Change to:
15.1. The Executive Officer shall appoint an Official Agent (as per the Canada Elections Act), to prepare the annual report and fulfill our obligations under the law.
15.1.1. The Chief Financial Officer shall oversee this staff member to ensure that the Party adheres to both the spirit and letter of the law.
15.2. Fundraising: Units may conduct legal fundraising activities.
15.3. Borrowing: Only a general meeting or federal council may authorize borrowing
by the party or any unit thereof, on behalf of the party.
Change to:
15.3. Borrowing: Only the Party Executive may authorize borrowing by the Party as a whole.
15.3.1. If an EDA seeks to borrow money, it is required to first seek authorization from the Chief Financial Officer of the Party.
[Borrowing money is a very common thing for both federal parties and EDAs. Because we have no assets, all monies raised this way will be for unsecured loans, which means that almost all the risk is on the lender and not the borrower. Having said that, it is important that we don't let borrowing get out of control, which is why we shouldn't allow any one person or EDA borrow money without some sort of oversight. WDH]
15.4. Sovereignty: No unit has rights to funds raised by another unit except
insofar as federal council or a general meeting may levy fees from units with
registered agents to cover the costs of party registration, annual audits or
other essential activities.
Delete: 15.4
[I'm not sure that this provision is legal, as there may well be issues involved around the new elections financing laws. But even if it is, it is important to realize that local EDAs have to shoulder some of the burden of supporting the Party bureaucracy. There may very well come a time where we have to "tithe" all the funds raised by local EDAs, with a percentage going to the hub office. Just by way of a comparison, every dollar raised by the NDP automatically goes to their Hub office, who gets to decide how much comes back to the local EDA. We certainly don't want to end up in that position, but we need to make some concessions with the economic reality of running a major political organization. WDH]
ARTICLE 16
Removal of Officers or Units
16.1. if any member of Federal Council fails to attend two meetings in a row without cause and without providing a written report in lieu of attendance, they shall be suspended from council until they provide such reports. If a member of Federal Council fails to attend three meetings in a row without cause and without providing a written report in lieu of attendance they will be removed from their position on council and be considered ineligible to run for a Federal Council position in the next election.
16.2. In addition, Federal council or a general meeting have the authority to:
16.2.1. remove any member of federal council or any member of a federal committee
for a reason;
16.2.2. De-recognize any unit of the party for a reason.
[This article is extremely important, as it gives enormous power to the entire Federal Council to keep individual elected officials from "getting out of control" and EDAs from becoming "local fiefdoms". It is the key safeguard that ensure that the party remains accountable to the rank and file. Ultimately, it is the "raison d'etre" for the existence of Regional Councilors who have very little power other than that of kicking people off the Executive or shutting down EDAs. WDH]
ARTICLE 17
Council Composition
1. Federal Council shall be composed of a:
1. One representative of each province and territory of Canada and one of
each of the following officers:
2. Chairperson
3. Leader
4. Secretary
5. Francophone Secretary
6. International Secretary
7. Chief Agent
8. Publications Chair (Communications Chair)
9. Organizing Chair
10. Fundraising Chair
11. Membership Chair
12. Administration Chair
Change to:
17.1. Federal Council shall be composed of:
17.1.1. One representative of each province and territory of Canada (i.e.: the Regional Councilors)
and
17.1.2. The Federal Executive
17.2. an individual may not hold more than one Federal Council position concurrently, unless appointed to fill a vacancy on a temporary basis not to last more than 90 days. A federal council member holding two posts exercises a single vote on council.
ARTICLE 18
18. Leader and Shadow Cabinet
18.1. shadow cabinet is a federal committee as defined in Article 7.
18.2. The leader may be assisted by a shadow cabinet of which s/he is a member. They shall be selected by a party general meeting, respecting gender parity. Shadow cabinet may fill its vacancies between general meetings.
