I copied my last blog article about the deal between Elizabeth and Stéphane Dion over to the blog section on the GPC website and there has been a lot of good discussion about it over there.  Here is the link for those who are interested.

Now that the initial hubbub has died down a little I wanted to post a few follow-up thoughts about the deal and my original blog.  Some of you may have read an article about the deal titled "'Why, Elizabeth, why?"  A bad week to be a lefty" by Patricia Robertson in last weekend's Globe and Mail.  (It's behind the G&M firewall so I can't provide a link)   I'm quoted in the article and I'll get to that in a moment, but first a short synopsis.

One of the key points made by Ms. Robertson is that the Greens would have been better off if we had forged an alliance with the NDP rather than the Liberals.  Since we didn't, she believes that Elizabeth's chances of becoming Prime Minister some day, or even winning her seat in this election is now "an impossible dream."  Ms. Robertson then follows up with the following:

"In fact, we'll have to see if [Elizabeth] even continues to carry the Green banner after the next election."

"Party member Kevin Colton, in his online blog this week, accused Ms. May of poor leadership.  He said he opposes the Dion deal and has misgivings about his party's electoral prospects.  'Despite our best efforts," he said, "there is a very real chance that in the upcoming election that GPC will again elect no candidates under first-past-the-post."

There are a few points to make about this quote and the context in which it was presented.  In no particular order:

First, I disagree with the conclusion that it would have been better to forge an alliance with the NDP.  I've written against this proposal in the past.  The GPC is not by nature a left-wing party, and I think this assumption is part of the reason why some of the conclusions drawn by Ms. Robertson are over-stated.

Second, in no way do I doubt that Elizabeth will continue to carry the Green banner after the next election, regardless of how it turns out, if she so chooses.  Jim Harris was the right leader at a time when the party needed his vision and professional skills, and Elizabeth is the right leader for the party right now when it can capitalize on her charisma, dynamism and long-standing commitment to addressing environmental concerns.

Third, I did not accuse Elizabeth of poor leadership.  I did say she made a mistake and I hope that both she and readers will see this distinction.  Making no mistakes is an impossible standard and no-one should be held to that standard.

Fourth, I do believe the mistake was fairly serious.  However, it is not nearly serious enough that it might prevent a Green Prime Minister from ever being elected.  When I wrote my essay on how the GPC could win Parliament by 2020 I expected there would be growing pains like this, and that would lead to slower growth than some in the party might like to see.  But in the bigger picture of long-term goals and objectives the strength of our values and policies will help to minimize the impact of any given decision like this deal.

Fifth, my comments about the possibility of not electing candidates are presented out of context.  Elsewhere in my article I state that I believe it is almost certain that we will elect someone by the end of the decade.  I also mention that the deal would marginally increase the chances of Elizabeth's election in Central Nova, not decrease them. The possibility of not electing candidates was intended to illustrate the best strategy to compensate for the vagaries of first-past-the-post over the next four or five years.  I do not believe the deal will harm our chances of electing someone in this or a future election under first-past-the-post.  In fact, I continue to believe it is possible to for the GPC to win Parliament by 2020 under any electoral system.

Having said all that, I'm sure my concerns with this single quote would pale next to Elizabeth's frustration about how the deal as a whole was interpreted vs how it was intended.  But, nevertheless, I'll try to draw a few preliminary conclusions from this discussion.

First, many supporters of the deal have noted that it is a good example of what the Green Party means when it says it does politics differently.  I agree that this was a good intention.  I also think that the response to my blog provides another example of how we do politics differently.  On the one hand, we have the Conservatives (and the other parties, perhaps to a lesser extent) exercising message control amongst their caucus to the fullest of their abilities.  On the other hand, as a party member I'm able to openly criticize a party decision on the party's own public website.

As far as I can determine none of the other major parties are doing anything close to this and I think there is going to be a big payoff to this sort of open discussion in a few years.  We are setting up a framework to better engage and activate our members and that in turn will allow us to identify solutions for issues and corrections to problems much faster than the other parties.  Not to mention that if and when the other parties decide to give this sort of open discussion a try they will be years behind the GPC when it comes to figuring out how to make it work.

I can attest that there is a huge buy-in to this new way of doing politics.  Not a single member who responded to my post on the GPC blog commented that I shouldn't have made the post.

My second conclusion, an extension of the first, is that people will take what they want from your comments.  Ms. Robertson saw what she considered a good quote and she ran with it.  One response to this might be to try to avoid saying things that are critical.  But much of today's media coverage is driven by conflict.  If a quote that illustrates conflict isn't readily available then I think many in the media will keep looking for another disgruntled member or another divisive topic.

I think that when political observers see disagreements they often tend to view them through the traditional media prism of unhealthy conflict.  Many voters are tired of this perspective, but at the same time working to make things better sometimes means that it is healthy to air concerns and respectfully disagree.  Elizabeth is forthright about issues and it is clear that voters respond positively and find her refreshing.  I think the key is to try to strike the right balance.  I've read that a in a healthy relationship there should be eight positive comments for every disagreement.  That ratio might be a little pollyanna-ish when talking politics, but I've tried to keep the spirit of that suggestion in mind when I offer opinions on my blog or by email.

