Former Little Bow Riding Executive Responds to Wild Rose Alliance Statement

There are a number of discrepancies with the statement provided by Hal Walker, President of the Provincial Executive for the Wildrose Party (bolded in parentheses).  Below is a rebuttal by Kevin Van Lagen, former Chair of the Little Bow Nomination Committee tasked with running the Wildrose nomination contest:

Hal Walker: “At three nomination events on Saturday November 20th, 414 Wildrose Alliance members in Little Bow cast ballots to select their candidate in the next provincial election.”

True, although only 406 have been verified by the Returning Officer, and there were at least 7 other paid members who were not allowed to vote due to some type of error at the central office. In fact at least two of these had their credit cards charged prior to the cutoff date, but were not on the list.

What do the rules say?

7.6.1 A membership is effective on the date that a legible, complete and acceptable membership application and the membership fee arrive at party headquarters.

Hal Walker: “The nomination process was run in accordance with the candidate nomination rules and procedures as approved by the Party.”

The nomination committee attempted to follow the rules and procedures but was met with resistance by the Provincial Executive on a number of key issues.  Firstly, it was discovered that candidate Ian Donovan had purchased memberships for individuals thus making those memberships invalid.  There were a number of people that tried to pay poll clerks for their memberships hoping that the poll clerks would give the money to Mr. Donovan on their behalf.  This was witnessed by the party official present. Others witnessed Mr. Donovan taking money from individuals outside the voting station in Vulcan.

What do the rules say?

11.1 The following offences will be reported to the PCSC, will be investigated, and may result in the disqualification of an Applicant, Nomination Contestant, or Candidate as the case may be:

11.1.4 Buying of Party memberships for individuals who are not immediate family members;

The party’s response was that Mr. Donovan was simply providing these individuals with a loan.  There is a reason memberships cannot be purchased by anyone other than family members.  It is to prevent abuse and it blurs the clear lines of open, honest, transparent democracy.  Regardless of the intent, Mr. Donovan clearly violated this rule when he purchased memberships for “friends”, to which the Provincial Candidate Selection Committee ignored.

So once again, who is breaking the rules?

There was an issue with the eight (8) mail in ballots that were mysteriously left in Calgary.  As the Returning Officer, I have yet to see these ballots or supporting identification, therefore it was impossible for me to declare them valid and include them in the count.

What do the rules say?

7.8.2 The RO shall supervise the voting and vote count and declare the winner.

7.8.3 The RO shall retain possession and custody of the ballots for fourteen (14) calendar days for delivery, if requested, to the Party. If not so requested, the ballots shall be fully and completely destroyed after the expiration of the fourteen (14) calendar day period. If so requested, confirmation of destruction shall be provided by the RO.

As the RO, it was my responsibility to ensure that the ballots counted were valid.  It would not have been responsible for me to take the word of a staff member from Calgary that he had mail in ballots in his possession.  Further, the staff member was not authorized to validate the mail in ballots.  Those ballots were required to be at the “designated location before the close of voting”.  This did not happen therefore, those ballots could not be counted as they did not meet the requirements as set out in the rules.

7.14 An eligible voter who will be unable to attend the nomination meeting(s) may, by personal individual application to the Party headquarters, request an absentee mail – back ballot.

7.14.1 The signed request must be made no later than fourteen (14) calendar days before the first nomination meeting and must be accompanied by photocopies of the accrediting identification specified in subsection 7.8.1.

7.14.2 The Executive Director shall forward concerns about possible abuse of the absentee mail – back ballots to the Chair of the LCNC, the President, and the PCSC.

7.14.3 The voter must mail back the ballot package (Outer envelope and form, inner privacy envelope with ballot, and photocopies of the accrediting identification specified in subsection 7.8.1) to the designated location before the close of voting.

7.14.4 The Party shall provide supplementary rules and instructions for absentee ballots.

Hal Walker: “The Little Bow Local Candidate Nominating Committee (LCNC), in many instances, failed to follow these rules or maintain neutrality in the race.”

Here is where they go after locally elected volunteers. On multiple occasions the decisions made by the local nomination committee were overruled by the Provincial committee.  It was the local nomination committee’s decision to hold one (1) vote in a central location (Nobleford) and have a convention style vote.  After a complaint by Mr. Donovan we were overruled by the PCSC and forced to have three (3) voting stations throughout the riding.  This was still fair but forced a greater expense and more volunteer time.

