COPE Membership Dialogue Meeting

1

COPE MEMBERSHIP DIALOGUE MEETING

SUNDAY, JANUARY 22, 2012 Hastings Community Centre – 1-‐4 pm

The meeting was called to order by Sarena at 1:10 pm. After confirming the Agenda, a presentation was provided by Chris Porter, using poll by poll data. A community agreement was provided to set the grounds rules of how discussion and dialogue should be done during the course of the afternoon – basic guideline – respect:

• Respect, active listening, non-‐judgemental attitude, step forward/step back, confidentiality.

The entire body was divided into 8 groups for small group discussion. The Topics covered in the small groups were: Topic 1 – What is your assessment of Cope’s campaign strategy? (20 minutes) Suggested areas of discussion:

• Cope’s decision to enter into a cooperation agreement with Vision, • The date/timing of the nomination meeting, • The logistics of the campaign, • The messaging, platform and policies of the campaign, and • The media strategy.

Topic 2 – Given the results of the 2011 civic election, what position can COPE occupy in Vancouver’s political landscape? (15 minutes) Suggested areas of discussion:

• With no elected officials on Council and Park Board how will COPE deliver its message?

• Cope’s capacity to fundraise and the resulting budgetary constraints on the operation of the organization,

• How can COPE engage its membership and position itself for the next election? • What other challenges do you think COPE is facing?

Topic 3 – In the future what should COPEs’ priorities be and what are our opportunities? (10 minutes) It was noted that COPE will be doing a forum in the spring focusing on Cope’s future priorities. Topic 4 -‐ Report back: The last portion of the small group discussions summarized the discussion and groups were instructed to have the facilitators report back on 2 items

2

that the groups felt were the most significant to share with the whole meeting. It was also noted that all comments would become part of the written record of the meeting. The following is a summary of the Small Group Discussions: Group 1:

• Question 1: Systemic issues/problems: 1. City is 35-‐40% Chinese and no Chinese city council candidates ran – sign of

disrespect, compared with Vision running 3 Chinese candidates, coalition only gives 3 seats.

2. For 3 consecutive elections there has been no leader/mayoral candidate – personality, politics. Rotate mayoral candidate with Vision.

3. Agreement to work with Vision failed (from supporter of agreement) – serious tactical miscalculation about demise of NPA and related premise of Vision taking much of their support as pro-‐development party.

4. Need to articulate clear vision – need a leader to do this. 5. Coalition vs joint slate – strategic choice of who to vote for. 6. Not enough money – if we are not accepting corporate donations, we need to

find new ways of fundraising to have good communications, etc. – go forward as an independent party with our own mayoral candidate, better funding.

7. NSV took away money and energy from COPE – progressives split and this is a big problem. Green, Vision, COPE and NSV competing for the same votes.

8. No to agreement/coalition with Vision because Vision originally split off from COPE due to policy differences at core. Vision is green-‐washed developer’s party – Vision may share some of our ideals but not much else.

9. NSV was not so much of a problem and not taking out votes. 10. If we are no longer in a coalition with Vision, perhaps we can ask labour to

provide more funding as this will force them to choose sides. 11. Move from electoral organization to grassroots, community organization with

strong base. Need to present ourselves as a strong alternative. 12. Policy need to be based on what is important for community rather that from

what can get funding. 13. Feedback from canvassing: COPE not on political radar of voters, especially low

knowledge of Vision/COPE agreement. Loss of political identity. Function of COPE unclear to voters – was COPE running to be in opposition? To support the status quo?

14. Vision candidates were not bad people, but money changes things on organizational level. Stems from time when it was still just COPE and we started going after corporate money. Solution is moving to grassroots-‐based party and using that as funding source ($10/month membership for example). Even getting money from unions questionable.

15. Have nomination meetings much earlier – i.e. 6 months in advance.

3

16. We shouldn’t focus our attention on the “bad guys”, i.e. Vision, but instead on our identity and on building connections with allies. i.e. Union movement not monolithic and some potential allies there, such as the teachers.

17. Promote grassroots and community issues actively – in our communications, etc. 18. A left-‐wing party will never have much money so figure out how to do things

without money. Internet/social media open up possibilities. Be an electoral party, but one not solely focused on winning -‐ this is what being grassroots-‐based means.

19. Candidates were not an issue. 20. Push caps on spending and electoral/democratic reform, especially in between

elections. 21. Use issues to build constituencies between elections – link them to city council

and local politics.

• Question 2:

1. COPE should be party of people for the planet – reach out to community, ethnic, environmental, poverty, etc. groups. $10/month from 10,000 people is over $1 million per year.

