No matter how much things change, they remain the same
Oh God, here we go again. It’s convention time. And one thing you can count on when a Green party convention rolls around is resolution after resolution after resolution tinkering with party structures.
It’s already a mind numbing exercise to read, review and comprehend the various motions regarding Council Structure and Obligations, General Meeting and Party Procedure, Shadow Cabinet and Policy Development, Leadership and Regional Organizing – EDAs.
For those so inclined visit http://greenparty.ca/convention/resolutions/governance, but a warning: extra larges doses of double espresso are highly recommended for those who try.
Some of these resolutions can only be compared to an architectural firm that is retained to design a 20-storey office building. When the firm reaches the 18th floor, it’s advised by the client that after some reflection it really only wants a 14-storey building.
The architectural firm then commences to remove four floors when the client, after some secondary debate, decides that each floor is too large and requests that in addition to removing four floors, could the firm remove 500 square feet from each of the other fourteen floors.
Two years later the client, now under new management, comes back to the firm explaining that after due consideration the building is too small and they want to go back to the original 20-storey specifications but this time with an extra 600 square feet per floor.
The general contractor, of course, hasn’t even tried to lay the foundation.
In Quebec we have an expression, c’est assez. And really enough should be enough. Party governance should not be a never-ending ping pong match played out at each and every biannual meeting.
After the 2004 election, the party went through four various operational structures. The name of the first escapes me, except that its acronym unintentionally formed a common expletive, the second was the infamous ERCT, quickly followed by the less but still infamous MC that finally morphed into the perpetually revolving ED.
During the same time, council has been larger, smaller, with portfolios, without portfolios, and with various day-to-day governance models thrown in presumably both to amuse and to keep everyone guessing.
Yes, the party has governance issues. It’s had them for years. Big time. But these resolutions are not the way to provide a lasting solution, because this year’s losers, whoever they may be, will simply be back in two years time to tinker again.
And yet, despite all the tinkering over the years – some of it seemingly on a whim, the core problems remain.
So a modest proposal: when it comes to resolutions regarding party structures defeat them all and start over.
This may seem unduly facetious, but the party desperately needs to find a permanent consensus on these issues and not a series of endless conflicting resolutions that emerge at every biannual meeting just as night follows day.
Such a consensus is unlikely to be found at a two or three day party convention. It may be found by undertaking the necessary preparatory work prior to a biannual meeting with resolutions that ultimately reflect widespread support across the party.
And, if I may, consulting with and listening to a few outside experts with no vested interest in the outcome never hurts either.
Dermod Travis is former Director of Communications for the Green Party of Canada and organized the Green Party's 2006 National Convention
Comments
OK, what do you suggest instead?
Dermod:
I know that you aren't trying to be a wisacre, but what exactly do you suggest instead? A lot of people aren't aware of the way structural issues influence the nature of an organization, but that doesn't mean that the influence isn't still there. I agree that the constitutional stuff does seem to be futile, but what other option do people have?
If you look at the history of the Green Party of Ontario---an organization that I suspect you know little about---it only really started to get on its feet after it was able to reform the constitutional mess that the founders saddled it with. Once it started using majority rule instead of formal consensus, and instituted a delegate system that allowed the majority of members to have representation at conferences, things started to change dramatically. This included things like a big increase in membership and fundraising, which then led to a higher profile in the media, better candidates for all positions, and, more votes.
I tend to be a little peaved at people who are opposed to a plan of action but don't offer anything else to replace it. What are you suggesting instead of an incrementalist approach during conventions?
Response from Dermod
Me a wiseacre? Never.
I’ll admit the above piece is a bit of a rant, however.
First, some starting principles to answer your question: one member, one vote; certain motions should require greater than a 50 per cent plus one margin (60 per cent in some cases, two-thirds in others); and a delegate system to conventions for EDAs that reflect the actual membership of the EDA (more members, more delegates).
The underlying problem with the structural tinkering in the party is that each time there’s an overhaul or even a significant adjustment, there’s never sufficient time to reap the benefits of the new system before the tinkering starts all over again.
I believe this is the result of a failure to build a true consensus among party members on an operational structure. And a true consensus will take some time, some effort and the right players to lead the consensus building.
I would also add – and apologies to anyone who takes offense – that some of the tinkerers currently tinkering may never have run an organization in their lives.
Theories can be great until they’re put into practice. It’s why the party does need to learn from other Green parties (GPO) and listen to outside experts before the tinkerers are let loose.
But a cursory review of some of the governance motions for this year’s convention are all over the map and I fear that everyone is destined to watch the movie again in 2012 unless a better, more comprehensive approach is put into place.
And if the party does agree on an operational structure, Council and EDA executives need constant training in the structure as I’ve written on this site before. If new MPs get training, new Council members should welcome training as well.
Starting over is an answer
To be fair, Anonymous, Dermod Travis did propose a solution: start over.
The enactment of an amateurish constitution in 2006 and bi-annual piecemeal amendment by self-proclaimed ‘experts’ on ‘governance’ has lead to an even more amateurish document. Members who, say, wouldn’t perform surgery on themselves, try to fly a jumbo jet, or design a skyscraper, have the chutzpah to proclaim their expertise in legal drafting.
Other parties have professionally drafted constitutions:
http://www.conservative.ca/media/20090205-Constitution%20-e.pdf
http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/lpc-2009-constitution-en.pdf
(I couldn’t find the NDP constitution or an English version of the Bloc’s.)
Forever tinkering with rules, especially decision rules, is a sign that the tinkerers do not respect rules. Such people know that they can’t win under existing rules or can’t be bothered to try to organize a majority. Rather they focus their energies on trying to change the rules to favour their faction or position. I fear that, unless members resist the tendency to forever tinker, starting over alone isn’t enough; there must be a resolve among members to forebear from tinkering. Given the types of people the Green Party attracts, I can't imagine the required resolve ever happening.
Markus Buchart
Winnipeg, Manitoba
(Not a Green Party member)
No matter how much things
Thanks for pointing this out for those of us who have not had long experience with the Greens. Perhaps we could achieve greater constitutional stability by raising the bar a bit on how resolutions are brought forward. As an example, the Conservative constitution (see link in the comment above) allows for changes from the membership but requires that they have the majority support of 4 EDA executives (or EDA membership) from at least 2 provinces. This would have the effect of forcing sponsors to obtain significant grassroots support before a resolution gets to convention.
Myron
Port Alberni
Post new comment