CHANGE TO
18.2. The leader will be assisted by a shadow cabinet of which s/he is a member.
18.2.1. members of the shadow cabinet shall be nominated by the Leader and ratified by the Federal Council
[It is far too much to expect from a General Meeting to be able to select a shadow cabinet amongst its other responsibilities. Since it is so important for the Leader to get along with his/her cabinet, these people should be selected by him/her. Having said that, in order to avoid drifting towards a "presidential system", these positions should be ratified by the Federal Council. If we ever do form a government, this will set a precedent where a Green Prime Minister would have to ratify cabinet members through the Party instead of simply having the Leader tell them who s/he selects. This is an important issue as the power of individual cabinet members has drastically declined to the point where I recently heard an "insider" in the Chretien cabinet declare that it was actually nothing more than a "focus group" for the PM. We might want to consider other safeguards for a Green government---for example secret ballots for Parliament, making the Leader responsible to votes in caucus, etc. Of course, these are beyond the scope of this document. WDH]
18.3. The shadow cabinet shall be chaired by the leader or an individual selected
by the shadow cabinet to act as chair.
18.4. each member of the shadow cabinet shall:
18.4.1. act as "critic" for one or more ministries of the federal
government;
18.4.2. Liaise with non-governmental organizations dealing with the same policy
areas as the ministry(s);
18.4.3. develop platform for the ministry(s).
18.5. Shadow cabinet may create the election platform insofar as it does not conflict with party policy.
ARTICLE 19
19. Other Documents
The federal council shall maintain for viewing by all members:
19.1. This document: the Constitution of the Green Party of Canada
19.2. The Rules of Order of the Green Party of Canada (Flow chart - PDF file)
19.3. The Adopted Policy of the Green Party of Canada
19.4. The Election Platform of the Green Party of Canada
19.5. A register of members
DELETE
19.5. A register of members
[It is suicidal for a political party to make its membership list available to anyone who can afford to pay for a personal membership as the membership list is its most important fundraising and lobbying asset. For example, during the last election in some ridings the NDP was targeting every house with a Green Party sign and dropping off scurrilous leaflets slandering the Party. If one of their people joined the Greens and asked for the membership list, then they'd be able to e-mail or snail mail all our membership with similar literature. Rest assured no other party would ever allow us to do the same thing! WDH]
19.6. All minutes of previous general meetings and federal council meetings
CHANGE TO
19.6. All minutes of previous non-in camera General Meetings, Party Executive, and Federal Council meetings
[It is simply crazy to allow the minutes of all meetings to be available to the public. In the case of deliberations with regard to personnel, it would leave us open to libel lawsuits. With regard to business decisions, it would make it impossible to negotiate for the best price for large purchases and contracts. It would also allow other parties to have access to our strategic and tactical deliberations vis-à-vis important campaign considerations. The Federal Council would either have to ignore this clause of the constitution, which would weaken the entire document; or else it would have to start making important decisions without recording them in the minutes of meetings, which would dramatically weaken due process and accountability to the membership. This is why all institutions allow for in camera meetings. WDH]
19.7. Items shall be forwarded by mail to members at cost on request.
Delete: 19.7.
[Item 19.7. is dealt with in 14.7.6.1 to 14.7.6.5. with regard to elections to Federal Council. We should limit access to the membership lists so as not to end up filling member's mailboxes with junk mail and spam. WDH]
19.8. Plenary Rules of Procedure (Abridged)
Article 20
20. General Meeting Official Rules of Procedure
[The rules of procedure should be a part of the Party's constitution. WDH]
20.1. The Green Party of Canada does not use Robert's or Bourinot's Rules of
Order in order to make decisions. Instead, we use a consensus seeking procedure:
if possible, we work to make a motion acceptable to all participants, not a
simple majority. Greens believe that each person involved in a decision has
a piece of the truth. Therefore, Greens believe that amendments to a motion
strengthen it, as opposed to the traditional belief that they dilute the motion's
strength.
