% The Flaming Right by Rudy de Haas

Drafts (Feb 14, 2015)

Unsolicited Advice for Danielle Smith (Feb 14/2015)

The Budget Blues (how to fix the oil export discount)

There is only one Taxpayer

Outsource, and re-direct, government audit

Government lay-offs: Who goes? Who stays?

2010 Protests: or, why I quit the wildrose party

Fri Jun 11 15:52:18 MST 2010

Note: all links to limesurvey have been disabled - if you have a real need or interest in them, please contact me.

• For a "short" summary of each major issue and the actions recommended: - please click here.

• For a discussion of some issues with respect to the nomination and policy processes for the 2010 AGM, please click here.

• For a discussion of some issues with respect to the motion replacing the current party constitution - please click here.

• for a summary of, and commentary on, the key points raised by people discussing the constitutional change by email on June 10th - - please click here.

• Voting methods doc from May 5th (For Vitor)

• Nominations protest doc for Danielle (May 2nd)

Note: all issues discussed here have been raised with, and left unresolved by, Jeff Callaway, Danielle Smith, and Hal Walker.

Scope for action

Added: Sun Nov 28 08:37:25 MST 2010

As far as I know the reversal of power in the party, from bottom up to top down, is irreversible except through court action - or, of course, through the gradual decay and dissolution of the party over time.

The legal action required would be a petition to the court to have the decisions arrived at during the 2010 annual meeting set aside on the grounds that:

• constitutional requirements for constitutional change were not met;

• constitutional requirements for the election of the executive were not met; and,

• constitutional requirements for the development and endorsement of policy were not met.

Proving these assertions is trivial.

Proving harm is harder, but the first grass roots candidate losing a nomination to a party endorsed candidate will reasonably be able to assert personal loss - and reasonably claim to be acting on behalf of the vast majority of party members because they were not consulted as their constitutional rights to direct policy, elect an executive, and select nominees were taken away.