Policy/Constitutional Committee "Elections"

[Enn]

styky wrote:

I hate to say this but the only time I ever hear from them is when they want whats in my wallet. To find out what's going on in the riding is like pulling teeth.

Fundraising is one element of national and consituency politics. Contributions are an important but somewhat benign part of politics.

Apparently, there is information that is provided to all consituents through MP newsletters, regardless of the party that is representing the riding. I have heard that such letters might also include contact information is there are questions or concerns.

I suppose other venues of information exchange include reports on local politics in local newspapers, letters to the editor, letters of exchange, email communications or phone calls with MP's constituency offices.

Apparently, the same methods apply with the various political EDAs.

[reformthesystem]

Enn:

sounds like head office talk to me..

some EDA's I have been around are just cheering sections for the execs and the MP or the wanna be MP. Not certain how that expands the brand that is the 'CPC.'

But since you have a good grasp on the technical details can I ask you a question?

What in your opinion is the primary purpose of the EDA anyways?

[khori_wan_kenobi]

On a side note the Tory elite will like to see someone as a committee member, who is blindly Loyal to the party regardless of what it does. Khori-wan should be a shoo-in.

Nice to know how you think of me. It'll come in handy next time I out debate you.

[Psycho]

Apparently, there is information that is provided to all consituents through MP newsletters, regardless of the party that is representing the riding. I have heard that such letters might also include contact information is there are questions or concerns.

It is illegal for MP's newsletters to carry information regarding EDA activities, etc... The newsletters are paid for by taxpayers at large; the EDA is a purely partisan organization.

Just for clarification.
.

[Connie Fournier]

All this talk of EDAs makes me think that some of you aren't perfectly clear on what happened here. This was not a local 'election', this was something that was organized by the National Council.

Enn, you said:

If EDAs feel they do not have sufficient voice at the national level, and if they care, it is their responsibility to make their voices heard.

Well, I think that I, personally, have a louder voice than most members because of FD...and I had the connections to find out about this 'election' in time to meet their narrow time requirments...but it still didn't help!

I don't think it's fair to say that it is the responsibility of the EDAs, when the problem is clearly coming from the other side.

I appreciate the fact that you want to defend the Party, but when the Party is not doing their job in an acceptable way, it is our duty to call them on it.

In this case, they told the membership there was going to be an 'election', then they proceeded with a process that was unlike any other election I have seen in a democratic country.

They should have made the process open and transparent...or just simply appointed the people of their choosing. Calling this farce an 'election' is just insulting to all involved.

[C.Morgan]

All this talk of EDAs makes me think that some of you aren't perfectly clear on what happened here. This was not a local 'election', this was something that was organized by the National Council.

Enn, you said:

If EDAs feel they do not have sufficient voice at the national level, and if they care, it is their responsibility to make their voices heard.

Well, I think that I, personally, have a louder voice than most members because of FD...and I had the connections to find out about this 'election' in time to meet their narrow time requirments...but it still didn't help!

I don't think it's fair to say that it is the responsibility of the EDAs, when the problem is clearly coming from the other side.

I appreciate the fact that you want to defend the Party, but when the Party is not doing their job in an acceptable way, it is our duty to call them on it.

In this case, they told the membership there was going to be an 'election', then they proceeded with a process that was unlike any other election I have seen in a democratic country.

They should have made the process open and transparent...or just simply appointed the people of their choosing. Calling this farce an 'election' is just insulting to all involved.

I wonder if this sort of process will apply to nominations soon.

They were always messy affairs anyway. Best to leave that kind of thing to the folks on top.

[Wlyonmackenzie]

From my perspective. I see a large political organization, run by political elites going through the motions in an attempt to con the many party worker ants that populism and open democracy are vibrant in this organization.

From my personal experience I say there is a remnant of populist democracy but the same bug bear that plagues all large organizations is at work here...blind or inept bureaucracy...and this will impede populist democracy every time...the laeger you allow it to grow and the more power of arbitrary decision it gets...the farther we get from populist democracy. It is the natural progression of ANY organization to become dictatorial when the grass roots goes to sleep or capitulates.

The only way to keep an organization open is to launch complaints and get backing every time another function is impeded by bureaucratic fait....organize to keep the processes open and remember the constitution is the document that needs the amending to get us back where we came from.....before red tories started creating their little bureaucratic kingdoms in this party.

[khori_wan_kenobi]

Connie,

If it helps any most EDAs weren't given much notice of this.

The process seemed like it was rather rushed to me and it would have been nice if NC had informed the general membership of it.

In cases such as this where the NC or LO don't really come through I feel its up to the EDAs to ensure that the process is as grassroots as possible.

Unforunately, the EDA weren't given much notice ahead of time to do some thing like a mailout ot members or organize a nomination meeting. My EDA did its best to notify its members of this nomination process however there wasn't enough time to have a formal meeting.

Somebody asked what they saw the function of the EDAs as being. I see the main functions as:

1) facilitating grassroots participation in the party (attract members, keep them informed, develop local policies to bring to national votes etc.)

2) attract and assist candidates (fundraise, hold nominations, develop infrastructure such as CIMS and organizational structure, promote the "brand" locally)

If anybody is disappointed in there EDAs I'd recommend that they join their board and make some changes that they feel are needed.

Many EDAs will be having their AGMs in the coming months and from what I can tell most EDAs are desperate for dedicated people who can help and aren't interested in the EDA as a "social chit-chat club".

Even if they aren't having an AGM soon contact them and they may be able to place you in a non-director position where you could help out.

[Enn]

Psycho wrote:

Enn wrote:

Apparently, there is information that is provided to all consituents through MP newsletters, regardless of the party that is representing the riding. I have heard that such letters might also include contact information is there are questions or concerns.

