Emergency Motion to Change AGM Quorum
- Introductory Statement
- Whereas, without this change to quorum there is a chance that we might not be able to hold General Meetings, a key facet of Participatory Democracy; And Whereas, if we can pass this Emergency Motion early in the 19th GM process, while we have 200, then if we dip below 200 during the 19th AGM, we might have to end the decision-making aspect of the meeting, but at least we will have passed this Emergency Motion, giving subsequent AGMs the chance to attain quorum; And Whereas, if this constitutional amendment is approved by members attending the 19th AGM, then it will only come into effect after it’s been ratified by the members via a mail-out post-AGM ballot, as per Article 10.1.3 of our GPC Constitution.
- Emergency Motion Statement
- Therefore be it resolved that the 19th Annual General Meeting attendees agree to change wording of the constitution Article 8.2 from “A quorum shall be two hundred (200) Members present at a General Meeting who are in good standing, representing at least two regions, as defined in the Bylaws.”. To “A quorum shall be seventy-five (75) Members present at a General Meeting who are in good standing, representing at least two regions, as defined in the Bylaws.”
- Type of Emergency Motion
- A constitutional amendment to change the constitution or bylaws
- Benefit
- This allows the Green Party of Canada to continue to have General Meetings since 75 is a more attainable quorum than 200.
- Who does this motion impact?
- Green Party of Canada Members and our ability to control the Party as per Participatory Democracy at General Meetings.
- Impact on exisiting GPC policy.
- Not applicable (e.g., directive to council, constitutional amendment)
- Green Values
- Participatory Democracy
- Supporting Evidence
- If the 19th General Meeting opens with close to 200 members, we are in danger of dipping below quorum as the meeting progresses.
- 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
If you believe in what we're doing, please consider making a small donation to help us build it
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
Comment details
You are seeing a single comment
View all comments
Sarah, Shel, et al.,
No question yesterday's quorum delay was embarrassing.
But I disagree with changing the constitution as an emergency issue. Any such change would require the subsequent vote of all members, and therefore would not allow the change to be applicable to today.
I would propose an emergency motion just to change the quorum for today, to 125 (dont know how many will show up). That I think should be acceptable, even though it amounts to an override of the constitution. When the party is in session, the members are the final arbiter of what's possible. We may need the 200 quorum to do that in the first place however... 😀
Loading comments ...