My third conclusion is our detractors will always try to make internal disagreements like this into more than they actually are.  This happened in the last election as well.  But over time, if we don't respond in a knee-jerk kind of way, I think most voters will see through the rhetoric and will appreciate the way we are trying to do politics differently.  Real change takes more than sound bites and I think that once voters get past the surface messaging in the media and learn in some detail about our ideas they will buy in for the long term.  I think the steady rise in our core support over the past few years is a good proof of this.

Elizabeth, keep up the great work.  Despite my misgivings I continue to hope that your plan works out.

It doesn't take much browsing around the internet or reading the newspapers to learn that all political parties have their fair share of critics, nay-sayers and others either angry or dismissive about the policies and actions of those parties. This is the nature of politics, and healthy debate is an essential component of a strong democracy.

There comes a time, however, that a debate can cease to be healthy. In my experience with the Green Party, unhealthy situations can arise when an individual has a certitude about their opinions that causes them to view differing opinions with hostility and suspicion. Our rapid growth has exacerbated the problem, since the changes, new people and new ideas that come with such growth can be alarming to those used to the status quo. In some cases, an individual may start to believe that a person or group holding a different opinion, or taking an action with which they disagree, could only be doing so because they are corrupt, incompetent or because they otherwise want to do the party harm.

In practice, things are never so black and white. Every decision made by party officials is made in the context of a multitude of circumstances that need to be examined in light of how we can best achieve the stated Constitutional purpose of the party: to advance the party’s platform, policy, values and basis of unity, and to contribute to the welfare of Canada. Given the ever-changing political and organizational environment in which the party finds itself, it is impossible that all of the actions taken by the party will conform to the wishes of any given individual.

There are a number of options available to individuals who think a decision is leading the party down the wrong path. Decisions made by units of the party other than council (e.g. EDAs or Provincial Associations) can appeal to council, and any resultant decision of council that does or does not change the original decision is binding on these other units. Council decisions of any kind can be reversed or amended by future council decisions. Councillors and other elected officials can be voted out of office. And the ultimate authority for decision-making is when members are in a General Meeting; such meetings are historically held every two years. If an individual cannot convince any of these groups to correct a decision, then it is most likely that the original decision accurately reflects "the will of the members" and should stand.

At any time a member or unit of the party can appeal to the party's five-member Ombuds and Appeals Committee (OAC), who, at their discretion, may or may not agree to consider the request and make recommendations about how to correct the situation. Although OAC recommendations are not binding they carry a lot of weight in party circles.

Unfortunately, these well-defined processes are not always followed by those who have concerns. I've known party members and officials who have withdrawn or limited their volunteer work with the party due to harsh and unfair criticism of their decisions and motives. In some cases false information about these members has been published. Others have received threats of various kinds or attempts have been made to harm them in their personal or professional affairs external to the party.

Let's examine in a little more detail some different examples of how a disgruntled person can handle a decision with which they disagree. The first set of examples will examine what happens when the disgruntled individual uses improper actions because their certitude about what is right causes them to be suspicious about the motives of others:

Example 1: Let's assume the person being accused is actually corrupt or otherwise wants to hurt the party. In this case, the corrupt person being accused is unlikely to be bothered by such accusations, and will continue on as before. They may welcome the accusations, knowing that such in-fighting can only harm the party. In this case, it is likely that the situation in the party will continue to deteriorate.

Example 2: Let's assume the person being accused is not corrupt, but is incompetent to some degree. In this case, it is possible that the individual will withdraw, which may seem like a victory to the disgruntled person. However, this victory comes at a steep price. The person who withdrew may well have been simply been in the wrong position at the wrong time. In many cases such a person, if treated with respect, understands that they might be able to better help the party in a different position. But if they are forced out, it is less likely that they will be willing to do other volunteer work for the party.

Example 3: Let's assume the person is capable and the decisions they are making are actually helping the party to grow. They recognize that an effective way to contribute is to get actively involved as an elected party official or committee member. As a result, they are more involved in decision-making and face a higher likelihood of making a decision with which a disgruntled member disagrees. Having a disgruntled member try to force out such a capable volunteer is probably the worst of all worlds.

In all cases, forcing someone out using improper actions may be acceptable and desirable to the disgruntled member, but it is harmful to the party as a whole. Whether or not the person who withdraws is capable, they have a right to their opinion. Also, elected councillors have a constitutional right to make decisions on behalf of the party outside of a General Meeting. Efforts by an individual to undermine that right ultimately serve only to weaken the framework on which the party is built.

The second set of examples will examine what happens when a disgruntled individual decides to try to use due process to correct decisions with which they disagree. In the following cases we can also assume that, rather than going on the offensive, the person would use most of their time to prepare a better solution to the problem and then present this option to those officials who are authorized to correct the original decision. They may also take legitimate steps to remove or censure the person by petitioning the OAC or council, or by working to elect someone better to the position held by an elected official.

