124 replies to this topic

[eseedhouse]

Might be a useful BIT of information? The names and positions of official candidates in a democratic election process?

And your reason for seemingly believing that anyone who runs a web site is obligated to publish this information, already available is? I think it would be a great idea for GVPL to have included that information on their site. If someone had suggested it I would have passed the suggestion on. But the decision of what goes on the GVPL website is not within my mandate as an employee.

I certainly see no obligation for any organization, GVPL or otherwise, to do it unless it is clearly in their corporate mandate.

[Rob Randall]

Normally I don't care who does or doesn't endorse me. But in this case, CUPE 410 presented the endorsements as a list of candidates who: "understand the value and importance of good Library service". That's it--that's the sole criteria that the public sees. Directly underneath, the public is told about the tactic of "vote plumping" so as not to dilute their choices. The public does not know about the criteria by which the candidates were chosen or what kind of questions, if any, they were asked. The person visiting this webpage could only conclude that the candidates not listed were in one way or another against or indifferent to the subject of good library service.

Ed, please define what you mean by "good library service". That's all I ask and that's what everyone here needs to know, in the interest of fairness.

In the future, CUPE 410 would be doing their members and the general public a service by introducing more transparency to the endorsement process by avoiding vague and leading words. As a GVPL user since the 1970s I know and appreciate the work of library employees. They are my friends and neighbours and I've always thought they deserve a fair wage.

Mr. Seedhouse, I am quoting my own post in case you missed it. This is not meant to be an attack. You needn't be defensive. I merely reiterate my wish to know more about the definition of "good library service".

I'd also be curious to know what questions were asked of the applicants but I don't mean to be pushy so if answering it makes you uncomfortable please accept my apologies.

[eseedhouse]

Mr. Seedhouse, I am quoting my own post in case you missed it. This is not meant to be an attack. You needn't be defensive. I merely reiterate my wish to know more about the definition of "good library service".

Well to start with we knew many of these people by their actions or inactions during the recent Library lockout. So naturally we were well disposed to those who spoke up on our behalf. Some of them were pretty clear about their support of good library services at that time.

I'd also be curious to know what questions were asked of the applicants but I don't mean to be pushy so if answering it makes you uncomfortable please accept my apologies.

The Victoria Labour Council had a quesion about Library service on their questionnaire. I was part of developing it, so that's no surprise. We felt comfortable about their choices and we decided to go with these people and any others who made themselves known to us and who we had reason to believe supported good library service.

As it happend only one such person was added. We had some names in Colwood provided by one of our members but not until after our main decisions had been made. I asked via email to our executive if I could add them but didn't get enough replies to proceed.

We are not the VLC. Local 410 are members of the VLC, pay dues to it, and send delegates to it's meetings, which are public. Since my holidays happened during part of the time they were developing their process I spend a little of that assisting their committee, but by the time they did their interviews I was back to full time work and coudln't take part.

I attended the VLC meeting where the decisions were made about whom to endorse. I am comfortable with that process and so were the delegates present who approved the choices of the Executive committee. This part of the meeting was held in camera so I am not able to discuss it specifically.

Our own process followed after the VLC endorsements. I explained the process to the Executive and they felt comfortable with, in effect, seconding their endorsements. Then they decided to add one name after discussion. Our internal discussions as an executive I am not going to make public here.

After we made our decision about who to endorse, we then decided how much to contribute to various candidates. Not everyone recieved money from us and it would be fair to say that the main amounts went to those who were willing to speak up publically during our time of trouble, though not all of it.

[Sue Woods]

I certainly see no obligation for any organization, GVPL or otherwise, to do it unless it is clearly in their corporate mandate.

One would expect, I believe, that any organization wishing to participate in an election process to the point of suggesting to those under their employ which candidates should be elected - would feel a responsibility to get to know a little about every candidate. And if the number of candidates running is too high to handle then one would expect that an organziation would withold its judgements. Or provide endorsements with a disclaimer that they are arbitrary, non inclusive, and reflect partisianship pure and simple.

Certainly not convey that all candidates were interviewed/vetted and those exlcuded from the endorsed list found lacking on issues of importance - which is exactly what was stated in Monday Mag, Nov 6th.

The half measures by you and the VLC towards the democratic process, which you wax so eloquently about, seems a disservice. You could have recitified it, shown good faith, fully participated in democracy even, by placing all candidates before your members - via your web site.

[Caramia]

eseedhouse let me be crystal clear. I support the library workers. I think we undervalue the position dramatically, and it's importance to our society. We are well into the information age, and having experts who can help access that wealth of information for us is, in my opinion, critical the evolution of our entire culture. I was supportive of your union on your strike, and I would support an expansion of the library system, including a new central library that was purpose built.

I also voted for some of your list... after comparing them with all the other candidates.

I am in solidarity with the labour movement, and with the library. But that doesn't mean that I'm not going to speak out if I see you doing something I think is morally off, otherwise how do we expect change?