Further to this, the LCNC did not want to have a nomination event this fall as it was not prepared to hold a nomination contest at this time.  We did not feel that we could meet many of the party requirements to have such an event on such short notice.  Once again, that recommendation was disregarded by the Provincial committee and a nomination contest date was determined for us.

Lastly there were some issues regarding communication of the Provincial committee’s interpretation of some of the rules.  One thing was said to the Nomination committee while different information was given directly to a candidate.  ALL communication regarding rules and procedures for the nomination process should have been filtered through the LCNC ONLY.  Any concerns or questions by any of the candidates should be asked directly to nomination committee.  Otherwise, why have a local nomination committee?

Hal Walker: “Party staff attended the nomination events in Little Bow to ensure that a fair and unbiased nomination process was run, despite the actions of the LCNC.”

This is conjecture and if there had been a concern about the neutrality of the LCNC, it was not addressed by the Provincial committee during their “thorough investigation” or by either of the candidates.

Hal Walker: “After a thorough review by the Provincial Candidate Selection Committee (PCSC), the PCSC unanimously upheld the results of Saturday’s nomination event which saw Ian Donovan elected as our candidate in Little Bow.”

The LCNC seriously questions how “thorough” the review was and what criteria they based their final decision on.

Hal Walker: “The provision for absentee ballots is specifically written into the candidate nomination rules and procedures in order to ensure that any grassroots member who wishes to vote in the nomination race will have the opportunity to do so – both nomination contestants and the Little Bow LCNC were made aware of this provision”

The LCNC is not questioning whether absentee ballots should be allowed at this time.  However, it is necessary that the proper procedure as outlined in the rules be followed when counting these ballots.  Declaring ballots left in an office somewhere as admissible does not fall within the guidelines.

Hal Walker: “It is regrettable that members of the Little Bow CA and the LCNC do not accept the decision of the grassroots members in this nomination process.”

The LCNC believes in grassroots as we are unpaid volunteers that supported the supposed principals the Wildrose claims to represent.  Local boards ARE grassroots and the election of our representative is fundamental to the democratic process.  This process should not be dictated and manipulated by a few paid employees that are disconnected from the local constituency.  If Danielle Smith wants to lead a party that allows this type of manipulation which shakes the very core of everything the Wildrose purports to believe, than that is a party the executive of the Little Bow Constituency Association cannot stand by.

On behalf of the former executive of the Little Bow Constituency Association, thank you for having this conversation with us.

The Future of Canadian Conservatism

Over at my other blogging home, my colleague Scott H. Payne has been having a running discussion on the future of the Canadian left.  It’s been interesting, but it’s been leaving me interested in getting some thoughts on the future of the Canadian right.  Well, up stepped our very own Mark Peters, with some thoughts on where conservatism needs to go.

I’m still mulling over Mark’s thoughts, but he definitely makes some good points.  Feel free to pop over there and leave a comment, or start a parallel discussion here.

Little Bow Wildrose Alliance Constituency Association Resigns

I just received this letter outlining some serious allegations against the Alberta Wildrose Alliance Party concerning the local nomination for the provincial riding of Little Bow:

We are writing this letter in response to the decision of the Wildrose Alliance to allow Ian Donovan as candidate for the Wildrose Alliance in Little Bow.

We became members of this party because we believed that it stood for something different. We saw the policies of the Wildrose Alliance as exciting ideas that would change the nature of politics in this province. We particularly liked the open and transparent message that came from the party. This being said, we have now discovered how wrong we were.

As members of the constituency association we have experienced that the leadership of the Wildrose Alliance has systematically demonstrated incompetence in regards to the nomination process. Not only this, we have also experienced that this party is not a grassroots party, but a party run by a few paid employees that are not willing to work with local officials. Most significantly, the party central, with the leader Danielle Smith in awareness, flagrantly ignored its own procedures and rules by carefully interpreting the rules to favour a specific candidate. Two violations that we point to is the buying of memberships for people other than direct family members in clear contravention of the established guidelines of the party; we also point to the fact that eight mail-in ballots were never verified by the Returning Officer, but were mysteriously left in an office in Calgary.

It does not bode well for a party to make a statement in the public about open, transparent government on the same day that a locally elected executive was being squashed by the party central. As such, we are prepared to release the following statement to the presidents and to the local and national press by 10 a.m. Thursday, November 25, 2010 if our voices are continued to be ignored:

“The Provincial Executive of the Wildrose Alliance has declared Ian Donovan the winner of the nomination contest in Little Bow, contrary to the conclusion and declaration of the local Returning Officer based on the ballots in his possession. To this end, all but one member of the executive of Little Bow are resigning immediately. These resignations are based on the fact that flagrant irregularities occurred in the nomination process that were acknowledged but disregarded by the provincial executive, including the leader of the party. As such, the directors have lost faith in a party that supposedly espouses transparency and grassroots democracy.”

