.png){kind=logo}
2020- 2022 Policy Process | Green Party of Canada
Where GPC membership collaborates to develop our policies
G21-E012 Provide a Leadership Contract in consultation with an employment contract lawyer and ratified by the general membership*
* VGM-2 Amended Version
Ratification Vote Results: Adopted
Result of VGM vote
96% of members present RECOMMENDED the adoption of the proposal.
Submitter Name
Sheila Rea
Proposal Type
Emergency Motion, Directive
Proposal
This is the amended proposal adopted by GPC membership at the VGM-2.
The GPC will supply a Leadership contract to be presented to, and accepted by, leadership contestants with the application materials to run in a Leadership contest.
- The Leadership contract will be drafted in consultation with a licensed lawyer who specializes in employment contracts;
- The contract will clearly define the responsibilities, expectations, and salary plus benefits, that are considered in scope of the role of the Leader;
- Any amendments outside of scope as defined in the contract, by a Leader upon being elected, must be done in consultation with an employment contract lawyer;
- The Leadership contract will be considered a public document available to be viewed by a request to the GPC Fund.
Evidence
This emergency motions meets the following requirements:
An Emergency Motion is defined as a proposal which deals with a new political issue which has emerged after the GPC policy proposal submission deadline and for which there is no applicable GPC policy principle.
- The GPC has not had a Leadership contract approved by the general membership, the result of which has proven to be disadvantageous to the overall wellness of the GPC
- The GPC has not had in place a system that allows for greater transparency on Leadership contracts which affects the party and its members directly.
The GPC will not accept a proposal as “emergency” if the issue is not new and emerging and time sensitive.
- This policy motion is time sensitive as it would be to the GPC’s benefit to have a contract in place and ratified by the membership before the next Leadership contest which will be occurring within the next six months.
Benefit
Social Justice
We assert that the key to social justice is the equitable distribution of resources to ensure that all have full opportunities for personal and social development.
- A leadership contract will help to secure and enhance the social justice afforded to the party and its members through having a Leadership contract that is considered just and equitable by the party and its membership.
Participatory Democracy
We strive for a democracy in which all citizens have the right to express their views and are able to directly participate in decisions which affect their lives.
- The addition of having the Leadership contract approved by the general membership through a consensus vote, including any amendments, enhances the system of participatory democracy where it becomes the responsibility of the collective to ensure a just and equitable Leadership employment contract is favorable to all parties involved.
Green Value(s)
Participatory Democracy, Social Justice.
Amendments (3)
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
15 comments
Conversation with Shel Goldstein
"The contract must be ratified by a voting consensus of the general membership of the Green Party of Canada."
What is meant by "a voting consensus" ? something like over 60% of votes cast, where at least 20% of members vote ?
And, is this envisioned as an online voting, via technology like simplyvoting ?
Hi Shell, good question.
I expected this one.
I was unsure which would be best way for ease of voting for all members, or what % = consensus out of what % of members.
A question to be debated and determined in a workshop for a friendly amendment.
Thanks Shel for highlighting this.
Conversation with Shel Goldstein
"...contract to be presented to leadership candidates upon their approval to run in a Leadership contest."
Does it not make more sense for the contract to be presented to all potential candidates BEFORE they decide whether or not to apply to run ? The details of our Leadership contract may not be adequate / acceptable for someone; why make them waste their valuable time applying ?
Furthermore, IF this proposal passes, THEN the "ratification" of the contract is an option for all members to vote upon, and, AS only Members are allowed to run,,,, THEREFORE, would not all potential contestants likely have already read the contract ? or have the opportunity to view it (if they did not personally participate in its ratification).
I think more important would be:
as part of the Application to Run for Leadership procedural paperwork, each Contestant must sign-off on a willingness to accept our GPC Contract if they win the Leadership race. Anyone not pre-signed-off to accept the contract upon winning, ought to be denied opportunity to run.
Hi Shell, good point.
My initial thought was not to have salary being an influential motive to run or not. I was thinking in this way we would ensure candidates are driven by the GPC values and policies, true Greens, first and foremost. After acceptance, the employment contract would weed out those who put their financial interests above the needs and abilities of the party. They could then withdraw from the race.
With that said, you are correct. Once ratified, the contract is available for any member to view, and so would not be information undisclosed to any potential candidate.
Therefore, I agree to this friendly amendment, to include the contract with the application paperwork. Candidates would be aware if they want to change it, changes would be made in consultation with the GPC lawyer and then would be put forward to members to approve, or not.
Thank you for this valuable input!
Creating a contract under the terms of this proposal would indeed strengthen the GPC's practice of participatory democracy. It would also set an example of how a leader relates to a grassroots organization; the wording of the contract would be like an election platform point all by itself!
The GPC's wonderful and peculiar insistence on the servant model of leadership should be put into writing. Thanks to the sponsor of this EM.
Proposed Friendly Amendment
Emergency Motion; Objective: Provide a Leadership Contract in consultation with an employment contract lawyer to be ratified by the general membership.
Submitter: Sheila Rea – Nanaimo/Ladysmith
The GPC will supply a Leadership contract to be presented to leadership candidates with the application materials to run in a Leadership contest.
