Someone asked if I knew how a riding organisation functions.
Except for snippets from the past, I am not up to date.
Time was , the riding organisation was the flame that kept the fire alive between elections.
The people who kept the group to-gether and sussed out a candidate to carry the party banner. Often, depending on party fortunes, one of their number. If it's a winnable riding it's not like that any more.
For leadership conferences, they choose delegates. Sometimes they are told how to vote. But it's a secret ballot.
.
At the week-end, I heard Newmarket-Aurora Liberal executive is about twenty strong.They have a web site.
Whitehouse, Ballard, Susan Walmer, Catherine Marshall and a couple of others, familiar to all of us are part of it. .
I did not know that. It explains a few things.
I never understood why Councillor Ballard would want to carry another person's baggage.
It still doesn't make sense. But party connection offers an explanation of sorts.
Voters' lists. party organisation .All that stuff.
It makes the last election results that much more impressive.
Attending a leadership conference can incur considerable expense.
Depending on how flush the riding's coffers, delegates chosen , might just be those who can afford to pay their own way.
And our recent ex-mayor was one of the riding delegates at the leadership convention this past weekend.
ReplyDeleteWhen the provincial election eventually comes and its probably measured in months and not years away, it will be interesting who the local Liberal party will be putting forth against the incumbent.
Thanks. I didn't know that. It figures that they would appoint one of their own to be a delegate.
ReplyDeleteWhat’s up with Councillor Gaertner and her letter this week in The Auroran: “New Deal does not allow for “maximum of success” for Cultural Centre: Gaertner”.
ReplyDeleteShe’s now shouting foul after the fact, when the Centre’s Board and all 8 of the present (Cllr. Buck was absent due to illness) Council members voted for the new agreement. She seems to have the need to offer apologies “if anyone feels unjustly maligned” and to thank everyone involved both past & present with the Centre (except no thanks can be found for any Council member, Town staff who worked on the Town’s behalf to make the current agreement happen).
She seems to have reluctantly voted “yes”, as she states it was “On the grounds that I sincerely hope this Council will continue to work with the Board to evolve the Agreement for maximum success”. I’m sorry but how much more work (time, money & effort) does she expect the Town to further put into the Centre? Isn’t it the Centre’s job now to get on with what the Town has contracted and is paying them to do?
She also says: “Was the previous Agreement perfect? May not.” Of course, she would have to say this she would have voted for the original and probably saw no need for The Mar Report and the errors in the original agreement.
(continued next post)
(continued from previous post)
ReplyDeleteBut the real kicker is her statement: “In my view, this Agreement for the Provision of Cultural Services at the Centre does not allow for maximum success and future stability. According to this agreement, even when all the terms and conditions are met, funding is not guaranteed; termination is allowed at any time and for any reason on six months notice! This is tying the hands of the staff and volunteers.”
This agreement is in place until Dec 31, 2027 and is to be reviewed every 5 years. Who’s hands are being tied. Who wouldn’t love an agreement until 2027. The Board that she speaks of had already signed off on this new agreement.
What C. Gaertner seems to be in disagreement with is Item 54 of the agreement namely: “Council, on behalf of the Town, may pass a resolution to terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason whatsoever by providing six (6) months written notice to the Centre. The Centre shall, forthwith at the end of such notice period, return any unused Grant funds to the Town. Council may at its sole and absolute discretion, provide for the transitioning and continuation of Cultural Services programming by the Centre for an additional period of time up to six (6) months past the notice period.”
This seems like a pretty standard clause for a contract. In fact, Item 29 of the original Cultural Agreement stated: “Council may pass a resolution to terminate this Agreement without cause upon twelve (12) months written notice to the Centre”.
So did C. Gaertner cry foul back then too? Did she know that a similar clause was in the original?
Now in her view it ties their hands, in my view and in Town’s it protects the Town. They have tightened up the terms from 12 to 6 months. I wouldn’t doubt that the legal department of the Town ensured that it was included and shortened.
After having the Town Council vote yes for the 8 of 8 present for the agreement how likely does C. Gaertner think that a future Council will rescind the agreement. Given the time spent to get a new agreement, the uproar, the fight from both sides, there would have to be pretty damning evidence against the Centre for the Town now to close it don’t you think? What are the odds? But no, the Town is still “tying the hands of the staff and volunteers”. Give me a break! What is she looking for? It sounds like she’s a Centre Board Member not a Town Council Member, but I forgot the Centre Board already accepted the agreement. So who's table is she sitting at?
She somehow wants to distant herself from her fellow Councillors and not accept any responsibility. So now, if the Centre isn’t successful she’ll be able to say “I told you all so, you tied their hands and it’s your fault (the Council of 2013)”.
What’s she doing campaigning for the next election and pointing her finger at everyone else.
Are there any restrictions on who they might support in a leadership race? In the States the head of each group announces their intentions. Here that does not seem to be that control. I hope there is some accountability for their votes. Not being an active Liberal, I can't ask but maybe someone else can. It would be interesting to know although not very useful after the fact.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteWhy, Evelyn, this sounds like a third rate social club. What do any of them have in common with the average resident?
