When I hung up the phone after the 135 minute Council of President’s call last night, I was wondering how I was going to write my blog entry in such a way as to be honest about what happened on the call, but at the same time not foster further division within the party.
Then I read this article from the Globe and Mail: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-eye-fall-of-2012-for-choosing-successor-to-ignatieff/article2027824/.
Apparently there are Presidents who don’t give a rip about avoiding public displays of party division, so I might as well weigh in without overly censoring myself.
As I have posted before, and for the record, I am in favour of holding a “virtual” extraordinary convention of the party in June to have delegates vote on whether or not to delay a potentially divisive leadership battle between twelve and twenty-four months. I also agree that delaying the Convention 3 weeks in order to keep it in Ottawa makes sense, especially as it has the side effect of allowing me to go to Convention without exceeding my contribution limits.
I might have had a different opinion if the National Board had unilaterally declared that we were simply going to ignore the party constitution and just delay the leadership race. But they didn’t. They are using the ability they are granted within the constitution to allow for the party, through elected delegates, the option of delaying a leadership vote. They are trying their best, within the confines of the constitution, to meet the overwhelming demands of party members to delay the leadership race. In short, they are doing what we elected them to do.
Apparently, however, Mr. Andrew Iler, President of Niagara West-Glanbrook doesn’t see it that way.
First, let me say this. I’ll give Mr. Iler credit that he at least had the decency to be named in the G&M piece, and not hide behind the veil of “anonymous senior Liberal”. This will be the last nice thing I say about Mr. Iler in this post.
Mr. Iler tried to move a motion on the conference call asking the National Council of President’s to declare the actions of the National Board of Directors as against the constitution. So there are a couple of problems with this:
1. The constitution specifically says that any motion to be considered by the Council of Presidents has to be submitted 20 days before a meeting. So Mr. Iler wanted Mr. Apps to violate the constitution of the party in order to hold a vote on whether or not Mr. Apps was violating the constitution of the party. I trust the flaw in that logic is pretty easy to spot?
2. What the hell is Mr. Iler afraid of? If 2/3rds of delegates vote to delay leadership, how is that not an expression of the will of the party? Why would Mr. Iler threaten a lawsuit to stop members of the party from making a democratic decision on the procedures of our party? What possible motivation could Mr. Iler have?
Mr. Iler is quoted as saying “If we realize we’re a very, very small minority … we’re going to have to bow to the majority of the party”. Wouldn’t the extraordinary convention be a great way to gauge the broad opinion of the party, Mr. Iler?
Nothing is perfect in any organization, and if the LPC was perfect, then we wouldn’t be in the situation we are. I respect the fact that the National Board took the time tonight to try and hear from as many of the Presidents as they could. I respect that they have consulted with the commissions, and are going to consult with the defeated candidates. Maybe we can try to work together to overcome the flaws in our system instead of allowing them to become points of division.
I look forward to being an ex-officio delegate at the extraordinary convention and to exercising my right as a member of this party to express my views on these important decisions. I wish Mr. Iler and his friends would stop trying to take that away from me.
P.S. Want to be a delegate in the extraordinary convention? Make sure you are a member of the party (https://action.liberal.ca/en/membership) and watch your email for instructions!
