I took part in COPE’s 6 hour marathon AGM yesterday (Sunday Feb 19th) along with nearly 300 other dedicated COPE members. Like many others I found the evident dis-unity and factionalism within COPE and its impact on the elections process frustrating. Unlike some members however I don’t believe there is an “existential” crisis based on a lack of consensus or agreement on progressive polices.
In fact, you would be hard-pressed to distinguish the candidates on the two slates in yesterday’s election on any other basis than the electoral strategy agreements between COPE and Vision during the past two elections. The talent pool on both slates was also impressive and should not be dismissed out of hand when considering the closeness of the votes. The Treasure elected by one vote, and other positions filled by 3 or 4 vote margins.
Although COPE was all but shut out in Vancouver’s civic elections just a few months ago (electing only one of its candidates – Alan Wong to School Board), and declared dead or on life support by various political pundits it still managed to pack a large hall with a standing room only crowd. It also attracted 21 high calibre candidates for the 12 positions executive positions up for election.
As in most elections, emotions were running high at the start of the meeting (which was delayed due to the high turnout) and there were (in my view) far too many points of order and inappropriate comments which further prolonged the meeting.
There was one area of contention which definitely needs to be dealt with before the next COPE AGM, and that concerns the sign-up and approval of new members immediately prior to the start of the meeting. While the COPE constitution provides for this at regular meetings and the AGM, it does not allow this for meetings to nominate Candidates for Civic elections, for which there is a thirty day membership requirement.
Since we just had such a meeting a few months ago, I believe that lead to confusion and concerns, including assertion that COPE is undemocratic. Of course nothing could be further from the truth, and COPE is so democratic that at times it almost seems like anarchy. The motion was passed at the meeting for the incoming executive to review and bring forward to the membership changes to clarify and update the constitution will hopefully address both these issues.
I am suggesting that the 30 day rule for nomination meetings be extended to AGM’s and meeting where a notice of motion will be dealt with. I believe this addresses concerns raised at the start of the meeting, while still allowing COPE to build its membership by continuing to approve new members at the start of regular meetings. Since there hasn’t been a review of the constitution in a number of years, I expect the executive (and those members who are process oriented) will find others areas in the constitution that can be amended and/or clarified to help COPE function in keeping with its principles.
My final point, deals with strategy (electoral, operational, and issue based), and I expect this to be the most contentious. I say that because at least with respect to electoral strategy, as this is where I see the greatest divide/dis-unity in COPE. For those of us on the left of the political spectrum the greatest challenge for us is not usually on the goal or objective, or even principles and values. It is almost always finding consensus on strategies and tactics, and failing consensus reaching a respectful agreement to disagree democratically so we can still move forward towards our common goal(s).
Like many others on the left I have had some experience with the tyranny of the majority, and also the obstructive (and in more than one case the destructive) actions of a committed and passionate minority. I also have experience working with a bargaining committee that included an avowed anarchist, and was having trouble negotiating a new agreement because their usual committee practices became unworkable.
Based on these experiences, I suggest COPE needs to reach a broadly accepted agreement on a protocol, and the processes it will use in developing and adopting any significant and potentially divisive strategy in the future. I hope this is made a priority, and see it as both a challenge and an opportunity for the new executive. I also say this with all due respect to those who see or saw the agreements with vision as something more that an electoral strategy, and hope my suggestion is viewed in that spirit.
Just a technical thing, Mike. The requirement for the nomination meeting sign-ups is 45 days in advance of the meeting, not 30. I do, however, agree with you that 30 days would be good for other general membership meetings.
Thanks for pointing out that the Nomination meeting requirement is 45 days. In light of that, and to minimize the potential for confusion, I would use the same requirement for AGM’s.
Dear Mike
You have been most measured and careful in your analysis, and I appreciate it. I hope your characterization of the political similarities between the two groups as considerable is correct. Some of the tactics and especially the attempts to shout down and insult Sarena Talbot – who did a fine job of disarming and directing in her work as chair- were, however, disturbing and point to some potential problems. Rationalizing the nomination and general meeting procedures is a necessary and overdue reform, and, ever since COPE ’93 and the nightmare partially wrought by a no-plumping rule, this restriction also needs serious examination. I am concerned that the executive be able to concentrate on organizing a revitalized COPE and in presenting a comprehensive series of initiatives that will focus on building a significant public presence. Much can be accomplished by member-driven events and the kind of community-based action that has been used in Srathcona, on Commercial Drive ,at the school board, and elsewhere to stop unwanted projects and create and confirm worthy ones. For me, the issue of electoral agreements is not one that should dominate (or, for now, even concern) executive discussions. I was not at all happy that we worked with Vision during the last civic election, although I voted in favour of the strategy. In thinking long and hard about it since November 19th, I have concluded that going it alone would not have been viable, either: save for giving some folk the cold pleasure of ideological purity. My reading of the two slates puts them a little farther apart than does yours, but sometimes, sitting down and working on the practicalities of organizing has a way of bringing disparate views into closer proximity! By the way, some people who call themselves anarchists have not a clue about its foundational ideology: mutual aid and cooperation. The notion that anarchism is consistent with chaos and disorder is a perversion of the intent of its politics. Sadly, some grandstanders seem intent on doing just that.
All the best
Marcy Toms
Thanks for your comments Marcy. I sincerely believe that there is a very high degree (if not unanimity) on our new executive with respect to COPE’s policies on the substantive issues. While there were and are clearly differing views on the past electoral strategy, both factions supported COPE’s platform in the last election. Folks from both factions have been at the same council meetings supporting Ellen and other electeds, and taking the same position on critical issues like the need for more social housing, making Vancouver more livable and affordable, opposing an expansion of gambling, demanding respect for neighborhoods and real consultation, the need for Wards and Campaign Finance limits, STIR, Eco-density, the occupy movement, and human rights. And while one group appears to be more focused on Council, folks from both groups have been at the same rallies and demonstrations in support of public Education, opposing cuts to library services, and fighting gentrification in the DTES. I really will be surprised if our new executive finds itself divided on these and any other significant Policy issues. I share your dismay with the disrespectful way our internal chair was treated by some of our members at the AGM. Like you I was impressed with the way Sarena chaired under very difficult conditions. I also believe she deserves a big thank you from both factions for hanging in there and getting us through the AGM. And from those members who were disruptive and disrespectful, an even bigger apology. While their behavior was (in my view) shamefully unwarranted, it provides an impetus for a long overdue review of our constitution and some necessary reforms of our procedures. I am please to see a bit of optimism for our future as a progressive coalition near the end of your comments, and appreciate your clarification with respect to anarchism. Unfortunately my experience with Anarchists has been limited to those who (as you say) have no clue about mutual aid and cooperation, which are also at the core of Solidarity.
I hope COPE sorts things out. I was actually pleasantly surprised to hear there is at least one anarchist still active in the union movement.