And back to governance policy!!! I won’t be able to move my hands tonight. #UCPAGM2020
GR-11
Committees again. Fundraising.
Yea: these are building a structure to assist elected council
Nay: fundraising committee is party only. Party is saying vote no.
GR-11
Committees again. Fundraising.
Yea: these are building a structure to assist elected council
Nay: fundraising committee is party only. Party is saying vote no.
Rebuttal: should be part of the role of fundraising executive to coordinate fundraising with 87 CAs
SR-06
Each constitutional document is focussed on one particular aspect of the governance of the party and association. Should have Simple majority to pass
SR-06
Each constitutional document is focussed on one particular aspect of the governance of the party and association. Should have Simple majority to pass
Yea: Article 10 is convoluted. Let’s get the documents in this year and fix it next year.
Nay: we didn’t know how the voting platform would work, now we do.
Was garbled.
Nay: doesn’t work, 50%+1 is adequate so we don’t have major obstacles
Nay: we didn’t know how the voting platform would work, now we do.
Was garbled.
Nay: doesn’t work, 50%+1 is adequate so we don’t have major obstacles
None in favour
Nay: we have less speakers today, keep the bar lower because it’s less easy to get people engaged on governance than policy
Moderator says we have less speakers but more people on today.
Nay: our docs still need work and 50%+1 is still sufficient for now
Nay: we have less speakers today, keep the bar lower because it’s less easy to get people engaged on governance than policy
Moderator says we have less speakers but more people on today.
Nay: our docs still need work and 50%+1 is still sufficient for now
No rebuttal.
Voting is open until 8pm tonight so no announcements of pass/fail
SR-07
Receiving General messaging email, actual membership cards
Nay: procedural
Nay: agree, and you can print your own “card”
Yea: cards are good advertisement
Voting is open until 8pm tonight so no announcements of pass/fail
SR-07
Receiving General messaging email, actual membership cards
Nay: procedural
Nay: agree, and you can print your own “card”
Yea: cards are good advertisement
Nay: emphasis more on hard copies and we are in a digital world so it’s unnecessary
YeaNay: would we be required to have a printed card? My printer’s on the fritz. Erring to the side of no.
Yea: comes up all the time, no emails calls, need an opt out function.
YeaNay: would we be required to have a printed card? My printer’s on the fritz. Erring to the side of no.
Yea: comes up all the time, no emails calls, need an opt out function.
SR-08
Amendment to membership bylaws. Review of membership to request suspension or revocation.
Proponent: Happened 7 times, breach of trust, this just outlines rules.
Nay: the board already has the power, they’ve been good - only done like 7 times
Amendment to membership bylaws. Review of membership to request suspension or revocation.
Proponent: Happened 7 times, breach of trust, this just outlines rules.
Nay: the board already has the power, they’ve been good - only done like 7 times
Yea: dispute the fact the board already has this authority. Even though it’s rare, if you don’t want to be a member there should be a process.
Nay: some people didn’t like individual views. Could use it against people who disagree with policies on federal politics
Nay: some people didn’t like individual views. Could use it against people who disagree with policies on federal politics
Whoops last was nay.
Yea: this is an improvement
Rebuttal: in 2018 when we tried to get a floor crosser removed as a member, the board was busy, this outlines a simple process.
Yea: this is an improvement
Rebuttal: in 2018 when we tried to get a floor crosser removed as a member, the board was busy, this outlines a simple process.
SR-09
Succession planning
Nay: membership length requirements are not good
Yea: reasonable requirement
Nay: what if someone takes a break? What if the AGM comes just shy of a couple days? Too specific
Yea: degree of commitment, one year, is reasonable expectation for board
Succession planning
Nay: membership length requirements are not good
Yea: reasonable requirement
Nay: what if someone takes a break? What if the AGM comes just shy of a couple days? Too specific
Yea: degree of commitment, one year, is reasonable expectation for board
Nay: talent over timeline
Yea/rebuttal: it’s a privilege and some experience is required to sit on a board
SR-10
Reimbursement of reasonable expenses for committee members, not just committee members who are board members
Yea: add any volunteer incurring expenses on request
Yea/rebuttal: it’s a privilege and some experience is required to sit on a board
SR-10
Reimbursement of reasonable expenses for committee members, not just committee members who are board members
Yea: add any volunteer incurring expenses on request
Nay: reasonable expenses - it’s in the eye of the beholder not necessarily the reviewer.
Yea: if there’s expenses incurred for the work committee members do, I support reimbursement
Nay: opens the door to interpretation of whether an expense is legitimate. My membership pays
Yea: if there’s expenses incurred for the work committee members do, I support reimbursement
Nay: opens the door to interpretation of whether an expense is legitimate. My membership pays
Cont: for itself in the form of tax cuts and good governance
SR-11
Reimbursements to directors, extend reimbursement to committee members who are not also directors
Specificity requirements is what makes policy debate so fun 😊
SR-11
Reimbursements to directors, extend reimbursement to committee members who are not also directors
Specificity requirements is what makes policy debate so fun 😊
Wrong video - wrong SR name - Yea: promotes grassroots involvement
None opposed
Yea: yes please
SR12
UCP provide fair candidate elections, staff and elected members have to take leave to get involved, add advanced polls and online voting
None opposed
Yea: yes please
SR12
UCP provide fair candidate elections, staff and elected members have to take leave to get involved, add advanced polls and online voting
Yea: supports especially the latter
Nay: this would apply for CA’s and no - has enough trouble getting people in the room
None in favour
Nay: too much lumped in, electronic voting is too iffy
Nay: too much can go wrong with electronic voting just no.
