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.

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.

Alright.

I am officially glad that my brief absence thanks to the demands of an online course known only as PDEng (just search Google and behold the ranting carnage) hasn't coincided with any chaos back in the Model Parliament. To anyone inconvenienced by my temporary unavailability, I apologize -- but, as Ah-nold once said, "I'm back."

So, yeah. The Model Parliament. I'm kinda relieved that the constituency registration has gotten a little calmer lately -- it was getting pretty irritating to update three different files for new registrants, update everything in the thread, and post it only to find that one or two new people had signed up in the short time it had taken me to do the above, necessitating doing it all over again. However, I'm kinda proud of a map I found/made that helps people see the 177 ridings instead of just reading their names or an abstract list of their components.

That being said, I'm pretty disappointed that most of the people who signed up can't even drag their behinds in there to remind everyone else that they're alive at least once a week. That goes for all parties, including (in particular) my own colleagues. Yes, there are a few key people who are regularly active -- Jeremy, Coady, Arya, J.D., Karine, Max, Eoin, Nate, Sheldon, Peter, Giancarlo, Nathan, Matt, Andrew and Jack come to mind -- but that's not even a quarter of the 65-or-so CYA MPs we supposedly have.

People, signing up for the Model Parliament in the first place is an agreement that you have committed to participate on a regular basis. I don't care if you write bills, or participate in committees, or whatnot; even just being there to vote is at least a marginal return on that commitment. But don't simply sign up and then walk away; how is that any better than an empty seat? I'm pleased as punch that (for example) the ANDY was able to sign up enough people to form the first government, but I'd much rather swap that for 100% participation, like the LAN or Greens have. Even if the LANs have only two people period, I have to tip my cap to them for being exemplary in their commitment to getting things done.

Anyways.

I'll be reintroducing Bill C-3 (the proposed Elections Act; kinda key, no?) as soon as I can. First I'd like to close a pretty gaping loophole I seem to have left regarding in-session byelections. Really, we shouldn't have this festival of empty riding picking-and-choosing for months on end. What I'm contemplating is making byelections in a given riding be the only way to fill a vacancy, and making it mandatory that at least two candidates (from separate parties, or one party and an independent) must declare themselves for a given riding for it to be called. Yes, people just can't walk in and claim ridings, there would have to be a contest; at the same time, this prevents the sort of wild large-scale fluctuations we've seen so far. And yes, there could be complaints that parties could stonewall one another by keeping candidates out of potentially active ridings -- but on the other hand, those sandbagging parties would be keeping their people out as well.

As for C-4, the Reservists Act, I really have no problem with it. I just think, somehow, an Explosives Act would have been so much more appropriate, don't you agree?

Also, stay tuned for an in-depth series on the 177 riding system I'll be posting right here in the near future. Whenever the conference finally goes down, I intend to run a session or booth or something to educate people on it, since a lot of people are still declaring for ridings that aren't separate under the CYA. Should be fun!