November 8th, 2017 14:03

Transparency In The Internet Party

Martyn Public Seen by 470

noun: transparency; plural noun: transparencies

the condition of being transparent.
"the transparency of their predatory motives"
frankness, openness, candidness, honesty, directness, forthrightness, unreservedness, plain-spokenness, straightness, straightforwardness, ingenuousness, innocence, guilelessness, simplicity
"the report said that the country's economic management lacked transparency"
antonyms:   opacity, cloudiness, obscurity, ambiguity, cunning, secrecy
a positive transparent photograph printed on transparent plastic or glass, able to be viewed using a slide projector.
"colour transparencies of the Grand Canyon"
synonyms:   slide, diapositive; 

Above is the definition of Transparency from Google. This thread is about how we can implement Transparency within the Internet Party, both in our internal and external processes.

One of the ways I think we can implement Transparency is to publish all of our documentation as PDFs with regards to the internal workings of the Internet Party on our website. Here I'm talking about things like our Health & Safety procedures, Sexual Harrassment policy, our Induction booklet and other such documents.

Tane Harre

Tane Harre November 9th, 2017 07:25

Good idea. Mainly from a moral perspective. From a tactical perspective it may cause trouble but the party can hardly call for the government to be open without reciprocity.

Miriam Mallinder

Miriam Mallinder November 9th, 2017 09:53

How will the Party answer: "prove you have shown us everything" ... or ... actually ... are there some things you would not want to share, and what might they be?

Fred Look

Fred Look November 28th, 2017 05:34

Tane Harre

Tane Harre November 28th, 2017 08:50

There has been a thought buggering around in my head. Something along the lines of ,"An open government is the only government that can be trusted" or maybe,"A government with nothing to hide from it's citizens has nothing to fear from it's citizens". That has little to do with the Internet party except as a slogan.

More along the lines of IP I think every meeting should be videoed and preserved for a certain amount of time.....say ten years.

Suzie Dawson

Suzie Dawson December 2nd, 2017 09:54

I'm personally fine with live streaming all the meetings.

Miriam Mallinder

Miriam Mallinder December 2nd, 2017 18:53

But apparently not all loomio threads

Suzie Dawson

Suzie Dawson December 4th, 2017 08:32

Which of your poison-spilling bad-energy Loomio threads are you wanting more of an audience for Miriam?

Miriam Mallinder

Miriam Mallinder December 4th, 2017 19:26

The last one you pulled would be good Suzie. I have a full copy of it BTW. And I refer you to Fred's post above. Completely apt.

Tane Harre

Tane Harre December 5th, 2017 07:12

Oh for fuck sakes you two(F & S). Pull it in and sort it out through formal means....we do have some sort of process I imagine? I tried the ongoing verbal thing with pilot fever and that didn't work our well for the party at all.

If there is doubts in you minds about the legality of the party then send them to the electoral commission after giving the exec a chance to fix them.

Party leader can be removed by a vote of the parliamentary caucus....who is?

Party leader is elected by ...blah blah blah, everybody knows the rules. Work in them, change them, or fork the party.

For the record I think that Suzie, Jo and co have done well. I don't agree with some of it. I think some of it is dubious as per the constitution but then I tend to read things like someone trying to get off a low level charge.

I also think Fred did well as secretary and part of the exec. Would you prefer pilot fever? How about inheriting an illegal exec? Or perhaps the super fn mess that it was.

We lost an election, we collapsed, we have stayed largely silent and yet upright. We have new leadership so (if there isn't a constitutional objection) lets back it and if it fails say thank you for your efforts and back the next one.

We aren't here for a pretty nice guy that most people love (John Key), we are here because there are fundamental things wrong with human governance. Lets fix them.

Tane Harre

Tane Harre December 5th, 2017 08:05

Good. Now that is fixed. Lets, live stream the meetings. How far can we go toward open governance? What privacy expectations can the exec have. More, less, ???

Fred Look

Fred Look December 5th, 2017 09:05

We have no party (in terms of the electoral act) this the direct result of misconduct of leadership. The current exec has no mandate . nor does any person to act as leader at this time. The only way forward is a proper INFORMED discussion by the membership. and a direction from members as to how to go forward. To be blunt i think that the stream of distortions and misinformation from Suzie is going to make that impossible. But if you wish an SGM i will endorse that path.

Miriam Mallinder

Miriam Mallinder December 5th, 2017 09:16

SGM? Does that stand for Special General Meeting Fred?

