Public Eye readers have been breathlessly awaiting the results of would-be federal Liberal candidate Mason Lohs Vancouver-Kingsway nomination appeal. So here it is: according to a decision issued earlier this evening, the party's appeal committee does "not consider that any of the foregoing (arguments made by Mr. Loh), or all of them taken together, are succicient to justify overturning the result of the meeting" - which saw Wendy Yuan elected. Therefore, "the appeal is dismissed." The following is a complete copy of that decision.
LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
PERMANENT APPEALS COMMITTEE
Decision regarding Appeal by Mason Loh
The Panel consisted of Mr. Nicoll, Mr. Briner and Ms. Shackell; we met on August 29, 2006 to hear and consider this appeal.
A Candidate Selection Meeting (the "CSM") was held in the Vancouver-Kingsway federal riding on July 29, 2006. Mr. Loh and Ms. Yuan were the contestants; Ms. Yuan was successful. Mr. Loh filed this appeal within 72 hours after the conclusion of the meeting. Mr. Baynham represented Mr. Loh, and Mr. Straith represented Ms. Yuan. The Party itself was also represented in this matter, by Mr. Crawford.
The hearing of the evidence and submissions occupied around 8 hours, including evidence of 12 witnesses, one of whom testified by telephone. In addition, the panel was presented with a petition from persons who identified themselves as residents of the riding and/or members of the Party concerned with the subject matter of the appeal. Finally, the parties provided the Panel with additional submissions, in writing, the morning after the hearing.
These reasons are briefer than they might otherwise be, since due to the Chair's schedule, these reasons must be released the day after the hearing. We have therefore not summarized the evidence of the 12 witnesses, but have referred to their evidence in our analysis of the submissions.
We have grouped the Appellant's submissions for convenience under the headings set out below.
1. That the CSM was a nullity because it was called without compliance with certain requirements
The Appellant has indicated that his central position is that the Party's Ad Hoc Election Readiness Chair, Ms. Apsey, did not consult with the LPCBC Executive prior to adopting the British Columbia Rules for Selection of Candidates (the "BC Rules"), which consultation is required by the federal constitution and Rules. In view of that failure, the Appellant says that the BC Rules were not properly adopted, and could therefore not govern the calling of the CSM. The Appellant says we ought to conclude that the CSM could therefore only be called under the constitution of the LPCBC, which requires 28 days' notice of the meeting to members.
As part of submissions on this issue, Mr. Baynham noted that the LPCBC constitution requires the LPCBC Executive, when consulted on the BC Rules, to assert that the BC Rules should require the notice period (28 days) set out in the LPCBC Constitution.
We heard from both Ms. Apsey and Mr. Elmhirst that they did have a discussion concerning adoption by Ms. Apsey of the BC Rules. It appears that discussion consisted primarily of those witnesses agreeing that the BC Rules would be the same in substance as the rules adopted for the 2005 general election, with necessary changes to accommodate the Party's present position as discussed and advised by its national campaign committee. Mr. Elmhirst does not appear to have asserted that the BC Rules should contain a longer notice period for a CSM. In his testimony, Mr. Elmhirst said that he was focussed instead on having the Party move forward with early selection meetings in appropriate ridings and particularly in Vancouver Kingsway.
We do not consider that Mr. Elmhirst was acting in anything other than good faith in his discussions with Ms. Apsey regarding the BC Rules. While it would have been preferable that he put forward the assertion called for under the LPCBC Constitution, failure to do so in our view can not invalidate the BC Rules, which are adopted by Ms. Apsey under authority that does not derive from the LPCBC Constitution.
The Appellant also asserts that consultation with Mr. Elmhirst as president of the LPCBC was insufficient to discharge Ms. Apsey's responsibility to consult with the LPCBC Executive. We do not agree. No evidence suggested that Ms. Apsey should have been on notice of any need to look beyond Mr. Elmhirst's approval as expressed to her. She was entitled to assume that Mr. Elmhirst as president could speak for the Executive. We are satisfied that Ms. Apsey in this matter also acted in good faith; we are also satisfied that the BC Rules were properly adopted in good faith and governed the calling and conduct of the CSM. The provisions of the LPCBC Constitution that require 28 days' notice of a meeting, with a 42-day membership cut-off, had no application to the CSM.
