Minutes/Strategy Meeting/2016-01-13

From Pirate Party Australia Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Questionable.png
Meeting Minutes
This document is a record of a meeting. Do not edit this document without contacting the relevant group first.


Agenda

Start: 20:36 AEDT
End: 22:18 AEDT

Minutes

Relations with smaller Parties

Summary

  • This is all hypothetical, no plans exist
  • Absorption of smaller parties would be easiest option
  • Equal parties would need to be done case by case and only likely if there are major electoral reforms that necessitate it
  • If larger parties absorb us, all is lost
  • Absorption of smaller parties:
    • There would likely need to be two congresses.
    • An extraordinary congress to accept the absorption/merger and likely adopt joining parties key platform/policy points
    • The, after joining, a general congress to allow the new members to participate in the party decisons and elections and allow for people to run for positions
    • consensus that any executive positions need to be put to a member vote and not assigned as part of merger deals.
    • merging party would need to accept our constitution and democratic principles and platform

Discussion

  • Frew stresses that we haven't done anything yet and are in no rush to start
    • There are some broader questions that we need to think about, like where will we be in 5 years organisationally? Where will Australia be politically? These are worth thinking about ** Thoughts outlined in the Discuss topic (above link)


  • We have a good niche in the political spectrum which might be lost if we merged with a vaguely similar party
    • however, absorption of smaller one could be good as it would get is hundreds of members nearer to state registration and with a new influx of volunteers
    • the price would probably be a member vote on adopting whatever the core policies are to add to our platform
    • even merged, we'd still be niche, as long as the similarities were there and sufficient.


  • If there are some nasty electoral reforms that come about that make minor parties less viable, then this becomes an issue it would be good to have a 'take' on as a party. If no such reforms eventuate, or we thnk we can weather them ok, then it's less of an issue. But regardless of reforms forcing a party's hand, there is always the possibility that wwe could be approached by other parties on the matter, and as an open, democractic and transparent party it is important and useful to have this discusison now, partially so that people on the executive etc who are approached with ideas have a wider basis upon which to respond
    • any actual decisions (ie mergers etc) would need to go to a party wide vote anyway.


  • Is there a way to keep ones identity if being aborbed, or if absorbing another smaller party. A bit like a acquisition and merger of well known brandnames, where you consolidate back-office processes but keep the external identity as is.. Is there something like a sub-branch that allows them to keep their core values but be part of a larger whole?
  • That sort of thing is difficult in the Australian context, I think, because the whole state-federal thing.
  • Sub-branches are impossible, sadly.


  • Personally, I thought Frew's Discourse summary on the topic fit my own thoughts very well. It's conditional. Core principles may not be overriden.


  • Certain smaller 'single issue' parties would be very easy to accomodate because their policies are so modest
    • but certain others such as with with a pro-copyright stance would be a whole other thing


  • in a hypothetical: a small unregistered "cat lovers" party, may approach us for a merger, in which case we remain the pirate party, but vote to adopt their single issue policy and absorb thier members into our own infrastructure... but this would be a sliding scale, a larger party that may be on a par with us would be a tougher issue from an "identity" perspective


  • the best outcome is likely to be absorption of a smaller party with a policy set that doesn't contradict ours
    • then we get new members and volunteers
    • I do wonder how the finances and so on would work
  • Transfer of all financial members from their party to ours, then deregistering the other party?


  • Easy to adopt certain parties those from our side. Maybe harder for them. Certain single issue parties for example, may have a wide spread of beliefs across areas that would conflict with the rest of what we do.
  • Might be able to accommodate single issue parties by letting them form working groups on their issues of importance to run campaigns they care about
  • A single issue party policies may be innocuous and acceptable to us, but i would wager that in such a situation a party like that would probably lose a lot to resignations if they merged with us due to a range of polices we have that some of their current members would not agree to
  • If the members vote to merge, that's a good sign.


  • There are parties in the alliance for progress that i think will never reach registration, so merger might be their best chance to ever have their policies put before an electorate
    • I suspect we may see a few drop off the map after this next election


  • They would need to already have an internal democratic tradition
  • I think merging would be conditional upon them accepting our constitution.
  • In terms of identifying potential parties though, they would probably probably need to also have a generally socially liberty stance


