Project Alberta

First Lady · Sun Dec 30, 2007 7:21 pm

The following email has gone out to Alberta Alliance members; in conjunction with a similiar email going out to Wildrose Party members.

Snail mail letters were sent this past Friday.

Quote:

December 30, 2007

Notice of Special General Meeting (SGM) of the Alberta Alliance Party.

Dear Alliance Party Members,

During the month of December the Provincial Council has been in negotiations with the Wildrose Party of Alberta to unite the parties. After several weeks of negotiations the Alberta Alliance Provincial Council has approved the following terms to a merger, subject to the approval of our members at a Special General meeting, to be held in Calgary, AB on Saturday January 19th 2008. We invite you to attend this meeting and ask that you pre-register by January 12th to insure we have adequate space for each attendee. You must be a current Alberta Alliance member.

The decision to merge the parties is entirely up to you. The following six resolutions will be submitted for consideration by all Alberta Alliance members in attendance.

Be it resolved that;

1) the Alliance changes the name of the "Alberta Alliance Party" to the "Wildrose Alliance Party of Alberta".

2) the Wildrose Alliance adopt new Bylaws substantially the same as those of the "Wildrose Party of Alberta".

3) the Wildrose Alliance immediately conduct election of officers.

4) the Wildrose Alliance call and provide notice of an Annual General Meeting to be held by May 1, 2008.

5) the Wildrose Alliance accept all the assets and liabilities of the "Wildrose Party of Alberta"; following the acceptance of the merger by members of both the Alberta Alliance and the Wildrose Party at their respective Special General Meetings.

6) the Wildrose Alliance allow all members of the "Wildrose Party of Alberta" to exchange their membership in the Wildrose Party for a membership in the "Wildrose Alliance" for the unexpired term.

Both parties will have conducted due diligence examinations of the other, prior to the January 19th 2008 SGM.

If the merger is approved, the Wildrose Alliance will reimburse candidates for expenses already incurred for election material that bears the Alberta Alliance name to facilitate the transition to new name. (Candidates will have to provide documentation of the original expenses to be reimbursed.)

If the union is approved, a meeting of the new Provincial Executive shall follow the SGM, to establish by-laws for candidate selection and constituency formation.

Members of the "Wildrose Party of Alberta" have been invited to attend. If members of the Alberta Alliance approve the above resolutions, Wildrose Party members will then be recognized as voting participants at the SGM.

I hope you can join us for this important meeting.

Sincerely,

Jane Morgan, CFO

On behalf of the President

& the AAP Provincial Council.

Saturday January 19, 2008
10:00 AM â€“ 5:00 PM
Westin Hotel
320 - 4th Ave SW, Calgary, AB

For Information contact Jane Morgan: 1-888-262-1888 or e-mail: info@albertaalliance.ca

Danny H. · Sun Dec 30, 2007 7:29 pm

Ladies and gentleman, this is the moment you have all been waiting for!

C.Morgan · Sun Dec 30, 2007 7:31 pm

Danny H. wrote:

[-o< Ladies and gentleman, this is the moment you have all been waiting for!

Saliva:

Quote:

Ladies and gentlemen please
Would you bring your attention to me?
For a feast for your eyes to see
An explosion of catastrophe

Like nothing you've ever seen before
Watch closely as I open this door
Your jaws will be on the floor
After this you'll be begging for more

I do love that tune. $\:D/$

Knave · Sun Dec 30, 2007 7:34 pm

Danny H. wrote:

[-o< Ladies and gentleman, this is the moment you have all been waiting for!

I know and fully admit that it's my cynicism talking -- but that's really yet to be seen.

It should be a "fun" meeting, though. :lol:

C.Morgan · Sun Dec 30, 2007 7:36 pm

Knave wrote:

Danny H. wrote:

[-o< Ladies and gentleman, this is the moment you have all been waiting for!

I know and fully admit that it's my cynicism talking -- but that's really yet to be seen.

It should be a "fun" meeting, though. :lol:

I think that a majority of people are tired of seeing the split. If the boards of the parties are any indication, there should be a good majority in favor with a small but possibly vocal minority in opposition.

It is yet to be seen and it doubtless will be a lively meeting.

I am optimistic of a good outcome.

D. Johnson · Sun Dec 30, 2007 7:40 pm

Members of the Wildrose Party of Alberta also received their announcment to this meeting via e-mail at 18:33 tonight.

There is much anticipation leading up to this event. It is going to be interesting.