Sincerely,

Kevin Van Lagen, President
Jack Derksen, CFO
Lee De Boer, Secretary
John Voorhorst, VP Fundraising
Robert Laing, VP Policy
Bill Harding, Director at Large Kerry
Nabozniak, Director at Large

It appears that in a rush to jump start the party and it’s chances against the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party, the fledgling upstart “grassroots” Wildrose Alliance Party of Alberta is tramping on the very grassroots they claim are the heart of the party.

This shouldn’t really come as a surprise, Danielle Smith is a rookie in the game of politics – she clearly does not understand the vital role of the grassroots in an upstart party. Nor can we expect the Wildrose Alliance’s new Executive Director, Victor Marciano – fresh from a tenure with the federal Conservative Party of Canada, to honor and recognize the grassroots of any party. Since the merger of the PC Party and the Canadian Alliance, Victor Marciano and the other party elites on Conservative National Council have successful purged most of the grassroots elements out of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Perhaps this is the new reality of party politics in Canada.

Update: Former Little Bow Riding Executive Responds to Wild Rose Alliance Statement

RE TSA Insanity

I have but one question: Why are we not following the Israeli model?

Update Nov 20, 2010: Israel’s top 10 airport security technologies (H/T). These plus 80-15-5 should certainly do the trick.

Trace-Safe from Israel and Raptor from the US have co-developed a chemical process, called TraceGuard, which can free particles from fabric and luggage for speedy detection and analysis.

The technology detects harmful substances and not benign ones like perfume or pharmaceuticals. It doesn’t show false alarms, doesn’t need filters or a cleaning. “You only want to detect the substances that you can make explosives or biological agents out of,” says Sela.

It can be integrated into scanners and magnetometers and also into a wand that can be passed over both people and luggage.

Update Nov 22, 2010. Via Drudge, strip searching young children. But – hey! – at least we’re not “racist,” like those hateful Joos, right?

It Almost Makes Me Want to Boycott Canadian Music

Did you hear the one about a favoured industry that is up in arms because they’re not getting all the money they want from the government?  Oh, sorry, I should be more specific:

Tony Clement, iPhone owner and federal Industry Minister, is unmoved by a renewed call for a federal fee on smart phones and handhelds to compensate artists for file-swapping.

…

He considers the recommendation – made most recently by an artists’ group this week – a dinosaur of an idea.

Mr. Clement says it’s up to artists to find a new way to make money in the age of Internet distribution.

For eight years, Canada has levied a charge on the purchase of compact discs that is supposed to compensate artists for the private copying of music. But fewer and fewer people use CDs to share music. The levy – currently 29 cents per compact disc – collects only $15-million a year now.

I’ve been a touch harsh on Tony Clement this past year, but I’m with him now.  I’m all for protecting intellectual property – up to a point – but a cash grab based on the assumption of guilt is a bridge too far.  It’s bad enough that they’re leaching off our CD purchases;they shouldn’t be allowed a windfall on the backs of iPhones and Androids.

“You should be shot.” because I wear my white poppy

The old lady at the check-out counter told me that I was the first person she ever saw wearing a white poppy. She asked me why I wear it and she said that I you should be shot. I told her that I have been wearing a white poppy proudly for a while now after I learned more about the history of war and how it seems to repeat itself.

I took the liberty of calmly telling her what I thought.

I told her that thousands of young men were sent off a hundred years ago to die in support of a lie. I told her that generations and generations of Canadians were taught that Canadians were under threat and that was a lie. I told her that Canadians were not under any threat in the First World War. I told her that I was tired of military history repeating itself. I told her that thousands of young women and families suffered grievously solely for financial gain of a select elite group of money grubbing liars. I told her that I have a lot of compassion for the military veterans and the ones who died in support of lies.

I told her that we continue those lies. I told her that we do not need as much oil as we pretend to need. I told her I will continue to wear my white poppy proudly. Then, she asked me if I wanted to pay 0.05$ extra for a plastic bag and I declined. I carried my loaf of bread out of the store in my hands instead of wasting a bloody recyclable petroleum product.

