Out in Left-Centre Field

Further to my previous post, yes, the forum and the blogs and the CYA site are all back up and running.

What I hadn't noticed in the chaos of my past two weeks was a sizable ruckus -- flying fur and all -- that sprang up at the same time. Just the thing I love to come back to, right?

Essentially, what has been happening is that Tyler, and the rest of the CYA administration, are proposing an update of the CYA Bylaws in conjunction with the website and forum renewal. Since the forum and blogs went down at about the same time as this proposition was about to be enacted, at least one prominent member of the Assembly took it badly.

You may wish to read both sides of the issue for yourself, before I get any further (and fall into my bias):

Max Naylor's comments on Facebook

Tyler Sommers' comments in response

In short, the announcement by Tyler and the administration regarding the proposed bylaw changes, in conjunction with the technical difficulties, led Max to conclude that the CYA had instituted a unilateral "coup" and were seeking to, allegedly, take power away from the elected Youth Representatives who form one pillar of the CYA. In response, Tyler denounced Max's comments as "a personal attack" that signified that Max cares for no one but himself. (Hilarity ensued.)

Now, no matter what I might think of these two men, no matter the specifics of the argument at hand, what I do know is that this is precisely the kind of counterproductive B.S. that the CYA doesn't need right now. There are good people trying to build a good organization -- on all sides -- and even if our visions differ, even if we all make mistakes from time to time, we have no business trying to tear it apart in the name of petty quests for dominance.

I will admit, straight up, that I'm not 100% comfortable with what is being done in a comprehensive makeover of the CYA. I don't know the specifics and my life has been highly chaotic for the past few weeks. True, Tyler has charged me with updating the Code of Conduct, and I intend to do that and I hope it will be posted for everyone to see and to offer their opinion. But if this is what I'm going to get for my troubles, is it all really worth it?

Max would have you believe that this is a "coup", that Tyler and his staff have some agenda to take power and authority away from the elected YRs. Considering that power seems to be all that matters to Max, it does not surprise me that this is where his complaints would begin. It's true, the CYA administration does not want a singular focus on the youth parliament aspect of the Assembly, probably less than we would all expect or like; that being said, having a focus on one area to the exclusion of all others is no way to grow an organization. If a federal party obsessed over their caucus meetings and neglected their riding associations, the party would die, would it not?

The real debate here is, how much power and authority should the YRs have? What sort of responsibilities should they be required to live up to? Was it settled fairly in the beginning? I wasn't around for the creation of the original bylaws -- I'd love to have a voice in them. But I didn't. Maybe they need to be updated?

Max also rages about the alleged shutting-down of the CYA forums, blogs and chat as a means of committing a "power grab" against the Youth Representatives and, by extension, all the youth of Canada. Notwithstanding the fact that all three are up and running thanks to Steven Heidel's prompt attention, this rings all kinds of hollow when you follow Max's track record and find that, time and time again, he has actively railed against the central (and neutral) media that the CYA provides, spurning the forums and chat and blogs in favour of private channels, closed-door consultation (if that is even happening), and notes posted on his Facebook page. He calls these public media; instead, they are closed to all but the LYPC faithful and/or anyone he deigns to have as a "friend" on Facebook. They are not central or neutral and he can hide or remove anything which comes across as critical of his own actions. In essence, Max wants all of the public discourse to happen where he, and he alone, calls the shots.

Is that fair? Is that open? Is that democratic? You decide.

In his note, Max also insinuates that this "power grab" is due to the actions of myself and Nathan Allen. Slander notwithstanding, this is pure invention; Max has disgusted Nathan in ways I can barely fathom, and my own actions with respect to Max as of late have been to alert the CYA administration to his abuse of the democratic process in the Assembly. I have never suggested an update of the bylaws. I never nominated myself as a candidate for YR because my studies at Waterloo demand my time and attention. Instead, I dared to defy Max, and that makes him want to hit me back. How predictable.