2. Split between Vision and COPE started around Unions; issues – Unions wanted casinos, Unions wanted 3P around transit. Left-‐wing of COPE opposed to these.

3. Huge space for COPE to flourish – need to represent people who live, work and invest here, in that order.

4. Occupy movement is a huge gift and we should use that. 5. Be realistic and flexible: play according to existing rules in order to be able to

change them (i.e. electoral reform). 6. Need to look to how/with whom we build our alliances – much broader group of

constituencies available to build bridges with -‐ i.e. cultural groups, etc., not just union, etc. that we are used to form electoral point of view.

7. One problem with ambitious plans is finding people to carry them out. 8. Finding new constituencies is a two-‐way street as they give us new policy

outlook, etc. Productive, rather instrumental treatment of new constituencies. 9. Focus on issues where we shine – poverty, housing, DTES, etc. – especially as

Vision and NDP meld into one. 10. Grassroots reorientation feeds into electoral “arm” of the party in focusing on

the right issues and building constituencies. 11. Cycling issue really distinguishes NPA and Vision and Vision used this well. 12. More youth on executive, eh. 13. When we elect a new executive, we need to have one person as spokesperson,

hopefully our next mayoral candidate. Send regular press releases and have a strong blog and online presence – use technology.

14. More COPE members involved in NSV. 15. Move beyond just blogs and have presence in mainstream media and at events.

Have spokesperson who can speak to issues.

4

• QUESTION 3:

1. Go back to our roots – speak our minds and not bite our tongues. Our strength is that we can offer a real alternative compared to Vision/NPA.

2. Build bridge with Occupy movement and its sympathizers – engage them on electoral apathy.

3. Need a clear outline/book of our policy stances – useful for spokespeople. 4. Poverty and lack of affordable housing should be our main issues -‐ lower-‐income

individuals being pushed out. 5. DTES has got us elected in the past, so good to focus on this but also need to

focus on environment in a real way beyond Vision’s bike paths/gardens approach.

6. Out-‐of-‐control gentrification – distinction between Occupy movement and Occupy Vancouver – build bridges with former rather than the latter.

7. Focus more on engaging membership rather than reworking policies – engage all members on on-‐going basis. Give membership responsibility and policy issues will work themselves out.

8. Building constituencies for our already good policies – have events like coffee nights, movie nights, etc. Who will do this? Youth?

9. Do not demonize Vision because NPA will be doing some kind of defining themselves, etc. and doing this opposed to Vision, so we will need to engage Vision supporters.

Question 4: Broad points from discussion:

• Building alliances, grassroots rather than electoral organization, • Differentiating ourselves, going back to our roots, • Poverty and affordable housing as policy issues. • Rebuild political identity – what do we stand for? How are we different?

Two key points: 1. Differentiating without demonizing, and 2. Alliance-‐building with grassroots organizations and cultural groups – going

beyond being an electoral machine.

Group 2:

• Question 1:

1. Conflict between COPE-‐Vision, 2. Conflict with COPE selection/election, 3. COPE failed to live up to its obligation to its membership,

5

4. COPE catered too much to Vision, 5. COPE needs to learn lessons from previous elections. 6. Focus on what happened – not personalities:

• Looking for opposition (NPA – Vision) one in the same, people wanted opposition,

• COPE softened its opposition to Vision, heritage policy – pro-‐development,

• COPE can survive and represents the 99%, • COPE focus on entire housing issues, • Not to be an appendage to Vision. • COPE could have spoken up more.

7. Not a black and white issue, no mayor candidate, could not put together a strong position and show the difference.

8. COPE needs greater presence in all areas of the city, a lot of people said they will not vote.

9. Candidates not eligible. 10. Media made it into Vision vs NPA – COPE invisible – to clear difference, yet COPE

does have it, not promoted, so became irrelevant. 11. Coalition has not served COPE membership. 12. Increased voter turn out – so messaging did appeal to its core, but not the fair

weather voter. 13. How to appeal to non COPE voters? 14. We do not have the developer money – get hurt – media. 15. How to define themselves (COPE). 16. Vision has engaged other communities, youth, and immigrants….they got out

there. 17. COPE needs to learn to increase engagement with challenged populations –

diversity, COPE, women’s rights, youth empowerment… 18. COPE lacked energy – lack leadership, no money for ads, bill boards, etc. 19. No leader amongst the COPE candidates – previously Cadman did. 20. School board stuff got lost in this campaign, special needs, did not champion

their success for broader appeal. 21. Political opportunities lost. 22. No developer money is good. 23. Defining policy for COPE = anti-‐developers, specific projects with social benefits. 24. Tie in policies that promote social and economic sustainability with

development. 25. No major candidate, no distribution, a 2 party race. 26. COPE only party with no leader. 27. Revitalize (reconstitute pre 2002) youth, aboriginal…caucuses to rebuild and act

as opposition. 28. Use the strength of COPE to get out to the community, pro-‐active approach,

media strategy.