Daymond Goulder-Horobin

Daymond Goulder-Horobin December 5th, 2017 10:54

I feel like there is a disconnect between what people on this forum think is happening and what is actually happening. Firstly a lot of things are happening, however this is mostly being discussed on Discord as opposed to Loomio. For instance we are now a member of Pirate Parties International, and we are still doing live-streams though we are going to be slowing down during Christmas. The party leader is out in full force still working for the party and STILL backed by KDC to the fullest up to the 2020 election.

In other words things are actually still happening in contraction to what people think is happening. Though I will say that having our 500 members by April is a priority for staying registered and something I will aim to achieve through policy and live-streams.

I'm not going to participate in this drama between some of the prev exec UNLESS there is clear and proven acts of Libel going on. If acts of Libel are detected I will not hesitate to ban you, it is fine to have an opinion and and observation but I will not tolerate any acts of lying and slander on this forum anymore. Quite Frankly it is just getting old and I don't want this to continue when we actually do get more members back into action.

Fred Look

Fred Look December 5th, 2017 11:56

Well i do wish to discuss here why Suzie having taken the leadership in Feburary refused to declare that for many months, why she did not launch in good time for membership drive pre AGM as agreed. I do wish to discuss if it was actually necessary to lock up website development for that same critical period. I do want to discuss the refusal to respect secretarys financial controls and fallout from that. And i would like to have that discussion without libel or stream of blame on myself and the mandated exec. I state now we had a plan and it was a good one and Suzie agreed to it when she took up the leadership. Having had that plan overset resulting in the resignation of the elected exec members. I do feel it is important the members (remaining) and future are able to access a factual account of 2017 and how those events brought the party to this point. I reject that either the website architecture or financiial architecture was reason to abandon the plan to begin membership recruitment in Feburary as agreed. That projection to my mind is simply a means to avoid accepting responsibility and i dont believe that was the reason for what happened .. I was there! both website and financial arrangements were appropriate at the time and plans to move them forward in hand. membership recruitment was key in both cases. with a leader appointed but refusing to declare all plans stalled ... meanwhile the consensus and processes of exec were destroyed leading to resignation of its members. It is my firm belief that plan A would have us better placed now and in my opinion the means employed to derail that plan was improper.

Tane Harre

Tane Harre December 6th, 2017 06:03

Then please write a factual account, Fred. Get it signed off by the other exec at the time and all good. And then post it. Currently I know little bits and pieces but haven't seen a full time line with evidence. If Suzie has done something wrong or illegal then bring it out for all to see. And yes, do it in an official fashion.

Notify the electoral commission if you believe there has been a definite breach of the act....maybe after giving the exec a chance to rectify the situation?

Do the SGM! (although you can't call it, only the exec or convener can...who the hell is the convener).

Currently I am waiting for 10.10.

But what ever we do lets do it quickly, efficiently, officially, legally and finally. And then lets move on to what we are supposed to be doing. Not like last time.

Suzie Dawson

Suzie Dawson December 7th, 2017 03:33

No Miriam, I did not pull the thread, I don't even know how to pull the thread. That is false allegation #1252342 about me on your part.

Fred knows full well the reason I didn't announce my leadership was because I discovered that under his watch, the business entity/incorporated society and bank account had all lapsed/been cancelled. There was no website, no marketing collateral, nothing whatsoever in place to support my leadership or the campaign, so I went about building all those things with others until we felt in a strong enough position to make the announcement.

Daymond is completely right that things are moving ahead in good directions on all fronts but Miriam and Fred - both of whom RESIGNED from the Party (Fred in fact resigned not once, but over and over again, at least 3 times by my count this year alone) continue to attack us mercilessly on Loomio without any pause.

We have a full event schedule for next year, an international network at play, Kim is fully engaged in what we are doing, and we will meet the 500-member requirement by next April (which we only need to do as a result of Fred & co's axing of our 3-year membership requirement) just fine.

Fred's claim that we are in breach with electoral commission is COMPLETELY FALSE - we have met all legal requirements surrounding the campaign and election every step of the way.

Resigned members who are doing nothing other than causing trouble, telling lies and smearing the people who have been here cleaning up the mess they left the Party, need to go on their merry way, and if that requires them being banned then so be it. There is a three year history of Fred arbitrarily banning people in Loomio who disagreed with him. We have refrained from taking that step but if the abuse continues the two of you will simply be removed from this platform out of respect for everyone else.

Miriam Mallinder

Miriam Mallinder December 7th, 2017 03:46

OK, then I would like to re-phrase my question. Where did that thread go? As leader of the Party I am guessing you would know.