Monday magazine published the statements that caused members and the public to feel mislead by the VLC. That article has already been quoted. You chose to follow the VLC process. You've been very clear on these boards that you'd do nothing different if it happens again.

By next election I hope your members, and the members of the VLC understand what process you use to make your endorsements.
People should not assume that you have interviewed all candidates or believe you made non-partisan endorsements if, in fact, you didn't.

I am hoping that the fuss now will produce change in 2011.

Perhaps next election you or the VLC (since you follow their process) will either decide to recruit a few more volunteers to check into all candidates and find who you want to interview - (not just Green Party and NDP affiliated) Trust me, it isn't hard to contact all the candidates and offer them a questionnaire. I did it. The dog-walkers did it. The homeless did it.

Or maybe next time around, remembering the way it made people feel, spokespeople will be more careful about clearly stating their methods.

Or maybe candidates with a strong labour background will be savvier about going and seeking your endorsement.

This is one of the best parts of democracy... If I see something I believe is wrong, I can speak out. Quite a few people spoke out. In three years we'll see if it made a difference.

[eseedhouse]

One would expect, I believe, that any organization wishing to participate in an election process to the point of suggesting to those under their employ which candidates should be elected - would feel a responsibility to get to know a little about every candidate.

One would? What is your authority about what "one" would expect? I see no actual reason why any "one" should, and you've given no reason except an assertion.

I'm sorry, I don't accept anyone's unsupported opinion as to what I or CUPE Local 410 "should" do. I do try to respond to reason, but I see little in your message.

I happen to prefer buttersotch ice cream over any other flavour, too, even though I haven't tasted all of them by any means and feel no obligation to do so.

I do like your CFAX show, however, and plan to listen when you return to it.

[Sue Woods]

One would? What is your authority about what "one" would expect? I see no actual reason why any "one" should, and you've given no reason except an assertion.

I'm glad you enjoy my show and thank you for mentioning.

As for what "one" would expect, there was a protocol followed by 21 other election-interested organizations - and based on that it was disappointing for us newcomers to discover that the process taken by your organizanization and the VLC differed greatly. You basically failed to acknowledge us - and failed to consider our positions on the issues upon which your members would naturally base their vote.

No shoulds. It just would have been appreciated. Especially since you are in the business of protecting rights and ensuring fairness. Solidarity is a nice word - but this reflected overt exclusion in my view.

If you can see my reasoning that's great - if not - then we'll simply have to agree to disgree.

Cheers, Sue

[Newlywednotnearlydead]

As a member of one of the unions in the VLC, I showed my level of support for the union and the VLC by voting against every candidate they endorsed. Not that it did much good...

[Sue Woods]

As a member of one of the unions in the VLC, I showed my level of support for the union and the VLC by voting against every candidate they endorsed. Not that it did much good...

That says a lot all by itself. Maybe things will improve for the next time.
Sue

[Holden West]

Hey, Ed, next election why don't you simply be honest and explain the process by which you arrived at the endorsements?

It took a lot of effort but eventually we pried it out of you. I suggest wording similar to this:

"CUPE 410 is proud to endorse the following candidates. Based on political hopefuls who asked and received endorsement from the VLC, CUPE 410's list is an officially-non-partisan list of those people we feel are sympathetic to the views expressed by our organization. In particular, we looked carefully at those who supported us during the recent lock out of the GVPL.

See, Ed? That wasn't so hard. It's all about knowledge and education, the cornerstone of what a library is all about.

[eseedhouse]

See, Ed? That wasn't so hard. It's all about knowledge and education, the cornerstone of what a library is all about.

You confuse your own spin with facts.

[eseedhouse]

As for what "one" would expect, there was a protocol followed by 21 other election-interested organizations

There was? News to me. Where is this protocol written down and what were the other 21 organizations?

[Sue Woods]

There was? News to me. Where is this protocol written down and what were the other 21 organizations?

You know what - I had much to learn as a first time candidate - and have learned my lessons well. And for the record, I was once a BCGEU shop steward - and in the late 70's single handidly organized a Kitsilano fundraiser for Mike Harcourt (raised $15,000 in one night for his prov campaign). So I am not your enemy.

But by your questions you seem more invested in trying to make me look foolish then expanding your scope of understanding. So I'll pass on further discourse on this specific issue.

[Rob Randall]

Most of the queries fell into two categories. The most common was the straight questionnaire. A list of questions or values created by a group or individual was sent to every candidate. They were given rules to follow (like deadlines and length restrictions) and were told what would happen afterward (all posted to a website or sent to members or both). Citizen Canine was one that did this. The other kind was the endorsement. The questionnaires were sent in and the individual or organization then evaluated them and released an endorsement list. Lawyer Stewart Johnson did this.

What VLC/CUPE did was different. Instead of contacting the candidates they did a "passive" endorsement process. They allowed candidates to apply for endorsements. A lot of us who were political newbies weren't aware of this endorsement process. Not that I'm complaining--it's totally within their right to offer endorsements in any way they choose, as long as people know how that endorsement came about and they don't make it appear like the endorsement/questionnaire process was similar to the two dozen others.