First Lady · Sun Dec 30, 2007 7:44 pm

D. Johnson wrote:

Members of the Wildrose Party of Alberta also received their announcment to this meeting via e-mail at 18:33 tonight.

Link and I were on phone, making sure we hit send at virtually the same time..... :lol:

Quote:

There is much anticipation leading up to this event. It is going to be interesting.

I am very excited. It's like Christmas all over again.... no wait, Christmas this year was crappy....
So this is better than that..... :mrgreen:

Knave · Sun Dec 30, 2007 7:48 pm

C.Morgan wrote:

I think that a majority of people are tired of seeing the split. If the boards of the parties are any indication, there should be a good majority in favor with a small but possibly vocal minority in opposition.

It is yet to be seen and it doubtless will be a lively meeting.

I am optimistic of a good outcome.

You know that I've been outspoken about the silliness of having two near-identical parties since the very beginning of the Wildrose Party venture; I viewed it as being a vanity project for some folks who would wanted things their own way. So, in that vein, I see this as a good move to get together under one flag and pool resources, especially with an election looming. I've been suggesting that for months, now.

However, the way it was done may in itself cause problems. I can see it being possibly construed as the Wildrose Party's acquisition of the Alberta Alliance; after all, the Alliance will adopt the Wildrosers' name, and dissolve its own 'board for the sake of a merger and put it up to a vote at an AGM. As the Wildrosers have a "fresher" membership list due to their more recent conception, I'd wager that Wildrose Party members will likely outnumber Alliance folks at said meeting - meaning that Wildrosers could well come to make up much of the merged party's 'board.

I also notice that most of the provisions outlined seem to be concentrated on the already-decided merged name for the party.

Why not put the naming of the venture to the membership?

C.Morgan · Sun Dec 30, 2007 7:51 pm

Knave wrote:

C.Morgan wrote:

I think that a majority of people are tired of seeing the split. If the boards of the parties are any indication, there should be a good majority in favor with a small but possibly vocal minority in opposition.

It is yet to be seen and it doubtless will be a lively meeting.

I am optimistic of a good outcome.

You know that I've been outspoken about the silliness of having two near-identical parties since the very beginning of the Wildrose Party venture; I viewed it as being a vanity project for some folks who would wanted things their own way. So, in that principle, I see this as a good move to get together under one flag, especially with an election looming.

But I can see it being possibly construed as the Wildrose Party's acquisition of the Alberta Alliance; after all, the Alliance will adopt the Wildrosers' name, and dissolve its own 'board for the sake of a merger and put it up to a vote at an AGM. As the Wildrosers have a "fresher" membership list due to their more recent conception, I'd wager that Wildrose Party members will likely outnumber Alliance folks at said meeting - meaning that Wildrosers could well come to make up much of the merged party's 'board.

I also notice that most of the provisions outlined seem to be concentrated on the already-decided merged name for the party.

Why not put the naming of the venture to the membership?

It all takes some compromise.

The bottom line is to come out with one entity in the end. I don't care which party seems to have done "better or worse" out of the deal.

The membership will be open and common. People can participate on the board of the new entity or simply be a voting member. Whatever camp sends a majority to the meeting will get what they want done I guess. I dont think it really is all that clearly factionalized.

It is the end that matters and this is a good way to lead to that end.

First Lady · Sun Dec 30, 2007 7:56 pm

Knave wrote:

You know that I've been outspoken about the silliness of having two near-identical parties since the very beginning of the Wildrose Party venture; I viewed it as being a vanity project for some folks who would wanted things their own way. So, in that principle, I see this as a good move to get together under one flag, especially with an election looming.

That is the vital part, that both parties recognize; better to go forward as one.

Quote:

But I can see it being possibly construed as the Wildrose Party's acquisition of the Alberta Alliance; after all, the Alliance will adopt the Wildrosers' name, and dissolve its own 'board for the sake of a merger and put it up to a vote at an AGM. As the Wildrosers have a "fresher" membership list due to their more recent conception, I'd wager that Wildrose Party members will likely outnumber Alliance folks at said meeting - meaning that Wildrosers could well come to make up much of the merged party's 'board.

I would wager a large number of their members are already Alliance members.

Quote:

I also notice that most of the provisions outlined seem to be concentrated on the already-decided merged name for the party.

Why not put the naming of the venture to the membership?

It is but a name. It is a marriage (so to speak) of both names it includes both "Wildrose" and "Alliance".

As for dissolving the board; we are both doing that. I cannot speak for the others; but it is a small thing in the scheme of things. It makes sense to have a new board elected and likely will be comprised of the best people going forward. It is a win / win.

