Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Details on the NPA’s no-name-change vote

June 30th, 2010 · 8 Comments

If the Non-Partisan Association was hoping that a debate over changing its name would draw attention and crowds, that strategy didn’t totally work. A grand total of 42 people appeared at the Vancouver Museum last night to vote on whether to change the name to Vancouver First.

(I don’t think attracting crowds was the strategy, by the way. This initiative comes largely from a couple of guys, former TEAM member Bill McCreery being the leader, who haven’t been active in the party before. In fact, I’ve heard members grumbling that these newcomers were sucking up energy the party didn’t need to waste on their efforts to turn the NPA into TEAM or some facsimile thereof.)

There were a few passionate speeches. McCreery noted that 76 per cent of people who voted in the online survey showed a preference for choices other than Non Partisan Association. Among other choices: Vancouver First, Vancouver Citizens’ Alliance, New Progressive Alliance, One Vancouver, New Progressive Association, and New Positive Action. Former NPA park commission Diane Ledingham supported him, saying that a new name would mean “the NPA can evolve into something new. Vancouver has changed rapidly and this would allow us to move forward into a new name that speaks more of inclusivity.”

On the other side, one-time aldermanic candidate (Class of ’82) Paul McCrea said that he was around after the NPA was whomped by the Mike Harcourt-led group in 1981 and everyone fretted back then that they should change the name. The party “went on to three sweeping victories” after that, he reminded everyone. As well, as someone who’s worked in advertising, he also pointed out that “it takes a lot of money and a lot of time to impress a brand name as well known as this one.”

Charles Flavelle of Purdy’s Chocolates said that, if his company had fallen on hard times, “I would have changed the direction, not the name.”

And Councillor Suzanne Anton, in a campaign-style speech, listed everything wrong with the current Vision administration (park board doesn’t actually even believe in independent park boards; school board has no faith in the school system; city council has politicized city hall and is spending its time fighting another order of government. She wrapped up with a stirring “It is important that we rebrand our image but we do not need to rebrand our name.”

The party broke up while it was still light out. I didn’t see whether any attendees drifted over to the Moira Stillwell party going on in another part of the building. But I doubt it, as NPA people keep telling me that only Vision and COPE work in suspicious lockstep with the provincial NDP.

And now, on to the election. I didn’t note it in a previous post, but the NPA are planning to nominate a first round of candidates in November, a year before the 2011 election, presumably to get some strength on the ground that is hard for them to maintain now, with only one city councillor, two school trustees, and one park-board commissioner

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Bill Smolick

    I find it…fascinating…that Marpole residents rallying against towers gets 36 comments, and the NPA name change gets none.

    Perhaps this is too inane a detail of civic politics for people to really care.

    Perhaps the NPA is irrelevant.

    I just find it interesting.

  • Sean Bickerton

    I think the issue received exactly as much attention as it deserved. Despite good intentions by Bill, the name change attempt was just a distraction, and those of us involved in rebuilding the party from the ground up for the last year and a half treated it as such.

  • Dave 2

    IMO, you’re both right, nobody cares, and it doesn’t matter. As a former NPA voter (currently exiled to Burnaby), I’d be more concerned with the 36-6 result. Compare that with the 2008 Vision Mayoral nomination vote.

    Sure, there’s a lot of anti “Tear down the Viaducts”. anti “crackhead speed limit zone” comments on local blogs, but these people don’t actually get to vote in the City of Vancouver.

  • Bill McCreery

    I will restrict my comments to factual information.

    It is not correct to say “This initiative comes largely from a couple of guys”. We had a committee of 5 NPA members plus a larger number peripherally supportive. We consulted with a number of senior NPA members & they were generally supportive. Some were limited to not necessarily making the changes but, liked the idea of the organization taking time to revaluate itself. We then met informally with a majority of the Board, who were similarly supportive. On that basis we brought the name change & policy formulation initiatives forward to the AGM & the General Meeting.

    You paraphrased my comment that “76 per cent of people who voted in the online survey showed a preference for choices other than Non Partisan Association”. 3/4s of those responding to a large survey sampling return is hardly just the perspective of a “couple of guys”. We are only disappointed that more of those people did not see fit to turn out to vote Tuesday.

    To be quite clear, our purpose was not to turn the NPA into a TEAM but, to make it more effective. Here is part of what I said Tuesday evening in speaking to the motion:

    “……. In the public discussion leading up to tonight’s meeting some have asked what was the motivation for bringing this motion forward? Here is my perspective. I &, many others within the NPA, as well as many more outside the association have realized for many years that it needs to become more inclusive, relevant & effective within the present day political reality…….”

    A secondary goal was to engage the membership. In that we suceeded. And, we left the meeting united as an association & clearer about our purpose.

    We were not “sucking up energy”. I, 1 other Board member + a bit of time of 3 other members & support staff were all that were involved. That left 11 other Board members, other interested members & support staff to deal with the other items delegated to them from our full agenda.

    We have been thanked privately for stimulating this provocative discussion by several members &, Councillor Anton publicly also did so @ Tuesday’s meeting. So for those with an open mind, this initiative was more than “just a distraction”.

