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.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?
... 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'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.