6

29. Give those committees power to go out to the communities. 30. Talking to students, environment, candidates and committee getting out there. 31. Campaign is now; bring in experience and new people to build alliances for next

election – diversity of people. Make it inclusive, COPE lost out to Occupy stuff. Too quite on OV. Reporting back (committees) social media, connection, and informed membership.

32. COPE has 1 staff person, how to be viable – not taking Developer money, have a plan ahead – financial strategy, work in between campaigns.

33. How to get people power to do the work…. Who is going to do that? 34. At large system needed to build alliances in the communities, speak out to build

COPE community by community. 35. Get involved in local processes in community engagement. 36. Financing – membership base organization. 37. Continue to build with Unions and membership, dues, actively involve renters –

55% as an example -‐ give them ownership. 38. BC – spending controls on elections, need to reform – therefore COPE needs to

get in front of these issues. 39. To get level playing field, more public funding, rebates, look at other provinces. 40. COPE, NPA, VISION -‐ follow the bucks! 41. Create an electoral committee and reform with Province… and words. 42. Back to the past – V-‐C partnership, did Vision voters support COPE? 43. Potential split environmental and social voters – Greens – COPE. 44. What issues can COPE define itself with – housing. 45. COPE loss its moral ground to VISION as a result of partnership. 46. Is possible to continue partnership, but COPE needs to be more assertive. 47. V & C agreement – troubling – understanding relations better between V & C but

without results that favour COPE. 48. Unions will not continue to fund 2 parties, they must work together… 49. Where is COPE strategic plan for advancing? 50. Be proactive, define COPE – ground up for the next election. 51. Build the base and then decide what an agreement looks like. 52. Policy development – must consider unions, chat to them, chat with them. 53. “COPE not on Developer dime”. “COPE supporting our Public Education

system.”(*Had two hand drawn pictures to accompany slogans.) Group 3:

• Question 1: What is your assessment of Cope’s campaign strategy? 1. Excellent platform strategy. 2. Had choice of coalition.

-‐ One member of that coalition received money from developers. -‐ But, can COPE not support some developers?

7

3. Woodsworth and Cadman have spoken well on issues pertaining to … -‐ yet Vision were prepared to do whatever developers wanted/development, -‐ this is why NSV supported COPE and not Vision. -‐ but the NSV felt they couldn’t interfere with COPE given their slate represented opinions they couldn’t align with. 4. But COPE was there to provide a strong voice, without a coalition, that voice wouldn’t have been there. 5. First choice would have been for COPE to stand alone all things being equal. -‐ in lieu of that situation, what was the better choice? -‐ you cannot get media attention without a mayoral candidate. -‐ this fuelled the election strategy, to not get wiped out. -‐ But, we got wiped out. -‐ It should be concluded that our electorate is naturally fractured. -‐ so with the excellent platform/campaign strategy, what could we have done? 6. The lack of strong leader affected COPE, just as it did Occupy. 7. Also, lack of media friendliness. 8. We ought to consider sponsorship from individual corporations. 9. Consider Harcourt and 2008, -‐ both campaigns were successful without a leader. -‐ A leadership contender with NPA would have split the vote. -‐ Consider the recent S.D. video. -‐ COPE and Vision united to sensor the vote. Therefore, furthermore – no-‐coalition many exclude labour, union support. Why was there a vote split with NSV? -‐ Because community issues weren’t addressed by COPE in between elections. 11. Suggestion that a creation of a cooperative agreement would gain focus and attention. -‐ Being a “junior partner” isn’t a good strategy. -‐ Therefore COPE needs to stand alone, without outside influence, to attain credibility. -‐ Nothing on the COPE flyer contained anything about grassroots and community organization.

• Question 2: What do we do now?

1. Consider a dialogue with Occupy, who seem to reflect electoral politics. 2. Why not simulate a ward system?

-‐ The face of COPE operating in individual communities. -‐ Therefore connect community issues to/with party policy. -‐ “if COPE was the party that puts neighbourhoods first”

3. Take the front stage on issues rather than hi-‐level candidates. -‐ i.e. Mayoral candidate. -‐ Proactive instead of reactive.

4. Lower voting age to 16.

8

-‐ Senior high school students are some of the most engaged with civic issues.

5. * How do we proceed without representation? -‐ consider ’84 campaign that succeeded with a late union donation. -‐ Merely through community organization, the flyer was hugely

successful. 6. Our media exposure failed, neither due to issues nor money.