Example 4: Let's assume that the person who made the bad decision is corrupt. It is likely that they will ignore any good recommendation and the disgruntled person trying to use due process will have to go up to the next level of authority to present these recommendation. Some time will be wasted, but at some point along the way it is likely that a good recommendation will be implemented. Additional effort will likely be required to remove such an appointed or elected official using due process.

Example 5: Let's assume that the person who made the bad decision is incompetent to some degree. It is possible that the person will not implement a good recommendation, but if the disgruntled individual is capable and continues to pursue the matter in a respectful and impartial manner, it is possible that the situation can be resolved with a minimum of hard feelings and wasted time. However, since an appointed or elected official has a right to make decisions (even if others consider them bad), then the disgruntled person may need to do additional work to replace them.

Example 6: Let's assume that the person who made the decision is capable. In this case, it is likely that they are willing to listen to good recommendations on how to fix problems, and will work to get them implemented. In some cases, there will be differences of opinion between two capable people. In this case, it is entirely reasonable that the elected or appointed official be allowed to stand by their decision.

The following table summarizes the above examples. It also ranks each situation on a scale of 5 to -5, where 5 represents making a good decision agreeable to all in the first place; 0 is the status quo; and -5 means the actions taken make things worse:

 

 

It should be clear that in all cases the best solution for a disgruntled person who wants to try to correct problem is to use due process. Although I think this is generally understood in theory, I hope that examining the practical downside of trying to use other, improper methods to correct problems will reinforce the importance of due process. Sometimes due process takes time and this can be frustrating. However, it is essential that members of the party treat others within and without of the party with respect, if we hope to rise above the mudslinging and partisanship that characterizes much of Canada's political discourse.

In practice, there will continue to be some individuals whose suspicions will cause them to attack and accuse. My recommendation to those who find themselves on the receiving end or are otherwise upset by such actions is to try to rise above it. Over time, ordinary members will see that the person doing the attacking is being unfair and harmful, and their influence will wane. In my experience, you will also earn the respect of those who are making positive contributions if are you able to handle such situations gracefully.

This is one of a series of articles examining how to fix key problems facing the GPC.

Some readers may have recently read that the Liberals are planning to contest all 308 seats in the next federal election. Others may be aware that Howard Dean has helped lead the US Democratic Party to victory in the recent mid-term elections using a 50-state strategy that aims to build up the infrastructure of the party in every precinct nationwide.

The idea behind these strategies applies doubly to the GPC. Our growth to date is attributable in large part to our success in running 308 candidates in the last two elections. Granted, many of our candidates didn't fare that well. But one of our primary objectives in running 308 candidates has been to raise awareness about the party and our policies, and in that respect I think we have been successful. We have been noticed by most Canadians, a necessary first step in building any organization, and many of those Canadians are starting to understand and trust us.

The next step for the party is to solidify this public understanding and trust, and this needs to be done on a national basis. In my opinion, a risk to our continued growth is that the central party will succumb to the desire to focus our resources in a few ridings by implementing a "beachhead" strategy to try to get someone elected soon, rather than implementing an "equitable distribution" strategy that aims to build the party nation-wide.

First, let's consider the arguments against the beachhead strategy:

1.  Although the beachhead strategy can and does achieve success relative to our past efforts, we are not yet able to get someone elected. It has been tried on three occasions that I know of: in Saanich-Gulf Islands in the 2004 federal election (Andrew Lewis won 18%); in Powell River-Sunshine Coast in the 2005 BC provincial election (Adriane Carr won 25%); and in London North Centre in the 2006 federal by-election (Elizabeth May won 25%). To surpass the 25% hurdle in most ridings I believe voters in that riding will need to see that we have a strong party across the nation.

2.  A failed beachhead strategy looks bad in the media, and too many failed beachhead attempts will start to raise doubts in the minds of voters that we can ever win. A better message to send out is that yes, we can and will win, but our primary focus for the next couple of years is our national growth.

3.  Since we don't currently have the resources to establish very many beachheads, it will be a fairly small matter for the other parties to divert resources to counter us once they realize what we are trying to do. The party doesn't yet have the experience of running a campaign where our candidate is at or near the lead for most of the campaign, and I suspect this will put us at a disadvantage when our candidate becomes a target.

Now consider the following arguments in support of an equitable distribution strategy:

1.  We are accelerating the rate at which we attract highly qualified new people to the party and we don't necessary know where our strengths lie. To focus too much in one area will lessen the support that we can provide these newer individuals when they first get involved. A minimal amount of support for new members can go a long way.

2.  Many of our policies have a national appeal and, unlike the other parties, we don't have decades of regional prejudices working to our disadvantage. We have the potential for strength everywhere and anywhere.

3.  In many cases our policies will significantly impact and change Canadian society, the economy, and so on. If and when we elect a few MPs we will still need broad-based support to help us educate voters about why the changes we are proposing are necessary.  We will also need help defending the party against the attacks of those who stand to benefit from maintaining the status quo. We are still several years away from having the membership base and riding-level EDA infrastructures in place that will allow us to do this.

