One thing I'd like to do with this blog is to start to address ways that we can work to improve our internal culture.  Like any political party we have our internal differences but I think we need to look for ways to conduct our internal communications in a way that builds respect for the work and opinions of others in the party.  Over time I think a positive and welcoming internal culture will help us work effectively with other parties and will, at some level, come across in a way that resonates positively with voters.

About a year ago when there were some internal flare-ups I wrote an article addressing how concerns were being raised by some critics of council.  I wanted councillors and members to consider taking a step back to try to analyze how successful we were, how we make decisions, how we interact with each other, etc.  I think things are improving (elections help to bring us together) but I thought some of my earlier thoughts are still relevant and would be of interest to readers.  I hope the questions and answers in this article help to raise awareness about how we can try to work effectively together - there is always room for improvement.

Click the "more" link for details ...

In the past few months some members critical of council have made it clear that they don't think we are following the "will of the membership". How much weight should councillors place on these arguments? Here are some questions I think we should ask ourselves and some of my own thoughts and generalizations on issues raised by critics:

What do people in local ridings think?

I've attended two election organizing meetings here in Calgary in recent weeks. Many of the people I meet are new and all are friendly. Their comments make it clear that they care deeply about Green values. But I believe they would be turned off by the harsh language that I used to see on gpc-general (I unsubscribed because of it). It is my Green Party experience and life experience that people are turned off by harsh criticism, even if such criticism has merit. People understand that mistakes are made. Of course none of us are immune to this problem and I've found myself apologizing for this very thing in the past. But the point is we should at least try. I would like to see that sort of effort coming more often from our critics.

How did critical people do in our internal election?

We do have some recent historical examples of how critical people faired in internal elections. Of the (I believe) six candidates running on a slate that relied heavily on anger and criticism none who ran against other candidates won and four got less than 20%. This demonstrates to me that the "will of the membership" is more in line with those of us who try to focus on the positive. Of course we also need to recognize that mistakes will be made and need to be willing to do our best to correct them.

What do voters want?

I suspect that our membership also recognizes that we still don't have a lot of support from Canadian voters as a whole. In my opinion the most effective way to reach out to those voters who have traditionally supported other parties is to educate and provide information on a better way of doing things, rather than being critical and focusing too heavily (or exclusively) on why those other parties are "wrong". An internal culture of criticism will eventually lead to an external culture of criticism. In the long term I think (internally) volunteers and (externally) voters will be drawn to those that they see working towards constructive change instead of channeling a lot of energy into criticism.

How do critics see themselves?

I find that critics of council are sometimes unaware that they are being abusive or believe that harsh criticism is acceptable. I would be more willing to listen to critics if they made an effort to be polite when they have comments. Disagreements and healthy debate are always acceptable but I believe that harsh criticism is harmful to the party and drives away members and volunteers. I would also like the GPC to have a high standard when it comes to public discourse and some recent emails set a poor example. There is always room for improvement and when councillors receive critical emails I encourage them to work with the sender to find a way to present the problem and possible solutions in a constructive way.

Are critics always right?

I'd like to ask readers to consider how often a critic has apologized for harsh words, acknowledged that they made a mistake or acknowledged that opinion or point of view on how to proceed on a given decision or action may may not be the best way to proceed. When disputes arise is it likely that critics are always right and council is always wrong? I think that if critics were more willing to acknowledge their own mistakes and/or the successes of council we would find ourselves more able to work in a collaborative manner.

Are critics being fair?

In much of the criticism of council I don't find that an effort has been made to give council it's due or to consider all sides of an issue. Consider the incorporation issue. I think time pressures caused us to make mistakes while trying to make an important decision in 100 hours of committee time and 1 hour of council meeting time instead of the 500 hours of committee time and 5 hours of council meeting time the decision actually needed. We could have done better. But there seemed to me to be criticism out of proportion to the problem.

For example, some of the criticism seemed to be based on the premise that councillors such as [a councillor] who have been involved with the party for years may have been making proposals about the incorporation process because they had bad intentions. But [councillor] already had the power to take many of the worst actions that council was being warned about. Moreover, if corruption did occur there would always be legal means to correct the problem. This sort of analysis always seemed weak to me and disrespectful to the long-term efforts of a dedicated volunteer. In the end some positive changes were made to the incorporation process. But I think these same changes could/would have been made if the improvements were suggested in a neutral way.

Do councillors deliberately do wrong?

Over time I think some critical members of the party have come to believe that councillors are deliberately doing wrong. I think much of the harshest criticism is rooted in this belief. In my opinion council has made some mistakes but we generally try to correct them. But members should consider that council mistakes will never be entirely eliminated and in most cases can only be corrected one or two months down the road. This is not a sign of corruption or wrong-doing.

When problems or mistakes do occur I encourage critics to be as neutral as possible when bringing them to the attention of council. I also recommend that critics should also consider the impact on the party of harsh criticism of those trying to do their best, and that they should try to proceed with the assumption that those with whom they disagree are not corrupt or incompentent. I think the alternative of assuming corruption or incompetence where none exists is more harmful to the party than the opposite. It is difficult in the extreme to determine motives. When problems do occur members should be aware that there are avenues available for correction (a new motion by a councillor, the Ombuds commitee, legal avenues, etc). These options can all be explored in a neutral way aimed at finding and fixing problems rather than with a focus on assigning blame or assuming negative motives.

What happens when we deal in absolutes?

Perhaps the issue of most concern to me when it comes to criticism of council is how quickly problems escalate into crises. I think that the problem occurs in part when individuals believe that their point of view is the right point of view, period. From that underlying assumption it is not a far leap to assume that those who disagree should be viewed with suspicion and alarm rather than with an openness to new or different ideas. There are many historical and contemporary examples of how viewing issues in black and white terms can cause serious problems and I encourage everyone to try to catch themselves and reconsider when they see themselves going down that path.

How can our success be measured externally?

In the past 18 months the GPC has moved from a great deal of uncertainty as to whether we could achieve 2% of the vote to 4.3% of the vote in the 2004 federal election to consistently polling between 6% and 10% in national polls in recent months. We have also steadily increased our membership base. I think this steady growth is primarily due to our strong policies and capable candidates. But council, staff and volunteers have provided the direction that has helped nurture our growth. Canadians are responding to our message but council has taken the necessary steps that enable our candidates and allow that message to get out to them. I think those critical of council should consider our role in that success.

Who was elected?

Most councillors were elected by the membership and I think one of our responsibilities is to analyze information and make our own decisions. In my opinion councillors are not playing an effective role if they simply forward opinions from non-councillors. Firstly, there is no way that council can address every issue raised by every member. Secondly, I don't think these criticisms reflect the opinions of the average member that I have met - there is no balance to the critical and supportive emails being sent to the list. Thirdly, I think forwarding emails gives some non-elected members familiar with the process more influence in the party than other non-elected members. Council has a difficult enough time setting our priorites and our agenda shouldn't be set by people who either (a) won't make the committment to run for council or (b) were not successful in their attempt to win a council seat.

Having said that I think that if a councillor gets input from a member and wants to champion an issue they have every right to do so. But I think they should consider the priority council should place on the problem, clearly present the problem in their own words and outline options and/or resolutions that council can vote on to try to fix that problem. If we want a strong council that earns the respect of our members and staff each of us needs to be proactive, not reactive.