The next Leader/Premier has to revitalize the PC Party of Alberta. Part of that effort must be to take the lead and change some of the culture around the parties nomination process and candidate selection. If we are going to attract better people into politics, they have to be assured the systems are fair and balanced and the rules are enforced. Not do so erodes the public's confidence in political parties and their processes. They potentially impede the effectiveness of successful candidates.
Lets be clear, the PC Party of Alberta is no better or worse than the other political parties in this regard. A quick search will show "incidences" in virtually every party. They seem to be just another one of our institutions that has let us down or betrayed our trust.
My point is we in the PC Party, with a new leader can take the opportunity to make some real changes. We can and should do a lot better and become the political party that raises the ethical bar and set the standards for everyone else as a result.
For example, there were allegations of irregularities surrounding the voter lists in his 2004 nomination in the Foothills-Rockyview constituency and the matter went to Court. It appears the matter was just dropped in light of the pending 2004 election. Pragmatism over principle seems to have been the ethical standard of the day. Not good enough! People deserve to know the truth.
The Court records on this matter is interesting reading but inconclusive as to if or how the issues and allegations were resolved in the end.
The initial legal issue was apparently a defeated candidate for the nomination was seeking a judicial review over the eligibility of some of the people on the voting membership list in the Foothills Rockyview Progressive Conservative Party nomination process for the 2004 election.
The Alberta Court of Appeal states the issue as:
“At the nomination meeting, Morton won by some 4 votes. Anderson was a losing candidate. Anderson believes, or suspects, or has concerns that some people who voted at the meeting were ineligible to vote because they were not resident in the riding.”
The issue was stayed by the Court due to the pending election but it appears to be still unresolved. It appears there were weeks of negotiations between the parties to settle these matters out of Court, but ultimately unsuccessfully.
Is it sufficient that the PC Party leave such matters unresolved? Was the voters list for the 2004 nomination meeting, ever produced and reviewed and eligibility confirmed? Is the party sure all those people on the list were actually residents of Foothills-Rockyview Constituency and appropriate to vote in that nomination?
Please don’t tell us this issue was delayed and then forgotten about by the Progressive Conservative Party at the end of the day because the 2004 election was looming. As the Court said “…(these decisions)…are potentially very important, not only to these parties but to others.” To not find out the facts and with the seriousness of the accusation made in these court proceedings is not fair to anyone involved. It does not do much to instil confidence in the PC Party either. We have such an open and fair process to select a new leader for the party, people need to be confident the process to nominate candidates is also open and fair.
I think the next leader’s job is not just about revitalizing the party. It is also about changing the culture of the party so this stuff does not happen. If and when there are issues or concerns, they get dealt with efficiently, effectively, openly, promptly and fairly.
Allegations of gamesmanship with the nomination process left unresolved, just enhances the cynicism of citizens about politics. Such issues are still happening. We see it with the federal Liberal leadership race, the provincial Liberal leadership race when Grant Mitchell was choosen still has a cloud over it. The federal Conservative Party of Canada currently has a court challenge on the Rob Anders nomination in Calgary West and of course we have the Ontario Conservative caucus dumping of Garth Turner but wikthout clarifying the reasons and rationale for the move.
I will be interested to see if and how the new PC leader tackles these party governance issues just as much as they tackle the various social, economic and environmental issues facing the province.
Interesting. I was surprised to learn that it was a difference of so few votes in Morton's riding. And here he is, with a legitimate chance at running the party.
ReplyDeleteYet another reason for people to get off their collective duffs and vote. Maybe in all cases not because one candidate so motivates them, but for the reason that by not voting, you grant others dominion over your preferences.
P.S. I have the unfortunate circumstances to be within Rob Ander's federal riding. In this area, the nomination battle decides who gets the seat, since it always goes conservative, even with him as the representative.
Anon was right - he does have a legitimate (albeit small) chance of running the party.
ReplyDeleteHancock essentially splits the left-vote on the first ballot (taking away not only from Dinning, but also Norris and Stelmach). As such, this basically gives Morton and Oberg a chance at the top three.
Good analysis Ken. We do need more transparency and accountability. The question really is who is the best candidate to do this. I'm not sure. As you stated before, politicians always talk about accountability UNTIL they gain office.