UPDATE (Wednesday, November 10th):
Last night, at the beer store, the kid at the counter asked me what the white poppy represents. I told him it means different things to different people and to me, it means that we have been taught a pack of lies concerning the First World War and that thousands of young men died for greed. His reply: “Yeah, well, we had to fight Hitler.” and shook his head. Yeah, well, I guess I missed that class in high school.

The Temporary Departure of Jim Prentice

Jim Prentice has just resigned his Cabinet position as Environment Minister and has announced his intention to vacate his seat in the House of Commons by the end of the year to accept an senior executive position with a leading Canadian bank.

But if you think politics has seen the last of Jim Prentice, think again.

I would bet a large amount of my minuscule savings that Prentice, only 54 years old, will return to politics within the next decade to mount a campaign for the leadership of the Conservative Party.

This “temporary departure” strategy would be par for the course in Canadian leadership politics. John Turner, Jean Chretien, Paul Martin and Stephen Harper–each has in the past done precisely what Prentice is now doing: retreating from active political life to the comforts of corporate Canada.

When the leadership of the Conservative Party once again becomes available, Prentice will be well positioned to run a frontrunner’s campaign. Tempted by new corporate contacts, Bay Street fundraisers, organizational muscle and campaign operatives, Prentice will have a hard time resisting the siren song of politics.

True, Prentice will not have an easy ride to the prize. He will face a strong cast of potential contestants for the Conservative leadership, including perhaps Peter Mackay, Stockwell Day, Maxime Bernier, Rona Ambrose, John Baird, Tony Clement, Jim Flaherty, Peter Van Loan, Jean Charest and Bernard Lord.

But given his strong Cabinet performance and the Bay Street glow that is sure to envelop him in the years ahead, Prentice would be a leading contender in the next Conservative leadership race.

Democratic Party Lose Majorities – What’s Next?

Wise words from Morton Kondracke at Cagle Blogs:

At a forum on health care reform’s role in the campaign, Republican pollster Whit Ayres said, “this election is a rejection of Democratic governance, just like 2006 and 2008 were a rejection of Republican governance.

“Independents are particularly upset. It’s not just health care. It’s the auto bailout. It’s the stimulus bill. It’s the $1.3 trillion deficit … The problem is not marketing. It is what (the Democrats) did. It’s taking the country in a direction people didn’t want it to go.”

At the same event, sponsored by the journal Health Affairs, even Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg said the Obama administration and Congress seemed to get “diverted from the public’s No. 1 concern, the economy,” to health care.

“They made the big mistake in 2009 of thinking that the stimulus was going to bring back the economy. They didn’t appreciate how difficult it would be. People thought the stimulus was just a one-shot and not a strategy.”

There is no question about it, Obama and the Democrats are going to lose and lose big tonight  – the next question becomes, are the Republicans going to continue to pore salt into the wounds of Democrats or are they going to take their majority in the House (and possible a majority in the Senate) and attempt to work with Obama to correct a pretty bad situation?

As Richard Albert recently commented in the Huffington Post:

[Here] is the paradox about the fate awaiting the Democratic Party in November: President Barack Obama actually wins if congressional Democrats lose. The President will find himself in a stronger position to face reelection in 2012 if his Democratic Party loses its congressional majority in the 2010 midterm elections.

Knowing this, what are the Republicans going to do next? Put the screws to Obama and their Democratic opponents, or build an opposing (and positive) policy agenda for the next two years?

Daniel Dion: death of a Mexican businessman

For the past few days, I have been digesting the frantic cries to ban travel to Mexico and I do not understand them. I have never been to Mexico and I have no plans to visit — not that I have anything against the place, it is just that travelling to far off lands where I have no power to secure my own safety just is not the type of thing that I consider intelligent. Oh, well. We all take gambles.

Be that as it may, I found the news of Daniel Dion’s murder to be quite disturbing but probably not in the way that most folks would. The first things that stood out to me are:
1) he was a businessman
2) he was peddling “eco-bags”
3) his “eco-bags” were manufactured by Mexican prison inmates.
Daniel Dion comes across to me as an opportunist of what is essentially slave labor.

[Coincidentally, I got a free "eco-bag" as a sales pitch delivered to me from one of my potential suppliers the next day at work. I did not need the bag and I did not need the business from that supplier.]

I have a hard time believing this was a simple robbery. It is useless to blame the Mexican legal system for brushing Dion’s execution under the rug because that is what the Mexicans do. Everybody knows that. Daniel Dion should have known where he was going and the risks he took.