4.  If and when proportional representation is ever implemented federally then the GPC will be far better off if we work to build nationally. Consider that an increase from (say) 5% to 10% across the country represents about 700,000 votes, but an increase from (say) 10% to 40% in a single riding represents only about 15,000 votes.

5.  It is a rare day that I don't read about the way the charisma and dynamism of Elizabeth May is attracting Canadians to the party. Her ability to get our message out is astounding, and the rest of the party needs to play catch-up: we need to add depth to our policy; we need more riding-level representatives to respond to questions reporters and voters have; we need to improve a central party infrastructure that is creaking under the weight of our rapid growth. These broad-based activities need to take priority to ensure that the party can back up Elizabeth's message.

In the last federal election we won 4.5% and had about 10 ridings over 10%. If and when we win 10% my guesstimate is that we should have about 20 ridings over 20%. When this happens we can revisit the idea of directing extra resources to a few riding-specific beachheads, but, in my opinion, it should not be done before that time. Instead, the party should continue to focus on building regional infrastructures that can support the campaigns of several candidates, until such a time as any one candidate and campaign can step up and run things on their own.

In one sense the next couple of years will be a proving ground for our candidates.  That is, those candidates who have the ability to create a team and be successful without a lot of hand-holding are the ones who will have (a) shown that they will use any resources provided by the central party effectively and (b) shown that they are capable of performing well when their profiles are raised on the national stage.

The GPC can and will elect someone at any time (no-one should underestimate Elizabeth in particular). When it happens, it will be a major milestone and accomplishment. By casting a wide net now we can help to ensure that there will be a wave of qualified candidate-MPs waiting in the wings to join her in Parliament.

This is one of a series of articles examining how to fix key problems facing the GPC.

It's a rare news article that mentions the GPC that does not also mention the fact that we don't have an elected MP in Parliament. On occasion, the reporter will also note that the GPC has not done as well as Green parties that have participated in governing coalitions in other countries. Consider the following quote about the GPC from a University of Toronto professor in this CTV article:

"They've improved slowly. Compared to other countries they're very behind. I think of Germany where they did so well their leader was minister of foreign affairs," Clarkson says.

But are we very behind? Joschka Fischer, the German minister in question, was appointed when the Greens formed a coalition government with the Social Democratic Party, despite winning only 7% of the vote (and 47 of 669 seats in the Bundestag). In the recent election in Austria, the Greens finished third with 11% of the vote (and 21 of 183 seats in the National Council), and may yet form part of a governing coalition.

That 7% level of support is the likely percentage that the GPC could win if an election were to be held today. The Austrian results are similar to our high-end polling numbers, currently around 10%. Our election day results are more likely to approach that higher number in an electoral system other than the first past the post system used in Canada, since issues such as strategic voting and the feeling of "wasting" a vote will be of less concern to voters who support smaller parties. So, Clarkson's statement needs to be qualified: the GPC is not behind Green parties in other counties in terms of popular support. Rather, we are behind because of an electoral system that is to our disadvantage.

Canada has been flirting with proportional representation in recent years, with an initiative in British Columbia being narrowly defeated in 2005. (It will likely be voted on again in 2008.) Several other provinces are exploring the issue, and last year the Law Commission of Canada recommended that Canada adopt a mixed member proportional electoral system at the federal level.

So, what next? The first thing GPC supporters can do is support electoral reform in their province, and support initiatives promoted by groups like Fair Vote Canada. We also need to have patience, and recognize that electoral reform of any sort will take time. There are reasons why the Canadian electoral system is the way that it is, and, regardless of the system, the GPC has to be willing and able to work well with other parties if we want to make progress on issues that are important to us.  In the meantime, we will continue to grow and our influence will continue to increase.

The second thing to do is to focus on our growth in the long-term. I think it is possible for the GPC to win a majority regardless of the electoral system. I outlined here how this can be done by 2020. We can be successful so long as we focus on defining and meeting our own goals and objectives, rather than letting others define these goals and objectives on our behalf (e.g. elect an MP to Parliament if you want to be in the Leaders' debate). I think the Canadian electorate recognizes the inherent unfairness of such requirements, and focusing too much on them will only serve to distract us from other more important work that needs to be done.

An aside: Often, when considering political issues that seem unfair, I remember a Yogi Berra-style malapropism I heard at a debate I attended while working on the campaign of the Green Party Congressional candidate in Omaha, Nebraska. To make his point, an inexperienced candidate (not the Green Party candidate) stated that "85% of lawyers give the rest of them a bad name." It's easy to substitute "politicians" for "lawyers" when I hear politicians talk about an issue like electoral reform, yet see nothing concrete ever being done.

However, in fairness, I think that the candidate meant to say 15%. And, in fairness, I think that's the appropriate number to use for politicians as well. It's why I believe the GPC should continue to try to work with the other parties, since most of the people in those other parties are in it for the right reasons as well (even if and when we disagree). And that in turn gives me more confidence that the right political actions - like electoral reform - will get done one way or another if the issue is handled in a collaborative way.

This is one of a series of articles examining how to fix key problems facing the GPC.