Chapman,
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised that you are slurring the reputation of Morton and Anders.
The last campaign you worked for specialized in dirty voting tricks.
Not only did I have to file a complaint to get the rolls purged of ineligible voters, but more than once on election day I had to scramble scrutineers as the campaign you were working on tried to get a mini-van full of ineligible voters to vote in three different locations in west central Edmonton.
Hi Vitor. Not slurring anyone's reputation. In fact re Dr. Morton what I am suggesting is there is an obligation by the PC party to remove any cloud that may be left hanging. For the PC Party to not continue to get to the truth of what actually happened with the voters list for the 2004 election nomination is not fair to all of the candidtes or the party members in Foothills-Rockyview.
ReplyDeleteThere were allegation made in a Queen's Bench courtroom, an order was granted to priduce the voters lis. It was then appealed and then any further process was stayed by the Court of Appeal - in the end proving nothing.
That is not fair to Dr. Morton and any the other candidates involved. Does not put the PC party in a very favourable light either.
As for Mr. Anders, I can hardly be accused of slurring him because Imerely pointed out that the matter is still before the Courts. So he is still innocent unless and until the courts decide otherwise. Do you know if the Anders case challenging his Calgary West Federal nomination has been decided yet? I don't know so as far as I am concerned he is still innocent. My merely pointing out there is an allegation in a court case proves nothing and slurs no one.
If the public expects open, honest, transparent and fair goverment then all the political parties have to adhere to those same principles. Otherwise on what basis should citizens believe and trust them.
"In the end proved nothing". Or that unsubstantiated and frivolous claims do not warrant the waste of further court time. If there was a legitimate case by Tim Anderson, the courts would hear it and make an appropriate non-partisan order. They did not. Maybe something is proved.
ReplyDelete"If the public expects open, honest, transparent and fair goverment then all the political parties have to adhere to those same principles. Otherwise on what basis should citizens believe and trust them."
Thanks Mr. Obvious.
You did not address the allegation by Vitor about the last campaign that you worked for. Maybe you should do that before you spout off about honesty and fairness.
Good point re my comment on Vitor's reference to "the last campaign I worked on."
ReplyDeleteI presume Vitor is talking about the 2006 federal campaign. I volunteered for Anne McLellan - my third election that I supported her. I like good people in politics...party affiliation has always come second for me. People make the real difference in effective positive politics - not the centrally controlled party brands and machines.
I don't know enough about the specifics Vitor is talking about because he does not give much information. So I need more facts.
Vitor does say "a minivan full of ineligible voters" - like are we talking a total of maybe 7 people here.
"Three different locations"...does he mean this happened three different times with different people and different minivans each time? Or was it the same people in three different locations.
Were these simply innocent people who thought they were eligible but were mistaken and could it be that they were showing up at the wrong polling stations in each instance before it was clarified they were not eligible to vote? I don't know. So I can't really comment much more with the sketchy information Vitor suppplies.
As for the complaint on the voting list. I don't have any information on his complaint and the end result. It would be helpful information in my responding.
I do think that the federal voters lists are a mess. If I recall correctly we have a poor system of enumeration now and lists are very inaccurate and not kept current by Elections Canada. With a mobile society a better job must be done to ensure accuracy of voters lists.
As for the issue of inappropriate people on the list - give us more specifics and I will see what I can find out looking into it. I think the issue is worth pursuing.
One thing about Vitor's comments about that campaign, his linking my volunteering to his allegations of voter list improprieties cannot be construed as a slur on me. He does not accuse me of anything except being a "worker" - which includes being a volunteer in my mind.
I think it is fair comment and an interesting framing of the facts. Just as my stating of facts and implications involving outstanding nomination issues in two court cases - one stayed and the other pending - are not slurs on the candidates involved either.
Finally, anyone who has met Vitor nows he is a very experienced and competent political operative and advisor. My guess is, if Mark Norris wins this leadership, it will be Vitor who ends up being Mark's Rod Love. He is that good!
The country is better off without Anne. She held on for so long because the federal LPC funnelled carloads of cash into her campaign.
ReplyDeleteOf course it was a personal slur against you But according to your previous logic, this possible inappropriateness should be investigated fully ... I guess, unless it is your campaign that is accused of wrongdoing.
Sorry, should state of course it "wasn't"
ReplyDelete