CHANGE TO
(It is extremely difficult to ensure that Democracy is a fact rather than merely a unrealized ideal. Mere voting is not sufficient, as there needs to be a "meeting of minds" for the votes to be informed by the best information available at hand and for the decisions made to strengthen the party instead of dividing it. This means that there need to be opportunities for debate, negotiation and compromise. Moreover, this all has to happen as quickly as possible as there is only limited time during General Meetings and usually a great many decisions have to be made.)
20.1. The procedure that Greens wil use to make decisions at General Meetings
will require more than simple majority, will be open to friendly amendments
and shall be a compromise between being:
a: respectful towards minority points of view
b: reflective of the general will
c: informed by expert opinion
d: done in a timely manner
(As a result, the system Greens use is not, and simply cannot ever be, "perfect". So instead we explicitely seek to create a system that is "pretty good, most of the time.")
[In my twenty odd years of involvement with activism and politics I have
found time and again that problems come most often not from individuals consciously
attempting to subvert the structure but rather from people who have a hyper-idealistic
vision of how things should be done. The result has been constitutional systems
that placed inclusiveness and respect for minority points of view far ahead
of the need to come to timely decisions that reflect the general will. In practical
terms for the Green Party, this resulted in conferences that took forever to
come to any conclusions at all; and the General Meeting far too often ended
up twisting itself like a pretzel to come up with a solution that one recalcitrant
individual could live with.
We simply cannot run an organization with paid staff and a large budget this way. If we will not develop a structure that will allow the General Meeting to set the party's strategic vision and make important decisions, the Executive will have to take over and simply ignore the rank-and-file members altogether. Moreover, if we cannot govern ourselves in an efficient manner, what right do we have to tell Canadians that they should elect us to run the Canadian government for them? WDH]
This does not mean that total agreement on everything is required. If a person
is unhappy with a motion but is not sufficiently opposed to stop it from proceeding,
that person may stand aside. This person's reasons for opposing the motion are
noted for future reference. If a person is sufficiently opposed to a motion
as it stands to stop it from proceeding, that person may block the motion providing
the person is a member in good standing and the principle for blocking is consistent
with the Party's constitution and values. A blocked motion is either tabled,
amended, referred to a committee for more work, or proceeds to a deciding vote.
CHANGE TO
(It is important to realize that the job of the general meeting organizers is not to make it easy to get an item onto the agenda and be passed, but rather to make it difficult. A great deal of preliminary work should already have been done by the resolution's sponsors before it arrives at a general meeting. Experts should have been consulted to make sure that the resolution is as well-reasoned, researched and written as possible before it is included on the agenda ballot. As well, a great deal of consultation should be done with the membership before the General Meeting so they have been informed of its value and useful friendly ammendments may be incorporated into the resolution. The time of the general meeting is very precious and only very good resolutions with a significant amount of support within the party should be presented for consideration. The right to participate only exists insofar as the member has done his/her homework ahead of time.)
20.2 The inclusion of an item onto the agenda is subject
to strict rules because a resolution should only be submitted to the general
meeting after:
a: extensive preliminary work leading to a high quality resolution
b: experts have been consulted to ensure that the resolution has been well reasoned, researched and written.
c: consultation has been done with the membership, informing members of the value of the resolution,and allowing them to incorporate friendly amendments
d: significant support has been received from the membership
20.3. In a large plenary, coloured cards may be used to indicate people's intentions toward a motion:
20.3.1. A yellow card indicates that they need more clarification or information before they can consent to or reject the motion.
CHANGE TO
20.3.1. A yellow card indicates that they do not have a strong opinion one way or the other towards the motion. It may also mean that they do not believe that they have not had enough information given to them to make an informed decision. It is understood that in a vote the yellow card counts as an objection to a resolution. If a resolution fails because of a large number of yellow cards, it may be assumed that there was not enough lobbying done with the membership before it was placed before them to decide upon.
20.3.2. A green card indicates that a person understands the motion and consents
to it.
