Thank you for your interest in the Alberta Party – an interest that brought you to the first portion of the Annual General Meeting of the party last October in Red Deer. Unfortunately, your recent blog entries are factually incorrect and it is important that I set the record straight:
First, Mr. Erickson ran on a platform that clearly stated that he wanted to bring the Renew Alberta team into the Alberta Party.
Second, the portion of the Annual General Meeting that you walked away from saw the presentation of my Omnibus Motion #10-24-09-20, overwhelmingly passed by the party membership who were in attendance at that meeting, and who represented more than 40% of the total membership of the party. This motion completely negates the points you have made in your blog postings. For your reassurance, and for the information of your readers, I quote two pertinent portions of this motion:
Whereas the Constitution can only really be applicable to our Party after we sustain some growth, to work in practice, (and the Party, since 2005 is trying to follow it in principle), we have to admit to ourselves that we have to concentrate on growth with our secondary objective [that] of making the Constitution workable…"
“… That the Provincial Board may make any operational policy, between General Assemblies, to regulate the provincial affairs of the Party, including, but not limited to the bylaws and sections of the Party Constitution…"
The party constitution and the omnibus resolution give the board clear authority to suspend the party policies.
Third, and most significant, the board of the Alberta Party proceeded with this course of action because traditional policy development simply doesn't work. Clearly, we intend to be a new type of party. We are inviting the involvement of all Albertans.
I suspect that your vehement opposition to the Big Listen is based entirely on the fact that you have no interest in seeing the Alberta Party broaden its base of support and actually listen to people who may disagree with your own point of view. Fortunately for you, there is a party (in which you apparently hold an official position) which will accommodate your narrow minded, old-school political perspective.
Thank you for taking the time to clarify some of these important discrepancies. Glad to see you are still the President.
Other than a blog entry by Robert Leddy, nothing can be found on any platform that Edwin may or may not have run on.
I have five pages of resolutions in your name and I am not sure I can match any of them up with what you have described. Would you be good enough to state specifically the motion number? And even the page number, as there motions 1 thru 9 on one page and then 1 thru 6 on another page. That is to say there are 2 motions that are each number 1 thru 6.
Better yet, why don’t you post the reworded constitution so everyone can see what rules you are now operating under. If you can’t post it, just email it to me; I will gladly post for you.
Charles, I thought you knew me well enough to know that I am not opposed to listening whatsoever. And I am very much in favor of more players in the political arena; especially from the left.
My narrow minded, old-school political perspective…. Now that truly is funny; when I have been criticized for being too “progressive” for the WAP.
And no, I don’t hold an official position with the WAP (apparently or in fact). You really must get up to speed or find better sources for your information.
When you read the resolution, you will see that all policy changes, including additional board seats, will need to be ratified at the next AGM