This motion requires EDAs to hold a General Meeting every 15 months. It allows for federal council to grant exceptions in the event of a general election and it requires the EDA to provide the party with a copy of the minutes.

Those who disagree with these motions seem to agree with this one so I wont go into it any further.

This is the first of the two possibly controversial resolutions. This resolution gives the party the ability to set nomination rules. Again I think this is a great idea. By having the rules in place the EDA is freed to focus on finding great candidates to seek the nomination.

Also using the same rules across the country allows to learn from each others mistakes so that problems can be fixed once not 308 times. Fair, consistent rules will result in better nomination contests and ultimately better candidates.

This is the second of the two, possibly controversial resolutions. This motions says that EDAs need to adopt a template constitution. I love the idea, it takes care of something for the EDAs and allows them to focus on growing locally. Others say they need to be able to have their own unique constitution although I have yet to hear a decent reason why. EDAs have far more in common and those few differences are rarely fundamental (and therefore not really constitution material). A constitution that implements the best practises of EDAs and that avoids pitfalls is smart. It allows all EDAs to build of the successes mistakes of others.

Having a template constitution is efficient and effective and it lets us focus on our more important objectives.

I simply refuse to believe that anyone could have a problem with this motion. This resolutions makes it mandatory for EDAs to let the party know who the CEO and FA of the EDA are. Doesn’t that sound like something we’d obviously want to know? If you are against this motion I guess you accept that conversations like the one below might become common:

Craig: Did such-and-such EDA receive their revenue sharing payment?

Diana: I don’t know, somebody is certainly cashing those cheques. I hope it’s the FA but I’m not sure since they don't have to tell me!

This resolution is another fairly simple one. In the event that and EDA is deregistered it’s assets are transferred to the party. That makes sense as losing (or losing track) of assets is probably not smart. The party then holds on to these assets in hopes that a new EDA is formed. If an EDA is formed within 3 years they party transfers the assets to the new EDA. If after 3 years a new EDA has still not been formed the party can use those assets.

This seems smart, we don’t have a lot of assets and we shouldn’t risk losing the little that we have. Also 3 years is a very long time. I think it’s completely reasonable for a new EDA to be back up and running within 3 years. I honestly don’t understand how there can be controversy here and I’m tempted to say that those who are arguing against this motion are fear mongering.

This resolution requires EDAs to send a copy of their constitution to the party. This is mostly a non-issue as many EDAs post their constitution on their website so I guess the party could simply download their own copy.

Please can someone give me a single good reason why the central party should not have a copy of the constitutions on hand. What if I disagree with my exec of the interpretation on a clause in our constitution. We can’t settle things locally so we seek help from the central party, lets say our regional rep on federal council but it could be someone else. In this example wouldn’t the party be better able to help if they had a copy of the constitution for reference?

Also wouldn’t this safe guard against undemocratic changes or worse, typos? This is simply not a controversial resolution I don’t see how someone could have a problem with it.

This resolution is so non-controversial that I’m really shocked that anyone is against it. All it requires is that the people running Green Party of Canada EDAs be members of the Green Party of Canada. When smart people are against motions like this, it makes my head hurt.

Another simple resolution that I just don’t see informed members being against.

1. federal council already has the power to ask EDAs to send them financial records
2. some financial information is already publicly available on the Elections Canada website
3. whats wrong with transparency, especially when money is involved?
4. federal council may need this info to resolve disputes that cannot be resolved at the local level.

This is just another short, understandable, common sense motion.

These motions are very simple. If and EDA doesn’t follow the rules that EDA does get revenue sharing agreements. If it resides in a state of non-compliance we deregister it. Why would we keep funding (and recognizing) an EDA that decided not to have AGMs, or decided that they wanted to not nominate a candidate and support the NDP?

What is the point of having rules if breaking rules does not have consequences? EDAs are important and there for they must be accountable to both the party and the members of the riding. Loss of revenue sharing and deregistration are the common sense consequences for non-compliance.

If someone tells you that this will be abused and that EDAs will be degistered on the drop of a hat, stop and think. Why would the party, that is trying to create new EDAs deregister an EDA on the drop of a hat. If G10-c18 passes its not like the party would be able to use the EDAs assets, at least not for three years, so what nefarious hidden agenda could they have?

I think you’ll find that the complaints regarding these two motions most often are simply fear-mongering.