Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 11:23 am
Fri Jan 28, 2011 6:12 pm
Petition for a Binding Forum
Please note three important important things regarding this thread:
1. While it is partially in response to the events in Nova Scotia it is not about those events; the references here to those events are intended as a recent example that points to a deeper issue.
2. This thread is intended to be a petition, and a call to participate in that petition, it is not intended as a discussion. If you would like to discuss this petition and its merits or demerits then please do it on the thread called "Discuss: Petition for a Binding Forum". Instructions for how to participate in this petition are at the bottom of this first post.
3. Please read and think about this first post before you do anything. I spent two days and many conversations writing it and I would appreciate if you took some time too. A thoughtless "Yes" or "No" at the end does no one any good.
I have been thinking about the dismissal of the elected Council Commissioner (CC) and Council Service Team (CST) by National in December and reading what others have to say on the matter. I have also had a short look through what seem to be the relevant sections of BP&P. Here's what I have found and what I think about it.
The two most relevant sections seem to be 4002 and 4009 and the important parts within these are the following:
4002 - A Council Commissioner, selected and appointed by the Executive Commissioner and Chief Executive Officer or his designate, will manage each Council. See end of this Section for Position Description.
4009 (Council Commissioner Term) - Appointed annually by the Executive Commissioner and Chief Executive Officer or his/her Deputy and in consultation with the council concerned.
I believe that it is one or both of these two sections that are being referred to when it is said that Janet was well within her power/right to
make the dismissal. Setting aside the question of whether or not this dismissal of both the Commissioner and the standing service team should have been made (for some of my thoughts and those of others please see the forum titled "Nova Scotia") it seems as though there are grounds in these two quotes to question whether or not the dismissal was within the right/power of National.
The grounds for this questioning may be found in the latter part of the previously quoted piece from 4009:
Appointed annually by the Executive Commissioner and Chief Executive Officer or his/her Deputy and in consultation with the council concerned.
Noting the requirement that consultation with the council concerned take place raises two questions:
1. What consultation with the "council concerned" was made when the new commissioner was appointed? It appears that the answer is "None".
2. What counts as a consultation and can National disregard the outcomes of the consultation process? The dismissed CC and CST were elected by popular majority in their council, and common custom and convention strongly suggests that this is just about the highest form of consultation possible. This makes their dismissal seem to count as a full and complete disregard of the consultation process, raising the question of just what does "in consultation with" mean. Is it that National simply has to make a gesture towards a facade of consultation and do what it wants OR that the consultation is somehow binding, perhaps in the sense that the decrees of the Canadian Parliament are in practice rubber stamped by the Governor General. A related and no less important question is what is the council? An area of geography? All the members within the area? Some of the members within the area? If only some then why them and only them?
These are important questions, not because of their immediate answers, but because of what those answers will say about the nature of Scouts Canada. Nova Scotia is not the only "event" in the history of Scouts Canada that raises these (and similar) questions. In each case where these questions are raised, one set of answers will say "Scouts Canada is an unaccountable corporation that decides how Scouting is run in a vacuum" and the other says something more like "Scouts Canada is a corporation in the service of its members that recognizes that it is only in meaningful consultation with those members that the vision and mission of Scouting can be realized". I hope you will agree with me that the latter option is not only the better one, but the right one (Is Scouts Canada not, after all, the corporation hired by its volunteers to aid them in their delivery of the Scouting program? Is Scouting not a movement and are movements not inherently democratic).
I will close by suggesting two things:
First, that how we, as a membership, address the situation will say a lot as well. Let us speak out and ask questions (at the very least), so that it is clear that we are not apathetic and irrelevant. And let us stand firm in our assertions that a meaningful consultation with those affected needs to take place, and quickly. Let us neither rattle our swords to no avail nor draw them too quickly and cut too deeply for these are not the Scouting way.
Second, that this discussion thread become a petition where everyone gets a say on whether or not it should be the case that these and similar questions should be addressed in an open forum, a meaningful consultation if you will. To help remove ambiguity, let the question be "Do you agree that Scouts Canada should commit to holding a series of accessible, fair, and open discussions about its fundamental nature and purpose within the next calendar year and be morally obligated to adhere to the outcomes of these forums?" and let a "Yes" be a reply in this thread that says "Yes" and only "Yes" and a "No" a reply to this thread that says "No" and only "No".
If you would like to discuss this proposition then please do so in the thread created for that purpose.
Lastly, please remember that real, meaningful democracy is hard work; you must not only listen to the ideas of those you do not agree with, but you must respond to them thoughtfully, for they too have as much at stake as you. If you're not prepared to put out this effort both now and in the future then just stay silent or, better yet, vote "No" so it is clear where you stand. And don't any one of you who have read this choose not to throw your hat into the ring one way or the other because "It won't make a difference"---all walking away means is that you won't be making a difference.
Now, let your voice be heard and then go and extend the invitation to others to do the same. You have until midnight March 1st Pacifc Time to be heard, after which we'll tally up the numbers and see where we stand.