-‐ we need better media people and strategy in-‐between election years.

7. * The left has never been good at selling things. -‐ consider letting good, simple stories that are deliverable.

8. Our meeting is a room full of white people today. Therefore need demographic improvement.

9. How did Carr win on $10,000? -‐ a brand and message that people respect.

10. Demand contribution limits. 11. Come together as a party.

-‐ there has never been a party with in-‐fighting that won.

Question 3: Priorities/opportunities:

1. Multicultural engagement. -‐ before and in between elections.

2. Fight for a non-‐alpha ballot. -‐ since at-‐large or wards systems are still always away.

3. Grassroots organization for communities to engage the 60% who didn’t vote. -‐ the “crazy high rent” community, -‐ the de-‐growth community, etc. -‐ who currently perhaps wouldn’t even vote for COPE?

4. Set up “ward” committee. -‐ But communities don’t want to be political, -‐ Yet, come election time, these communities don’t know who to

vote for, etc. -‐ Therefore, in engaging communities we ought to identify

ourselves so that they know who to vote for. 5. “We aren’t dead yet” – party to attract media attention.

9

Group 4: • Question 1:

1. A good strategy – play coat tail game so long before the coat tail gets cut off – we were too similar to the other parties.

2. COPE has to be COPE. 3. City under heavy development – support shifted and not in our favour. 4. We need to be independent, maybe not with a full slate. 5. Story – lots of Vision pamphlets only a small part of COPE literature.

Vision pushed lots of material forward. 6. No strong identity – Vision latched on and took over.

7. Slate didn’t work – COPE was not perceived by Vision as a joint partner. 8. Realistic and better fundraising – our party will not be realistic. 9. Perhaps drop “no corporate” sponsorship bylaw. 10. You, yourself must decide if you will be owned by corporate. 11. Had info that when phoned people who were impartial they were told

that only Vision could be voted for -‐ people could not vote for COPE. 12. We need a smaller slate to put forward – people lost who we were. 13. COPE was ignored in the press – not considered a real political power

worth mentioning. 14. Position ourselves in the middle in the worst way – lost votes by the

coalition with Vision. 15. People who wanted to keep NPA out, those that did vote for Vision and

COPE. 16. People view that COPE should be dismissed. 17. Vision should not be trusted again with the coalition. 18. Vision is the bus that drove over COPE. 19. Vision and COPE both called people and COPE reported for Vision – Vision

did not. 20. Door to door – no election material, only candidate. 21. No mayoral candidate makes us a foot note in the election. 22. Gregor Robertson is Vision – lots of media attention to Vision on this. 23. Electoral system is outdated. 24. Portrayed as a two horse race – only Vision and NPA race. 25. The election system is very biased. 26. Development industry controls the two main parties. 27. The decision to continue the coalition – all the candidates, until the last

week, were very cooperative. The last week NPA and Vision started the shoot out.

28. We nominated way too late only had 2 months – extend to a year or two. 29. Problem is waiting for Vision too long.

10

• Question 2:

1. Cope needs to decide what it is and then sell it to the people. 2. Work on getting the vote out neighbourhood by neighbourhood. 3. Start where we are strongest and move out. 4. South east part does not support its ridiculous. 5. COPE is a grassroots party. 6. Coalition is getting people together – 16 communities where we are

based. 7. Hold onto – get COPE in these areas – do it every couple of months. 8. COPE is a party of people for people. 9. Start doing interpersonal relationships with the people now to get the

votes later. 10. Focus on what we want to do and start setting goals and time line with

those goals. 11. People want something from a politician – we need to offer something to

them. 12. COPE is a social movement – not just an electoral party – do a community

organizing drive and other community ideas. Election is a vehicle to do this.

13. Be the unofficial opposition – need to be the voice of those that are not represented.

14. COPE is the voice of Vancouver – be a part of the board by being there as an unofficial opposition.

15. COPE does not have the bodies of those to be out there and funds are a problem – we need to get money from any organization.

16. We have to have a vision to have an idea of what we want and then move forward for the betterment of Vancouver.

17. A big resource of activists is untapped as a grassroots movement. We must reach to them and get them onside so we can move forward as a whole.

18. The composition of COPE’S slate must be better organized. 19. Fix the system and make it feasible. 20. Go to the Unions and District Labour Council for the electoral funds. 21. Without the coalition with Vision we would not get funders support.

• Question 3:

1. Community meeting and better planning, COPE must get involved with social and labour movement issues so we get exposure and experience to better the issues, as well as the party.

