Back to the #UCPAGM2020 part... four in my tweet threads I believe
Moderators have apparently found missing videos of resolution proposals. So we’re catching up with those a little late...
What the GIF. Anyway.
GR-16
Update Article 8 - two changes to CA creation and operation
More missing videos 😬
Rationale: again allow CAs flexibility when President of CFO is unavailable please
Nay: who is in charge? Designate or CFO? Too confusing needs to be more precise
None in favour yet
Nay: additionally, phraseology issues, typical agenda language is overreach.
Support?
Nay: if the board elects another chair the CFO has to go to Elections AB and explain...
Yea: whoever chairs the meeting doesn’t matter. Can’t it just suggest to share best practice?
Not sure how this will go in the end ...
GR-17
Change election terms for continuity
(One year and two year terms next election because it’s supposed to have half elected each year)
Nay: what if no one steps up?
Yea: this is basically copied from the federal party and it’s good
Nay: we need to ensure qualified people can run and be compliant with Elect AB
YeaNay: absentee directors, you’ll have an election for any missing directors anyway...
Nay: the math doesn’t work.
I am unable to verify.
Yea: just the initial meeting, not all years, to renew half of the directors each year.
GR-18
Allowing use of technology, not require unanimous consent to move motions - and shouldn’t have to sign if they disagree
Nay: CFO has to sign, need to make changes
Nay: quorum requirement is high, mostly only directors show up, shouldn’t have to notify everyone always
Nay: if this passes, what if you have no one step up to take responsibility? Just say no.
Yea: when a board passes a resolution to pay something that has to be paid the CFO has to sign no matter what.
GR-19
To prevent the board from electing themselves. Solution: require 20 people at least 10 not already on the board
Nay: unnecessary restriction
Yea: but if we as a CA can’t get a reasonable quorum out for board elections, we’ve failed as CAs
Nay: in the future maybe we can’t get quorum but for all general meetings this seems extreme
Yea: the party at all levels, I trust them all but they could become self-serving - applies only to AGMs not all meetings
Nay: I can bring my family and still ensure I’m elected
Yea: I don’t disagree the latter happens - it’s how we got some of our candidates last election. I’d make this quorum higher if I could but baby steps.
GR-20
Section 7 amendments added; signs disclose prior to being elected, and board members recuse themselves upon announcing ..
Cont.. Intention to seek candidacy
Nay: candidates can be a part of the board. Will still have to recruit outside of the board to win nomination. Not necessarily an advantage
Yea: each director should sign disclosure and code of conduct
Nay: if I’ve had too much bourbon one night and say maybe I’d like to run, I have to resign? No.
Yea: as a candidate you have to sign non-disclosure and code of conduct, as directors go, there’s the opportunity for advantage to know about election/candidacy info
Clarification: it’s a perception of non-neutrality of the board and it would be a public announcement of intent to run, not a side comment
Rebuttal: over 30 CAs were involved with this. Please support
GR-21
Remove article 12 as no longer needed. About prior to enacting rules
Yea: common sense - we don’t want some people to have access to info others do not.
Editor’s note: I missed lunch
last word: move along
GR-22 FINAL RESOLUTION!
Add an appendix as a guide to roles and responsibilities that CAs can adopt or not.
Nay: while a guide is helpful, I don’t think it needs to be included in governance documents, too hard to amend.
Three threads as exhibit A
Yea: do it
Nay: we should treat this document as laws. Don’t add it to the document.
Rebuttal - no it’s a deferment: speaker defers to previous speaker.
We finished on time. Moderator says it may be a first. I’ll second that.
Virtual cocktail hour is up next, that should just be a collection of GIFs because 6 hours of live-tweeting is cruel and unusual punishment, even for me.
If you appreciate these threads, the up to date info without having to sit through it, consider signing up for a patreon subscription at patreon.com/PoliticalRnD
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Back for a Q&A from Kenney at the #UCPAGM2020
Q: masks don’t work can you and Dr. Hinshaw make a statement against Dr. Tams recommendations?
Jk: I’ve been critical of Dr.Tam when she gave bad advice, most of which came from WHO.
Jk: China restricted travel within China but encouraged travel out of the country. We don’t have a mask mandate here in the province.
Q: is there anything we can do to combat the federal anti-pipeline regulations?
Jk: TC Energy would like to invest and reduce the gas glut in AB. The province made recommendation and The federal govt has been sitting on it. They need pipelines. We’ve been approving in less than a year provincially. Longer pipelines needed, but under federal jurisdiction
It’s that time again - governance policy! #UCPAGM2020
We’ve been warned that chat must remain respectful and unparliamentary language or disruption will be dealt with a warning and potential removal.
Seems I missed something last night...
Page 36 - SR-01
Cleaning up language in the policy book.
Probably not the fun kind.
If you’re following along, policy debates are the original grammar police where people fight over the placement of commas, adding and removing one or more words for clarity.
SR-02
Moving the principles into its own constitutional document and out of policy declaration.
No one currently wants to speak against but we do have a speaker in favour.
Yay: just housekeeping but remember we need 75% for this to pass.
Late to the #UCPAGM2020 party because I had a prior engagement. We’re on Policy 10, collecting our own taxes. Drew Barnes asks people to vote for. First speaker says he’s tired of dealing with people in other provinces at CRA so he’s for it. #ableg
Next speaker is against. He says it’s just too expensive.
We aren’t being told whether the resolution is passing... that’s no fun.
Next up - private health care. First speaker, a Dr., says it’s in contravention of the Canada Health Act.
Speaker for motion says individual Albertans need options for when Medicare fails as it fails everywhere.
Against says we’re good, private costs more.
For says “no it doesn’t.”
MLA Glubish is opposed because the UCP said they’d preserve public and doesn’t want the grief.
"Two unrelated phenomena are hard to justify for a conservative and value investor: the prime minister’s continued lead in the polls and the disconnect between the stock market rally and a weak economy."
Everyone, Joe, left and right, is scratching their heads at the latter.
The former, however, is due to the fact that in the face of a global pandemic, the PM understood, somehow, that people needed to eat and make mortgage payments without a government salary or multi-million dollar Canadian tax-payer funded pension. Weird, I know.