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 Jean-Charles Pelland
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 ...