2. Young people getting politically active. “Youth get out the Vote” – lend to vote progressive, get voices to advocate for COPE.

11

3. Vision is perceived as being progressive. 4. Educate the public about us and the other parties. 5. The vast bulk of people are uniformed and the media heavily influences

the people and they called it a two horse race so that was how they voted – NPA or Vision.

6. Affordable housing is the big issue. 7. Vision facilitates for the affordable housing – were all land developers. 8. Define affordable housing for the people – find a better word for doing it. 9. Contact the r.i.c.h. party and get them with us to help show we are with

the people and get idea. 10. Level of commitment from unions to COPE see where the level is at. 11. Having a big event in the summer for people and have a small

educational at the party. Group 5:

• Question 1: 1. Good commitment – great director. 2. Dedicated staff – kept campaign in straight direction. 3. Good briefing notes for candidates. 4. Nomination meeting needs to be earlier. 5. Re: Vision agreement – COPE lost identity because of this – wouldn’t agree with

coalition again without COPE having stronger identity within it. 6. Mistake to not enter into agreement with Greens – lost votes because of this. 7. Shouldn’t have been excluded – vote splitting – hurt COPE (more than Vision). 8. Need to look at why and how people split their votes. 9. Vision agreement – not good, but important to support membership’s decision.

Meeting was too short – not everyone could speak. Mikes cut off. Didn’t listen to membership enough. Vision not the brand COPE should be attached to.

10. COPE member got no calls, no sign during campaign. 11. Needed to get more media coverage during campaign. 12. Nomination meeting needs to be earlier. 13. Good media strategy/exposure, given finances. 14. Coalition good – gave COPE more funding. 15. Agreement crucial – but COPE didn’t follow through on this – early documents

didn’t mention Vision – down fall. People didn’t know coalition. 16. Green chose not to negotiate with COPE and Vision. 17. COPE couldn’t overcome media bias on campaign – too much focus on Occupy

which hurt us. 18. More ‘out of the box’ media things. 19. Unions would not have supported COPE financially without the agreement with

Vision – without their money, couldn’t have done a lot.

12

20. Vision promoted COPE more in 2011 than 2008 – got us votes. 21. Vote splitting was the biggest downfall – shown in statistical analysis. 22. Cadman not being nominated – another huge down fall. 23. Carr ran with $15,000 budget and won – shows that money isn’t necessary. The

issue can be done. 24. Community organization as valuable as money. 25. Wary of alliance with Greens – quite right wing – unaware of class issues in City. 26. Party (COPE) needs to be more aligned within itself – less focused on Vision. 27. Need to align with true progressive voices (NSV). 28. Vision supports young people in Cit – good to agree. 29. Cadman not being elected. 30. Huge confusion with coalition, with Vision – people didn’t know about it –

weren’t informed – hurt COPE in election. 31. Suggestion to completely join Vision – be the left voice within Vision -‐ join them. 32. Support agreement – not just because of money, union backing crucial – do

share many of the same issues. 33. COPE brand only known by activists, not larger City – need a solid, consistent

spokesperson. 34. Need Chinese, Filipino analysis – need to unite with other progressive voices

from other communities. 35. Campaign was too traditional -‐ too much attention on getting marks. 36. More mainstreeting. 37. June nomination meeting. • Question 2:

1. Identify potential candidates now – so they can become the image now. People with profiles, etc., to become spokes people for COPE.

2. Members need to be engaged throughout (in between campaigns). 3. Focus on building on strengths – recognize these and bring them forward.

Make them spokes people for COPE. 4. Take 3 years to build connections with other cultural communities – COPE

too “white”. 5. Focus on getting volunteers – good strategy for this needs to be thought of. 6. “Rent bank” – awful idea – need to be critical – not afraid to challenge these

ideas. Mostly Vision, also NPA. 7. Agreement with Vision doesn’t’ let COPE be as progressive as we should be –

crucial to differentiate ourselves (what will happen if we run against a Vision candidate during a possible by-‐election?)

8. COPE needs to step away from being a “junior Party” in agreement with Vision – run 5 council candidates – be firm.

9. Not focusing on what just happened – focus on weak communities – how to strengthen our image there.

13

10. COPE needs to take strong stance on public services sector – force Vision to maintain the position they’ve promised.

11. Maintain/save public sector services. 12. Establish identity based on progressive politics (in the next 3 years). 13. Define ourselves without being so concerned with what Vision will think –

don’t do it relative to them – define ourselves now – we are: ______ 14. Outreach to uninvolved communities. 15. Align with those involved with Occupy. 16. Force Vision to take COPE seriously.

