Information about the cookies used on the website
We use cookies on our website to improve the performance and content of the site. The cookies enable us to provide a more individual user experience and social media channels.

19th General Meeting

"The greatest threat to our planet is the belief that someone else will save it." - Robert Swann

24 Feb - 25 Feb
Register
Sessions
More
Show automatically-translated text Warning: Content might be automatically translated and not be 100% accurate.
Back to list

Allowing in-person General Meetings

23/02/2024 13:44  
Rejected
Introductory Statement
At the last general meeting, during the height of the pandemic, an amendment was made that prevents the Party from holding in-person only General Meetings. While that may have made sense at the time, over 2 years later this needs to be reviewed as in-person meetings are a critical part of social organizations such as political parties.
Emergency Motion Statement
Article 8.7 be amended to read: "A General Meeting may be held in person, online, or a hybrid of online and in person."
Type of Emergency Motion
A constitutional amendment to change the constitution or bylaws
Benefit
This amend gives the Party flexibility to host General Meetings in a way that makes sense for that particular cycle, either online, in person, or a hybrid of the two. Currently technological and organizational limits make hybrid meetings nearly impossible, hence preventing any in-person get togethers. The lack of in-person gathering hampers the ability of members and volunteers to connect with one another, forming bonds and connections, sharing stories and experience in formal and informal ways. So much happens outside the official programming of a meeting that can't be replicated in an online environment.
Who does this motion impact?
Party members, volunteers, and staff
Impact on exisiting GPC policy.
Not applicable (e.g., directive to council, constitutional amendment)
Green Values
Sustainability
Social Justice
Participatory Democracy
Supporting Evidence
Jurisdiction: Is this proposal under federal jurisdiction?
Unsure or Not applicable (e.g. directives and constitutional changes)
Please indicate the language the proposal is being submitted in.
English

This proposal has been rejected because:

This motion failed to meet the 66.6% threshold of support needed to be considered as an emergency motion. Therefore, this motion was not presented for consideration by membership.

We're building a new kind of politics. One that is open, participatory, and people-powered

Donate $10

If you believe in what we're doing, please consider making a small donation to help us build it

Reference: PVC-PROP-2024-02-5887
Version number 2 (of 2) see other versions
Check fingerprint

Share link:

Please paste this code in your page:

<script src="https://wedecide.green.ca/conferences/vgm-2023/f/499/proposals/5887/embed.js"></script>
<noscript><iframe src="https://wedecide.green.ca/conferences/vgm-2023/f/499/proposals/5887/embed.html" frameborder="0" scrolling="vertical"></iframe></noscript>

Comment details

Order by:
You are seeing a single comment

View all comments

Conversation with Stuart Hunter
Avatar: Stuart Hunter Stuart Hunter
In favor  

Essential

Avatar: Jean-Charles Pelland Jean-Charles Pelland

How is this an emergency motion though? This could easily have been submitted last year, or on time this year. This does not seem to match the spirit of emergency motions. Normally, that spirit is related to something having happened between when motion submission closed and the GM (e.g. a war breaks out or the government does something).

Avatar: Sarah Gabrielle Baron Sarah Gabrielle Baron
Edited

There is nothing in the current, changed constitution that prevents in-person meetings. So, the preamble here is wrong. We certainly CAN still have in-person meetings, it's just that now they have to allow for attendance and voting powers for online attendees too. I'm not sure why the 19th AGM is not hybrid. I suspect it's got something to do with the high cost of in-person GMs.

Please note that we use to do it this way: in-person GMs with no option to attend and vote online. We voted to change that at the last GM. It's important to ensure that in-person GMs don't make all kinds of changes among folks who can afford to travel, keeping out the voices of those of us who can only afford to attend online. It's 2024. Protecting member's ability to attend and vote virtually is essential. This motion threatens to reverse that.

Avatar: Shel Goldstein Shel Goldstein
Edited

Hybrid is "logistically/technologically complicated & expensive" but do-able and necessary in our world of online access democratizing member involvement.
I would add to the InPerson component, not only a Main Convention location, but several sub Convention locations across the country. At its simplest, similar to what that Ottawa group was doing Saturday. But regional gatherings linked into the cyber voting and online speeches could be lively, fun, engaging. Yes, complicated, but de-centralized involving members in their own event planning.

BUT Not an Emergency motion.

Avatar: Constantine Kritsonis Constantine Kritsonis

RE_But the non-plenary bits of a Convention are also extremely important_ Then have a big in person pow wow, a non general meeting meeting, without doing party business by excluding those with no time and money to travel.

Avatar: Stuart Hunter Stuart Hunter

IMHO, the in-person part is essential, the "convention" part, and doing both at once is logistically/technologically complicated & expensive, so allowing them to happen separately is good, to give us the option, for the time being at least. After this GM I get the sense we are de-emphasizing how much business absolutely Must be conducted at GMs anyway. Of course ideally business is conducted with as many people as possible physically and virtually present. But the non-plenary bits of a Convention are also extremely important

Loading comments ...

You need to enable all cookies in order to see this content.

Change cookie settings