It is illegal for MP's newsletters to carry information regarding EDA activities, etc... The newsletters are paid for by taxpayers at large; the EDA is a purely partisan organization.

Agreed. The intention of my comment was to refer to contact information for the MP’s office. I then listed several methods of communication and pointed out that similar methods of communications could be used within EDAs as well.

Connie wrote:

I don't think it's fair to say that it is the responsibility of the EDAs, when the problem is clearly coming from the other side.

I appreciate the fact that you want to defend the Party, but when the Party is not doing their job in an acceptable way, it is our duty to call them on it.

My comments were not intended to assign blame to any one side. I also wrote:

At the same time, it is incumbent on the national party to seriously consider the opinions of the grassroots, in particular through the EDAs, and be proactive in respecting the party's democratic foundations.

Connie wrote:

In this case, they told the membership there was going to be an 'election', then they proceeded with a process that was unlike any other election I have seen in a democratic country.

They should have made the process open and transparent...or just simply appointed the people of their choosing. Calling this farce an 'election' is just insulting to all involved.

As I mentioned earlier, it seems that communications need to be improved.

Wlyonmackenzie wrote:

the same bug bear that plagues all large organizations is at work here...blind or inept bureaucracy...and this will impede populist democracy every time...

One way to help cut through the bureaucracy is to know who to contact. Wouldn't an organizational chart for the party, along with contact information be helpful?

Wlyonmackenzie wrote:

The only way to keep an organization open is to launch complaints and get backing every time another function is impeded by bureaucratic fait....organize to keep the processes open and remember the constitution is the document that needs the amending to get us back where we came from.....before red tories started creating their little bureaucratic kingdoms in this party.

Seems like good advice for the most part, although I can't knowledgeably comment on the last phrase.

[Connie Fournier]

Well, I'm tired of making excuses for them. I have worked night and day for the past five years to try to help make positive political changes in this country.

I have met hundreds of dedicated, principled people who were working hard toward the same end.

But, you know what? We're back where we were before we took that little Reform detour, and the big boys are in charge again.

We can sit here all day and make excuses, and dream that this is all part of some wildly intelligent plan that peons such as ourselves are too dense to understand...or we can acknowledge where we really are, and decide whether to continue to fight or to pack it in.

Whichever direction I decide to take personally, I am through giving credit where it isn't due, and I will not run my words through a 'what's good for the CPC' filter.

It's time the grassroots started to hold some people accountable.

/rant

[Michael]

...some members may get the impression that policies and constitution are to be adhered to.

Cant have that.

blippity blip blah bloh bleh blah blem blooey blee blo bla ble ba bo ho hooey

[Connie Fournier]

Is your keyboard stuck, Michael? I hate it when that happens!

[C.Morgan]

Is your keyboard stuck, Michael? I hate it when that happens!

That seems to be the best the drones can come up with.

Kinda hard to defend a party that ignores it's own policies.

The move to take control of policy formulation is hardly surprising.

[Angleland]

This so called election of committee members should be under a thread named "Some Things Never Change".

After the 1993 election, Reform UberLeader Manning created a so called expansion committee. Most Riding Presidents knew nothing about its formation. The Regional Co-ordinator fot the GTA knew nothing about it. Most of the recent candidates knew nothing about it.

Yet Manning stated bald as brass in 1994 to a hastily assembled early morning meeting of GTA Riding Executive Officers that this committee had been formed after "the widest possible consultation". In reponce to the laughter and head shaking Manning then asserted something like "It was! It was!"

This election of committee members nonsesence was probably due to incompetance. There are some incompetants that have made it into the Harper Inner Circle along with many qualified people such as Ian Brodie.

[Connie Fournier]

Someone sent me the following results. This did not come from an official source, so I can't guarantee that this is 100% correct, but I suspect it is accurate.

Each hyphen represents a spot that should have been filled.

Don't worry your pretty little heads, Maritimes members...we'll take care of all the boring policy and constitutional stuff for you. Just relax and take it easy.


<center><table border="1"><tr><td> Province </td><td> Policy Committee </td><td> Constitution Committee </td></tr><tr><td> British Columbia </td><td> Geoff Chutter<br>Peter Neville </td><td> Alain Wait<br>Jerry Presley </td></tr><tr><td> Alberta </td><td> Julian Martin<br>Gordon Elliott </td><td> Casey DesChamp<br>David Knapp</td></tr><tr><td> Saskatchewan </td><td> Richard Hildebrand<br>Elaine Anderson </td><td> Don Hernberg<br>- </td></tr><tr><td> Manitoba </td><td> Shaun McCaffrey<br>D'Arcy Barker </td><td> John Alexander<br>John Feldsted </td></tr><tr><td> Ontario </td><td> T. William Sommerville<br>Stephen Frank </td><td> Peter Naglik<br>Jason Hickman </td></tr><tr><td> Quebec </td><td> Jean-Martin Masse<br>Sylvie Savoie </td><td> Bernard Côté<br>Georges Villeneuve </td></tr><tr><td> New Brunswick </td><td> Hon. Brenda Robertson<br>Eugene Hill </td><td> Carl McDermott<br>- </td></tr><tr><td> Nova Scotia </td>-<td> Howard J. MacKinnon<br>Hugh Roddis </td><td>-</br>-</td></tr><tr><td> Prince Edward Island </td><td>-<br>-</td><td>-<br>-</td></tr><tr><td> Newfoundland </td><td>-<br>-</td><td>-<br>-</td></tr><tr><td> The Territories </td><td> John Graham<br>- </td><td> Grant MacDonald<br>- </td></tr></table></center>