20.3.3. A red card indicates that they understand the motion and object to it.
Some Procedure Definitions
DELETE
"Some Procedure Definitions"
20.4. Facilitator:
This person has a similar role to a chairperson under Robert's Rules of Order. It is the facilitator's responsibility to moderate the discussion and fate of proposals. In the event of a tie vote, the facilitator does not have the deciding vote. Instead, the resolution is not passed.
REPLACE WITH
20.4. General Meeting Speaker:
Amongst his/her other duties, the Federal Council Chairperson has a similar role to the Speaker in the House of Commons. It is the Chairperson's duty to moderate discussion, enforce the rules and procedures of the General Meeting, make decisions in novel situations, ensure that the meeting proceeds in as fair, efficient and timely manner as possible, and to generally defend the constitution of the Green Party of Canada.
20.4.1. In the event that the Chairperson cannot attend a General Meeting, s/he
will appoint a replacement.
20.4.2. In addition, the Chairperson, or his/her representative, will appoint whatever staff s/he will need (i.e. timekeepers, secretaries, clerks, etc.) to ensure that the general meeting is as efficiently run as possible.
[I've added the role of General Meeting"Speaker" to the Federal
Council's Chairperson duties specifically because I think we need someone who's
job it is to look out for the general "good functioning" of the party
by ironing out disagreements between key members and to step in when unforeseen
circumstances require some innovative precedents. The idea is that this will
allow the Leader to be somewhat "above" the messier bits of day-to-day
politics. Functioning as the "speaker" during General Meetings will
give the Chairperson more visibility amongst the general membership, which will
allow him/her to assume some connection to the rank-and-file and moral authority
from them when s/he deals with the rest of the Executive. This again will allow
for a "checks and balance" against the power of the Leader. WDH]
CO-facilitator: This person should be of the opposite gender to the facilitator
and is responsible for keeping a speakers' list and also taking the facilitator's
role if the facilitator wishes to involve her or himself in the discussion.
The facilitators may not block or vote.
Recorder: This person is responsible for keeping records of all resolutions and amendments proposed, either passed or canceled, along with some context. The recorder also reads the resolution whenever clarification or confirmation is requested.
Timekeeper: This person is responsible for keeping track of how long the group spends on each topic and reminding the facilitator if a particular item is about to or has exceeded its time limit.
Speakers' list: This can be two lists, one of women wishing to speak to an issue and one of men wishing to do so. The facilitator alternates between these two lists when asking people to speak.
Straw Vote: This is not the same as a deciding vote, as a straw vote is not binding on a decision. Straw votes are sometimes used by facilitators to make a determination of the will of the group on a particular idea or procedure.
Standing Aside: A person who abstains from a motion or does not object to a
motion strong enough to stop it from passing may stand aside. Members who stand
aside may request their reasons for standing aside to be recorded in the minutes.
DELETE:
Everything from "CO-facilitator" through to "recorded in the minutes."
[These items are all things that the Chairperson may or may want to do, but I don't think that it makes much sense to "tie people's hands" with too much detail. WDH]
ADD:
20.5. Selection of Delegates
In addition to ordinary members in good standing, delegates from officially registered EDAs may bring proxy votes to a general meeting.
20.5.1. Delegates shall bring a form signed and dated by the president of that
EDA (or some other member of the EDA executive appointed by the EDA executive)
that lists the names of the members who have awarded the delegate their proxies,
and states that these proxy votes were assigned in a fair and democratic manner.
[Please note that I am only asking for a letter from the EDA President, not a series of signatures from the individuals assigning proxies. There is no way that the General Meeting organizers can actually verify signatures anyway, so this way the EDA President is verifying that things were on the "up and up". This also leaves him/her some leeway in how the EDA goes about awarding proxies. It is not a trivial task to do this and this freedom will allow for things like e-mail ballots, sign-up lists, etc---all of which increase the turnout. WDH]
20.5.2. The Chairperson shall appoint clerks whose job it shall be to check the names of people assigning proxies to delegates to ensure that only members in good standing are allowed to send proxies; and to ensure that each member is allowed to send only one proxy to a general meeting.