Indeed, Max's posturing on behalf of the democratic rights of the Youth Representatives and against the "unilateral" actions of Tyler and the CYA administration smacks of incredible hypocrisy when you examine Max's track record in the Assembly. Posted on his Facebook page are no less than four motions supposedly passed by the elected Assembly. Bear in mind that the Assembly has no standing orders, no presiding officer, no set medium or place to meet, and no record of any votes or debates whatsoever. Yet, Max claims the right to pass motions on his own as faits accomplis because his LYPC caucus comprises a majority of the sitting YRs after the March election. According to him, votes and debates (and therefore the entire parliamentary process) are pointless simply because he had a large margin of victory. That looks like unilateralism to me -- and so Max is a hypocrite, plain and simple. To him, democracy is clearly important only when it serves his own purposes.

In a similar vein, Tyler Sommers states that he attempted to put the proposed amendments up for consultation ahead of being adopted. Certainly, it could and should have been better publicized. The primary place that Tyler posted his proposal was the central CYA forums. This is not out of a desire to hide them, as Max claimed in his note; rather, this was done because the forums are the public discussion place for the CYA, and they have served many past and present members well time and again. It was where the bylaws and governing documents were originally drafted, so why not bring forth amendments there? Instead, for some unknown reason -- perhaps his desire for a more favourable playing field, I'm not really sure -- Max continually derides the forums as "dead" or "dying". This is a self-fulfilling attitude; if Max's capabilities as leader of the LYPC are as great as he claims, he could easily reinvigorate the forums by directing his colleagues and subordinates there. Instead, he focuses his energies in keeping the LYPC members away from the CYA forums, choking them in the process. Again, a prime example of hypocrisy in action.

Tyler and the CYA administration are making efforts to keep the organization democratic and all developments open for consultation. Certainly, those efforts are nowhere near perfect. However, there is not much that they can do when the membership either fails to grow the CYA (as I admittedly have, along with the YGP and the LANs) or else actively discourages their party members from participating fully (as Max and the LYPC have, along with the CYPC).

This is a situation that never should have come to pass, but for the attitudes of Max and those similar to him who persist in placing their own goals above the good of the whole community. This is not a battle for the youth of Canada, as Max insists in his rhetoric -- by and large, young Canadians most likely have no idea about the CYA at this embryonic point in its development. No, this is a battle over the perceived power of one man who doesn't care who or what he tramples to keep his throne.

No one is irredeemable, but we can only better ourselves if we choose to grow and learn. Mr. Naylor needs to learn that his own advancement, and that of his party, cannot trump the needs of the CYA community as a whole. Yes, democracy is hard, and messy, and inexpedient; it also demands that those who participate must learn to collaborate instead of fight and to build instead of destroy.

Y'know, I hate making myself a hypocrite.

Last time I wrote on here, if you, dear reader, might recall, I ragged on the CYA for falling down a slippery slope of inactivity. Long story short, I did my level best to excoriate (1) the CYA parties for not pulling together, (2) the CYA membership for fighting inactivity with more inactivity, and (3) the subordinate members of the CYA staff/volunteers for failing to take the lead in engaging the members. I called out others for, as I saw it, not pulling their weight.

So what did I promptly do, then? I went and left this blog alone for more than four freakin' months. Kinda long for anyone who might claim to have a burning desire to light a fire under this assembly's rear end, don't you think?

I left this blog alone, I left my party alone, I damn near left the CYA forums alone, and even though I could hide behind the excuse of being a third-year engineering student with a crippling amount of coursework, I won't.

Why? Because people other than myself have dedicated far more of their time and effort to the causes of their choosing. I have been, and still am, too stuck in having "time to myself" to be as dedicated as many people who I see around me. I need to get out of that comfort zone, but try as I might, my successes in doing so have only ever been temporary things.

I have no moral grounds on which to criticize others if I'm not willing to sacrifice the time myself. Sure, I've been with the CYA a long time, and sure, I've helped with some key things in the past (like the 177 ridings I should be writing about), but if I'm failing to motivate myself now, what gives me the right to rip others for doing the same?

I am weak. Is that what makes me human? Or is it what makes me a lousy one?