1. While it is partially in response to the events in Nova Scotia it is not about those events; the references here to those events are intended as a recent example that points to a deeper issue.
2. This thread is intended to be a petition, and a call to participate in that petition, it is not intended as a discussion. If you would like to discuss this petition and its merits or demerits then please do it on the thread called "Discuss: Petition for a Binding Forum". Instructions for how to participate in this petition are at the bottom of this first post.
3. Please read and think about this first post before you do anything. I spent two days and many conversations writing it and I would appreciate if you took some time too. A thoughtless "Yes" or "No" at the end does no one any good.
I have been thinking about the dismissal of the elected Council Commissioner (CC) and Council Service Team (CST) by National in December and reading what others have to say on the matter. I have also had a short look through what seem to be the relevant sections of BP&P. Here's what I have found and what I think about it.
The two most relevant sections seem to be 4002 and 4009 and the important parts within these are the following:
4002 - A Council Commissioner, selected and appointed by the Executive Commissioner and Chief Executive Officer or his designate, will manage each Council. See end of this Section for Position Description.
4009 (Council Commissioner Term) - Appointed annually by the Executive Commissioner and Chief Executive Officer or his/her Deputy and in consultation with the council concerned.
I believe that it is one or both of these two sections that are being referred to when it is said that Janet was well within her power/right to
make the dismissal. Setting aside the question of whether or not this dismissal of both the Commissioner and the standing service team should have been made (for some of my thoughts and those of others please see the forum titled "Nova Scotia") it seems as though there are grounds in these two quotes to question whether or not the dismissal was within the right/power of National.
The grounds for this questioning may be found in the latter part of the previously quoted piece from 4009:
Appointed annually by the Executive Commissioner and Chief Executive Officer or his/her Deputy and in consultation with the council concerned.
Noting the requirement that consultation with the council concerned take place raises two questions:
1. What consultation with the "council concerned" was made when the new commissioner was appointed? It appears that the answer is "None".
2. What counts as a consultation and can National disregard the outcomes of the consultation process? The dismissed CC and CST were elected by popular majority in their council, and common custom and convention strongly suggests that this is just about the highest form of consultation possible. This makes their dismissal seem to count as a full and complete disregard of the consultation process, raising the question of just what does "in consultation with" mean. Is it that National simply has to make a gesture towards a facade of consultation and do what it wants OR that the consultation is somehow binding, perhaps in the sense that the decrees of the Canadian Parliament are in practice rubber stamped by the Governor General. A related and no less important question is what is the council? An area of geography? All the members within the area? Some of the members within the area? If only some then why them and only them?
These are important questions, not because of their immediate answers, but because of what those answers will say about the nature of Scouts Canada. Nova Scotia is not the only "event" in the history of Scouts Canada that raises these (and similar) questions. In each case where these questions are raised, one set of answers will say "Scouts Canada is an unaccountable corporation that decides how Scouting is run in a vacuum" and the other says something more like "Scouts Canada is a corporation in the service of its members that recognizes that it is only in meaningful consultation with those members that the vision and mission of Scouting can be realized". I hope you will agree with me that the latter option is not only the better one, but the right one (Is Scouts Canada not, after all, the corporation hired by its volunteers to aid them in their delivery of the Scouting program? Is Scouting not a movement and are movements not inherently democratic).
I will close by suggesting two things:
First, that how we, as a membership, address the situation will say a lot as well. Let us speak out and ask questions (at the very least), so that it is clear that we are not apathetic and irrelevant. And let us stand firm in our assertions that a meaningful consultation with those affected needs to take place, and quickly. Let us neither rattle our swords to no avail nor draw them too quickly and cut too deeply for these are not the Scouting way.
Second, that this discussion thread become a petition where everyone gets a say on whether or not it should be the case that these and similar questions should be addressed in an open forum, a meaningful consultation if you will. To help remove ambiguity, let the question be "Do you agree that Scouts Canada should commit to holding a series of accessible, fair, and open discussions about its fundamental nature and purpose within the next calendar year and be morally obligated to adhere to the outcomes of these forums?" and let a "Yes" be a reply in this thread that says "Yes" and only "Yes" and a "No" a reply to this thread that says "No" and only "No".
If you would like to discuss this proposition then please do so in the thread created for that purpose.
Lastly, please remember that real, meaningful democracy is hard work; you must not only listen to the ideas of those you do not agree with, but you must respond to them thoughtfully, for they too have as much at stake as you. If you're not prepared to put out this effort both now and in the future then just stay silent or, better yet, vote "No" so it is clear where you stand. And don't any one of you who have read this choose not to throw your hat into the ring one way or the other because "It won't make a difference"---all walking away means is that you won't be making a difference.
Now, let your voice be heard and then go and extend the invitation to others to do the same. You have until midnight March 1st Pacifc Time to be heard, after which we'll tally up the numbers and see where we stand.
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit." ~Aristotle