I regularly hear frustration from party members about the problems we have in engaging our members. They know other members that have the skills to create good materials or work on our website, or are willing to make phone calls or go door-to-door. They ask why we aren't activating these members to do more volunteer work for the party.

The problem here is not that the party doesn't want or need the help of volunteers. Rather, the problem is that activating volunteers is a lot of work! The volunteer needs to be trained, the work we want them to do needs to be clearly defined and integrated into a larger plan, the materials to do their job need to collected and distributed, the progress of the work needs to be tracked, and so on. A breakdown at any step along the way means that the initiative to activate the volunteer work will be less than successful.

In my experience, the prepatory work and training required just to get each new volunteer up to speed can take a time investment of several hours from an experienced staff member or volunteer. Then there is the ongoing work to monitor progress. Consider that there is a close parallel to the business world, where few managers are expected to coordinate the work of more than (say) 10 employees. So if we want to activate 100 new volunteers working 10 hours per month, we need to have at least 10 other more experienced volunteers working at least 10 hours per month to direct their work. Trying to activate 1000 volunteers adds another tier to the volunteer-based organization. Activating new volunteers in these numbers is too much work for our over-worked staff to do on their own, which is why it currently isn't being done.

I think there is a belief in the party, based on anecdotal experience and small-scale volunteer projects, that our "grassroots" members can and will self-organize if the central party just gets out of the way. However, consider two of our successful medium-scale volunteer efforts: the 2004 Living Platform project and the recent second-place finish by Elizabeth May in the London North Centre by-election. In both cases, we had at least a couple of hundred volunteers involved. But there were also key staff members and volunteers who were working full-time to direct the work of other volunteers. These two efforts show that volunteer initiatives can work, but that they need to be carefully managed. If they are not, they can and will lead to the burnout of key volunteers and staff in the long-term.

A rough estimate that I use when considering how many volunteers we can bring to bear on a task is that about 1 in 10 members will volunteer at some level, and 1 in 100 members will have the skills, initiative, and time to be long-term leaders.  Both types of volunteers are to be valued and are essential to the growth of the organization.  I think those numbers accurately reflect our current membership base: of our 10,000 members, about 100 are long-term leaders and 1000 have done volunteer work on a semi-regular basis. In my experience, these numbers are consistent at all levels of the party and are achievable without any sort of coordinated volunteer program.

So the first, and best, thing we can do to get more volunteers involved is to recruit more members. The number of volunteers we can activate will always be constrained primarily by the size of our membership base. On the positive side, we can always expect that a certain percentage of those members will self-select themselves into volunteer roles.

The second thing to do is define a volunteer program that is focused on delivering skills and training to volunteers who want to take the step of moving from an "on-the-ground" volunteer to a volunteer who is willing to step back and start directing the work of others. It is probably possible to slowly increase the above percentages of members who volunteer (despite the natural inclination of most people to not want to do anything :-) We can also be more effective at coordinating the work of those who do volunteer. The long-term success of this program will be dependent on developing a skilled middle management volunteer infrastructure in the party.

This is one of a series of articles examining how to fix key problems facing the GPC.

The GPC's rapid growth has been a dramatic and positive experience for the party. However, rapid growth always brings its own set of problems. Probably none is more evident than the stress that has been put on the party's ability to do strategic planning. It has been very difficult to effectively consult with stakeholders in order to identify and prioritize the work that needs to be done, set realistic goals and a budget to complete that work, and oversee and make the necessary corrections when things don't proceed as planned.

This work is difficult almost to the point of being overwhelming. Every stakeholder (councillors, EDAs, staff, provinces, working groups, members) has their ideas about what we should be doing, and how we should spend our money. When things don't get done in the way they'd like them to get done they start having concerns, and the party can enter a cycle where the issues being addressed are the ones being raised by our most vocal stakeholders. And, unfortunately, these issues may not be the ones that should be the highest priority.

The first thing that can be done to fix this problem is to establish a well-understood process where stakeholders are consulted and understand when they can provide input into that process. I've set out some ideas about how to do this in the strategic planning section of my GPC roadmap essay.

The second thing that can be done is for council to publish a list of measurable objectives that the party hopes to achieve for a given time period. That way, we can (a) measure whether or not we are actually getting things done, and (b) we can clearly explain to stakeholders who want resources and attention directed to their projects about what work we are currently focused on. In the past, our staff has created such a list for their work, but there are issues facing the party that are broader than those facing staff alone. I've published such a broader list here but these are primarily my own ideas and priorities. Council needs to work on their own list as a group and present it in a more digestible way.

This is one of a series of articles examining how to fix key problems facing the GPC.

GPC council problems are primarily due to the structure of council rather than problems with any given individual in the current or previous councils. The size of council (around 25 individuals) is larger than the typical size of most governance bodies. This, combined with the historically small size of our membership base, results in councillors sometimes being elected who are inexperienced or who don't have the right skills for the job. The end result is a weak council that becomes the underlying cause for many other problems in the party.

Although a governance body of 25 councillors is fairly large I don't believe that this size, in and of itself, will result in problems that are intractable in the long term. Half of these councillors are provincial and territorial representatives, and trying to reduce this representation will likely result in a new set of equally troublesome problems. Most Canadians are rightfully proud of their home province or territory and expect it to have a measure of representation in national forums that is equal to any other province or territory. So the party needs to find ways to make a council of this size work.