They get it.
Nay: this would apply for CA’s and no - has enough trouble getting people in the room
None in favour
Nay: too much lumped in, electronic voting is too iffy
Nay: too much can go wrong with electronic voting just no.
They get it.
SR-13
Party has more fundraising resources than CAs.
Nay: that’s the CAs problem.
Yea: harassment for donations is likely the real issue. If we can cut that down to just one it’s best. The CAs get candidates elected not the party.
Party has more fundraising resources than CAs.
Nay: that’s the CAs problem.
Yea: harassment for donations is likely the real issue. If we can cut that down to just one it’s best. The CAs get candidates elected not the party.
Add: Amendment asks for 30% party donations to go to CAs of donor residence
Nay: the party has the right to fundraising and the CAs should do their own fundraising.
Nay: no, CA responsibility.
SR-14
Removes a paragraph on CAs in an article about committees, gets own section
Nay: the party has the right to fundraising and the CAs should do their own fundraising.
Nay: no, CA responsibility.
SR-14
Removes a paragraph on CAs in an article about committees, gets own section
None opposed
Yea: simplistic and only creates a separate article for CAs
Nay: why? We have a CA constitutional doc already and it should be amended there instead
Yea: procedural - approve and well do exciting things next year.
Yea: simplistic and only creates a separate article for CAs
Nay: why? We have a CA constitutional doc already and it should be amended there instead
Yea: procedural - approve and well do exciting things next year.
GR-12
Ten directors to reflect regions of AB to provide better representation
Nay: I get the sentiment but it conflicts with quotas and we’re sure to be offside of it at some point
Yea: it’s important to have regional reps for regional diversity/representation
Ten directors to reflect regions of AB to provide better representation
Nay: I get the sentiment but it conflicts with quotas and we’re sure to be offside of it at some point
Yea: it’s important to have regional reps for regional diversity/representation
Yea: it helps party unity, central AB has very active members and that’s great but we should ensure no one is left out. We want to be a big tent party so let’s do it.
Rebuttal: follow the federal party rules. Ensure representation to ensure everyone has a voice.
Rebuttal: follow the federal party rules. Ensure representation to ensure everyone has a voice.
GR-13
Change article 4.2 of CA rules re: revocation of CA, disallowing ability of party to freeze funds and add dispute resolution
Yea: ...
This is a complaint about someone saying Calgary-Hays didn’t represent but they sent a video and there’s been a mixup and ... holding
Change article 4.2 of CA rules re: revocation of CA, disallowing ability of party to freeze funds and add dispute resolution
Yea: ...
This is a complaint about someone saying Calgary-Hays didn’t represent but they sent a video and there’s been a mixup and ... holding
Moderator apologizes they do not have video
Nay: CA funds are under Elections Ab not the Party.
None in favour
Nay: this could become a legal morass. Go back and fix 4.2, vote no.
Nay: what is the real issue? Example?
Nay: CA funds are under Elections Ab not the Party.
None in favour
Nay: this could become a legal morass. Go back and fix 4.2, vote no.
Nay: what is the real issue? Example?
Rebuttal: it’s a method of control (for the CAs or that the party has? Sorry folks - might have to read it)
GR-14
Board can nullify duly elected CAs and they don’t want that.
Yea: also sent in a video
Nay: we need a central authority for handling one-off CA problems
GR-14
Board can nullify duly elected CAs and they don’t want that.
Yea: also sent in a video
Nay: we need a central authority for handling one-off CA problems
Yea: process to appeal heavy handed decisions
Nay: doesn’t like wording change “may” to “shall” maybe
Yea: clarified CAs register and CA board is the one who votes to dissolve a CA not the provincial board
No more against
Nay: doesn’t like wording change “may” to “shall” maybe
Yea: clarified CAs register and CA board is the one who votes to dissolve a CA not the provincial board
No more against
GR-15
Provide more flexibility to have other chair of meetings other than CFO
Yea: giving flexibility at the CA level to act as replacement if president is unavailable
Nay: these are the rules
Provide more flexibility to have other chair of meetings other than CFO
Yea: giving flexibility at the CA level to act as replacement if president is unavailable
Nay: these are the rules
Yea: intent is to address an incident where president and CFO were unavailable and it fell to secretary who then had to chair and record minutes
Nay: the AGM for CAs is coming up. The duties should fall to CFO because that’s who was elected
Nay: the AGM for CAs is coming up. The duties should fall to CFO because that’s who was elected
Yea: it provides more flexibility
Nay: but it negates the responsibility of the CFO.
Rebuttal: it’s a good thing to have to enable CAs o do their job
Nay: but it negates the responsibility of the CFO.
Rebuttal: it’s a good thing to have to enable CAs o do their job
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