Knave · Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:07 pm

C.Morgan wrote:

It all takes some compromise.

The bottom line is to come out with one entity in the end. I don't care which party seems to have done "better or worse" out of the deal.

The membership will be open and common. People can participate on the board of the new entity or simply be a voting member. Whatever camp sends a majority to the meeting will get what they want done I guess. I dont think it really is all that clearly factionalized.

It is the end that matters and this is a good way to lead to that end.

I just can see evidence of the "vanity project" peeking through in that release. Personnally speaking, one would think that such a union should be approached without ego -- and baggage.

That said, it's a good step. Don't get me wrong... it's good to see some measure of compromise and willingness to work together. As I've stated before, judging by the attitude at the founding meeting for the Wildrose Party and comments made since by Wildrose members, I would've wagered that the two parties would have had to immolate themselves and each other at the ballot box next time around, before they'd be willing to pool their resources.

It speaks well on the current attitudes and folks at both parties that pragmatism of this fact prevailed over ego.

Danny H. · Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:15 pm

The fact that both parties are realizing that BIG strides cannot be made until a united front is presented is really encouraging.

Knave · Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:18 pm

Danny H. wrote:

The fact that both parties are realizing that BIG strides cannot be made until a united front is presented is really encouraging.

Oh, it is. Please, don't get me wrong... I may be cynical, but I am trying to applaud this move as a positive sign.

.... I just don't know if the electorate will notice....

Danny H. · Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:21 pm

Knave wrote:

Danny H. wrote:

The fact that both parties are realizing that BIG strides cannot be made until a united front is presented is really encouraging.

Oh, it is. Please, don't get me wrong... I may be cynical, but I am trying to applaud this move as a positive sign.

.... I just don't know if the electorate will notice....

Let's hope so! 8-)

Craig B. Chandler · Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:31 pm

It is important that this new party elect a Provincial Council that will respect what local constituencies say.

For example allowing a candidate elected by the constituency to be the candidate.

Having any provincial council that would not allow a candidate because of bad media etc... is not right.

I am hopeful this new Provincial Council will be nothing like the Alberta Progressive Conservatives.

We all need to work together and fight Liberals and Tories not each other.

First Lady · Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:32 pm

At the request of forum moderators; I have changed the title of the thread.

Knave · Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:36 pm

First Lady wrote:

At the request of forum moderators; I have changed the title of the thread.

Just one rather prickly moderator.

Oh, and I removed the quotation marks... just 'cause our RSS feed hates 'em.

rbacon · Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:49 pm

I lke it 100% time to kick some PC/Liberal ass.

Knave · Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:55 pm

Craig B. Chandler wrote:

It is important that this new party elect a Provincial Council that will respect what local constituencies say.

For example allowing a candidate elected by the constituency to be the candidate.

Having any provincial council that would not allow a candidate because of bad media etc... is not right.

I am hopeful this new Provincial Council will be nothing like the Alberta Progressive Conservatives.

We all need to work together and fight Liberals and Tories not each other.

Craig, the procedure by which candidates are approved for nomination by the party is really a matter to decide in the Constitution - but not when electing a Provincial Council. They're two different things.

First Lady has told us that the Alberta Alliance has a not dissimilar means of "vetting" for potential party candidates by the Party leader and executive, enshrined in their party's Constitution - though, unlike the Progressive Conservatives, the Alliance's executive and leadership (from what she said) does it before the Constituency Association's vote takes place.

The PCs, as you're well aware, approves the candidate's nomination after the Constituency votes.... but that's their rules, per their Constitution.

C.Morgan · Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:21 pm

rbacon wrote:

I lke it 100% time to kick some PC/Liberal ass.

I hope you don't mind me using you as an example rbacon.

You were a fairly strong supporter of the Wildrose for some time.

You now are very supportive of the efforts to merge.

There will be some stubborn holdouts I am sure. For the most part though people on both sides have been seeing that in the last six months or so both parties have been spinning wheels and accomplishing little. Both parties have been making similar stands on issues and similar plans for the election.

It has been a useless duplication and the majority of us in both groups realize that.

To get together will set an example of compromise and unity. Any holdouts with the Alberta Party or the Socreds will be hard pressed to make their case for separate efforts if two groups as cranky as the WRP and AA can get together in a common effort.

The main thing is to get as many pragmatic people as possible to the upcoming meeting so the wishes of a majority do not get overrun by a vocal minority.

Project Alberta

Empowering Albertans

Who is online