The first thing to do is implement a comprehensive training program for new councillors. In my experience, many councillors have never been exposed to typical issues faced by a governance body: financial management, meeting procedures, an awareness of major historical events and decisions within the party, an understanding of the relationship between a governing body and staff, understanding how to work well with others, and so on. There is every reason to believe that most councillors can learn these skills. In the long-term, this training will also help to create a larger pool of members with leadership skills that can be applied elsewhere in the party.

The second thing to do is recruit good candidates for each and every council position. This is particularly true for our smaller regions where there may be little competition for the position. In my experience, a single unqualified individual elected to council can cause a lot of harm to council as a whole. All party members need to share in the responsibility for recruiting qualified council candidates, and there should be few or no positions in a council election where a candidate is only running against none-of-the-above.

This is one of a series of articles examining how to fix key problems facing the GPC.

I've been working on a new essay that examines the problems currently faced by the GPC, and how these problems can be fixed. I've identified about 30 key problems that are divided into three main categories: political, organizational, and cultural. After writing up an analysis of the first three organizational problems I can see that finishing all 30 will take some time, so I thought I'd present the problems and solutions in a "serialized" format as they are finished. I don't have a specific time-frame in mind for the next set, but keep watching the blog for updates.

The articles that have been published to date are below.  The ranking represents my opinion about the relative importance of the problem compared to other problems facing the party.

Fixing political problem #1:  The Canadian electoral system
Fixing political problem #2:  Building a national party 

Fixing organizational problem #1:  An inexperienced council
Fixing organizational problem #2:  Strategic planning
Fixing organizational problem #3:  Activating volunteers

Fixing cultural problem #1:  Suspicion

As the new council works on planning priorities and budget for 2007, I'd like to encourage them to consider what they can do to foster policy development.  As outlined in my roadmap essay I consider establishing a successful policy development process to be one of the five key building blocks necessary for our long-term success.

Over the past couple of years many GPC members likely became familiar with a "3M" organizational structure promoted by David Scrymgeour:  that is, we should focus our efforts on the areas of membership, message, and money.  I believe that the training and tools put together by David to support 3M are very useful and have helped many EDAs increase their effectiveness.

One of the things that prompted me to write the roadmap essay were some thoughts about how the 3M strategy could be modified to better reflect and support the GPC organization at the national level.  In particular, there is no clear place for policy development in 3M.  This is unfortunate since our policy defines who and what we are.  Here is the first part of Article 4 of the GPC constitution: 

Article 4 - Purpose:  It is the purpose of The Party to advance The Party’s platform, policy, values and basis of unity, and to contribute to the welfare of Canada, Canadians and the community of life in Canada ...

I think it is difficult to figure out where policy fits into the 3M because, as the above paragraph makes clear, the purpose of the party as a whole is significantly different than the purpose of non-political organizations (or even local EDAs).  In any case, here is the link to the section in the essay where I discuss how policy development can be integrated into 3M.

In order to ensure our long-term success, the central party and council need a plan to ensure that policy development is fostered in the same way that a plan is needed for the 3M activities. Note that I am not suggesting that council work on policy itself.  That is the job of Shadow Cabinet and interested members. But council should ensure that planning, processes, procedures, resources, etc are in place in the same way that they are put in place to support 3M activities.

Elizabeth May understands the importance of policy development and that is why one of the first things she did was initiate her cross-Canada policy series, an idea which I strongly support.  In 2007, we need to expand on this idea by ensuring that enough resources are in place whereby the nitty-gritty details of policy can be developed on an ongoing basis.  In 2004, a Wiki was used, but it eventually started to suffer abuses.  With some effort, these problems can likely be corrected and complemented by other vehicles that allow all interested party members to engage in the policy development process.

The GPC staff have been doing a lot of work on the GPC website behind the scenes.  One of the things they set up a few months ago is a blog page [link].  Many prominent Greens are regularly posting articles, including former leader Jim Harris and GPC campaign manager George Read. The blogs are open to the public and have a lot of great commentary and insights for those who are interested.

There was some concerns and confusion being expressed on the GPC EDA list about a requirement that EDA executive members live within the electoral boundaries for that EDA. I sent the following response to the list and I'm also posting it here in case there is some interest ...

---

Hi all,

There was never a requirement set by council that EDA executive members live in the riding. I've attached below the requirements approved by council in March of this year. It is unfortunate that there is confusion about this and I hope that if/when staff review the requirements it will help to correct this problem.

I'm the person that proposed the requirement that an individual should not be allowed to sit on the executive of more than one EDA. There are a couple of reasons I made this proposal. One was that I thought it would help minimize problems for the party and for those EDAs if/when problems started to happen with that individual, the person moved, etc. Another reason, at least as important, was that I thought the party needed to start to get beyond the mentality that one person needs to carry the load in multiple areas. If we consider that we likely need to recruit and and mobilize 1000 or more members in a riding to get someone elected I think being an EDA executive in one riding should be more than enough work for one person. Also, I think that having different executives in each EDA will help to increase the overall number of people who have the leadership experience within the party, and this will help to foster our long-term success.

