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.
Membership RIghts
Bylaw change 7.1.1 Member: An individual who meets the Party's membership criteria. change to: 7.1.1 Member: An individual who meets the Party's membership criteria. Members in a period of paid membership fees have the right to vote on any constitutional or bylaw changes, to run for a council position after acquiring sufficient sponsors according to party rules, to seek a nomination to be a candidate for MP from an EDA in advance of a general election and to participate in general meetings as equals to other participating members.
Type of Proposal
A constitutional amendment to change the constitution or bylaws
Objective / Benefit
To define the rights of members.
If your proposal replaces an existing policy or policies, which one does it replace?
N/A
List any supporting evidence for your proposal
N/A
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?
No
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
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
Comment details
You are seeing a single comment
View all comments
Conversation with Ms. Sara Golling
The problem I see with this proposal, Constantine, is that it seeks to create an absolute right for any member, regardless of qualifications, to stand for election to offices that may require more qualifications than mere membership. That could be fixed by adding "meeting the stated qualifications and" so that it reads, " ... to run for a council position after meeting the stated qualifications and acquiring sufficient sponsors according to party rules".
Sara, I see Constantine's point. The only way I can see to meet half way is if the qualifications are set by the members approving what is generated by (whom?). Or we go with Constantine's suggestion, which seems more in line with our principals. It's a tough call.
Committees deciding who gets to run and who doesn't has a history of literally mangling the GPC. The GPC has been on a course of incrementally concentrating more and more power at the top for many years. We saw that not only with committees banning GPC candidates, including a recent leadership contest runner up, but also we saw that with recent general meeting rules foisted onto members by governance, without members consent, telling members how many words they can use in motions, putting a limit on individuals motions without membership approval. AND the icing on the cake, commanding the members at general meetings to not put motions forward caling for specific actions. That was originally a rule foisted on BC greens by former leader and simultaneously liberal party of Canada member Andrew Weaver - the same guy who appointed conservative party cheif of staff Norman Spectre as advisor to the BC greens for the coalition deal with the BC NDP. It's time to start moving back to the green roots. That means more power to the people.
According to the GPC ombuds, who you are a key part of, there are apparently no "rights" to run for any position in the GPC. For example, during the reign of former leader Annamie Paul, her cronies on the governance committee simply banned her opponents from runing for council using allegations proven false. Then the same members of the governace committee stonewalled councils request to provie evidence for their allegations. A subsequent governace committee who's actions you found legal did the same to members. Electoral qualifications protocols in the GPC will always be a subjective interpretation by a biased committee (who may not even realize they are biased). The ONLY electoral "qualifications" that matter in participatory democracy, are those that the members decide are valid, in a fair election. Don't want someone in office? No problem. Just campaign against them or support someone else. But it is hideously wrong to tell the entire membership * we the committee don't think you should see that candidates campaign_. We already saw that crap when a ZIonist leadership vetting committee banned leadership runner up Dimitri Lascaris from running, costing him bad press - and a week of not being able to run as a candidate. That Zionist packed sabatoge committee vetting his *qualifications_ may have elected party killer Paul. With the GPC under current _participatory_ protocols the GPC claims to defend, all of Newfoundland and Labrador EDAs were barred from having a candidate in a recent election. Add that to governance committees having the power to defeat candidates for council before they even run, and kicking out leadership candidates before elections, stealing the electoral decision from the members, and you have a top down stranglehold with centralized power. _Qualifications_ for elections decided by a committee armed with a veto ( as you have defended at ombuds) is anathema to original green values of decentralized participatory democracy. Instead of doubling down on the ongoing illegal vetoing of candidates for GPC positions, we need to do the exact opposite. It's better for the members to be the boss of committees, instead of committees being the boss of the members.
Loading comments ...