[Having said that we should leave things up to the EDA, we also need to have some mechanism to ensure that the members really are members. Moreover, it can be extremely difficult to ensure that a member is still paid up or not, seeing as many folks are very sketchy about the difference between a federal and provincial party. This means that a EDA may in good conscience send proxies for members who are not in good standing, which should be caught, but not necessarily with an eye to punishing the people involved. WDH]
20.5.2.1. Attempts to willfully subvert the delegate system by sending more proxies than allowed, or to award proxies by a non-democratic system will be dealt with harshly by the Chairperson and are sufficient grounds for issuing an immediate "cease and desist" order, exclusion from the General Meeting, expulsion from the party and decertification of an EDA.
[The important issue is whether the attempt to pad the proxies was willful or simply by error. This should be very obvious once someone makes the effort to look as there is a paper trail that tells who awarded proxies, whom they were given to, and which EDA oversaw the process. WDH]
20.5.2.2. When the proxies have been verified, the delegates
shall be given voting "paddles" that list in clear numbers the number
of proxies that the delegate brings to the conference.
20.5.2.3. When the delegate votes on a resolution, they shall assign the coloured
tag (i.e. red, yellow or green) to the paddle so their number of votes is clearly
visible.
20.5.2.4. The Chairperson shall appoint clerks whose job it is to count the
number of proxy votes for any given vote in the general meeting.
20.5.3. In the event that an EDA has a problem finding people willing to undertake the time and expense of attending a general meeting, if the EDA executive agrees, members will be allowed to transfer proxies to delegate(s) from another EDA which is planning to do so.
20.5.3.1 In the case of members transferring proxies to other EDAs, the EDA executives involved are encouraged to develop formal structures of a bioregional or provincial nature that will allow maximum grassroots control over the process.
[Hopefully this will only be an interim measure until all the EDAs get
well enough organized to all send delegates. Until then, we need to get as many
of the rank-and-file members as possible involved in the general meeting process,
even if it is only in a very tenuous fashion.
Several people have contacted me since I wrote this clause suggesting that I include some sort of formal recognition of a provincial or bio-regional level of organization. I've been loathe to do this because the Green Party has a history of creating institutions on paper without actually doing the grunt work necessary to see them created. Please note, however, that because of this line in my resolution and the latitude that the rest of Article 20 gives to the EDAs when selecting proxies, there is an avenue for members in an area to get together before General Meetings, organize some democratic way of assigning proxies, and sending bioregional or provincial delegates to a General Meeting. If people actually did this and were happy with the results, this would be an "interim" measure that we could enshrine in the formal Constitution at some later date. WDH]
20.5.4. Only an EDA is able to assign a delegate to an general meeting and only proxy validation credentials issued by the executive of an EDA will be accepted.
[This is a key point. If we allow people to issue proxies from some other mechanism, such as a trade union (as the NDP does), University clubs or the hub office, we will destroy the power of the grass roots because organizations with paid staff will always be better at pulling proxies. More to the point, we need to give the bigger and better organized EDAs more power than members who cannot "get their act together" enough to form one. This will ensure that we pass resolutions that foster the growth of strong EDAs instead of ones that hinder them. This will hinder the drift towards a "presidential" party and retain as much power as possible in the hands of the rank-and-file. WDH]
20.5.5. Members in good standing, regardless of whether they are members of an EDA or not, may represent themselves at a general meeting.
20.5.6. No delegate shall be allowed to bring more than 100 proxies to a general
meeting.
[This may sound like an enormous number to some people. But the other parties routinely have memberships in the many hundreds for their EDAs and I understand that one riding in the BC Green Party has 700 members. Remember, no one is holding a gun to anyone's head about handing over a proxy. The big improvement over proxies versus a formal delegate system (which are usually "winner take all") is that if a number of people cannot stand one of the delegates, they can always hand their votes over to another person. WDH]
20.5.7. No delegate may split their proxy votes in a vote---they must all be cast as one block.
[This is to avoid making the job of scrutineers impossible by making them
have to negotiate with delegates about how many votes go one way or another.