Group 6:

• Question 1 – Campaign Strategy:

1. Yes, democratic decision to be with Vision, but then think it put us between a rock and a hard place; best decision at the time, but there are more important things to focus on now.

2. Carr got a seat, spent $10,000 on campaign. 3. Prefer to seek out alliance with other progressive parties (Vision not

progressive) – (with NSV and Green). 4. Clear that Vision didn’t vote for COPE – wasn’t actually a joint campaign. 5. Vision’s campaigners were all on wage. 6. In future, rebuild the party to be stronger, but COPE did have paid canvassers

too. 7. Agreement with Vision was the right one – yes all Vision didn’t vote for COPE,

but visa versa was true too. 8. For Schools – it was definitely the increase in NPA vote that knocked COPE

out. 9. Nomination meeting: Having meeting in the Fall hurt us as other parties did

theirs’ in June. We had no summer campaigning, whereas other candidates did door-‐to-‐door in summer.

10. Nothing is more effective as strong, supportive canvassers – work on that. 11. Phone calling – E-‐Day calls from Vision, but they did not mention COPE. 12. How is what Vision says, differs from what they actual do (supporting us)? 13. Why did we even get together with Vision? 14. When COPE called public, some people were confused as to who COPE was –

volunteers confused as to how to promote COPE when Vision is so known/recognized.

15. It’s not clear whether Vision running against us would have harmed us – Vision having a full slate can weaken their votes.

16. Lack of money is important. 17. Green = had informal alliance with NPA (not in their material, but unofficial

agreement), attended each others nominating meetings.

14

18. Green rejected a Vision agreement. 19. If Vision had run their own slate, it may or may not have helped COPE, but it

definitely would have helped the NPA. 20. Maybe NPA vote increased because of public perception that Vision was

weak. 21. Schools – concerted campaign by NPA with Chinese community attacking

COPE and making schools inclusive, anti-‐homophobic issues, NPA ran a fear campaign in Hastings area, which translated for NPA Council support.

22. Even in COPE supporter’s household, there was confusion about COPE.

Question 2: COPE’s position in political landscape now:

1. Focus on where Vision is going wrong and pick up on that. 2. Challenge for COPE in coming up with $4,000 for staff, etc. Can’t have a voice

without money (pragmatic). 3. Need to focus on monthly donations. 4. Need to hold those in power accountable. 5. Database is now very strong. 6. Grassroots connections are important. 7. Is COPE willing to make a commitment to “no developer” and Union money?

(Can we be independent?) 8. Disagree with idea of no money from Unions – unions are working class

support. 9. The secret to us raising money on a regular basis is by raising concerns that

no one else is speaking on. 10. Issue-‐based fundraising is important. 11. Need to tell supporters 1 or 2 seats are not ok. 12. What do Vancouverites want that they aren’t getting? 13. Work with other grassroots parties (not necessarily political) i.e. community

groups. 14. What was discouraging about Vision alliance was that we lost the ability to

criticize Vision. 15. We could disagree, but it was the tone that we used that hurt us (our

criticisms weren’t loud enough.) 16. Non-‐COPE/Vision supporters didn’t think COPE was being muzzled – it was an

internal issue. Therefore, we need to build on communicating with our members about what the coalition meant.

17. “Politicising of politics” turns off general public – not sure why they should vote.

• Question 3: Future:

1. COPE does have a solid base with the public, communicate with them. 2. Make door-‐to-‐door canvassing stronger (for signs).

15

3. NPA and Vision were loud with signs – putting up signs even where they weren’t asked to be.

4. Multilingual – be strategic (better to send out nobody than someone who can’t communicate with voters).

5. Explore relationships with other progressive, political parties/independents. 6. Issue-‐based fundraising. 7. Create different funds within COPE. 8. Make living in Vancouver affordable, deal with relationships with Prov.,

Federal governments (these issues can create a lot of publicity). 9. Decide now and if we aren’t going to enter into an agreement with Vision

(gives us a voice now). 10. However, if we signal now whether the agreement will happen or not in 3

years, it might turn people off (we don’t know what will happen in 1.5 years) – but we have to open that discussion with membership.

11. Concentrate on our weak regions in Vancouver.

Group 7:

• Question 1: COPE campaign strategy assessment:

1. Sound Strategy. 2. Relationship with vision – more consideration about that agreement. 3. Labour movement influence on where to put resource. 4. COPE needs to consider those resources and where they are going to go in

relation to agreement with vision. 5. Alliance was good in past – not going to work in future. 6. Now supporting developers – people can’t distinguish b/t NPA and vision eg.

transfer of property tax. NPA vision both in favour – COPE not. Big issue for voters.