2. That it was not in the best interests of the Party to hold the CSM when it was held
The Appellant alleged that it was not in the best interests of the Party to call the CSM based on minimal notice (it was agreed that notice of the meeting was first issued on July 17, being 12 days' notice); but that fairness and equity required a longer period of notice. Mr. Baynham also suggested that in calling the meeting when it did, the Party overlooked usual requirements for candidate finance, candidate recruitment and other matters. He suggested we ought to conclude that the meeting was rushed into place to provide an advantage to Ms. Yuan, and in any event to the detriment of the objectives of the Party as expressed in its Constitution.
With regard to candidate recruitment, we heard from several witnesses that in addition to Ms. Yuan and Mr. Loh, it was well-known in the riding that there were a number of persons who were considering whether they might wish to seek the nomination. Under those circumstances, we agree that Ms. Apsey was justified in considering that it was unnecessary to further search for candidates.
Mr. Loh testified that he told Ms. Yuan and Mr. Hillman in May, 2006 that he was seriously considering running in Vancouver-Kingsway. He preferred at that time to focus on his other activities rather than commencing a campaign; he had not decided to run, and felt no urgency to deciding. He made no final decision until July 22, after he had applied for and received a 'green light'. The riding association executive, as well as the Federal Liberal Council, the LPCBC Executive and the BC Caucus, had many weeks earlier made public their desire for an early meeting in Vancouver-Kingsway. However, Mr. Loh told Mr. Hillman at their May meeting that he considered it unlikely there would be a CSM in the riding before January, 2007. We do not know why he came to that conclusion.
We note that even had the meeting been called with the 28 days' notice contemplated under the LPCBC Constitution (which as we have already noted does not apply), there would not have been any opportunity for Mr. Loh to recruit new members to support his campaign, due to the 'retroactive cut-off' prescribed by the LPCBC Constitution for such meetings. (It is of course true that Mr. Loh might have benefited from additional time to campaign among existing members.) The case simply is that Ms. Yuan was actively working in the riding for some months, to Mr. Loh's knowledge. That work of course gave Ms. Yuan a considerable advantage over Mr. Loh and any other potential candidate who chose to defer campaigning at a time when the riding association, the LPCBC executive and so many others were actively and publicly pressing the Party for a meeting date. The Party is not obliged to fix a lengthier notice period than is required by its rules to accommodate such potential candidates.
3. That Ms. Yuan received preferential treatment from the Party for her campaign, and that other irregularities are in the aggregate sufficient to justify overturning the meeting
The Appellant alleged in some of his materials that Ms. Yuan had been provided advance notice of the intended date of the Candidate Selection Meeting, and advance copies of the membership list for the riding association. No direct evidence was presented to support those allegations; instead, the Panel was invited to draw inferences from the facts that:
* Mr. Hillman, a Vice-President of the Party, was Ms. Yuan's campaign chair
* Ms. Yuan had circulated campaign mailings before becoming entitled to receive a membership list
* Ms. Yuan submitted her nomination papers almost immediately after the date of the meeting had been determined
We decline to draw the inferences suggested by the Appellant. There is no evidence that Mr. Hillman had access to the membership lists or that anyone provided them to Ms. Yuan. Mr. Xie testified that Ms. Yuan requested and received from the Party a list of the members whose forms she had submitted, which is not inappropriate. With regard to the date of the meeting and submission of nomination papers, the only evidence was to the effect that Ms. Yuan and her supporters learned of the date after it had been determined.