It should be obvious, but there are invariably some people who want to do this.
WDH]
20.6.A Procedure Summary
1. A sponsor or the facilitator presents the resolution on the floor for discussion.
CHANGE TO
20.6.1. A sponsor or the Chairperson presents the resolution on the floor for discussion.
2. The facilitator then asks for a moment of silence during which everyone considers
the resolution and notes any points of information they have or need.
REPLACE WITH:
20.6.2. The Chairperson will ask the delegates and members to conduct a non-binding
vote (i.e. a "straw poll") to give a feel for the level of support
for or against the resolution.
20.6.3. If it is obvious that there is a great deal of support for or against
the resolution as it presently stands, the Chairperson will ask if anyone wishes
to speak for or against the resolution.
20.6.3.1. If no one does, the Chairperson will call for a second, binding vote.
If 60% or more of the votes cast are green, it shall be considered as passed.
If 60% or more of the votes cast are red, it shall be considered as failed.
20.6.3.2. In the rare case of a resolution having a great deal of support or
opposition in the straw poll, and no one wanting to speak for or against it,
yet it still receives less than 60% either red or green cards, it will be deemed
contentious and a debate will be called. If no one still wishes to debate it,
it shall go straight to workshop.
20.6.4. If there are those who are concerned about the resolution, or it is obvious from the straw poll that the issue at hand is contentious, then the Chairperson will ask for debate from the floor of the general meeting. This shall take the form of:
20.6.4.1. five questions of fact. These shall not be statements for or against
the resolution, but only questions about its implications or the reasons for
its need. They will be directed towards the sponsor of the resolution or someone
who speaks on his/her behalf.
[In many cases people's concerns about a resolution can be easily dealt with through asking a few honest questions. The fact that they have to be questions of fact allows the Chairperson to step in and keep people from speaking pro or con on the subject. This system is used in Ontario and has dramatically "tidied up" discussion of resolutions. WDH]
20.6.4.2. Once the questions of fact have been dealt with, the Chairperson will ask if anyone would like to speak in favor or in opposition to the resolution.
20.6.4.2.1. If not, then the resolution will go to the vote.
20.6.4.2.2. If yes, the Chairperson will then ask for people wishing to speak to meet in two groups, one "for" and one "against". They will be given 5 minutes to appoint two people each to speak on their behalf.
20.6.4.2.3 If either or both of the Groups fails to delegate two people to speak on behalf of their position, the Chairperson will choose the two that s/he believes can best represent their position.
[The problem of debates always comes down to how to limit the time spent
arguing without unfairly limiting the right to speak. Hopefully any people concerned
about a specific resolution will communicate with each other ahead of time and
already decide whom is going to speak on their behalf during the debate. If
this doesn't happen, then the Chairperson can choose whomever s/he thinks best.
This is more fair than letting whomever is loudest, pushiest or gets to the
floor microphone first speak. If people don't like the choices the Chairperson
makes, they can "get their act together" next time and have someone
chosen before the General Meeting. WDH]
20.6.4.2.4 At this point the four people speaking will be
each allowed 5 minutes to address the issue at hand. The order will alternate
with the issue of con or pro being first being settled by a coin toss.
20.7. When debate has finished on the resolution, the Chairperson will ask for a vote. If the 60% or more of the votes cast are green, the resolution has been passed. If 60% or more are red, the resolution has failed and it will not be considered again at the general meeting. Any other percentages will result in the resolution being sent to a workshop.
20.8. No amendments, friendly or otherwise, will be considered during the open plenary of the General Meeting. All modification of resolutions must take place in a workshop.
[Except for the provision for debate, this is basically the system used by the Green Party of Ontario, which has found that it works remarkably well most of the time. I understand something very similar was also used at the last GPC general meeting. WDH]
20.9. Workshops
All items that fail to receive 60% green cards and thereby fail to pass; and receive less than 60% red cards and thereby do not fail; will be sent to a workshop where they will be subject to friendly amendment.