Surely the main function of a riding association is to get to know each and every voting resident, try and sign them up for the party in exchange for a red or a blue or a yellow card, and collect a donation. When an election is on the horizon these functionaries should go door to door to remind people of their party affiliation, offer to drive them to the polling station if necessary, and collect another, larger donation.
When leadership conventions occur, as just did, it is likely that the entire executive of the riding association would consider themselves as delegates and off they would go to parade around, wearing silly hats and buttons, behaving like marionettes following the lead of the chief marionette, cheering, whistling and chanting while waving signs.
Somehow I am not convinced that this procedure is appropriate in choosing a person to head an organization that will be spending tens of billions of dollars annually.
Frankly I was disappointed with the calibre of all the candidates.
And now we have to live through the process whereby the new leader selects a cabinet. Here the drooling and deal-making will make the leadership convention look like amateur night.
1:53...
ReplyDelete"What do any of them have in common with the average resident?"
How very naive you are. What do ANY of the party riding associations have in common with the average resident?
They do not consider that they are "average". They all have money, they all think that they know what is best for everyone else.
If they charged expenses to the Association, would that include alcohol?
ReplyDeleteBelow is the Provincial Liberal Newmarket-Aurora PLA Executive List.
ReplyDeleteAt least two people on this list very likely supported Morris in her efforts to silence political criticism with the use of public money. We all know the story too well. I think that these people have openly attacked our collective right to political free speech and they apparently have demonstrated absolutely no remorse therefore there is not a chance that I’m voting Liberal ever again if they remain on the local executive. I'm also betting that I’m not alone.
Kenneth Whitehurst, President
Chris Ballard
Christina Bisanz
Vice President
Bill Chadwick
Joseph Chu
Cliff Davies
Chris Emanuel
William Gray
Laura Hammer
Ian Hilley
Frank Johnston
Treasurer
Linda Kenny
Theresa Lubowitz
Chelsey Morphy
Phyllis Morris
Kyle Peterson
Kim Rowe
To 12:37 PM
ReplyDeleteI am very good friends with one of the people on this list. I will be honest, I did not know his political leanings (and I don't ask/don't care) and just because he associates with some of the others does not make him any less of a friend to me.
I beleive that you should not be judged by those that you associate with. They are sometimes out of your control.
Looks like yet another group where the membership are going to have to clean house if they wish to succeed. They do say that the North American turkey vultures can have several nesting sites. Newmarket now has one of its own.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteFor as long as our present MPP wishes to continue to represent us this list of numb-nuts can go piss into the wind - preferably a hurricane.
1:16 PM
ReplyDeleteI quite agree. You cannot feather them all with the same brush. But you could suggest that changes might be in order for their party to flourish without listing off any specific individuals who might hold them back?
I agree with 1:16pm. You can’t judge everyone on the list as one and the same. Nor can you state that they are all friends. This is just the executive and I am sure there has to be more local members of the party. They are political associates. (Just like everyone has business associates.) They share a similar political ideology (I assume) otherwise why would they join, but it doesn’t mean they are of the same character.
ReplyDeletePeople in the Newmarket part of the riding most likely could care less or even know who’s who or who was in Aurora. But to those who voted in Aurora’s last election for a change, the perception may make a difference. Fortunately or unfortunately depending on the circumstances, perception can be everything.
To 1:16 PM.
ReplyDeleteJust to be clear. No one is saying that everyone on the list is an issue. My concern is with those people that feel that legally attacking residents with the use of public funds in order to silence their political opinions is reason enough to not vote for them or their candidate. The Liberals have to be accountable for who they select to run their party, just as much as the candidate is accountable.
There is no question that there are a lot of good people in every party and thowse people had better speak up and be counted when they see an injustice or their party will pay the price.
Aw Shucks ! I was hoping for a decent race next time around. There doesn't seem to be anywhere to put a Liberal vote. Franks Klees is really good at his job but it might have be fun to actually run a candidate with possibilities against him. Can't see that happening right now.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what the reaction is going to be if the media picks up the story that a Liberal MPP is trying to push forward anti-SLAPP legislation and at the same time the only politician in Canadian history (as far as I know) to have issued a SLAPP with the use of public funds is on a Liberal riding Association executive ! Not only that, but her former campaign manager is the president of the association no less and her strongest supporter on the current council has done everything in his power to defend Morris’ actions as well as her political legacy (which legacy has already been well reported).
ReplyDeleteIf you ask me, I think the Liberals will find all of this very hard to explain and they have enough credibility problems to deal with as it is.
Our local Liberals may want to Google this news story headline from The Ottawa Citizen:
ReplyDeleteLiberal MPP to table bill aimed at blocking ‘SLAPP’ suits;
Citizens, community groups would gain protection when speaking out on matters of public interest;
Liberal MPP Yasir Naqvi is proposing a private member’s bill to make it harder for powerful interests to stifle public discussion by launching frivolous lawsuits.
By ROBERT SIBLEY, The Ottawa Citizen, October 12, 2012