  • Some transitional arrangements could be made.
  • As an alternative to aquiring or merging could we target recruitment of members from defunct progressive minor parties.
  • I could forsee situations where it a negotiation may be however that "cat lovers party" merge with us, but president of Cat lovers party gets to become a member of our National Council... we'd likely need a process to either decide to accept or refuse such conditions
  • this would be problematic to me. NC members should be elected as per our current constitution.
  • I would be against anybody becomeing an NC member as a part of some deal, without a vote of the membership to put them there.
  • the only way it could be done as with some sort of temporary appointment pending a proper election, the same as we do when spots become vacant
  • The other thing about a vote of the membership to put someone on NC is that we'd already be voting on whether the merger goes ahead, yeah? So that will be included.
  • Just arrange for any such merge deal to happen at congress time, then they make their case for NC position to the membership
    • or have a special congress
  • "NC members should be elected as per our current constitution." Exactly. im not advocating such deals with other party executives... but i raise the issue becasue i may come up in any dialogue and it will be good to be able to say "oh no, our members are adamant that you have to run for election to the NC" raher than say "hmmm, we havent discussed thatr at all, i'll have to get back to you"
    • any merger or absorption deal would ipso facto have to go to a party wide vote anyway
  • any merger would have to go through a congress
    • absorbing etc too
  • Just an extraordinary congress a month or two before the annual congress.
  • just like we did for policy selection and candidates
  • if it goes to a party vote then the NC candidacy can be wrapped up in that
  • I don't think both could be done in the same Congress.
  • they'd need to be a member already to run
  • easy enough. Online Congress :-)
  • It takes two congresses. 1 congress to introduce constitution changes dealing with the process for mergers. another to enact one.


  • on targeting members of exsiting, near defunct parties, for recruitment: it depends on definition of defunct and also how such actions on our behalf would affect our relations with other parties, especially of those parties dont see themselves as defunct...
    • ie other parties would be "fuck those pirates, they just want to pilfer all our members"


  • In a post-merger party we'll have some very hard factions. Opinions on formalising 'factions' formed as the result of an in-merger?
  • I say nay to formalised factions
  • I'd never agree to be in one
  • they are the death of internal party democracy
  • not a fan of formalised factions, but social dynamics could result in informal factions naturally arising with party growth anyway
  • I wonder what factions would look like in the pirate party - would we get a social justice faction? libertarian faction?


  • reading through the existing constitution, I don't think it has it covered.
  • If we are just absorbing other Parties we wouldnt require a constitutional change, they'd just join us
  • and being absorbed would be a fairly extraordinary situation
  • If we're going to get absorbed, then it's over for micros anyway
  • We are one of the largest minor parties
  • unlikley our members would ever accept to be absorbed by any existing party


  • The interesting question for me is can we pull off a confederation of roughly-equals
  • I think we'd have to try some preactical cooperation with a party of roughly equivalent size
  • Absorbing a smaller party can be a pretty readily dealt with issue, it's mergers with stronger, well identified, more equal footing parties that would be the curly ones...
  • they have core constituencies that ensure their votes



  • I think it would be wise to hold an extraordinary congress if we were going to absorb anyone, vote that our members accept and their policies are acceptable
  • I think we'd hold a congress after they voted to join, adopt their policies if we agree and approve their absorbtion... We should hold a second soon after so they can run and participate in the organisation
  • Obviously we'd have to en-masse waive the 'cant have been a member of another party within 12 months' clause, but we already have scope to do that anyway if need be
  • Congress can stay at the same time, it's just a matter of formalising the delay before the new NC comes in. Much like the US presidency.


  • Others joining us = good
  • Reverse = we're screwed regardless


  • regarding mergers with more 'equal footing' parties:
    • I guess to an extent it's likely a moot point for the most part unless there are major electral reforms
  • Equals working together: let's see how far we can take AfP [???]
  • I think we would take it slower with equals, try working together on stuff before merging
  • an equal footing merger would be hard to plan in advance
    • so much depends on which party it is
  • could we not defer the merge with equal/larger to working group to ensure we know what we are getting into...
  • i guess within the AfP there is possible a small undercurrent of a vibe that perhaps if they smash us with really draconian electoral reforms, then we may all need to merge into a sort of mega party... but even so, im not convinced mergers of parties are necessary, but rather we can possibly work together to run group tickets and so on
  • I didnt think there was a blanket dismissal, but a 'we'd have to think and talk long and hard about it'
  • It's very likelyt somethintg that would need to really be handled case by case if the issue actually does arise...
  • And the group tickets provide a platform of understanding and trust


State Branches

Summary

  • We need state branches
  • We need people who will do the work for them
  • Need recruitment campaigns at state level
  • Our finances are not yet ready for a good federal campaign
  • Debate over State vs Federal policy platforms, generally agreed that Federal platform applies, and then could be later tweaked to customise for state specific conditions
  • Brandon will take the electoral committee ToR and use as basis to write state committee ToRs
    • NC will ideally vote to accept this ToR on Wednesday (next NC meeting) and present to members after
  • Such state committees may be formed with a focus on the next federal election, and then be rolled over into state branches, possibly