20.9.1. Workshops will be held after the first session
of the general meeting and before the second session.
20.9.2. Attendance is voluntary except for the sponsor of the resolution (or
his/her representative).
20.9.3. Time will be split equally between the sponsor (or representative) and the other members of the workshop. The meeting will be considered a dialogue between the resolution sponsor and the rest of the workshop.
20.9.4. The Chairperson will appoint a person to mediate the process and ensure good process.
20.9.5. The members shall suggest friendly amendments which the resolution sponsor may either choose to accept or reject.
20.9.6. When the time allocated is up, the sponsor will take the amended resolution back to the second sitting of the general meeting and present them to the assembly.
20.10. Second Sitting of General Meeting
Once the workshops have concluded a second sitting of the open plenary shall commence.
20.10.1 The Chairperson shall call upon the remaining resolutions (ie: the entire
set of resolutions minus the ones that have already passed or failed) in the
order that they were originally set on the agenda by the mail-in ballot. The
direct implication of this is that the resolutions from the first session that
were sent to workshop will be dealt with before the resolutions that failed
to be discussed at all during the first session because of time considerations.
[The mail-in agenda ranking is specificallly designed to be a "first cull" of the resolutions by the entire membership. To this end, we have to allow for the option of the last items on the agenda failing to be even discussed at the General Meeting. This way we will be able to put items that are really important and popular at the begining, and give them the time and attention they deserve---while placing flakey resolutions at the end. We don't want to be in a situation where a brilliant resolution never gets proper discussion because some kooky piece of crud wastes a lot of time. Moreover, we don't want a small group of appointed people deciding what is "brilliant" and what is "crud". WDH]
20.10.2 The sponsor shall read out the resolution as amended in the workshop.
20.10.3 The Chairperson shall call for a quick straw poll and repeat the procedure as used in the first session.
20.11. Recording Secretary
The Chairperson will appoint a recording secretary to record the decisions of the general meeting. It is not his/her job to make transcripts of debates, but only to record the final resolution voted upon, who the sponsor was, and the number of votes cast for or against it.
20.11.1. After the general meeting the recording secretary will give the minutes of the general meeting to the Executive Director, who will present them to Party staff for incorporation in GPC documentation.
[The purpose of minutes is not to record discussion, but to tell people
exactly what the decisions were that were made by the meeting. Again, this shouldn't
have to be stated, but my experience is that some people taking minutes at Green
meetings don't understand this point. WDH]
DELETE EVERYTHING THAT FOLLOWS
3. The facilitator then asks if anyone needs clarification of the resolution presented. Those clarifications are made either by the facilitator, the recorder, the resolution's sponsor, or other person at the meeting.
4. Discussion then takes place until a) a consensus is reached, b) it becomes
clear that no consensus can be reached, or c) it is agreed that the resolution
is sent back to a workgroup or it's sponsors for more work.
5. In the event that there is no consensus, a straw vote is taken to determine
support for a) tabling the resolution, b) sending the resolution back for more
work, or c) going to a deciding vote using the 75-10-15 formula.
6. If a deciding vote is taken and if 75% are in favor of the motion, and not
more than 10% are opposed, the motion carries. Abstentions are counted and there
cannot be more than 15% abstentions. Only members in good standing may participate
in a deciding vote.
7. Resolutions sent back for more work may be represented at a future plenary
or meeting.
(Note: This procedure is used in plenary. Workgroups use a more informal approach, omitting steps 5 through 7)
CO-facilitator: This person should be of the opposite gender to the facilitator and is responsible for keeping a speakers' list and also taking the facilitator's role if the facilitator wishes to involve her or himself in the discussion. The facilitators may not block or vote.
Recorder: This person is responsible for keeping records of all resolutions and amendments proposed, either passed or canceled, along with some context. The recorder also reads the resolution whenever clarification or confirmation is requested.
Timekeeper: This person is responsible for keeping track of how long the group spends on each topic and reminding the facilitator if a particular item is about to or has exceeded its time limit.