The evidence also addressed the following matters:
a. Mr. Loh was provided with a copy of the 2005 Rules, rather than the current Rules governing the nomination meeting. We did not conclude that this was a deliberate attempt to disadvantage Mr. Loh, and in fact it was unclear how this arose as the documents (copies of emails) were not available. Mr. Wilson testified that because they were working with an outdated set of rules that referred to a 'Campaign Committee' instead of Ms. Apsey's current title, the Loh campaign consistently had the sense that the Rules were not being followed - which can only have been disconcerting. However, we are not satisfied that any real disadvantage was suffered, given that the Rules in use were in substance exactly the same as those Mr. Loh says he was working with.
b. In preparing the voters' list for the CSM, the Party was provided by the Yuan campaign team with 'corrections' for names and addresses of members that Mr. Loh thought were his supporters. Mr. Loh's team later determined that some of the corrections may have been inaccurate. We heard from both Ms. Chow and Mr. Grant that all of the affected individuals who attended and wanted to vote, were permitted to vote, and so we conclude that there was no disadvantage to Mr. Loh's campaign. We also heard that Ms. Yuan's campaign team were under the impression that these same individuals were supporters of Ms. Yuan. We do not find that there was any improper purpose in submitting the corrections.
c. We heard that at the CSM, Ms. Yuan and her supporters frequently crowded access to the voting area such as to impede voters, and physically pressed voters to shake hands with and speak with Ms. Yuan. Mr. Grant, who as Mr. Baynham pointed out has attended as many of these meetings as anyone, expressed that he thought the scene was at times 'over the top'. We also heard that no particular voter was seen to have been prevented from voting, or complained of being prevented from voting.
d. Mr. Baynham alleged that Mr. Hillman as Vice-President of the Party acted in a conflict of interest when he used or allowed his title to be used in association with Ms. Yuan's campaign, and his own efforts to expedite the date of the CSM, and when he met with Mr. Loh to seek his support for Ms. Yuan's campaign. The persons who signed the petition received by the Panel also concluded that Mr. Hillman's association with the Yuan campaign indicated the Party had accorded preferential treatment to Ms. Yuan. The Party is a political organization, and its members and officers by definition are involved in campaigns. The Party should ensure that members and contestants are aware that those responsible for the candidate selection process are not biased in favour of a candidate. It may be valuable for the Party to consider developing a written policy that makes plain for members and officers what implications if any should be drawn from a situation such as this one. That being said, we are aware that it would be difficult to find a volunteer who has done more for the Party than Mr. Hillman, and we specifically do not find that he had or attempted to exert any improper influence over the Party's actions connected with the Vancouver-Kingsway riding or the CSM.
We do not consider that any of the foregoing, or all of them taken together, are sufficient to justify overturning the result of the meeting.
For all the reasons set out above, the appeal is dismissed.
We are very aware of the fine reputations enjoyed by both Ms. Yuan and Mr. Loh, who have earned the respect of our community for their dedication as volunteers, for their professional achievements, and for their personal qualities. The Party would be fortunate to have both of them as candidates, and we hope that Mr. Loh will continue to seriously consider seeking a nomination. We have no doubt that his talents and abilities would make him a fine Member of Parliament.
The Panel is very grateful to the many individuals who gave their time for the hearing of this appeal, including the parties, their counsel and the witnesses.
Signed at Vancouver, August 30, 2006.
Jane S. Shackell, Q.C.
for the Panel
Permanent link
With such a strong reputation amongst Chinese community, he could have easily become a cabinet pick for Harper. Maybe it's time for him to run in the most conservative Vancouver proper riding @ Vancouver South...NOT. Once you are tainted by the Liberal Party, unless we tell you to jump, you are doomed.
Either way, good fight from both sides. Probably just one more election before we finally take out old guard liberals (Hedy cross-burning-where? Fry and Keith I-dont-know-what-I-stand-for Martin)
Please raise your hand if you are surprised by this decision.
Why all the nice comments about Mason Loh by Jane Shackel?
Sam,
What is different about the document above and the CPC whitewash in Nina's riding is:
A. the charges are clearly spelled out
B. the counter claims are clearly spelled out
C. the interpretations and judgements are spelled out.
N.B. It's also plainly public and appears to have been treated as any court case before a panel of judges.... a grievance, evidence and witnesses, a counter claim, evidence and wtinesses, and a judgement.
Where is same for the CPC's Nina Grewal riding?
I'm not a Liberal party member and have no reason to neither praise nor punish Liberals; I just note a simple proceeding. Feelings were hurt for sure but the charges appear to have been heard and addressed in a way that anyone can see.
Better luck next time to those trying to contribute formally to the political process.