Call it an apology, call it a mea culpa, call it the inane ramblings of a despairing mind, call it whatever you wish. I have been a lousy asset to the CYA and to my party (or what's left of it), and I'm sorry. Sorry that I've let people down; sorry that I didn't do better when I readily could have; sorry that I never delivered on the potential of the past.

But then, what did you expect? Perfection? Because if perfection's what you're waiting for, don't hold your breath.

We're all flawed. We get angry, jealous, lazy, greedy, vain, lustful and wasteful. At the same time, we can all be great people to one another in spite of whatever may stand between us. We are capable both of great achievements and great failures. What we need to do, then, is pick ourselves up, bite the proverbial bullet and do what needs to be done to succeed and to go beyond our limits.

Let's get out there, and let's help the CYA kick some ass. Together.

- Adam S.

So I'm back at UWaterloo for another term of Engineering. There's assignments, labs, quizzes, term projects, co-op job applications and interviews, looming midterms -- and in my case, meetings with my supervisor (I'm an Undergraduate Research Assistant this term), events in residence and weekly practices for the UW A Cappella Ensemble.

Oh, yeah, and sleep, meals and basic hygiene in there ... somewhere. Anywhere.

So it got me thinking about demands on my life -- and by no means am I anywhere close to the busiest person I know. Take Tyler Sommers, for instance. That man is insane. (And not in the mental sense; my apologies to those who are actually insane. Moving on.)

This, in turn, had me contemplating inactivity within the CYA, usually due to people either losing interest or moving on to other commitments. You can clearly see the growing problem in the sad state of the CYA's forums. What forums, you ask? Yeah, that's the problem. Not much is going on in them because, for one "reason" or another, either existing people just aren't going there, or new people (if there are any) aren't getting pushed in the right direction.

Inactivity. Silence. Boredom. It's a vicious circle; people see that "nothing's happening", so they lose interest and wander away. At the same time, the act of wandering off in sheer ennui feeds the perception -- whether real or imagined -- that nothing's going on. That perception of stagnation is being allowed to persist, both in the refusal of members to hang on "through thick or thin" and the failure of staff to take a leadership role in stimulating activity.

First, my fellow CYA members: dealing with inactivity by adding more inactivity is about the worst way possible to deal with the actual issue. It's like trying to cure a nicotine addiction by providing more nicotine ... it just doesn't work. Anyone who walks away because "nothing's happening" is actually deepening the problems that they see by detracting from the community. It's not that people don't see the problems, they do; they just aren't trying to do anything about it.

Face it: none of our parties, candidates, and members would be here were it not for the community of the CYA bringing us together. I wish more of my colleagues among the CYA membership would have the common sense to realize that. If you're recruiting new members, all the best to you; but one of the very first things you should do is point people at both your party forums and the CYA forums.

Unfortunately, much of the current inactivity is based on something even harder to fight. Our society is fixated on the idea of instant gratification. Everything around us tells us that "If it doesn't pay off right now, move on to something else." We have come to devalue dedication and time and effort, and we think that "the best things in life are free". That's utterly false -- if you want something good like the CYA can be (and will be), you have to be prepared to work for it. Hanging around and doing nothing isn't going to bring a goal to reality. Yes, there are many who have good reasons for absence -- studies, jobs, etc. come first -- but really, there's got to be something you can do, instead of just nothing at all.

Which brings me to the CYA staff. Many of them are truly busy people and have plenty of things going on in their academic, social, and business lives. Take Tyler S., for instance: he does more than anyone else to help the CYA, both internally and externally, even amidst the multitude of other commitments on his plate. I don't fault him. I don't really fault K-Rae, either; she has legal conflicts of interest with her current employment actually preventing her from publicly helping out the CYA (which is as far as I'm going to go with that).

But where are the rest of the staff? There are so many that us, the general membership, never see, hidden away amidst the administrative "head" of the CYA. There are some that we used to see but, for some odd reason, they've faded into the proverbial woodwork.

