Saturday, May 14, 2011

UPDATED: Three months later? Seriously?

You know, LPC Exec, I appreciate the intent, but there's something wrong here:
Adhering to the constitution, your Board will set this Leadership Vote to give the maximum time allowed (5 months) which is October 28 and 29, 2011.
... we are calling for an extraordinary convention of our party to be held on June 18, 2011 by teleconference which will allow delegates to debate and vote on an amendment that would delay the Leadership Vote should it be accepted by the delegates.

... Delegates to this extraordinary convention will also be asked to confirm January 13-15, 2012, as the dates of the next biennial convention - a vitally important step in our rebuilding process ahead.
I got this in an e-mail from the Exec, which is all well and fine, but three months later? Seriously? They're going through all this trouble to move it three months back?

I'd actually be calling them up and asking why they shouldn't push it back even farther. This is what I thought the plan actually would be; that maybe we'd go for summer or fall 2012. Apparently, however, it's January 2012.

If this was some sort of compromise date reached by conflicted members of the Exec, they should seriously reconsider that deal. This isn't exactly much of a difference.

However, it does confirm that the Exec has every intent to let the members decide, so maybe we put some some of the "the Exec are destroying our rights!" silliness behind us.

Sadly enough, though, I'm unsure whether or not I can be a delegate for this vote - I'll be out of the country on vacation down south. Teleconferencing is great, but is it doable for myself? Hm.


As Jeff Jedras pointed out, it's probable that the e-mail was simply pointing out when the biennial convention will be held, which is apparently going to be moved three months back. My mistake, however, if you read the full e-mail, it's not exactly which is which at this point. I assumed that the race would take place with the convention, but I could be wrong. We'll see I guess.


  1. The biennial convention would be in January, not the leadership convention. They still haven't said when the leadership convention would be rescheduled to, just that it would be delayed if the vote passes. The biennial would elect new party executive, and possibly debate when the leadership convention should be.

  2. Good clarification Jeff. I think the email from the party was a little bad at the way it attempted to explain this.

    As a party, we need to stop with the "legalese" and start speaking "plain English".

    Will the October vote be "online"/via phone?

  3. Jeff,

    You're very right, I didn't even realize, though I thought they'd hold the two together (would make some sense, they did with May 2009).


    Via phone, I believe.

  4. I got that letter and it was not that clear to me.I find it clearer now.

  5. 2009 was the last time the leadership vote was taken at the biennial. However, we also passed a resolution to switch to a "weighted one-member-one-vote" system. This next vote will be the first vote under the new system.

    I suggested to Rob Jamieson on Twitter (@_Hamish) that he clarify the release on