This was a RUSHED appeal process to deal with a RUSHED nomination meeting! (The chair of the panel told me that she had to go on holidays as of Friday and would have to rule before leaving) After reading that the panel did not think Wendy Yuan had access to the members' list, prior to the announcement of the nomination meeting, I wish I had been allowed to give my testimony. I received Wendy's brochure two weeks ahead of the nomination call and Wendy did not sign me up. Wendy herself told me that she had found out about my membership through the list!
One thing is for sure. Hundreds of Liberals who signed a petition will now have to find another venue to address issues of transparency and inclusiveness that were not properly heard by the appeal panel. Many of these Liberals believe that it is more important to rebuild the Party than to win the next election in one riding.
Manuel Pereda
Hmmmm...I tried to raise my hand but then I have to type with one finger.
Manuel is seemingly upset because the committee convened to hear an appeal from a dissatisfied candidate with specific questions did not expand itself to hear Manuel's ideas on rebuilding.
I decided to look at the Liberal party site. Lo and behold, there is a big heading called "renewal" and found a whole process is in place to hear from people who want to talk about this stuff. http://www.liberal.ca/renewal_e.aspx
Manuel Pereda has send mails to all the Kingsway Liberal members to ask them to sign up with his organization; I am wondering how he got the membership list?
Manuel Pereda,
The panel seem to be saying (as *their* main arguement) everyone that wanted to attend and vote did anyways. Mr. Loh's complaint seems to concede that point. Is that the case? Mr. Loh doesn't seem to be arguing that point - maybe that he didn't get time to woo some of the voters? The other side seems to be saying the same thing. The panel thought this was not material since people voted regardless.
Is your second grievance that the panel moved too quickly? Question: did Mr. Loh have time to write up his grievance and statement of claim/evidence before meeting the panel? Was all of the evidence that Mr. Loh presented looked at?
Is your third complaint that you, in particular, were not called to testify. Which makes me ask: wouldn't it be Mr. Loh responsibilty to call you as this was Mr. Loh's complaint? Generally, judges don't call witnesses - the parties do.
Generally, if evidence was not presented that is not up to the panel/judges to fill in... the parties have to state their case... one would think. Otherwise, the judges are not judging but are advocating.
As an executive member of the Message In the Air Society, Manuel Pereda has access to hundreds of supporters of the Liberal and other parties in Vancouver Kingsway. The issue Mr. Pereda points out is that the use of the Liberal Party list appears to have been used by one nomination candidate to an advantage.
All of this merely points to the need for more involvement by members at large in the Party issues and improvement through a committee independent of the current association executive, one that will move the Party towards being an open, vibrant grassroots organization.
Geraldine, wouldn't you agree that members at large, who are interested in your issue, can involve themselves in a process independent of the current executive that will move the Party towards being an open, vibrant grassroots organization? Why are you whipping a dead horse?
Eugene,
All I am saying is that the Liberal Party will only be able to regain the seat in Vancouver Kingsway if we democratize the Party. Vancouver Kingsway is not the same riding after David Emerson’s defection. Constituents expect more from parties. Wendy Yuan can now get on board and help us in the process of rebuilding the Party. The first step is for Wendy and the riding association executive to let go of the practice of sweeping problems under the carpet.
Manuel,
I have populist leanings in my blood and so strongly support a good fair democratic showdown. I also believe in the rule of law, which is subject to pre-defined tried and true principles learned over centuries of experience... so I also really enjoy a well presented case fairly judged - win or lose. I'm also a scientist and know theory never exactly matches reality. So, I always see the inevitable flaws and respect others for seeing them too; but then I always look for how to improve the situation.
Therefore to me, the goal here is to build a better democracy for Canada, which includes making democracy habit at all levels of the political process. Further, the goal also means making a way of life: fair and objective judgements between competing sides; If you seek power over your country-persons you had better learn to be fair and objective (or you become part of the problem). And, we must be mature enough to know that our theories are never exactly right. We must grow as experience proves, over and over again, we never have it quite right... even when we are doing a better job than ever before.
We are a "work in progress" with a choice between progressing towards better and better or worse.