Being a leader isn't just about doing the work behind closed doors. It's about keeping the greater whole of your organization going, it's about facilitating community and the exchange of ideas and effort for the common good. Tyler and K-Rae do that, most of the time. Unfortunately, I don't see a single one of their colleagues doing much of that, if at all. If the leaders of the CYA can't be bothered to engage and involve and interest the membership -- especially in the CYA's public forum -- then the sad day may come (and soon) when they will look behind themselves and see no one following.

"Yeah, you and what army?" "Well, they were here a moment ago ... wait a sec ..."

Don't get me wrong: I know and I acknowledge that there is work being done in the CYA to help it build up and prosper. I just can't see what it is, and I (and others) shouldn't have to chase people down and pester them to find out. And if I can't figure out what's going on, how will I feel engaged and valued and motivated to help out?

Here is my challenge to the invisible members of the CYA staff: come out of the woodwork and show the members -- that's us! -- that you care about building this community. Show us there is still something to believe in. If you're not busy doing the heavy lifting of the CYA's current initiatives (conferences, volunteers, donations, etc.), then get on the CYA forums and apply your presumably considerable talents to promote activity, debate, discussion and collaboration.

The CYA's leadership does not and can not exist in a vacuum. We're out here, and while I have no intention of leaving, many of my friends and colleagues have done just that for lack of anything to keep them going. Yes, as I put forth above, the messages of today's society have a lot to do with it; but we're willing to participate if you are. Morale goes a long way.

You want a downpour? Throw up a little dust and seed the clouds!

- Adam S.

Hey, everyone.

I'm sorry I haven't been so diligent in keeping things coming regularly. I'm back at the University of Waterloo for a summer term, thanks to co-op in the winter; and with that has come lectures, labs, tutorials, homework, assignments, quizzes, tests, impending midterms, interviews for the next co-op term, residence events, class events ... oh, and living, breathing and maybe sleeping in and around it all. I have yet to find a satisfactory balance.

And then there's the CYA. I'd love to do more if I could, but Engineering schoolwork being what it is, I'd be reckless to do so. I'm not even a CYA candidate, if you can believe it. I may yet take the plunge, but not knowing the date of the upcoming election makes a big difference when one follows a four-months-school, four-months-co-op system. It's chaotic, and even when the CYA does hold its first election in 2010, I'll already be 21 (and thus I won't be in the candidate age range for too long).

(Don't worry, the regional explorations of the 177 riding system will continue soon. Just not today.)

* * * * *

And then there's the drama among the CYA members themselves. There was a bit of a furor sparked recently over a longtime conservative who wanted to run for the ANDY (a social democratic/progressive party) in the CYA's Model Parliament, as a bit of an "experience" (his words). This did not go over well -- quelle surprise. We decided to at least consider his offer, which unfortunately rankled multiple long-standing members of the ANDY whom this conservative had feuded with over his long time with the CYA and the old YPC. He got hammered on by other conservatives for being too left-wing. We got hammered on by other parties for being too tolerant. In the end, this ex-CYPCer proved he couldn't show humility and put those old feuds six feet under, and we rejected his offer. He subsequently left the CYA, period.

The end result? The damage was done. The CYPC has plunged into yet another contentious leadership race. We (the ANDY) lost at least three long-standing members -- two over considering his offer, and another who was put off by the drama and posturing. Make no mistake: as the leading voice in wanting to give a man a chance, I'm still kicking myself over even letting it get so out of hand. Does tolerance really have to cost this much? Or are we just too prone to kicking others when they're vulnerable?

I'm not going to lie -- the whole issue has made me long for the day when the CYA can recapture the momentum the old YPC once had and when these posturing, melodramatic few can be kept in check by the tolerant majority whom I know are out there somewhere. We need to take the "crisis du jour" mentality and stick it where we will never dig it up again. At the risk of sounding cliche, can't we all just get along? Does it have to be about the egos and the rivalries and the feuds of the past? Are we here to backslide into the flawed, overly partisan mentalities today's political leaders espouse, or are we here to bring a new and more inclusive attitude to the high honour of public office?

It's up to us to decide -- and we don't decide with words, but with actions.

