COPE internal chair Tim Louis responds to Stuart Parker's claims about party's direction

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      The internal chair of the left-wing Coalition of Progressive Electors says that a high-profile member presented a misleading impression of a proposed amendment to COPE's bylaws.

      Tim Louis, a former city councillor, told the Straight by phone that a proposal to create "equity caucuses" will only occur "if the membership—in an open transparent democratic meeting by a majority of 75 percent—vote in favour of creating them".

      "They’re only created, if they’re created, by the membership, not by the executive," Louis insisted.

      In a blog post earlier today, former B.C. Green party leader Stuart Parker claimed that these "equity representatives" on the board will create "a political feedback loop, whereby the current executive can insulate itself against the democratic will of the members".

      Louis declared that this is a false interpretation.

      "There is no such self-perpetuating loop," he said. "The equity caucus selects its own rep to sit on the executive. The executive has absolutely no input—not even a recommendation of the composition of the equity caucus."

      Furthermore, Louis said that the executive has no influence on the identity of any nominee chosen by an equity caucus.

      "It doesn’t even recommend,” he added.

      Meanwhile, COPE's executive director, Sean Antrim, told the Straight in a separate phone interview that for the upcoming civic election, his party is developing policy, recruiting candidates, and nominating them "in the most democratic way that we have in a really long time".

      Antrim rejected Parker's assertion that a new code of conduct can be used by the party executive to fire candidates after they're chosen by members.

      "The code of conduct can’t eliminate nominees who have been nominated by the membership," Antrim said. "The membership makes all of the decision in COPE when it comes down to it. That’s the best thing about the organization. That’s what makes it different from every other political party. And that’s why I got involved.”

      He added that COPE passed a motion last November preventing anyone even considering becoming a council candidate from being on the party's election-planning committee.

      "So Tim [Louis], for example, is not on our election-planning committee because he’s thinking of running for council," Antrim said.

      Comments

      26 Comments

      Stuart Parker

      Feb 17, 2014 at 9:35pm

      Tim's and Sean's claims can be easily fact-checked. I would encourage anyone reading this article to read my original blog post which cites, verbatim, the minutes and rules clearly demonstrating their falsity. This is not rocket science.

      kim hearty

      Feb 17, 2014 at 10:35pm

      "The membership makes all of the decisions in COPE when it comes down to it." And when is that, Sean?

      Sean Antrim

      Feb 18, 2014 at 4:28am

      For the first time ever, all of the meeting dates were put online at the same time, some over 6 months in advance, so that members would have the ability to plan their election year.

      You can find the dates here for all the general meetings here: http://cope.bc.ca/category/events/

      Because we can't book venues without knowing how many people are going to be there (without having to cancel meetings because sometimes 500 people show up), venues aren't set until closer to the date.

      Self-righteous to the very end

      Feb 18, 2014 at 7:54am

      The current crew -- Tim Louis and his allies and followers -- have brought about the end of Vancouver's oldest progressive party. It is a tale of power-hungry (male) egos, doctrinaire Trotskyites (you're with us or you're against us in the revolution), factional alliances of convenience (followed by subsequent and relentless internal infighting), exclusionary politics, and self-righteous want-to-be revolutionaries.

      These people need not worry about Vision Vancouver, they're dismantling COPE just fine on their own. The great irony, perhaps, is this is led by Tim Louis, the petty-bourgeois West Side lawyer and landlord.

      Actually

      Feb 18, 2014 at 9:38am

      A group of LGBTQ activists in COPE formed a group, recruited new members from other communities, and created internal COPE policy to ensure they had a safe space in the party and on the ballot.

      Now they are being attacked in the media.

      Politics are toxic because people when people try to stand up for what they believe in, they are constantly attacked. This is why people don't get involved, and we have a crew of self-interested politicians who don't put forward policies that will help anyone.

      Please don't attack "the people" either. It's individuals who feel that they need to ignore most of us and intervene on their own that at the egos.

      This is exactly what we need to be fighting against.

      Arthur Vandelay

      Feb 18, 2014 at 10:06am

      Personally, I like the stock photo of Tim in his Che Guevara t-shirt better than the glam shot used for this article, especially in the context of democracy within political parties.

      RUK

      Feb 18, 2014 at 10:45am

      @Actually

      Re "they are constantly attacked" - I think this is more symptomatic of the left than the right.

      Right wingers, IMO, are inclined towards authoritarianism, unity, teamwork, discipline, and all hands pulling on the given rope at the signal. That leads to a certain hardening of the mental arteries when it comes to adapting their thinking to changing times and facts, but they're strong at election time. They support their leaders.