  • A. G. Tsakumis

    Jesus wept!

    1) Raise money
    2) Define opponent
    3) Kick off ANYONE who cannot deliver one and two…

    Stop the insanity.

    There a re a whole slew of people who are sick of Vision. But they need to find a reason to get up off the couch, write a cheque and/or head to the voting booth.

    It won’t happen by navel-gazing.

  • Booge

    I have gotten sick of Vision. No more support from me, that’s for sure.

    I’m now voting for Anyone but Vision.

  • michael geller

    The NPA Annual General Meeting and Special Meeting on a potential name change did accomplish one thing for some people. It reopened the debate as to whether the NPA is a loose association of independently minded people from various political stripes, with no over-riding policies, or indeed a political party.

    And if it is a political party, does it actually have any policies? Is it intended to be Vancouver’s centre-right party? Or is it further to the right…say, Vancouver’s version of the Republican party?

    While some directors and members maintain the NPA is not a party, I don’t think many people in Vancouver believe this. Indeed, they do see it as a centre right, or far right party, and certainly not something they want to be associated with.

    I was impressed with Miro Cernetig’s recent front page piece on the NPA in the Vancouver Sun. http://www.vancouversun.com/news/even+identity+crisis+remains+public+interest+necessity/3236420/story.html

    While I rarely agree with everything Miro writes (by the way, I should use the past tense since Miro announced yesterday he’s taking up a new career with an Ottawa based consulting firm…he’ll stay in Vancouver but no longer write for the Sun), I think he offered some very good advice to the NPA directors and members.

    While I initially supported the idea of a new name since it might signal that the ‘association’ was going to become a ‘party’, I voted in the end to keep the old name.

    Now the question is whether the NPA is going to become a truly ‘non-partisan’ association, and select good candidates for Council, regardless of their political leanings, including members of the NDP, Green Party, former COPE supporters, etc. or whether it will remain (and I use the word deliberately) a centre right party, despite its claims to the contrary.

    In this regard, the discussion over a name change was not a waste of time….but if the NPA is going to play a role in Vancouver’s municipal scene, then it must quickly figure out what it is, and start to get organized. It needs to add a zero to the number of people who come out to important meetings, and somehow re-connect with more Vancouver residents who don’t want just one party representing them at City Hall.

    Yesterday I attended a lovely ceremony at Vancouver City Hall when Art Phillips was made a Freeman of the City. It’s the highest honour that can be bestowed on a city resident and in Art’s case, well deserved. For those readers who weren’t around in the early 70’s, Art was a tall, handsome and successful businessman who decided to run for Mayor. (Sound familiar?) He and his TEAM council, that included May Brown and Marguerite Ford and Art Cowie and Walter Hardwick changed Vancouver forever.

    TEAM was a party, but it was quite an inclusive party. In the end, some believe it folded because it was too inclusive, but I don’t pretend to know. I do know that Phillips’ Council made some important decisions such as the banning of freeways, the start on the redevelopment of the South Shore of False Creek and Granville Island (on which I worked with the Mayor and Council), and the first efforts to convert Granville Street into a pedestrian mall…well,not everything he did was a complete success!

    To bring the discussion back to the present time, I think Vision has made some good decisions over the past 18 months…it has continued to pursue a variety of policies related to sustainability…I say continue, since many of the ideas related to sustainable development and food security were first proposed by earlier councils; it is continuing the direction started by Gordon Price and Peter Ladner and Fred Bass to make the city friendlier to cyclists…these are all very good things. Encouraging a greater variety of street vendors is also a good thing…I just hope some will be stationed on the seawall walkways.

    But it has also made some bad decisions. The STIR program was ill-conceived and ill-managed from the start, and some of the decisions re: the Olympic Village are going to be very costly for taxpayers (although I am the first to admit that many problems with the Olympic Village relate to decisions by earlier councils, of all political stripes).

    I am also worried about the ramifications of some of their planning and development decisions, (such as excluding housing in and around the Central Business District; approving a 20.8 FSR building on Georgia Street…..but that’s another story.

    As Miro correctly noted, it is in the public interest of Vancouver residents to have a variety of points of view expressed in the Council Chamber. That’s why I hope that now that the NPA has confirmed its name, it will start to sort out what it is going to be, and let the public (and its members, many of whom are not even sure if they are members) know.

    I also hope that if it decides to select some Council candidates in the fall, they are genuinely seen as good, bright people, from various political stripes, true to the party’s (and yes, it is a party) name.

    As I said goodbye to Art Phillips and Carole Taylor and their many friends who showed up, I was asked by a number of people whether I would run again.

    It was a beautiful sunny day, and the councillors had returned to the dark Council Chamber. I was heading off to meet a friend for a glass of wine and to sit in on an event organized by the Board of Change, at which Joel Solomon would be a guest speaker.

    And what did he say? He said we should all consider running for political office! That’s how we change our society for the better!

  • Bill McCreery

    Thank you Michael for understanding & clearly articulating the need to better clarify the party’s definition & direction. This was one of the purposes in presenting the 2 motions to the NPA membership [1. change the name; 2. adopt policies]. The fact both were defeated does not remove the necessity to complete that process.