Discussion

  • We have varying amounts of activity at a State level, but generally not much
    • The problem as I see it is the lack of resources for state organisation. We need people to want to run the bureaucracy of each branch. We currently struggle to run the National Party at full steam due to a lack of time resources
    • We need some juicy campaigns or some other hook to get them kick started


  • We need to get this happening somehow... we are a bit different to a lot of traditional parties that very much start at a local and/or state level and exist and then federate into a federal party of sorts... whereas we are the other way around, created as a federally oriented party and then trying to foster local development. Probably party a symptom of 21st century telecommunictaions differences... ie, hey, we are having this disucssion on irc, federally, and not in some pub or beer hall


  • recruitment and organised regular gatherings are the priority i think (not state policy sets or constitutions)
  • Doesn't that get a bit chicken-and-egg? (since we've got a food theme going on here)
  • recruitment and organised meetings are the priority
  • What purpose would they be forming around?
    • It's hard to get people to rally around a non-purpose.
  • Campaigning in State elections, on state issues
    • Law and Order, drug reform, that sort of thing
    • Civil liberties for us
  • Which makes it policy led, not form now, and develop policy later
  • they would be forming in order to run in state elections
    • there's no need for state specific policy platforms
    • they can create a short manifesto to use at elections if they want
  • There are on some issues (in response to "there's no need for state specific policy platforms")
    • VLAD in Qld for example
  • but the current federal platform runs right through state stuff
  • Yeah, it would be easy to adopt it as a starting point
    • would be some divergence after that I suspect, just to deal with local issues
  • if writing state policies is what makes people interested then that's cool
    • but we don't want to say: so you want to form a state branch? first you _have_ to write policies and adopt a constitution
    • don't put down barriers
  • No, first comes the getting shit together to form a Party, we have a process


  • Federal policies could be adopted at the state level until the state branch is stable.
  • Federal Policies were to be adopted then to be adapted at a later date for local requirements


  • A starting point for a state-platform, could be to do a run-through of federal policies and extract a compatible state-oriented position. Write it like a briefing, to serve as a running platform.
    • Kind of a leaping off point for each state
  • there's actually a lot of overlap on the civil liberties front
  • the only things we should require of state branches are 1. recruitment and 2. things which the state EC's impose as formal requirements for registration
  • The NC drew up guidelines, looking for them, but not having any luck (should have thought of this earlier)


  • I do wonder if it is worth coming up wih a bit of a new 'resource pack' of sorts, so that if there is a local person somewhere that wants to gather around some like minded folks at a local level to work together as part of teh party, then we can support that... This is not as a definite "strategy" to create these state branches so much, but as an additional resources/tactic
  • We've discussed resource packs before, I think at last congress. Nothing came of it


  • The important thing we need is volunteers to run things in each state
    • Which is where a campaign is useful, it gives people stuff to do
    • gives people a reason to get out there, recruit etc
  • Yes. Which is why we should consolidate and confirm current state memberships, see who's willing to help out, then start recruiting.
    • Start at the universities, move out from there


  • Conveniently, we have a campaign imminent :D (federal election)
  • alas we are not ready for a federal election as yet.
  • So is the suggestion to enlist people to do federal, and when we're done, funnel them into state ?
  • Also, for long-term growth and sustainability, the election is a bit irrelevant.
  • That stuff tends to be handled by the federal party, for now. We'd need way more resources to be running state by state campaigns
    • if we had the people doing the work, it would be great
  • Consolidating for Federal Campaign then breaking them up to the states works


  • How are we financially for the Federal Campaign? Should we be discussing fundraising as well as recruitment?
  • Fundraising will definitley be an issue for this coming campaign, we are not in as strong a position financially as we were last federal election
  • candidates might have to pay for some of their campaigns this time
  • Some additional discussing on elections dates with concerns it would be sooner dates rather than later dates


  • Maybe call for state election committees now?
    • They could start fund raising, getting members and preparing for the elections
  • we still need state based members to run them
  • If it works great, if it works in some states, better than we are now
    • The NC and the Election Committee are good fall back bodies, but state campaigns would be fucking great :)
  • We have a template for these committees, don't we?
  • We might need to start with an election focused one first


  • Consensus to calling state branch election committees, with the aim of flipping them into state branches after the election.


  • Brandon will mangle the election committee ToR to create state based ones. (By Monday night ideally)
    • We'll vote on it next wednesday and send it to members

General Business

Retrieved from "http://pirateparty.org.au/w/index.php?title=Minutes/Strategy_Meeting/2016-01-13&oldid=9379"