Alberta Party - the plot thickens

First I would like to make it clear that I truly do wish the Alberta Party every success. Many are saying this will be another party on the right of the spectrum; I would disagree with that.

The two groups that now appear to have control are definitely to the left of the spectrum. One of their biggest supporters made it quite clear on Twitter yesterday; they will not even entertain views from the right.

Ian Berg tweeted:

@KenChapman46: If I agree with Myron a lot, I can't join Reboot?

To which Ken Chapman replied:

@IanBerg You can join by U will not enjoy yourself- the people are vested in different values from Mr. Thompson.

So it would appear the "Big Listen" is already limiting who they will be listening to.

Fair enough, that is actually why I wish them luck. IMO it appears they will be a good home for disenchanted Liberals and maybe a couple of ND'ers.

Having said that; I think they will eventually have to face their blatant disregard for the party constitution sooner, rather than later. A constitution is the very backbone of a party and clearly outlines how a party must conduct itself. As I have outlined in my previous posts, the board appears to have strayed greatly from their constitution.

Today it appears we may have yet another violation of the constitution come to light. Chris LaBossiere and Dave King have each come out of the woodwork to claim they are on the Alberta Party board.

We know that neither of these individuals were elected to the board at the last AGM, therefore they must have been appointed. The Alberta Party constitution does allow for this, however there are several requirements that must be met.

First according to Article 5(m) there must be a "vacancy" to fill and that the person appointed will come from the same "regional zone". The board member I have contact with has confirmed no one for the board elected in October has stepped down; therefore there was no vacancy to be filled.

Second {from 5 a) (i) & (ii)} to be eligble to be a board member you must be either a member for 120 days or have been on a CA board a minimum of 90 days. Now it does go onto say the second one (90 dys on a CA) can be waived; however there in zero reference to being able to waive the 120 membership requirement.

Even if we overlook the "vacancy" issue, anyone added to the board in Feb 2010 would have had to been a member back in Sept 2009; anyone added to the board in Jan 2010 would have had to been a member in Aug 2009; and so on. I find it hard to believe that if Dave and Chris, two politically active individuals, were members back in the fall of 2009 that they wouldn't attend the AGM in October.

In Dave Kings case it is not clear when he joined the Alberta Party, he only refers to himself as

"a new member of the Board of Directors of the Alberta Party."

Chris La Bossiere however gives us a very definite time frame;

I have been a member of the Alberta Party Board of Directors now for over a month. I joined the Party and the Board, in advance of the recently announced "merger" with the Renew Alberta movement

It would appear he likely joined somewhere in the first two weeks of January; that would make him eligible to be appointed to the board at the earlist in the first part of July 2010. And even then, only if there is a vacancy and he resides in the same regional zone of that vacancy.

Let's take a tally. So far they have:

- Ignored the constitutiion by "suspending" policies without a majority vote from the members.

- Ignored the fact that they already have principles embedded in their constitution and are using the principles of the "Renew" group.

- Ignored the constitution by appointing new board members where no vacancy exists and appointed members who don't meet the requirements.

There has been a lot of internet chatter since Thursday on this, I have yet to see one explanation of the their actions. According to Daveberta we won't even know the full board until March! Why the secrecy?