I do not mean to be callous. I sincerely want to offer a lesson for the future: Do not do business with nefarious folks. That is what Canadians should learn from this tragedy — a tragedy that includes the misfortune of all the incarcerated Mexicans who are being used.

Eve of the US Election – An Independent on Obama

I am one of those voters that both parties covet – an independent.  I base my voting decisions not upon vitriolic campaign ads but on what I learn from reading and studying.  And I must admit, I am confused by much of what I hear being politicized as we head into the midterms.

Confused because I believe President Obama and his administration have done an admirable job with what they were handed.  Two years ago, we were entering the Great Recession – the worst economic time most of us have ever known.  Eight years of a Bush-Cheney-Rove administration had squandered the $1 trillion surplus left  by the previous president and as a result of two questionable wars (where are those weapons of mass destruction?), a popular but unnecessary tax cut that sapped billions from much needed programs,  and an administration that refused to keep a watchful eye and regulate industries to which it had previous ties and strong support, the incoming administration was dealt a hand not seen since the FDR administration.

Shortly after some of the bailouts were implemented, Ivy League economists applauded the move and wrote that the U.S. had been a mere three weeks away from not just a recession but a depression.  The damage that had been done could not be fixed in a matter of years.  It would take a generation to fix many of the economic ills if indeed, they would ever be completely fixed.

Yet here we are two years later and people are mad that the economy has not been restored and their lifestyles are not back to the way they used to be.  Much of the anger is being fostered and fueled by those angry that they have lost power and control.   As a result these people (a.k.a. Conservatives, Tea Party advocates) make you think that they can fix these problems even though they were the same ones who created them in the first place.  Folks, quit being so soft.  The damage that has been done is going to take a least a decade of extreme sacrifice.  It can’t be fixed in a matter of months or years.  Get used to the fact that things aren’t going to be the same for quite a while.  Thank you Bush-Cheney- Rove.

Don’t get me wrong. I am mad many days as well.  While I am grateful to have job, I have lost benefits, took a pay cut two years ago which yet to be restored, own a house I cannot sell and earn about what I did 15 years ago, all while trying to find a way to fund a college education for my daughter.  So, no, I am not a happy camper either.

But I look at what has been accomplished and I do have a ray of optimism.  While not a fan of tax cuts that would zap much needed funds from a government that has done a decent job of propping up industry, I must applaud the current administration for finding  a happy medium by providing $116 billion of tax cuts for Americans. (Why don’t more people know this?) Unfortunately, most Ivy League economists will tell you that there is no way the economic tsunami can be controlled without a tax increase (thank you again Bush-Cheney-Rove).  The numbers just won’t work.

So as I head to midterms, I ask myself what are the positives that have occurred these last two years and are they sufficient enough to support the current administration?  Here is what I see.

I see a stock market that is up 25%, ranking among the top five highest gains ever for the first two years of a presidency.  I see a housing industry, wrought by prior unregulated mismanagement, beginning to stabilize.  New home sales increased 10% last month.  I see an unemployment rate predicted to go as high as 12-14%, remaining under 10% and dropping as the government begins to push money – albeit far too slowly for many – to small business and the private sector.

I see the automobile industry beginning to recover thanks to TARP money.  Had the auto sector failed, economists agree, the U.S. would have seen not just a recession but most assuredly a depression.  In fact, only about half the TARP money allocated was needed to accomplish  that feat and more than half of that has already been recovered, resulting in the distinct possibility that TARP could actually turn a profit, making it one of the best uses of federal tax dollars ever.  Without that support, the non-partisan Congressional Business Office suggests perhaps another couple of million jobs would have been lost.  Reality is that more jobs have been created in the first two years of this administration than in the entire eight years of the previous administration.

Suffice it to say, the stimulus package is working.  Nevertheless, many somehow feel that things ought to be the way they used to be, which if we care to admit, was a way of overspending on things we felt we deserved or needed or wanted, simply so we could at least appear comfortable, successful and semi-affluent.   So much for appearances.

So I scratch my head.  I read.  I study.  I look a bit to history.  And history tells me that it took FDR nearly four terms to cure the ills of the Great Depression.  I’m not sure I understand why some believe this administration should have been able to right the sinking ship of the prior administration in a matter of months or two short years.  Nevertheless, there are many positive indicators that things are getting better.

I am a positive person.  I am independent voter.  And I am choosing to stay the course.

Editors note: this posting was previously a comment posted in a past thread.

Next Page »