Eugene,
I couldn't agree with you more. Perhaps you can attend one of the community meeting we are planning to organize in the riding. It will not be a Wendy bashing meeting. I have already spoken to Wendy about it and she said she would attend. I can give you my word that Wendy will be fully respected. Hopefully Mason Loh will also want to attend so that we can all build on the future and learn from this experience. Bye.
tx Manuel... maybe send your schedule and penary items to public eye so we all know what is happening when. Send to editor - I presume - so he can post.
A three judge panel with witnesses and a trial!? A written judgement!
Stephen Harper could use a lesson or two from the Lib's on party democracy.
Eugene makes some good points.
A three judge panel with witnesses and a trial!? A written judgement!
Stephen Harper could use a lesson or two from the Lib's on party democracy.
The federal Liberals can start by removing the
leader's power to appoint candidates and bypassing the democratic process of a nomination meeting.
Eugene makes some good points.
Eugene is a frustrated conservative without a home. The Federal Liberals are more than welcome to take him.
The Leader's power to appoint was granted by a 2/3 vote of the national membership at a national convention. It was granted to allow to the Leader to help ensure that under-represented groups - like women, aboriginals, etc - could have their levels of representation enhanced.
Is it a perfect tool? No, but neither is the so-called democratic perfection of the nomination process. The process we have favours men heavily over women, which is why the government of Afghanistan currently has more women in elected office in their national parliament than we have in ours. It favours people who can sign up large blocks of voters regardless of whether or not they would make a good MP.
If you wonder why more women don't get involved in politics, just look at the nonesene that Wendy Yuan has had to endure even when she won the numbers game. The good ol' boys in the chinese community have come at her very, very hard. She's a strong woman to have withstood the charge.
The Leader's power to appoint was granted by a 2/3 vote of the national membership at a national convention.
It can also be removed by a 2/3 vote at a national convention.
It was granted to allow to the Leader to help ensure that under-represented groups - like women, aboriginals, etc - could have their levels of representation enhanced.
So I gather from this that Ujjal, etc. could not
stand on their own using their own resources, and
neither could Sophia Leung? or even David Emmerson for that matter (to bring up that good ol' boy.)
If womean and aboriginals want to run and win, they can do it like everyone else. Hard and cold,
but protecting that way isn't going to help at all during the real contest in an election.
It was also used to the benifit of Bill Cunningham who isn't a part of a group that is under represented.
No it is more with power than anything else.
In this day and age, its not needed.
If one wants to be an accountant, the wanna be does not get others to do basic book-keeping for
him or her. He or she has to learn to do it themselves. So it is with campaigning and elections.
"Is it a perfect tool? No, but neither is the so-called democratic perfection of the nomination process. The process we have favours men heavily over women, which is why the government of Afghanistan currently has more women in elected office in their national parliament than we have in ours. It favours people who can sign up large blocks of voters regardless of whether or not they would make a good MP.
The means to correct that are simply changing the sign up rules to prevent bulk membership buying.
If you wonder why more women don't get involved in politics, just look at the nonesene that Wendy Yuan has had to endure even when she won the numbers game. The good ol' boys in the chinese community have come at her very, very hard. She's a strong woman to have withstood the charge.
Fuddle-duddle. A strong woman can overcome the nonsense that Wendy went through, easily.
This mantra that it favours men is junk.
Congratulations Wendy,
As someone who worked hard (more doors knocked on in the cold rain, burma shaves and phone banks than I can count... along with many others) to give the constituents of Vancouver Kingsway a choice in the last two elections, and incidentally to hold accountable David Emerson for his deplorable choice... I can attest to the fact that nobody, repeat nobody contributed more time, energy and organization (volunteers) than Wendy Yuan to the Liberal cause. Rather than whining and pouting when she was asked to step aside for David Emerson she selflessly continued to fight for Liberal values in Vancouver Kingsway. It was this act of class and committment to more than just herself that gained my respect and why I will be honoured to work on her behalf in the next election. Is this a lesson others could learn from... I suspect so.
Kevin,
The number of doors somebody knocks on is relevant if one is applying for a door to door sales position. The appeal process was an internal political way to clear the nomination in the public eye. Women need to participate in the political process but we need to do it in a democratic way, not in the old boys’ style.