Following on from that I support Fred's request "I would like to have that discussion without libel or stream of blame on myself and the mandated exec"

And I agree with Tane's intervention.

Suzie Dawson

Suzie Dawson December 7th, 2017 03:51

@taneharre - attached is the position the Party was in when I accepted the leadership (February) versus the position the party was in when I announced my leadership in June. The page is from the business plan endorsed by the exec and presented to Kim at the time. While people bleat about transparency it was in fact me that insisted that we make our strategic plans public and let everyone see every business/strategy doc at every step of the way. In that same spirit, here you go. This shows precisely why I was unable to go public in February, and why I was comfortable to in June.

Suzie Dawson

Suzie Dawson December 7th, 2017 03:56

Miriam, you and Fred resigned from the Party. I cannot think of a single positive contribution from either of you since your departures. In your case, I can't think of one all year. People who care about this party work for it. They get stuff done. They accomplish tasks. They progress it in some way. You have done nothing but harp on at us and drag us down and backwards for the entire year. Kim has made his support of me very clear. The exec that has been in place since your departure has also. It is time for you to leave us in peace.

I do not know 'where' Loomio threads have gone or anything about how to admin Loomio but i will call for a vote in exec to have resigned members who tell lies about and smear Party execs to be banned from Loomio because I think it is ridiculous that we allow this time-wasting and highschool-like behaviour to continue endlessly.

Suzie Dawson

Suzie Dawson December 7th, 2017 04:03

let me know if that format doesn't display correctly
@taneharre and i'll send you a pdf

Miriam Mallinder

Miriam Mallinder December 7th, 2017 04:19

Freedom of speech?

Daymond Goulder-Horobin

Daymond Goulder-Horobin December 7th, 2017 06:29

Jo pulled the thread I think, for reference.

Daymond Goulder-Horobin

Daymond Goulder-Horobin December 7th, 2017 06:32

You'll need to make it a word doc, can't open it on windows

Suzie Dawson

Suzie Dawson December 7th, 2017 07:23

Suzie Dawson

Suzie Dawson December 7th, 2017 07:24

Freedom of speech does not include libel

Miriam Mallinder

Miriam Mallinder December 7th, 2017 07:48

apparently not Daymond?

Miriam Mallinder

Miriam Mallinder December 7th, 2017 07:48

I totally agree Suzie

Tane Harre

Tane Harre December 7th, 2017 09:57

Can we stop with the comments and discuss this reasonably. Suzie has posted a document. Does anybody not agree with it? Miriam, can we have a copy of the thread you keep talking about?

Miriam Mallinder

Miriam Mallinder December 7th, 2017 17:19

Sorry Tane, I thought I had posted the copy of the thread last night ... my computer is glitching at the moment will do again below.

Miriam Mallinder

Miriam Mallinder December 7th, 2017 17:39

The document Suzie has posted needs some discussion ... yes those things in the right hand column were all done. I have some issue with the left hand column though.

I also completely object to her using that document as a method to completely denigrate the work that went on before her arrival, the reason she is here in the first place, to conveniently gloss over her mis-understanding of the mandate she was given which undermined the campaign plans that were in place and that she had agreed to execute, and how her mis-understandings and cavalier railroading approach put many people at considerable personal financial risk, how she used funds from the EC to mitigate that risk instead of to put it to good advertising use, her complete mis-representation of the state of the Internet Party Companies (again by not listening), and her total disrespect to the work and experience of the entire exec who had gone before her (which was not useless, as she likes to make out).

As I alluded to in the previous thread. All that Suzie does is spin to make herself look good at the expense of some very good people.

Furthermore, a leader who is unable to listen, and who is unable to see the good points in any people s/he is working with and incorporate them into a team (unless those people completely agree with her) has a lot to learn about leadership. If that leader thinks s/he has nothing to learn and continues to believe and state that they have the high ground ... what does that say about where that person's state of mind and leadership style currently is?

Tane, I am happy to work in a more evidence based manner, as you suggest. It is a good idea and will hopefully move us forwards (in a transparent manner) It is Christmas and no doubt Fred, as do I, have some family priorities at this time, so it may not be as immediate as would be preferred.

Miriam Mallinder

Miriam Mallinder December 7th, 2017 17:43

Here is the thread (hopefully). You will find a lot of useful thought contribution from me in there. You will find that the first mention of libel or lies came from Suzie. Actually it has never come from me although I am completely shocked and insulted by the way Suzie describes me a few posts above.

