Collaborative Proposal Creation
Create, improve and sponsor proposals in a respectful, fully bilingual environment. Grow proposals in the "Hothouse", for promotion to the "Workshop", to become official GPC policy.
- Proposal text
- This proposal aims to modify the constitution in order to allow for the possibility of co-leadership, and to ensure that no one can become leader or co-leader without having been elected to that position, in conformity with the Green party's dedication to participatory democracy. This proposal amends the definition of Leader as follows: 7.1.2 Leader: the Member or members elected to the position of leader or co-leader or appointed by Federal Council on an interim basis to these positions in accordance to Bylaw 2.1.8 and filed Leader pursuant to the Canada Elections Act. In the eventuality of a situation of co-leadership, both co-leaders will collaborate with Federal Council to determine who among co-leaders is filed Leader pursuant to the Canada Elections Act.
- Type of Proposal
- A constitutional amendment to change the constitution or bylaws
- Objective / Benefit
- No one can become leader or co-leader unless they are elected by general membership or appointed by FC as interim leader
- If your proposal replaces an existing policy or policies, which one does it replace?
- article 7.1.2 of the constitution, which defines the role of Leader.
- List any supporting evidence for your proposal
- See constitution
- Does this proposal affect any particular group and what efforts have been made to consult with the group or groups?
- N/A
- Jurisdiction: Is this proposal under federal jurisdiction?
- Yes
- Please indicate the language the proposal is being submitted in.
- English
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
Reference: PVC-PROP-2023-08-4172
Version number 1 (of 1) see other versions
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
Comment details
You are seeing a single comment
View all comments
Conversation with Sarah Gabrielle Baron
I find this wording a bit confusing, and if voted in while the others fail, or pass, could put our constitution in a state of self-contradiction. If all four proposers indicated agreement to withdraw, and synthesize, and propose together in one year (or less) at next GM I'd say hurrah! But only Lorraine Rekmans has so far indicated that.
So, I'm inclined to vote them all down, here's why:
In 2021 members voted for a member-led Constitution Renewal Commission. Everyone who's proposed these massive changes to our leadership systems has ignored that.
Participatory Democracy calls for power to be invested in localized, non-hierarchical groups as much as possible. In a member-led, year-long mandated Constitution Renewal Commission, stuff like this (how we elect a leader/s) is considered, everything is 100% transparent throughout the process, experts are invited to consult, members are polled and consulted often (Citizen Assemblies style), and when a plan is finally proposed by said Constitution Renewal Commission there are loads of opportunities to revise based on inter-member workshops. Then a vote.
This whole thing is too rushed, and the proposers and their collaborators are all operating in shadows and at cross purposes. At least we have this platform, wedecide, which is pretty awesome for the policy proposals. But sweeping changes to our Constitution needs a Constitution Renewal Commission (as per member directive 2021). If we can't even follow our own previous decisions, this year's decisions run the same risk of being totally ignored.
As stated in another response to another one of your comments on the many co-leadership proposals , all but one of the people who have drafted motions on co-leadership are open to changing their motion to incorporate the content of other motions. It is completely false to say that "the proposers and their collaborators are all operating in shadows and at cross purposes." What basis could you have to say this? Have you contacted any of the proposers to see if this is true? No. But you decide to say negative things about other greens who are trying to make our party better. Kind reminder: if you have a way for people to collaborate more publicly, please feel free to suggest. In the meantime, some of us are trying to work with what we have and collaborate in good faith.
Regarding this current motion, specifically: the sole purpose of this proposal is to ensure that IF people want co-leadership THEN there has to be a proper election. I put this proposal up after having tried to convince our deputy leader to modify his motion so that co-leaders are elected, not appointed. He was not open to this idea, and has refused since then to modify his proposal to incorportate an election into it. Because I believe in democracy, I submitted this proposal.
You can vote against all four if you want. If you vote against this one, you are making it more likely that a less-democratic process goes through. You can claim people are working in the shadows and all that, but in the meantime some greens are trying to collaborate with other greens to make our principles a reality, and protect them against non-democratic actions.
Dear Jean-Charles. I'm sorry that you've taken offence! My voiced concern is that no one knows how you, or other proposers, developed your motion. Did you act alone? Did you collaborate? With whom? For how long? Thank you for openly stating, above, your personal process! It's great to see this kind of transparency!
As for your request that I suggest a better process for members to collaborate more publicly, I did that, pointing to the directive from our last GM whereby members asked for a Constitutional Renewal Commission (member-led, not Federal Council controlled). As with most directives, Federal Council chose to not follow it, but it still could! Recall - any actions that contradict what members have asked for in a General Meeting are null and void. One could argue that ALL of these proposals to fundamentally change our constitution MUST therefore be funnelled through a member-controlled Constitutional Renewal Commission. It's a long shot, but, again, there is something to be said for following our own Constitution.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/understand-other-people/201607/i-m-sorry-you-were-offended-is-not-really-apology
Loading comments ...