Apparently the March meeting will be a weekend-long two day marathon, at some undisclosed and indeterminate time, 5 members of the Executive will be elected by whoever is currently present. This is the antithesis of democracy. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. For those of us who work for a living, it is nearly impossible to be heard in such an organization. Which is probably the point.

Nicholas, it's politically immature to expect working people or parents to participate! Such people are not sufficiently committed. You need to attend Yuri's lectures to help order your thoughts correctly. </sarcasm>

Nowhere has the Equity Cttee proposed that the current Executive can determine the composition of the four equity caucuses. The four proposed caucuses (for LGBTTIQQPP2S, Indigenous, people of colour, Differently Abled) are made up of general members, not the Executive. So far the Equity cttee has made it clear that caucus representatives to the Executive are chosen from the caucuses themselves, not by the Executive.

The proposals of the Equity Cttee are about new mechanisms of affirmative action to help make the party more progressive and more reflective of who currently lives and struggles in our city. They are pretty standard measures drawn from unions and parties who have similar mechanisms for diversity and representation. Equity caucuses, like other legalistic reforms, are certainly incomplete and imperfect ways of ensuring diversity and representation in our organizations and in our society. They are attempts to rectify biases and structural barriers that have kept marginalized people out.

Lastly, the 'code of conduct' mentioned in this article is a different matter that has nothing to do with the proposals of the Equity Cttee. To correct this article, the code in question is not a by-law. It is a motion of the Executive that has no by-law power and no ability to eject members of the Executive without a vote from the general membership of the party. That said, we feel that the code of conduct is excessive and unnecessary and we intend to support executive candidates who pledge to scrap it.

Respectfully,
Daniel Tseghay + Nate Crompton

Nate and Daniel,
Respectfully, you seem to misunderstand how the Society Act works. You seem to believe that if your bylaws are silent on how caucuses and committees are to be constituted, we should just imagine they will be constituted however we hope they will be. Sadly, this is not how things work.
As I informed you by e-mail on December 9th, COPE adopted rules for the composition and governance of all committees on May 10th, 2013. I quote from those rules in my blog post. They state that, where bylaws are silent as to caucus composition (as yours are), the Executive has ultimate authority to determine their composition and may change it, at will, at any time.
It is unfortunate that you appear (a) not to understand the workings of the Act that governs out party and (b) not to recall the fairly detailed debate about this matter on which you were copied just two months ago.
I am pleased that you oppose the Code but please recognize that, like the caucus composition rules, it will be part of the context in which your equity resolutions are interpreted will be interpreted until such time as it is repealed.
In solidarity,

Stuart.

this article makes no sense, it's not even based on facts

The proposal for representatives from Equity Causes is coming from and ad-hoc COPE Committee not appointed by anyone of which I am a member. The proposal is to create a number of caucuses made up of COPE members belonging to those minority groups. They will propose how they want to be represented.

We are also proposing expanding the members at large to be elected by STV. We would ideally like to elect our candidate by STV but that will be phased in with membership support. None of this is coming from the executive and it up to the members to decided how many cause representatives there will be. All this will be debated and hopefully we will work towards agreement in working for toward more diversity represented. If there are clashes with other by-laws, then we can deal with those. Maybe they need to be amended to make them more democratic.

Over all are trying to promote affirmative action through a proportional model and also propose that COPE will run on a campaign for proportional representation in the upcoming civic election.

Imtiaz Popat

If you look at whole picture the equity causes positions and a red herring. Only the caucuses, if they meet will decide how they want to be represented on the executive. The proposed motion can change to the number of reps will be elected based on what the caucuses say. It might be two it might be six.

What is being proposed is four equity reps. In addition we are proposing the elect four additional members at large. So the executive will go from 12 to potentially 20. We are also proposing the all the members at large be elected by STV which will require another by-law amendment before the July AGM. So there is much more the equity and diversity reforms being proposed.

Imtiaz, your "we are proposing" statements seem strangely unrelated to the proposals actually being proposed to the members in May.

@Imtiaz

"Only the caucuses, if they meet will decide how they want to be represented on the executive."

Under the COPE bylaws, the caucuses (committees) are at the mercy of the executive. The exec can remove or appoint members, overrule their decisions, even disband them, at any time.

"...so the executive will go from 12 to potentially 20..."

Is that an executive or a legislature?

Bruce, you know what this executive needs? A team of celebrity chefs and a platoon of dancing monkeys!