7. Opposed to running joint campaign in future – mistake to run joint campaign in retrospect.

8. Vision agreement has to be made every time, will probably have to make it again next time.

9. Disagree that vision is the same as NPA – do represent developers but ALSO trade union. Somewhat environmental resp. NPA is Stephen Harper, big difference between those 2.

10. Cooperation depends on what goal is. If goal is put forward our policies entirely independently, then with it will come less electoral support.

11. If position that COPE should go it alone and will. 12. Do better electorally – that is miscalculation. 13. Electoral cooperation was the right decision. 14. What happens next time unclear but probably would do it again. 15. How do we put forward COPE positions better within that alliance.

16

16. COPE to have more independent position forward through election campaign.

17. No choice for coalition with vision – labour happy and wanted it, if we not done that, would have had zero funding.

18. Financial point of view, work has to happen at labour movement level – finding two different voices at the city.

19. Between rock and hard place by the time the meeting happened in Sept, if we said no to coalition, would have been financially bankrupt.

20. Had independent position on a lot of issues. 21. Without relationship with vision, completely depends on what labour

movement does. 22. COPE needs to focus on strengths, principle based, speak for everyone.

23. Thought that came out in the campaign but when coalition came forward,

can’t stay true to its principles. 24. Campaign went as well as it good under circumstances 25. Out on election day, people didn’t feel voice was represented, and that COPE

sold out. 26. Had worked as an org very effectively for 3 years and were trusted. 27. Hit on something – decision to go into coalition wasn’t explained properly –

people saw us being swallowed by vision politics. 28. That’s where NSV was able to pick up votes. 29. Lost traction because only started off in Sept – NPA started in June. 30. Communication lost in innovation – need to compete better with 2 million

dollars. 31. Impact of Chinese vote – don’t have diversity in this room to ever win an

election. 32. People don’t trust COPE at the moment. 33. Coalition was necessary for COPE to continue. 34. Need to make sure we are clear what that means. 35. Big issue was splitting of Votes between greens, NSV. 36. Making assumption that Vision will want to have coalition with us again –

they may not necessarily want to make a coalition with us. 37. COPE needs to solidify positives of who we are, make that broadly known 38. Most people didn’t know who COPE was – where we vision. Coalition

because very blurry. 39. COPE lost in the shuffle because no mayor – people went out to vote for a

mayor and whoever was supporting them. 40. Decision re coalition needs to be put on hold, focus on who COPE is and what

we stand for. 41. During election, we had fights with vision about what we wanted to say. 42. We failed to communicate those important difference between COPE and

vision, need to address this.

17

43. Labour movement – isn’t just about money. We have alliance with labour movement that is much longer standing than that with Vision.

44. Wouldn’t want to do anything to threaten that alliance.

• Question 2: Future:

1. Talk about campaign financing with labour movement – money needs to be taken out of elections.

2. Analogy re civic election / federal election? 3. Principle rather than money – COPE built on principle, will

get elected on principle not on money. 4. Not running candidate for mayor is big mistake. 5. Media ignored us because no mayoral candidate. 6. If we are to run mayoral candidate, can’t have coalition by

definition. 7. Political sensitivity re labour movement and construction

jobs. 8. Majority COPE support came from. 9. Money is not the only issue. 10. Mayor thing needs to be kept in context – have had

mayors run and have been slaughtered. 11. Important to wait and see how everything develops before

committing to how many people/mayor we run. 12. Name recognition over three years wasn’t very good, and

wasn’t good during election. 13. Media talking about NPA and vision. 14. For next 3 years, get name recognition.

• Question 3: Given results of 2011 election, what

position can COPE occupy on the political landscape?

1. Work with other social movements to take money out of politics – campaign to limit campaign financing. Would appeal to wide variety of groups.

2. Continue to work with the current issues of the day, eg. area plans.

3. Housing and homelessness. 4. Electoral reform – wards and proportional

representation. 5. Communications – social media, online

newspaper, other municipal activists to join us, help out.

6. Endorse Ellen’s suggestions.

18

7. Begin now to ID potential candidates – especially YOUNG candidates.

8. We are a bit same old, same old in a city that is NEW. When COPE was formed there was big white working class in the city. Still working class in city but not WHITE.

9. Get people involved -‐ COPE has attracted a large number of great young activists. Need to get them out of backroom and into front room.

10. Need to address lack of diversity within COPE. Need to develop plan to move forward with that – Chinese, philipino community etc.

11. Given we don’t have same budget, need to have creative messaging to engage media.

12. Wards system has dropped, but bring that back onto table.

13. Online newspaper great idea. 14. Potential candidates – issue with the way

we chose our last candidate really demoralized a number of people.