Speakers' list: This can be two lists, one of women wishing to speak to an issue and one of men wishing to do so. The facilitator alternates between these two lists when asking people to speak.
Straw Vote: This is not the same as a deciding vote, as a straw vote is not binding on a decision. Straw votes are sometimes used by facilitators to make a determination of the will of the group on a particular idea or procedure.
Standing Aside: A person who abstains from a motion or does not object to a motion strong enough to stop it from passing may stand aside. Members who stand aside may request their reasons for standing aside to be recorded in the minutes.
A Procedure Summary
1. A sponsor or the facilitator presents the resolution on the floor for discussion.
2. The facilitator then asks for a moment of silence during which everyone considers
the resolution and notes any points of information they have or need.
3. The facilitator then asks if anyone needs clarification of the resolution
presented. Those clarifications are made either by the facilitator, the recorder,
the resolution's sponsor, or other person at the meeting.
4. Discussion then takes place until a) a consensus is reached, b) it becomes
clear that no consensus can be reached, or c) it is agreed that the resolution
is sent back to a workgroup or it's sponsors for more work.
5. In the event that there is no consensus, a straw vote is taken to determine
support for a) tabling the resolution, b) sending the resolution back for more
work, or c) going to a deciding vote using the 75-10-15 formula.
6. If a deciding vote is taken and if 75% are in favor of the motion, and not
more than 10% are opposed, the motion carries. Abstentions are counted and there
cannot be more than 15% abstentions. Only members in good standing may participate
in a deciding vote.
7. Resolutions sent back for more work may be represented at a future plenary
or meeting.
(Note: This procedure is used in plenary. Workgroups use a more informal approach, omitting steps 5 through 7)
Add:
20.12.. Automatic Leadership Review:
20.12.1. Every General Meeting shall end with an automatic leadership review. If red cards representing 30% or more of the members represented at the General Meeting are displayed, then the Party shall be committed to a Leadership contest within the next 12 months at a time specified by the Federal Council.
21. Dissolution or Merger
21.1 Any resolution to dissolve the party or to merge it with another party passed at a general meeting shall only become effective upon members passing an identically worded resolution by a vote of greater than ninety (90) percent of the the members cast in a vote conducted by mail-in ballot, with a ballot return date of no later than 120 days following the General Meeting at which the resolution to dissolve or merge the party was passed.
21.2. Only official members who have joined at least 730 days before the date that the Dissolution or Merger referendum was called (i.e. not the date of the referendum itself) will be allowed to vote.
21.3. No transfer of the party's assets may be commenced or completed until such a mail-in ballot is passed with the required ninety (90) percent majority and the resolution to dissolve or merge the Party takes effect.
[This is what is known as a "poison pill" clause in business circles. It is specifically designed to be so hard to achieve that it will be impossible to actually do. It was suggested by Markus Buchart and looks a lot like it is supposed to prevent the sort of takeover that was done to the Progressive Conservative Party by Stephen Harper and the Alliance Party. WDH]
A Non-Constitutional Point of Order
In light of the new constitutional changes, the Federal Council is empowered to make the changes necessary in order to implement them ASAP. In particular, it will make the necessary appointments needed to fill the new positions created by this new constitution. All people so appointed will stay in power until the next regularly scheduled election, the individuals resign, or the Federal Council removes them through proper constitutional procedure.
[In the event that the proposed omnibus resolution is passed by the General Meeting, there will need to be some provision for managing the transition between operating with the old constitutional framework and the new one. I propose that the preceeding "point of order" be raised and voted on immediately after passing the Omnibus Resolution. WDH]
A Second Non-Constitutional Point of Order
In light of the new constitutional changes, the General Meeting will adopt the new decision-making process insofar as is possible.
[It has been pointed out to me that the existing process is so chaotic that it would probably speed things up dramatically if we adopted the new process for the Calgary General Meeting. We have a lot of resolutions to deal with and this might offer the best chance of being able to deal with all them. WDH]