There is nothing preventing an EDA executive in one riding to advise or otherwise help other EDAs get up and running. In fact, I think this is something to be encouraged.

I understand the concerns that some EDAs have had with some of the council requirements. However, I believe that council passed these requirements with the best of intentions. The party is still growing and we are establishing many of our processes for the first time. We should expect that these processes will need to be changed as we find out what works and what doesn't. I'm not particularly tied to any given requirement myself, and it could be that council tried to put in too many requirements too soon. But in my opinion, in the long-term, a well-organized EDA should be able to follow the requirements with a collective contribution of perhaps 25 hours per year - much of which the EDA is going to have to do anyways to be successful (at least that was the intention of council - I understand that it may not be working out that way). But even if it took 100 hours I think this work is a drop in the bucket for an EDA that expects to elect a candidate.

I'd like to encourage leaders of the party (like those EDA executives on this list) to consider how we react to decisions that we disagree with, or other things that happen in the party that we may view as mistakes. There are processes in place to ensure that bad decisions and mistakes can and will be corrected (e.g. by a new council decision or a decision at a General Meeting). Certainly this might take time and there could be some inconvenience along the way. But I think that showing a lack of respect or contempt for others in the party when we disgaree with them is damaging in its own way. As leaders we can help to promote a better internal culture that ultimately will help to ensure that we are better able to work with other parties and the Canadian public once we start to elect MPs. These skills will be necessary since many of our policies propose significant changes to Canadian society and may not be well-received in some quarters.

Regards,
Kevin Colton
Former GPC Council member
Acting EDA CEO for Calgary Centre

[click the link for the EDA requirements]   more »

Here are the links for those interested in the dozens of new policy resolutions passed by the GPC membership at our convention in Ottawa last month:  [pdf]  [doc].  Here is the link for our new constitution:  [link].  And here is a link to CPAC coverage of the GPC convention and leadership debates:  [link].

Adriane Carr has resigned as leader of the Green Party of BC [link].  I had the opportunity to work closely with Adriane when I served on the GPBC council in 2003, and I was always impressed by her energy, her passion and her committment to Green values. 

I think Adriane's forte was public speaking:  her performance in the 2001 televised leadership debates in the BC provincial election led directly to the GPBC winning 12% of the vote.  In my opinion, this was a watershed moment for the Greens in Canada.  Adriane and her team showed Canadians that the Greens were a viable alternative to the old-line, "grey" parties, and her election successes set the stage for the subsequent growth of the GPC and other provincial parties.

Well done, Adriane, and thank you.

UPDATE:  Adriane has joined the GPC as our Deputy Leader.  Congratulations and good luck!

Those of you who have read my roadmap essay [link] or my GPC task list [link] know that I think improving our internal processes and procedures is something that needs to be done now to ensure that the party has a solid infrastructure in place. The party is growing by leaps and bounds - we doubled our membership this year - and as we grow we need to work to keep our processes current and relevant in order to meet the increasing demands and expectations of our members. As such, during the recent internal election I kept track of things that I thought could be done to make the election better. Certainly a lot of things went right this year, and the party was able to successfully conduct a hotly contested leadership race. But I hope that these "top 10" recommendations, if implemented, will help to make our internal elections even better.

Click the link for the essay or on the attached PDF file for a formatted version.
   more »

Some of you may have read my earlier post about the "State of the Party" poll I asked the old council to complete at our last in-person meeting in Ottawa in June [link].  The idea was to get a rough idea of how the party is doing in 16 key areas.

Prior to the General Meeting in August Jim Harris set up a two-day strategy session and invited a "who's who" of Greens from across the country to attend - provincial leaders, elected Greens, leading EDA reps, and so on.  I took the opportunity to conduct another SOTP poll and a little more than 30 strategy session attendees participated.

The quick and dirty summary is that these key Greens provided a snapshot of our progress that was slightly more pessimistic than council - on average the responses were about 1 point below the old council's perceptions.  Overall, the two sets of data tracked each other fairly consistently.  However, on two key issues - how the party is doing overall, and how well we did in the 2006 election - strategy session attendees rated things about 2 points below council.  Click the "more" link below for a chart with full details.

(An aside - when I was prompting the strategy session to complete the poll I joked that now was the chance to provide the new council with realistic data about how they thought the party was doing, since the old council ranked everything 10 out of 10.  A couple of people came up to me afterwards and asked if that was true.  It seems like the old council might have been viewing things with a certain rose-coloured tint, but we weren't quite that bad!)

As could be expected there was a fair amount of variance in the raw data for each question.  The most notable range were the responses to the question of how solid our policy was.  Of the 34 responses every single option from 1 through 10 was chosen, resulting in a standard deviation of 2.4.  I am happy to note that Elizabeth May is working to get a series of policy fora up and running, and I hope that these sessions will help to improve our policy across the board.  As I discuss in my roadmap essay [link] we are rapidly approaching a point where our ability to attract new members and win more votes will be tied closely to the strength of our policy and election platform.

