2020- 2022 Policy Process | Green Party of Canada

if you make it 365 days, it is too restrictive as the date in the year can only move forward

Mark - I’m not clear on your comment.
I understand once a calendar year is insufficient description to avoid the extreme of early January one year followed by late December the next year (almost 24 months apart).
Would not the extra clause of within x days or y months address the goal of around once a year?

Hi Paul. I'm still trying to figure out this system but my comment refers to my proposed amendment which changes within 365 days to within 15 months.

Here's a crazy idea, but what about setting a regular time of year, for years that don't have an election or leadership review?

If the motion suggests that the Committee always tries to have the Convention in May to June (for example), then you have a predictable schedule that will self-correct if dates start slipping.

For example, you could still have the 15 month maximum to prevent it from slipping to much, but the "May to June" direction would ensure that if a convention is held late, then the next convention would be held early, to get back to the regular schedule.

I like the regular time of the year (would suggest May to August to accommodate possible summer vacation synergies) .. and being flexible as long as it is annual, includes virtual participation, and never longer than 14 months apart.

I think in the longer term, we are looking at a continuous resolution process (CRP). A resolution could be put forward at any time and be moved stepwise through an online process to adoption. Once you lose the requirement of physical attendance, there is really no reason why 50-100 motions should all decided within a two or three day period.

There would of course be some resolutions that have to be decided at regular intervals (a budget for example). But otherwise resolutions should be considered more or less as they are proposed.

The only reason why I oppose this motion is because creating an 'online attendance platform' that integrates with in-person meetings would be very expensive. A CRP would also be expensive.

So if we are ultimately headed towards a CRP, it makes little sense to build the hybrid platform as in interim solution. This motion would commit the GPC to a high cost solution that could very quickly become redundant. Because there really is no need to squish our decision making into a rushed yearly process.

If we want to benefit from moving online, then let's move online. All of it.

I can't tell if I'm commenting on the original policy or the amendment. But I really appreciate the discussion.

I support CRP and virtual meetings and something like a 15-month limit (which matches our EDA AGM requirement so consistent). With CRP the AGM will become more focused on training, networking and big-picture issues (like discussing how we govern ourselves). There should be briefs on policy (e.g. this is what's been developed since last AGM, etc) but they will no longer be the focus.

I'd like to understand more about the costs of combining in-person / on-line meetings. I think those in the convention business are going to have to provide this service, so I'd like to think it won't be a huge premium over a conventional in-person AGM.

FOR the amendment, an AGM-VGM once calendar year and within 14-15 months from the previous such meeting. @SGB Can the friendly amendment be accepted prior to Convention ? For those of us wanting to support this proposal with amendment, Which is best process is for us to vote this Yellow to add amendment at Convention ? or Green & add amendment from the floor ?

Shel, I've Green lighted this even though I proposed the 15 month amendment. I dont want to see it get caught up in procedural wranglings which there might be. There is another GM scheduled for 2022 anyway so within 365 is fine for now. We can make the change next year.

Great threads!! I really hope this passes. We have the beginnings of an active volunteer base running these meetings (VGM phase 1 and 2 - Bravo!!) we have the beginnings of an active Shadow Cabinet, we have the beginnings of online meetings where members get to chat and discuss (PDPC summer 2021 Zooms, November 2021 Motion Mondays, VGM phase 2 Green Talks), we have wedecide as an online member discussion forum (Bravo!), we have the beginnings of a constitutional renewal process, we have a bigger, reforming OAC, why not have General Meetings twice per year? Or three times per year? One for policy, one for Directives,.one for Constitutional work??? At the very very least we should have one per 365 days. Anything less and we lose momentum to make the Party truly grassroots and Member-controlled. The success of VGM part 1 and 2 needs to be built upon. We should never ever again have to demand a GM via EDA petition as we did summer 2021. Just a reminder, this VGM part 2 is dealing with 2020 motions. As per our constitution we require a fresh 2022 motion process. Let's get together and share ideas with PDPCers on how to make it Continual, and living. Exciting times! Canadian Greens are ready to lead the global evolution of Participatory Democracy.

This amendment is rejected as the official proposal (without wording changes) was adopted by membership at the Virtual General Meeting

Amendment (to extend 365 days) is required asap, but please use a certain number of days (ex: "456 days (~15 months)") -- otherwise you have to define a "month" (ex: what if the previous meeting was on Feb 29th?).