Again [!], my concern is not the endorsement process, it was the way it was presented to the public using the phrase "support good library service".

As for the "protocol", it was not something that was written down and there was no discussion or collaboration between the groups (which ranged from animal rights to urban development). Each group took it upon themselves to design a process that allowed for maximum clarity and transparency.

The best one I think was the UDI questionnaire. Here are the rules they used:

All declared mayoral and council candidates in Victoria were invited to respond to a set of written questions from UDI Victoria.

Candidates were given the following guidelines:

Each response should be kept to under 250 words
Duplicate responses would not be published
All responses needed to be in by October 31, 2008
Responses received after the deadline would not be posted. No exceptions
Candidates who did not respond by the deadline would be noted as "Did Not Respond"
The responses of those who chose to participate can be found by clicking on the names below. Editor's notes are occasionally included where candidates went over the word limit or terminology used by the candidate might have needed clarification.

UDI Victoria does not support or endorse any candidate in municipal elections. Individual member companies and their staff are under no such restraint and may, if they choose, support or endorse the candidate(s) of their choice.

Because it was one of the more technical questionnaires, the un-editorialized editorial clarifications were most helpful, but I digress.

[eseedhouse]

But by your questions you seem more invested in trying to make me look foolish then expanding your scope of understanding. So I'll pass on further discourse on this specific issue.

You made a claim. It might be right or it might be wrong. I don't know, so I asked for your evidence. You choose to provide none and accuse me of wanting to make you look foolish.

Even if I did, which I don't, so what? Either your claim was right or it was wrong. If it was wrong and you made it, then who is making whom look foolish?

I will not speculate as to your motives, since I can only read one mind, namely my own, and even that one not terribly reliably, based on the evidence to hand.

[Caramia]

Luckily Rob Randall helped you to understand that claim. Of course he was just repeating what others have said throughout this thread. But then, your choice is to attack instead of to listen.


Your arguments have done nothing but present a picture of someone who is unwilling to engage in any self-examination, who believes himself and his organization above reproach. What is hilarious is that the effort you've put into undermining yourself, is well beyond what it would have taken to actually do your homework and find out which candidates have a strong labour background before sending out the endorsements.

Keep arguing eseedhouse. Your posts serve very well to keep escalating this scandal. The more you fan the flames, the more likely the partisan labour endorsement fiasco will stick in the minds of the public in 3 years. The more unrepentant and unreasonable you sound, the less credibility you'll have in the future.

[eseedhouse]

Again [!], my concern is not the endorsement process, it was the way it was presented to the public using the phrase "support good library service".

Well we believed and I still believe that this was true of the candidates we endorsed. We might be wrong and if so then we'll find out, at least with those who are going to be in office.

I don't recall saying anywhere that this was true only of our endorsements. My experience over the years is that quite a few politicians who assume the mantle of "progressive" before the elections turn out to be rather library unfriendly, and some quite right-wing councellors have been great supporters.

But we felt and I still feel that the statement you apparently object to is truthful.

[eseedhouse]

Luckily Rob Randall helped you to understand that claim. Of course he was just repeating what others have said throughout this thread. But then, your choice is to attack instead of to listen.

I just read and replied to his post, and nowhere in it does he say that 21 organizations sent quetionnaires to every single candidate, though he does name one (UDI) who apparently did. I don't know who "UDI" is, myself.

I don't recall any attacks I've made, unless you think that disagreement is a form of attack.

[Caramia]

Are you seriously saying that the point that you wanted Susan to "prove" was that 21 organizations sent the candidates questionnaires? What is it that you are disbelieving exactly? The number of questionnaires? The existence of any questionnaires at all? The idea that Susan, as a candidate might have answered said questionnaires?

First: UDI - Urban Development Institute. A quick google search could have filled you in there. But then this whole thread is a result of your aversion to research.

Second: Why don't you check out the elections section. Robert Randall and Susan Woods both posted several of these questionnaires right here on this website with their answers..

Third: How illustrative of your contempt that you are demanding proof that it was 21 whole questionnaires, when it came straight from a candidate who answered them. Susan is right not to dignify with an answer what is at this point just a mindless attack on her credibility. Unless you think that accusing her of making up these questionnaires is just "disagreement."

Fourth: There were multiple news articles in the mainstream media talking about how the candidates were pushed to answer all these questionnaires during the election.

Seriously, if this is an example of your negotiating skills, no wonder the library ended up in lockout, costing taxpayers, library users, and union members dearly. I am in awe of the talent you are displaying at making enemies out of allies.

[Ms. B. Havin]

I agree with your entire riposte, Caramia, but especially this:

Seriously, if this is an example of your negotiating skills, no wonder the library ended up in lockout, costing taxpayers, library users, and union members dearly.

How true.