.png){kind=logo}
2020- 2022 Policy Process | Green Party of Canada
Where GPC membership collaborates to develop our policies
G21-B002 Bylaw for a Revitalized Shadow Cabinet
Submitter Name
Joe Foster
This proposal was discussed in the workshop during Phase 2 of the VGM. However, there was not enough time for this proposal to be voted on in plenary by the members during Phase 2. Therefore, this proposal will not be included in the ratification vote.
Proposal
Shadow Cabinet should be, and be seen by the membership as, an invaluable conduit for dialogue between the leadership and the grassroots. It is therefore proposed that Bylaw 6, Cabinet, be deleted and replaced with the following:
Bylaw 6 Cabinet
6.1 The Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet will be chosen by the Leader using a list of candidates provided by the membership. The list will be generated based on their expertise in specific fields that match official Cabinet positions.
6.2 Caucus MPs selected to be members of Shadow Cabinet will select a Co-Critic chosen from the list provided by the membership.
6.3 Vacancies will be filled from the lists provided by the membership.
6.4 The process and procedures for soliciting Shadow Cabinet candidates and their selection to Shadow Cabinet will be provided in the Shadow Cabinet Handbook and published on the website of the Party.
6.5 The Shadow Cabinet shall be responsible for the following:
6.5.1 Creating the election platform in keeping with membership-approved policies;
6.5.2 Ensuring that the members of the Party have the ability to set the Party policy and to influence the Party platform;
6.5.3 Facilitating the development of written procedures for grassroots policy development for consideration and approval by the membership;
6.5.4 Ensuring the publication of these procedures on the public website of the Party;
6.5.5 Facilitating member-driven regular reviews of the existing set of policies to modify or rescind policies as needed, to ensure they are relevant, up-to-date, and reflect current Party thinking and priorities;
6.5.6 Maintaining an up-to-date compilation of the Party policies on the Party website.
Objective
To revise how the Shadow Cabinet is created with revitalized roles by engaging the available expertise and capacities of the membership. This will make this body of greater value to the Party and the Leader, more respected by the membership, and more effective in carrying out its mandate.
Benefit
The amendments will strengthen the connection between the membership and Shadow Cabinet, take advantage of the vast reservoir of knowledge and expertise within the membership, and clarify roles with respect to party policy and platform development. Connecting leadership with grassroots will bring innovative and forward-thinking input to advance the Party’s goals.
Supporting Comments from Submitter
The current Shadow Cabinet follows the traditions of the major Parties in how it is constructed and used by the Leader. Greens are courageous and innovative in finding new ways to work within the existing systems to be more democratic and effective. This bylaw amendment revises how the Shadow Cabinet is created and utilized to engage membership in order to be of greatest value to the Party and the Leader.
The proposal also aims at making the bylaw consistent with the Constitution. The latter takes precedence and clearly states that the responsibility for setting policy lies with the General Meeting of Members (7.3.12). The bylaw's current language is ambiguous in that it leaves in the hands of the Shadow Cabinet to determine how members can “influence” party policy (6.4.2., "ensuring the members of the Party have the ability to influence the policies and platform of the party"), instead of acknowledging that the mandate to set policy lies with the membership. A key role of Shadow Cabinet is to work as a body in helping the Leader to prepare a platform that ensures it is consistent with member-approved policies and resonates with the public. Where possible, the membership should also be consulted in drafting of Positions that may emerge during an election.
Green Value(s)
Ecological Wisdom, Participatory Democracy
Relation to Existing Policy
Rescind and replace an existing policy. This proposal would rescind and replace Bylaw 6.
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
5 comments
Conversation with Andrew Jehan
Doesn't the wording here directly contradict the policy proposal of membership selecting the shadow cabinet? If both proposals are approved, which takes precedence?
Hi Andrew. The membership will definitely not be able to approve both proposals. Joe Foster submitted this proposal. I submitted the proposal to do with the election of both deputy leaders and cabinet members. We'll be co-presenting at Motion Mondays on Nov 1, https://www.motionmondays.greensconnect.ca/?fbclid=IwAR0u7oUEpobJodEawsWTWZqhriUM6t0RZq2vP_EQzzMMTyAvdGq6edQV9eo, as well as at the GM. The membership will have a fair chance to consider the two proposals side-by-side.
"6.1 The Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet will be chosen by the Leader using a list of candidates provided by the membership. The list will be generated based on their expertise in specific fields that match official Cabinet positions."
How is it envisioned that the membership (currently some 30,000+ individuals) would assess candidates' expertise and create a shortlist of best candidates to provide to the Leader ?
A compromise here would be to reverse the direction.
1) The Leader to submit a list to Federal Council.
2) Federal council to approve and/or amend _person by person_ the list (using a cttee if they desire).
3) The general membership to approve or reject the list as a whole, with no right to amend person-by-person.
Like all compromises, it has flaws. But it balances :
1) The right of the Leader to pick out personal characteristics with those people the Leader must work closely.
2) The right of the Federal Council to optimize professional and political competency and also consider regional diversity and inclusivity in general.
3) The right of the members to veto _the entire list_ in cases where it finds one or more of the proposed candidates to be so profoundly unacceptable as to require reevaluation. The process stops and is sent back to FC with member's feedback.
Starting the process with 35,000 people and going in the opposite direction is a recipe for disaster in my opinion.
The membership is likely to disagree on hiring criteria let alone a set of candidates. The GM (as it is currently constituted) does _not have the capacity_ to carry out standard hiring practices. (credentialing, background checks, performance evaluation, interview, references etc). There is nothing stopping individual members from providing endorsements of their favorite candidates to the Leader and Federal Council. Indeed, it would be in FCs best interest to solicit such endorsements.
Such an approach promotes GM consent over GM consensus. The GM would likely never fully agree to any particular list (consensus-oriented). Rather, enough individual members would have to withhold their objections and agree when the list is 'good enough' (consent-oriented). The process is ultimately a consensus vote, but in the absence of enough good-faith consent, the members would risk denying the GPC a shadow cabinet.
GM feedback makes for better decisions from FC. GM veto power ensures that the FC communicate clearly the reasons for its choices. Above all else, transparency becomes all but guaranteed. That is what happens when you require people to work together.
I rather like @laurence's counter proposal that the Leader submits a list, FC vets and membership accepts / rejects. I agree that it is easier and removes what I suspect would be a very complicated & cumbersome process to administer.
Looking ahead to when we have a sizable caucus, and eventually form government, we'll be choosing from within those circles. I think we need to trust the Leader at that time to build a suitable cabinet from the candidates available (supplementing from outside as needed). Having members choose implies a campaign among newly elected MPs to "win" cabinet positions when they should be learning the ropes on the Hill. There are many factors that go into building a cohesive & effective team. We need to let the Leader get on with that, but give FC the responsibility to check and membership to reject if they really object (i.e. consent vs consensus, which is still a new concept to me but I feel this example demos it nicely).
(I don't understand where the General Meeting comes into play - it is not mentioned in the draft other than in the context of policy development.)
Add your comment
Sign in with your account or sign up to add your comment.
Loading comments ...