Fred Look

Fred Look December 7th, 2017 22:54

well since it appears that Suzies last post containing many untruths has been pulled (wisely!) I shall discuss the document. I have a few questions!
It appears to be a marketing document that presents selected information and some untruths to show current administration in the best light primarily through denigrating that which was done by others. This is a consistent theme of Suzies administration

Specifically executive committee: how many exec committee members are there now and which of these have been endorsed by membership

Business structure: this was what we could afford (primarily as a result of breakdown of financial controls in 2014), are the costs of the reanimated structure being met? what is the current balance in reanimated bank account?

Campiagn staff: These four full time positions have been paid how much from where?. did any leave before campaign end? why?

Website: uninformed untruth, Has the professional been paid?, with what?, were you able to get the DB connected membership participation sections working again? who is processing online membership applications?

Social media: our policy was membership engagement not "automation" was this change of direction discussed with members?

Branding : Love the cutsie robots. remind us how much these cost us and what funds were used to pay for these?

Campaign Viability. how many votes did we get? how many new memberships and renewals did we gain from campaign?

Financial Controls: feburary ... only commit funds we have guarenteed. June: contract and pray! (and use the economic advantage gained to see off any unwelcome volunteers!)

Tane Harre

Tane Harre December 8th, 2017 09:24

@miriammallinder and @fredlook

Well I have read the Loomio thread and Freds/Miriams questions/objections/concerns about the document posted and I still don't get just what you are aiming for here. To put it bluntly;

  • Nothing posted so far is illegal.
  • If not illegal then it follows 6.1 of the constitution.
  • Jo is sec and decides what happens.
  • If Jo even sent it to the exec committee then since the anti Suzie members resigned it is exceedingly doubtful they would agree.

So without proof of illegality or something that would change the minds of the current exec there is no point to this other than to say you don't like her.

To make matters worse (and to put it really, really, bluntly), the complaints and requests for information are from two people who had the power to make or uphold such complaints and/or request such information but abdicated that authority and as such have no power to do anything over and above a normal member.

In this case the only path I can see is to send a request to the secretary with the complaint and it is up to secs sole discretion whether to pass it to the exec.

Suzie Dawson

Suzie Dawson December 8th, 2017 10:20

You were at the meetings where the business plan was presented and signed off on before it was sent to Kim, Fred.

The entire exec endorsed the business plan, and that precise page, including you. We went through it step by step together, and everyone including you and Miriam thanked me for having done the work on it, and did not request any changes to its content.

This is the true story of what has happened this year: the exec agrees on something, then you and Miriam after the fact try to stop what the exec agreed on happening (strategic plan / campaign hires / digital spends / etc etc the list goes on) and when people complain about the delays and lack of progress you blame the constitution (frequently misquoting/misrepresenting it) or the law (which you are also on record as having misrepresented re role of secretary) while browbeating people left right and centre, and then months pass by with nothing but drama. And here you are, after having resigned not once but three times this year, still attacking the people who actually get things done. Enough. Its a total time-wasting farce. Move on with your life. You are not doing the Party, or Kim, or yourself, any service whatsoever by continuing to act like this.

Miriam Mallinder

Miriam Mallinder December 8th, 2017 11:39

I really wish you would read more carefully Suzie. Did I not say that I agreed with what had been done in the Right hand column?

Tane ... the previous exec resigned because we had been put into serious financial risk which we had tried to reverse on several occasions. Well this was the final event which pushed us over the edge anyway. Fred was secretary at the time and as such had tried to fix it. I had contracts sitting in the wings (needing some legal advice) but otherwise ready to go with a small risk. Suzie flatly refused to face her mistake (or admit to it) head on or present the correct contracts. Fred can tell his side of that story.

The only way we could make any sort of statement that would be heard was to resign. It honestly had come to that. We actually think we know the answer to half of those questions, but this is the transparency thread remember, and perhaps our perceptions are wrong.

Tane Harre

Tane Harre December 8th, 2017 19:00

The way I read it (constitution) there were two ways you could have reigned in such behavior.

  • As a member complaint.
  • Removal of leader by parliamentary caucus.

Also, according to the constitution, the Party Leader has no greater way to alter the financial position of the exec than anyone else on the exec. They get one vote.

I realise I wasn't at the meetings but are you saying that instead of just voting against Suzies proposals, or removing her delegated authority to make them, the board members resigned leaving nearly all the executive power of the party in the hands of someone they considered financially incompetent?