The Leadership contract will be drafted by a licensed lawyer of the Canadian Bar Association who specializes in employment contracts.
The contract will clearly define the responsibilities, expectations, and salary plus benefits, that are considered in scope of the role of the Leader.
The contract must be ratified by a voting consensus of a minimum of 60% and a minimum of 20% of the general membership of the Green Party of Canada.
Any amendments outside of scope as defined in the contract, by a Leader upon being elected, must be done in consultation with an employment contract lawyer, and then presented to the Green Party membership under the same requirements to be ratified for approval.
The Leadership contract will be considered a public document available to be viewed by a request to the GPC Fund.
This emergency motions meets the following requirements:
• The GPC has not had a Leadership contract approved by the general membership, the result of which has proven to be disadvantageous to the overall wellness of the GPC.
• The GPC has not had in place a system that allows for greater transparency on Leadership contracts which affects the party and its members directly.
2. The GPC will not accept a proposal as “emergency” if the issue is not new and emerging and time sensitive.
• This policy motion is time sensitive as it would be to the GPC’s benefit to have a contract in place and ratified by the membership before the next Leadership contest which will be occurring within the next six months.
Green Core Values which apply in this proposal:
Social Justice
We assert that the key to social justice is the equitable distribution of resources to ensure that all have full opportunities for personal and social development.
• A leadership contract that is considered just and equitable by the party and its membership will help to secure and enhance the social justice afforded to the party and it’s members.
Participatory Democracy
We strive for a democracy in which all citizens have the right to express their views and are able to directly participate in decisions which affect their lives.
• A Leadership contract approved by the general membership, including any amendments, enhances the system of participatory democracy where the collective is responsible for ensuring the contract is favorable to all parties involved..
Conversation with Shel Goldstein
During VGM-2, being as there was a level of chaos and rush when finalizing the amended version of E012 was undertaken, I am feeling uncertain as to whether or not the final version includes the ratification by general membership.
The title of the directive still includes the necessity of approval by membership, but it is not included within the body of the proposal. Is the title considered as part of the proposal ?
Hey Shel,
The defensive position taken by many of the voting members who were present, could not recognize the value of the collective to approve/ratify the leadership contract or any amendments to a leadership contract. The chair even made inappropriate and unprofessional comments regarding this directive and then removed themselves, further sending a message to all voting that any involvement with the collective was deemed inappropriate imho. It was truly shameful imo, as the Chair had not conducted themselves in such a manner for any other policy proposals that had been voted on for the entire voting process.
The results were that it would not be voted on unless any inference to the collective of members voting to approve were removed. A true classic case of the GPC being protectionist to a hierarchy system that continues to plague the GPC, and most colonialist organizations.
Collective intelligence, collective leadership is the way of the future in organizational structures. There is a plethora of information that supports this. The knowledge of the collective has not yet been a respected asset in the GPC. This was my attempt to begin introducing the collective intelligence of the members in a policy proposal that was met with much adversarial resistance. The only way they would allow voting was to first vote on removing any instance of collective involvement of members, which they did.
Also notable is that I submitted this as a policy proposal, and without telling me, someone changed it to a directive which waters down the intention of the proposal to being almost meaningless imo.
So, as a long winded explanation, they failed to void the inference of collective member participation for approval in the title as they successfully did in the body of the text.
A better world,
Sheila
Also I noticed it reads as of May 26 it reads rejected. I am not understanding this.
The 3 suggested amendment versions here on WeDecide! are marked Rejected, but the as Amended at VGM-2 version of the proposal IS on the current Ratification Ballot.
It is very confusing being as the Title still includes necessary member approval.
Yes, a better world, please.
Also access to view the Rejected amendment versions has disappeared, which is sad and a loss for our collective history. I'd thought that information remaining available was one of the advantages of Decidim platform.
Hello again Shel. The 'rejected amendment versions' of all proposals can be viewed on We Decide. The "blocked user" is the only E012 amendment version that cannot be viewed. That blocked user was me running a test on WeDecide. I wanted to ensure amendment versions that were rejected did not disappear from view. There wasn't an actual amendment, I was testing functionality to ensure that historical knowledge would always remain visible on We Decide. For proposals that were adopted at the VGM, the policy cycle is over. It makes sense that suggested amendments would be rejected....right?
All official proposals were updated to reflect amendments adopted at the VGM. If you check the body of E012, it says * VGM-2 Amended Version - this statement would normally be added to the title. The title of E012 was quite lengthy and there was insufficient character space left to to add "VGM-2 Amended Version".
Above the proposal statement it says Result of VGM vote 96% of members present RECOMMENDED the adoption of the proposal.
Conversation with Catherine Jones
Hi Shel - the title was not amended at the VGM, but the wording of the proposal was amended. Amongst other changes, the stipulation for a ratification vote by members was removed from the body of the proposal. The body of the proposal stands as the directive (not the title)
Will this be in place for the 2022 leadership contest? If not it's a wast of time.
Add your comment
Sign in with your account or sign up to add your comment.
Loading comments ...