      Left wingers, I think, want to take the moral high ground, seek to display compassion, believe that society is only as strong as its least powerful, and are intuititively opposed to authoritarianism. But this makes us turn on all authorities; goddess forbid that one of us should show leadership - set herself up to be the louder voice, the focal point - how undemocratic! Unless consensus can be found, grumbling and splittism must follow.

      Is depressing.

      G

      Feb 18, 2014 at 12:42pm

      Somehow I have more faith in Stuart Parker than Tim Louis. The proposal to dilute the executive with additional members representing select segments of the membership is a classic tactic used in a range of parties to enforce long term control. The proposal to add 4 seats for select groups deemed in need of additional representation creates an interesting scenario when it comes time to elect the executive. Depending upon which boxes a member has checked, she/he could be voting for only the "open" slate or some or all of the "reserved" seats. One thing I did note about the plan for additional spots is that women aren't given a unique spot, do they already have one or have they been deemed to be enfranchised?

      The left is crippled by infighting between the wide range of "concerns" that fall under the meaningless catch all of "social justice." COPE is made up of myriad small collectives mostly operated as feudal estates with the serfs obediently echoing their leaders mantra. There is no concern too small or absurd that can't be squeezed under the umbrella, invariably diluting any efforts to create a platform that includes specific programs. Like good little stakhanovites members work hard to represent the collective and support the party line as dictated by their leader.

      The uneasy alliance between COPE & Vision shows how naive the "progressive" party members were. They were bought off with bike lanes, green propaganda and a promise to "end homelessness" whilst being sold out by opportunists within COPE and ultimately led to "progressive" voters supporting development on a massive scale. Vision talked about "social justice" and continued to subsidize some of the groups that align themselves with COPE. They left DES issues to COPE & Vision allies in the poverty industry allowing the ongoing exploitation of the people of the DES for reasons of profit or ideology whilst giving donors deals on city property or changing zoning.

      I especially enjoy the criticism levelled at Tim Louis for operating the party exactly as his heroes would. "West-side lawyer," "bourgeois," and my favourite "landlord." That is good stuff that wouldn't look out of place in Lenin or Stalin's Soviet Union, although "west-side" would likely need explanation. Perhaps Louis' parents were kulaks!

      G

      Feb 18, 2014 at 12:46pm

      I see the word has gone out to the obedient followers to "thumbs down" comments by Stuart Parker, I guess it just took until the party hacks got out of bed. I look forward to attending the various upcoming COPE meetings: the floor show will be fantastic and I am taking bets on which faction will attempt to shout down their opponents first.

      James G

      Feb 18, 2014 at 3:35pm

      This is actually a reasonable forum for this debate. It is open for anybody to contribute, from gadflies like myself to lifelong activists like Tim Louis and Stuart Parker. I admire them both. I would love to see COPE nominate Stuart Parker for Mayor. I would love to see Tim Louis back on Council. The external locus that causes friction within the organization seems real but there are several theories about where it originates. I have heard the main long term "inflitration" scenario directing me to the federal Liberals, the VDLC theory, the Vision Away Team, the idea that it all originated as with the split in the CPC, that the BCNDP is somehow darkly involved, that Tim Louis is beholden to MAWO, that "doctrinaire Trotskyists" are to blame and there are likely others. Members of the Natural Law Party must still be around somewhere so should we blame them too? If any are true, work around it. It's politics. It gets rough and dirty and it's unfair. Suck it up and come to terms. Make deals if you must but shake hands.

      I was at the meeting that elected Kim Hearty and others to the executive and I haven't regretted for a moment voting for her. I did hear Ellen Woodsworth condemn the slate that was elected for it's slight gender imbalance. So, there is an argument that this change in approach (which I don't support) is true to the spirit of COPE and comes from not only "the floor" but would likely have some resonance with respected members. It's not perfect largely because it trips over itself trying to be.

      If we had a ward system, it would be virtually impossible to select candidates in a way consistent with quotas. COPE would be trying to appeal to demographic constituencies while running in the geographic constituencies wards would create. It's a terrible idea and contrary to the obvious democratic engagement wards could present. Wards are long term COPE core policy and that is for the good of the citizens of Vancouver, not just members within the party.

      So, give me a party and candidates of which I can be proud. Vision in administrative terms is by no means the worst it gets. Robertson looks like a pretty decent fella when you recall his predecessors. As an organization, though, Vision knows only one of you will live. Don't be surprised if they end up running a joint slate with some other organization.