* * * * *

On a totally separate note, I bet you all heard about the election out in B.C. -- the one where nothing changed (hmm ... 2008 anyone? sound familiar?) and the MSM are singing the praises of the voters for rejecting electoral reform. Never mind that the media claim 39% for STV as a "crushing defeat", while 37% under FPTP nearly gets you a majority government. Never mind that almost half of the B.C. electorate couldn't be bothered to cast a ballot. The good ol' MSM could at least try addressing the holes in their scare tactics -- but that would require innovation and coherent thought. But that, really, isn't my point.

Lost amid the furor over that vote is the fact that Nova Scotia is having an election too. And the most recent polls may surprise you: it's a three-way race. Yes, likely a minority government -- but one more likely to prove such things can work in the interests of all. Believe me, I'll be up late on the 9th, watching the results crawl in. The national media seem to have no interest in covering it, but I should think it will be far more interesting and instructive than B.C.'s election could ever claim.

I stumbled across this insightful and long-overdue article today while reading the Toronto Star over my admittedly-late brunch.

Basically, it speaks directly to the CYA's raison d'etre. As the generation who will, one day, be up there in that position, it's going to fall to today's youth (hi!) to clean up the democratic mess. The sort of ridiculous contempt for the public that is detailed in the above article is one of the big reasons that youth (and, really, people of all ages) are so stubbornly apathetic about politics these days. The powerful few have made a habit out of never caring about the people; now the people are returning the favour, in spades. Did those in power honestly think this wasn't going to happen?

Too many unaccountable and dictatorial leaders, too many bootlicking yes-men, too many flagrant abuses of power and of the rule of law -- can this strike anyone as a good thing? Sure, centralization probably helps things move faster, but at what cost? How does political expediency justify silencing the will of the people? How do we benefit if we gain everything but lose our souls in the process?

Take whipped votes, for example. The goal of full participation is admirable. But no elected representative should ever have to choose between keeping their job and honestly representing their constituents. Some day, after I've survived my Engineering program at Waterloo, I hope to be a licensed P.Eng. Professional Engineers are bound by obligation to always put the public interest first. If a P.Eng. ever forces someone to choose between their job and their ethics -- it's just one type of professional misconduct -- and gets caught, they not only lose their job but have their reputation and career ruined in public. How in God's name did we ever get to the point where politicians (who, I should think, can screw things up on a far grander scale) not only can do these sorts of things with impunity but never have to face the consequences?

What we need to do, as the leaders of tomorrow, is kick these disgusting political habits back onto the trash heap, where they belong, for all time. We have no choice -- if we fail, the cost is democracy itself, no more and no less. How legitimate would our elections be if a majority of Canadians didn't vote? That's where we're headed if we can't pull it together and act -- fast. It's going to take a leap of faith to abandon the familiar but utterly flawed practices we're used to. What the CYA is meant to do is show today's leaders what we can do, and to make that impending leap of faith that much easier for everyone. Our inexperience is our strength; we don't have to hold to tired, old, divisive practices and attitudes. We can remake politics in our own image: tolerant, collaborative, and inclusive.

Together, we can do it right from day one -- not because we can, but because we must. We owe society nothing less.

----------

On a separate note:

As much as this kind of article is sorely needed in the effort to kick Canadians awake when it comes to politics, it's unfortunate that the Star still lets its bias get in the way. Note how David Emerson's post-election floor-crossing flouts the will of the people while, apparently, Belinda Stronach did nothing of the sort (riiiiiight). Or how the RCMP's public leak of their investigation into the Liberal income trust fiasco is TEH BAD while the very public raid on Conservative HQ by that same RCMP doesn't even merit a mention. Or how the Conservatives' exponential centralization of power in the PMO is a slap in the face to Parliament (which it is), whereas Dalton McGuinty is doing the exact same thing on the provincial scale in Ontario and that's apparently okay (which it's not). Never mind that the Star hasn't endorsed any party but the Liberals in any election, federal or provincial, which I've been old enough to follow in my lifetime; it's their loss.