Fred Look

Fred Look December 8th, 2017 19:04

@taneharre Where did you get the idea that i am alleging something illegal?
(If its about contesting election without 500 members i honestly dont know if that was illegal or not?)

It is proper for me to discuss the campaign and its dismal result (as measured by party votes and subscription/renewals) both the metrics are dismal. It is obvious that the main cause for this was Suzies failure to do her job and specifically her failure to start in February as agreed. I simply do not believe her story about why she delayed, it is not consistent with either facts or time-line. If Suzie didnt do the job and cant explain why, then its valid to question her leadership, (by any member at any time.)

Miriam Mallinder

Miriam Mallinder December 8th, 2017 19:44

Except when the party leader has been clearly mandated by the secretary and exec to offer voluntary contracts only, no obligations nor expectations of payment (unless funds are obtained, and then we work in a fair manner to distribute those), and did not follow that exec mandate. When we do not have a parlimentary caucus. When the leader holds the exec to ransom over the 'employment' of staff by delaying proceedings instead of us all coming to the table and working out an understanding. (this had been requested a number of times) When these same people (on the Campaign committee, working with the expectation of receiving fees) now become part of the exec and are allowed to vote on matters pertaining to their own remuneration because the Party leader lets them (conflict of interest). Where is the power to do anything Tane.

Our mistake was that we relied on good faith, because that is what the party stands for. We didn't get it and we were tripped up by it.

Tane, hindsight is a wonderful thing. You could have a point, there could have been other things that we could have done. But no one is saying that Suzie did not achieve some of the things that the exec wanted her to achieve, we all believed that she was bringing a lot to the table. Hence her plans were approved (with a couple of provisos) and her achievements acknowledged. But ... there was very much a problem that came with it. Something that we felt we could fix but which takes introspection and reflection to achieve because it was about personality, behaviour and attitude. This is a bit more than just 'process'. It is about the beliefs we had in Suzie's good points, our focus on being a viable party with something to say and a short time to mobilise, our beliefs in our abilities to reason with the Leader, and therefore our reluctance to act swiftly because usually these things can be sorted out with a bit of give and take (although there were some things, like financial risk, which were fixed) In this instance, sadly we could not.

So OK these are 'whys and wherefores' ... I think that what you are asking us to do is to have had the wisdom of hindsight in the moment.

Going forward ... Suzie did dispense with the liabilites effectively, with EC funds which could have been spent with more effect. Going forward ... there are MASSIVE lessons to be learned in this experience ... For my part, this is what I want the membership of this party to learn. This is why I am here, highlighting it. Please don't get into this situation again. The Party lost good and loyal people. (would I still care if I did not have that loyalty?).

All views are valid. If the IP is to lead NZ in a new, transparent way which respects everyone, then it really needs to behave that way within its ranks. Otherwise why even bother to go up against our current coalition which stands for much the same things anyway? If the IP is to stand, it needs to be better. No one said this would be easy ... but we all need to be on the same page with this. Sycophantic behaviour is not the answer. Conflicts of interest / being here just for the money is also not the answer (we actually learned that in 2014 didn't we).

And please, while you are at it ... if you want some evidence in one respect ... count how many times Suzie has called me or Fred useless, or liars, or something else negative ... versus ... how often we have spoken to her in the same tone, minus the good things we also say about her. Just a wee point to note eh.

Miriam Mallinder

Miriam Mallinder December 8th, 2017 19:51

Fred has filled you in on other areas where we got 'non-performance' - which was most definitely raised at the time - and the manner in which he was treated.

Tane Harre

Tane Harre December 8th, 2017 21:13

Yes, that would be it. It is illegal. (@jobooth you might want to read 67, 3, d of http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0087/latest/DLM6011536.html?search=sw_096be8ed81647cc6_500_25_se&p=1&sr=5 )

Also I might be referring to,"We have no party (in terms of the electoral act) this the direct result of misconduct of leadership."

Look, so far in this thread we have had accusations of cult behavior, censorship, distortions, misinformation, lying and financial mismanagement against Mx Dawson from you and Miriam.

These are incredibly serious accusations against the leader of the party, especially when they come from ex-executive members. You are correct to bring into question her leadership, Fred but you are incorrect to provide no evidence when doing so and not to follow process.

There is a process for complaints against members of the party and as far as I know this is not being followed.

This is also the wrong forum for this as it is a thread on implementing transparency, not revealing problems of the exec almost a year ago.

Please, just take one issue you think proves her unable to be the leader, get a statement signed off by yourself and the other ex members of the exec and then give it to Jo.