Karen Smith
Karen,
The good news is that intentional obtuseness is indeed a correctable affliction. Democracy is about participation, not just arm chair critisism. Volunteerism is about door knocking, burma shaves, phone banks, events etc. I believe you owe much more respect to volunteers of all polictical parties, who regardless of idealogical differences have my respect for their hard work and dedication to actually participating in the political process.I can also tell you that my experience is that women are the ones who most often lead these endevours, and in fact Wendy is a prime example of someone who has contributed to the process in a meaningful way. Perhaps a little actual work on the hustings might broaden your perspective a little.
Kevin,
This debate is not about an individual candidate. It is about the process of improving openness in the Party so that those of us who volunteer without announcing it can trust that our vote counts. Democracy is not a way to compensate for volunteer work, is to elect those we trust to represent us. Wendy’s efforts are not in question, and since you do not know me you should not be questioning mine.
Karen Smith
Karen,
Insight and understanding start when one opens one's eyes and engaginges in the process. You are the one who demonstrated your character by belittling the door knocking of volunteers (which any policitally experienced person will tell you is the key to the ground war). Obviously, you do not have much experience working on campaigns. Democracy does not exist without volunteerism. This process has been extrodinarliy transparent and your assertions to the contrary simply confirm your lack of engagement in the process. I have supported my positions with relevant context. If this is not to your satisfaction then so be it. My original comment was directed the readership at large. Perhaps the best way to mitigate critism when one lives in a glass house is to avoid throwing stones.
Kevin Chalmers writes, "... door knocking of volunteers (which any policitally experienced person will tell you is the key to the ground war)."
yup
... and in Victoria add: riding around on bicycles the weekend before the vote as Denise Savoie's team (NDP) did with bright Savoi jackets... in contrast to the conservative tactic of a 1970ish looking beat up van with signs parked in traffic... the contrast said it all.
Kevin is right that friendly volunteerism at the door and on the streets is fundmental to a healthy democracy. kudos to those that put their face in front of the public in this way.
Kevin,
Stop bullying Karen. You are a liability to Wendy Yuan as you are not helping her cause but rather hindering it by insulting those who want to focus on the real issues. How do you explain that Wendy sent her campaign brochures ahead of the nomination announcement to people she did not sign up? I doubt that the readership at large will think of this as “extraordinary transparency”
Mateo Saenz
Mateo,
When you start bandying about the term bullying you might start by looking in the mirror. I have a long and honourable history of working with many wonderful volunteers on many diverse political campaigns. True polictical activism is about engaging the public in positive policy debate and not your groups american style "mud slinging" and personal attacks, which in fact have no substance. Let us start discussing our diffent approaches to best representing the interests of the whole Vancouver Kingsway electorate and not the petty peaves of a few narcissists.
Kevin,
Karen was right. You have a tendency to avoid the real issues. The topic is not Wendy, or Volunteerism or Kevin Chalmers. The topic is the lack of transparency you keep avoiding answering. ANSWER MY QUESTION: HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT WENDY SENT HER CAMPAIGN BROCHURES AHEAD OF THE NOMINATION ANNOUNCEMENT TO PEOPLE SHE DID NOT SIGN UP?
Mateo Saenz
Mateo,
Best to avoid shouting FYI: caps is shouting when on the Internet... nearly as bad as good grammer, correct spelling, and proofreading... sins for sure when on the Internet :-)
Guessing an answer to your question... most people who ran in the past have long lists from previous events, previous mailings, access to other mailing lists etc. Most politicos are avid collectors of names and addresses... contact managment cross-listing addendees with preferences - standard stuff even when they are not directly on "your" team. Presumably, Liberal friendlies would be targeted regardless of leaning or what list they come from.
Eugene,
You appear to be a reasonable man. Perhaps you should offer your services to Wendy to replace Kevin. I will of course not be using capital letters with you to get you to focus on the issues. I just talked to Manuel Pereda over the phone. He tells me that several of the people who signed the petition signed as Liberal members in June and received Wendy's brochures soon after. It seems doubtful to me that Wendy would find this out from outside the Party. Manuel's group is organizing a meeting soon and will invite Liberals in the riding to propose improvements. There is always room for improvement, like making sure that riding executives are not perceived to be in a conflict of interest. Agree?
