Constituency association goes to divorce court

Today, the Vancouver Sun reported, "a messy split over who should be the Liberal candidate in West Vancouver-Garibaldi has led one riding association executive to resign and three others to contemplate quitting as well. On Thursday night, Joan McIntyre-Pottinger handily won the nomination over Tim Duholke, a chartered accountant, who entered the race only to find out he couldn't sell memberships and wouldn't be allowed to give speeches at any of the three nomination voting meetings." Public Eye broke that story yesterday.




It sort of is a BFD, considering the non-democratic method of chosing candidates. Why would a political organization not want to let its members decide in a fair and transparent manner? ...and why do posters feel the need to hide behind anonymity?

If Duholke was really serious about running to be an MLA he should have entered the race earlier and not in November, a month before the meeting was to take place.

McIntyre-Pottinger has a history in the riding and actually entered the race in September.

Mr. Duholke apparently expressed interest in August but didn't get his act together until November.

Someone who takes that long to make up their mind has nothing to complain about when they lose.

Sounds like the membership did decide in a fair and transparent manner. The complaint is that the membership couldn't be expanded because a candidate filed after the membership drop date. Cry me a river.

The problem was the candidate was not allowed to address the membership at the meetings.

If there was no problem I don't think those most closely involved would be quitting or 'contemplating' quitting.

I think it is demeaning to dismiss the real concerns of people involved in the process.

I would argue that the vote and go process actually increases the democratic validity of the CSM. The drop-in voting is convenient and allows a greater proportion of the membership to have a voice.

Ideally it would be nice to hear nomination candidates discuss and debate the issues, but the average member simply does not have the time and patience to sit through an entire selection meeting. Is it better to have a 50% drop-in voter turnout or a 30% voter turnout that listened to speeches?

Anyways most new memberships sold during a nomination are sold to friends and friends of friends as a favour - it is highly unlikely that any candidate would be able to sway a high number of these members due to a speech anyways.

The riding exec even went so far as to hold three separate meetings so members wishing to vote in Squamish and Whistler could do so conveniently - This was a new policy that was introduced by the executive - If Duholke actually wanted to speak to the issues, he should have held some events and started campaigning earlier. With the fixed election date, he must have known that the exec and party would want to set a CSM date sooner rather than later. What was he waiting for?

Is he complaining about the process or is it just some members of his campaign team?

Joan who? Another woman just for the sake of having a woman. Just what West Van Garibaldi needs - a female mute. As a woman I am all for advancing our cause. But, for God's sake let's find a capable, experienced woman. What about Barbara Brink? If you think Nebbeling did nothing just wait. He'll become the riding president and pull the strings on this female puppet.

So was Joan pulling Ted's strings while she was President? Or are you the sexist here?

Oh come on, Guy. Be fair. The NDP has had some really accomplished women like, ummmm, Carole James. You know she has accomplished so much in her life that no one is going to pull her strings.

I don't think the issue here is with vote and go, it's with intentionally moving up the nomination date so a candidate could not recruit members.

It would be incorrect to say that "most new memberships sold during a nomination are sold to friends and friends of friends as a favour" many memberships are sold during a nomination campaign (often a riding's membership can double or even triple) and this has a dramatic effect on the outcome.

That said, it appears that this is a case of a candidate who sat on the fence for too long and now regrets not getting into the race earlier.

You're all wrong here. Read Douglas Allan Murphy's comments on the Dec 17th story. There's something dreadfully wrong going on. It's great to have women in politics but they have to win fair and square.

Wow Cindy, sounds personal - maybe you should have run against her? It's pretty easy to cut someone down when you are sitting on the sidelines.

It sounds like it comes down to Duholke being disorganized - how long was he expecting the nomination contest to go on for - didn't Nebbeling announce his retirement in May??? You would think he would have jumped in as soon as Mcintyre-Pottinger filed her papers? Mcintyre-Pottinger was able to sell 400 memberships in two months while Duholke sat idle. How could the riding executive take him seriously while he was doing nothing?

C'mon on Joan! If you sold 400 memberships then Ted, the terrible, must have left the riding in complete disarray! What's the total membership now?
According to Davenport in the (post-meeting altered?) minutes the riding had 425 members as of October 14th.

Take your fingers off your nose and smell the debacle.

I think that both candidates should have been given the opportunity to speak. That said, I don't think it would have made much difference to the result because most people who attend nomination meetings shuffle in, vote for "their" guy or gal and leave.

What I find curious is why is the fuss about the speeches and the nomination process being made now when the nomination is over? It's rather late to close the barn door, so to speak. Why wasn't this information "leaked" to you Sean before the vote? I suspect there are some unhappy meateaters who are using your column and the rest of the press to embarrass McIntyre-Pottinger.

It is not Sean's problem. It is not 'unhappy meateaters' problem.

The people inside the organization should be the ones making sure that they have a proper system in place.

Don't shoot the messenger(s).

Leave a comment

Copyright © 2004 - Public Eye Mediaworks. Reproductions of any portion of this Website are permitted only with the expressed permission of Public Eye Mediaworks.
Canadian Web Hosting graciously provided by dotcanuck Web Services. Layout and graphics courtesy of Art Department Design.