Fred Look

Fred Look December 8th, 2017 22:36

@taneharre Ha i missed that one even tho i spent quite some time on this when i was Secretary ....well spotted ...... eeeeeeekk!

Miriam Mallinder

Miriam Mallinder December 8th, 2017 22:42

You are right Tane .. the "process for complaints against members of the party" has so far not been invoked. As per my post above .. it would be good to be able to sort these things out in a professional manner first. But I take your point.

Fred Look

Fred Look December 9th, 2017 19:33

here is the numbers I provided when my access was cut off they are not intended as "the numbers" as non eligible /resignations need to be subtracted and new subscriptions added and all checked. just an aging off of extant records by subscription expiry. Make of them what you will .

March 30 2017 1630

April 30 2017 778

May 30 2017 671

June 30 2017 508

July 30 2017 207

August 30 2017 111

Sept 30 2017 37

Suzie Dawson

Suzie Dawson December 11th, 2017 12:19

@taneharre - for clarity - re executive finances - when I was brought into the position I specifically stipulated that I wanted nothing to do with Party finances. This is reflected in documentation approved by exec, at my request, from the outset. Subsequently I have never at any time had access to any of the accounts/finances/credit cards etc of the Party, nor have I ever wanted it.

On the campaign side - I had a constitutional requirement to have some say over campaign expenditure, as I was literally tasked with leading that campaign. The only expenditure I had anything to do with over was relating to the construction of our website and digital content, which I arranged to be produced at below 20% of the equivalent website expenses in 2014 (these are publicly available on the Electoral Commission website), secured multiple executive decisions approving, and checked with the Electoral Commission not once but twice in writing to get confirmation that I was doing things correctly, before a single dollar being exchanged.

Re Fred's accusations regarding membership:

Firstly - we just filed our annual return this year where Fred literally signed to the EC that we had 500 members and they accepted that. He actually told them we had several thousand I'm pretty sure, which is what the database reflects

Secondly - Fred & co were the ones who pushed to reduce the 3-year memberships to 1 year, thereby invalidating memberships/increasing our compliance burden

Thirdly - if we need more paid up members, which this is the first I've heard of, I suggest all we would have to do is tell Kim to put out an appeal to people to re-sign-up for Internet Party since his platforms are how we got the thousands of members in the first place

Fourthly - Fred is completely out of line sending threatening and frightening and intimidating messages to people saying they are going to go to jail, and should be censured and prevented from doing so effective immediately. We have been at the mercy of this type of fruitless fear mongering for way too long.

Fred Look

Fred Look December 11th, 2017 23:39

gosh where do i start

Suzies assertions about her influence on party finances are incomplete :)

Suzies assertions about the website being not fit for purpose are uninformed opinion and incorrect.

Suzie does not have any clue what the membership is or how the database works .... but a considerable body of evidence exists that she was warned that this would be the result of forcing me out of database maintainer position. and that i did not go willingly..... which makes this a "willful ignorance"

While changing the subscription to one year had both upsides and downsides that decision has no impact here (it will (if not reversed)) come home to roost in end of 2018)

Brilliant idea: having gained "endorsement" of potential bulk funder while asserting we have membership numbers, now go and ask same for help to get that membership

While my assessment of our situation is certainly "frightening" it is untrue to assert it is "threatening" or "intimidating"

assorted other bombast and responsibility shifting is best just ignored.

Miriam Mallinder

Miriam Mallinder December 12th, 2017 00:16

The question of 1 or 3 year memberships was debated at the time it was changed. If it is not palatable to current exec, then debate it again and change. This is probably the topic of a different thread. I am not clear on how relevant this is to the membership question at hand?

Some arguments for 3 years - you know where you stand, you do not have to 'worry' about membership while concentrating on a campaign. This is an advantage when short staffed and/or relying on voluntary help.

Some arguments against 3 years - It is an incentive to keep in touch with your membership / potential almost promised voters and make sure they will vote for you. (aim of being a political party = get votes)
It potentially brings in more money as $10 per year is better than $10 per three years.
It shows that we back ourselves and are confident in our position (because we have kept in contact).

Fred Look

Fred Look December 12th, 2017 07:04

Also the EC has sent a clear "shot across the bows" that they are really not keen on parties claiming members are valid when they have had no contact for three years they expect ......processes to regularly verify that members are still resident and eligable to enrol as voters. So an annual renewal is an opportunity to verify contact and elligibility, of course there are other ways this could be acheived..... such as tieing it to AGM enrolment as I did.