Coalition of Progressive Electors chooses new executive

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      The Coalition of Progressive Electors says over 300 members showed up at its annual general meeting on Sunday (February 19).

      In a news release, COPE announced that the following people were elected to the Vancouver political party's executive:

      RJ Aquino as External Chair (previously a member at large)
      Sarena Talbot as Internal Chair (continuing the same role)
      Donalda Greenwell-Baker as Recording Secretary (continuing the same role)
      Kim Hearty as Corresponding Secretary (newly elected)
      Aaron Eddie as Treasurer (newly elected, former COPE staff member)
      Kate Van Meer-Mass as Membership Secretary (previously a member at large)
      David Chudnovsky as Fundraiser (continuing the same role)
      Anita Romaniuk as Member at Large (newly elected)
      Richard Marquez as Member at Large (newly elected)
      Tristan Markle as Member at Large (newly elected)
      Wilson Munoz as Member at Large (newly elected)
      Ifny Lachance as Member at Large (newly elected)

      The meeting was held at the Ukrainian Church.

      You can follow Stephen Hui on Twitter, Facebook, and Pinterest.



      COPE/Vision Back Room Antics

      Feb 20, 2012 at 5:58pm

      Any child could see the COPE AGM was an affront to basic ideas of democracy. This is what happened: 69 people were accepted as new members AND given the right to vote at the same time. The old Executive, wholly owned by the pro-COPE/Vision Alliance group, quickly met, just as the AGM was to begin, and accepted these new members en masse and allowed them to vote (in the past, new members had to accepted by the Executive and it took a period of time to do this). The anti-COPE/Vision alliance people were not privy to this move, so they had no time to organize ahead to recruit new like-minded members. So it is safe to assume that the Executive, knowing that they had all the votes to pass this underhanded move, were sending out phone calls and e-mails to their friends the day before and all night in order to stack the meeting. People were not opposed to allowing new members to vote; the problem was that only one side knew about this ahead, so only one side could organize for it.

      This disgraceful, anti-democratic manipulation allowed the pro-COPE/Vision alliance people to (barely) carry the day. If they had play fairly they would have been trounced, at every position (they won their places with between 1 and about 30 votes). Even with the stacked meeting the anti-COPE/Vision alliance people won six of the seats.

      COPE cannot claim to be a democratic organization. There must be some sort of enquiry into this, if COPE wants to salvage its already tattered reputation.

      13 8Rating: +5

      James green

      Feb 20, 2012 at 6:48pm

      If this board continues the marriage to Vision we can write them off in the next election as well. Listen COPE, you lost the last election because voters saw no real difference between Cope and Vision.
      Now, go out and get a book on branding and learn something before it is too late to change course, again.
      I need to know if any of the board members have ever been elected in a municipal election or are they idealists with no real experience.
      If those who wanted to split from Vision were smart they would form a new party now as Cope has been smoothered by Vision and we need a party that can breath on its own.
      Please tell us the new board's position on the marriage.

      Edwin Mueller

      Feb 20, 2012 at 7:02pm

      Ok, but who's on what slate? Aquino, Talbot, Van Meer-Mass and the Chud are the COPE-as-reasonable-people people, Markle an insurgent unrealist, Ifny Lachance part of a long term Work Less Party entryist strategy. Who else is who?


      Feb 21, 2012 at 12:30am

      There were efforts to "stack" the meeting by both sides. The Tim Louis camp had a corner of the room full of Ali Yerevani and his cult MAWO. So it goes. I'm glad some young people and some new people made it on the executive. COPE has a couple of lean years ahead but could be alright if they get doing some grassroots organizing especially on the housing crisis in this city.


      Feb 21, 2012 at 7:17am

      You're wrong. Anyone can recruit people of the same general political viewpoint to attend a political meeting. There is nothing wrong with that. The corruption here is that the Executive, with information it alone had, changed the rules at the last moment, thereby not allowing the other side to benefit from the rule change.

      There have been many back room manipulations, this time however the Chudnovsky/Herman -- Vision group did their dirty work in plain view, right in front of everyone.

      James green

      Feb 21, 2012 at 7:44am

      Copewithout a leader for mayor is dead. It may be news to many but parties who are successful have a leader for the top job be it mayor, premier, prime minister or dog catcher.
      Until COPE comes up with a leader count them out.

      25 9Rating: +16

      James G

      Feb 21, 2012 at 12:42pm

      The choice was made to appear between relevance and funding -- and they chose funding. It was much more than that -was a choice to delay, stall, frustrate and defeat any initiative to keep the organization vital and by those whose primary obligations are to a competing organization. Congratulations to all those who did win. I see no potential for growth, electoral success or forward movement of any kind. The deed is done. The City's long time political institution has commit suicide. Visionistas within and outside have indeed loved it to death.

      James G

      Feb 21, 2012 at 1:52pm

      Sorry for the typos -- sleep deprived here since Sunday's AGM or the assassination, as I prefer to think of it. So, yes I did miss the 'ed' on commit but sometimes I think I should myself be committed. Did I just attend a meeting where half of the those present wanted consensus and unity over a decision to ultimately off itself or did I dream that?

      It does go back to my concern for the federal NDP and the ease with which many people who want to destroy an organization can do so from within. Given the ease of entry and networking provided by social networks, will they choose also to split the NDP in two by joining that party while their primary loyalty is to another? The only way to prevent it is to give no top level votes to those whose stated position is support but whose methods open doors to divide and destroy. The left may have shaken off Marx but it has embraced Machiavelli with a vengeance. One can only wonder if there was a recent seminar which some of these scoundrels attended?


      Feb 21, 2012 at 4:06pm

      "Stacking" a meeting is a good old fashion political tactic. No need to complain about anyone doing it. If you can't get your "team" elected to run the party then how do you expect to get elected to office.

      14 8Rating: +6

      Bill McCreery1

      Feb 21, 2012 at 5:46pm

      Good comments. You've identified the core problem "COPE/Vision Back Room Antics". This current COPE Executive can certainly no longer cast disparaging stones at the other parties with respect to 'openness', 'transparency', 'democracy' or 'honesty' can they.

      Party politics aside, I would like to see a strong, effective COPE. COPE has made many fine contributions to Vancouver over many years and that should continue. But, it won't if they stay in bed with the devil. I respect COPE and it's long history, I do not respect Vision's short one.

      11 9Rating: +2