I'd like to encourage the new council to conduct their own poll on these issues.  I also think it would be a very interesting exercise to conduct a party-wide poll by sending an email out to our members with a link to an electronic poll for them to complete.  Collecting this sort of information is helpful in analyzing our progress over time, and it can also be used as a resource in strategic planning discussions to help determine how and where we should focus our resources.

   more »

The Green Party has a great new Leader in Elizabeth May.  She brings extensive skills, credentials and passion to her new role.  It was clear when she spoke at the convention after winning that the delegates were fully behind her.  And by winning 65% of the vote on the first ballot she left no doubt that the party as a whole supports her as well.  I think we have an exciting few years ahead with Elizabeth leading the way ...

I applaud David Chernushenko's campaign as well.  It was great for the party that we had two very strong candidates running for the leadership.  We've already doubled our membership this year to 9000, in large part as a result of the leadership race.  I was very glad to hear at the convention that David is going to remain actively involved and I loved his line that the other parties calling to court him to run for them can "save their dime, and save their time" since he is committed to the Greens.  Of course, phone calls these days are $0.35 but who's counting.

Jim Fannon did not fare that well with only 29 votes (less than 1% of the 3000 or so cast).  I know he was disappointed with the result.  However, it seems clear that the party is rapidly maturing.  In 2004, John Grogan ran a "protest vote" campaign that was weaker than Jim Fannon's, and I believe he still won 10% of the vote against Jim Harris and Tom Manley.  I think Jim is a personable guy who has a role to play in the party, but my feeling is that he is still trying to figure out exactly what that role is (along with the rest of us - what a speech on Friday night!)

And let's not forget our fourth candidate NOTA (none of the above), which won 14 votes.  This could have been the surprise of the evening.  I would have thought that everyone voting could have found someone to like between Elizabeth, David and Jim.  Could the party have hand-picked three more dissimilar candidates to run for the leadership?

For those who haven't heard the official internal election vote results are posted on the GPC website [link].  I wanted to congratulate all winning candidates and, in particular, I wanted to congratulate Melanie Ransom for running an excellent campaign and winning the Party Chair council position. 

I finished second, 305 votes behind Melanie after the third and final round of voting (note that the GPC uses a preferential ballot for its internal elections).  2955 votes were cast for Chair.  I talked to Melanie at the convention after the voting results were announced and told her I would be willing to work with her to follow up on and/or help transition to the new council some of the pre-election council activities and campaign objectives I had been working on, if she and council are interested.  I had tried to make sure that much of this work would be useful for the party regardless of who won.  During the convention I also made a lot of notes about various things that I'm planning to write up and post here to the blog in the coming weeks.

I am going camping at Lake O'Hara this long weekend (near Lake Louise here in Alberta) and this will be a nice change from the 5 days of GPC meetings.  I'll start following up on the above activities when I return.

My understanding is that the new council will be having their first meeting the weekend of September 10.  Congratulations again and good luck to all winning council candidates with their term.

At our June council meeting in Ottawa councillors did a short exercise to take a "State of the Party" snapshot. Each councillor was able to rank from 1 to 10 (where 1 is bad, and 10 is good) how they thought the party was doing in 16 different broad areas. The idea was to do a sort of poll where the results that would help to indicate where the current council thought we were doing well, and where we thought improvements were needed.

If this poll was conducted by the new council on a regular basis then I think it will help the party to analyze how we are doing over time. I think it would also be useful to regularly poll members with the same questions. Low polling results by all groups would indicate obvious problems. Discrepancies in the results would indicate other possible problems. For example, if council thought we were doing well in an area and members thought we were poorly than it might indicate something to look into. In addition, I think this information will be valuable when it comes to our strategic planning efforts.

Councillors weren't asked to provide written input but certainly that would be another useful exercise for both councillors and members. Mike Nickerson did something like this in Ontario and I thought the results were useful and interesting. But again, the advantage of the "snapshot" view is that the responses can be given quickly and the results can help to provide a high-level overview at a glance.

Click the link for the results ...   more »

I've attached a council handbook that I've been working on over the last few months. This document simply reflects my understanding of how council operates. I thought this would be of interest to other candidates in the internal election and to members in general.

I've sent the document to other councillors for review, but in many ways it is still a draft. That is, the contents have not been approved by council as a whole. The document is not an effort to cast anything in stone. In fact, it is certainly possible that some of the processes outlined in the document will be changed by the next council. But I think this document will help to serve as a starting point for understanding what changes (if any) need to be made to get from point A to point B if the new council wants to try to improve things.

Please send me any suggestions for corrections or improvements.

I mention in my internal election campaign materials that I coordinated the GPC's first successful attempt to run 308 candidates in 2004. This success would not have been possible without the efforts of dozens of staff members and volunteers. Click the link to read the original email bulletin that thanked some of our key contributors and confirmed we had achieved our full slate - it was an exciting time! Many of the individuals named in the email contributed as much time and effort as I did during that campaign, or more, and I wanted to thank them once again.   more »