Mateo writes, "You appear to be a reasonable man. Perhaps you should offer your services to Wendy to replace Kevin."
Thanks Mateo.
As for replacing Kevin, serious considerations cause me to be a champion from "the sidelines" except when either people groups or facts are under assault (commonly attacked by Harper conservatives and hence my frequent distaste for his team).
As for your observation, "He tells me that several of the people who signed the petition signed as Liberal members in June and received Wendy's brochures soon after."
... there can be several explanations - one of which may be the usual speculation that someone was leaking info (which does not necessarily have to be a party official). Or more commonly, someone reading the petition/list (some who was asked to sign) made the usuall mental note and told Wendy's team.
As for being reasonable, I can be objective as I have no stake in this. I do like a fair democratic fight and so I'm "interested" but don't have an emotional stake otherwise. For you and your friends this is as "easy"; their are lots of experiences involved that make this much more difficult for those directly "hurt", which I fully understand and respect. The same is likely true for the other, winning, side - except, they don't have the pain of the loss so may be tempted to be a little more callous about this. Accordingly, I recommend that the winners be the first to lay down the sword, make peace, and open doors for future challenges and opportunities for you and friends to participate formally in the future. The past hurts, but there is tomorrow and the winners should try to heal the situation by helping others build their future too.
Building others' future is what the winners of a democratic contest are called to.
"Guessing an answer to your question... most people who ran in the past have long lists from previous events, previous mailings, access to other mailing lists etc. Most politicos are avid collectors of names and addresses... contact managment cross-listing addendees with preferences - standard stuff even when they are not directly on "your" team. Presumably, Liberal friendlies would be targeted regardless of leaning or what list they come from."
Might want to watch that mantra there, Eugene.
Membership lists do not belong to the holder, they belong to the constituency association and party.
I volunteered one party where it was required for signature, a pledge to destroy the list once it was used for a nomination run.The pledge was made into a legally binding agreement between the candidate and the constituency association.
As it would happen one did not and I found the same list at a later AGM. It was seized, but the black binder was put back, because the binder belonged to the group that was trying to get their people on the board. They were mad, but it was explained to them, they signed an agreement, and did not adhere to it, so the list was seized.
The most respectful campaigns and volunteers will use the lists for nomination and then destroy them, and not use them in the future, since additional new members are added all the time.
Ed Smathers writes... "Membership lists do not belong to the holder, they belong to the constituency association and party....I volunteered one party where it was required for signature, a pledge to destroy the list once it was used for a nomination run. The pledge was made into a legally binding agreement between the candidate and the constituency association."
Eugene Parks responds: That is my understanding and is common practice for some political parties and associations. Nevertheless, one can figure out who is who in a riding without ever seeing an official membership list... you should be able to as well as the examples below suggest [although, I once saw a membership list with a lot of indiscernible/indistinquisable post box numbers, but that is a story from another life and for another time and place.]
For example,
- reading visiting IP addresses at websites,
- rev cdn donor's lists
- lists of volunteer events unofficially organized by the politicos
- friends telling you who might be friendly
- your own lists gathered from meet and greets over the years,
- keeping track of who is at events,
- attendees from related other associations,
- polling results,
- your own previous mailouts and returns,
- names on petitions,
- etc. etc. etc.
... all usable and not a violation of a party's rules re its own membership list.
Eugene,
Yup...couldn't have said it better myself.
At the Rockpile
Broken News
Creatures of Government
Fighting Words
From the Gallery
Letter from the Editor
Loose Lips
Off the Hill
Public Eye Radio
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
Copyright © 2004-2006 Public Eye Mediaworks. Reproductions of any portion of this Website are permitted only with the expressed permission of Public Eye Mediaworks. Public Eye is graciously hosted by TransitionalMedia. Content management services courtesy of Ian King. Layout and graphics courtesy of Art Department Design, Victoria, BC.
This site is powered by Movable Type.