15. Change of voting rules. 16. Big mistake to blame Tim for election

result. 17. Majority of membership voted for Tim

and he was mistreated. 18. That same membership is being

demoralized – COPE is coalition, big mix of people and all those have made great.

19. Executive should reflect membership, those who supported Tim

20. Capacity building – community plans going forward.

21. Critical decisions being made in the next few years – COPE not represented therefore important to have another avenue to make sure our views are seen.

22. COPE needs to make clear what our position is on many of these issues.

23. Strengthen committee process to make sure that COPE voice is heard.

19

24. Community meetings are key – are we making sure COPE is being represented at those meetings? Is COPE voice being heard and represented at those meetings?

25. Strongly against running a mayor for sake of running a mayor.

26. Like the idea of forum for analysis, perspective.

27. COPE needs to be present at meetings as well as create forums and meetings for people to come forward. Run ahead of curve as opposed to just chasing it.

Question 4: In the Future what should COPE priorities and opportunities be?

1. Great that so many people came out on a Sunday afternoon to discuss this – have more opportunities to discuss these issues.

2. Begin policy process now. 3. Bring everyone together -‐ get whole again in time for next election.

4. Summarized it when she said build on our strengths. 5. Progressive org based on electoral reform – need to emphasize this. 6. Work with activists representing groups. 7. COPE caucus very successful. 8. COPE works well in communities – not necessarily as COPE but as people.

involved in communities. Need to continue doing this. 9. Need to make sure the COPE connects with those communities. 10. Opportunity within wider media to focus on different communities and make

sure our people are there. 11. Not too much emphasis on keeping org strong because only as strong as our

community advocacy. 12. Reinforcing committees within COPE to enforce community level representation. 13. Within every community organization there is probably COPE representation

because we are so active in the city – make this KNOWN that that is what COPE people are doing.

14. Huge amount of voter confusion out there on all levels. Items to bring back to group:

1. Community strength of COPE. 2. Potential to strengthen that through committees, getting out in community

and inherent capacity that already exists. 3. Focus on strengths and positives of COPE and communicate that through

different means.

20

Group 8: Question 1: Assessment of campaign’s strategy: 1. a) Agreement – cooperation Agreement with Vision. 2. Cooperation was not what was expected. 3. Strategy – materials COPE was handing out would mention all candidates

(Vision and COPE), phoning, door knocking, etc. 4. Vision was only doing “Vision” -‐ strictly Vision when knocking on doors. 5. Neighbourhoods unaware of election or process, or know about Vision/NPA

and unaware of what COPE was. 6. b) Was as successful this time as last time? The agreement kept vote from

splitting – we had to do this time, don’t think it will work in the future -‐ spreading out agreement.

7. If you agree with Vision’s policy and resigned not to have a majority – agreement doesn’t make sense. Platform that needs to be implemented, then you should want to get a majority.

8. Didn’t agree with nomination meeting in June. 9. June – strong armed – turned people off COPE. 10. Not a vehicle for progressive movement. 11. Civic politics new – full terms, doesn’t know what it amounts to – partisan

moment in Vancouver. 12. Aligning ourselves with Vision – muzzling affect. 13. Didn’t feel COPE’s presence in Vancouver prior to the election. 14. Grassroots movement – not taken by anyone. 15. Proud, grassroots organization – people who need a voice. 16. Represents NDP – “own agenda” 17. Vision-‐ liaison, Vision – won. 18. Don’t have a constituency that we are representing – wiped out, no power.

Lone voice – no control over decision making – give back to grassroots. 19. No progressive voice in this election – fight between Vision and NPA. 20. Media ads, CUPE’s push – pocket book campaign. 21. Negotiations – COPE not seen as progressive voice went to NSV – respect

decision that was made in June. 22. Progressive voice for people in Vancouver. 23. Vision vulnerable in 2014? 24. Need to separate from Vision and enunciate a progressive voice. Begin now!

For 2014. 25. A coalition – group willing to work in coalition. 26. Democratic outcome -‐ end of day, coalition piece very critical. 27. Vision is a “middle” voice. Differentiate. 28. School Board – closures – progressive decisions made at school board. Varies

at what you look at Council, vs School Board.

21

29. Agreement – willing to work with people – presented an agreeable position – viewed “not so different from COPE” – saw it as favourable at the time.

30. Identify our own party/policy and work with others. 31. Negotiating Committee – secured third spot on Council. 32. Vision ran one less, elected everyone. 33. We ran one more, at Parks. Competing options – people vote differently. 34. $10,000 campaign. 35. $300,000 – money sources – came from sources giving money to competing

interests. 36. Get messages out and votes – COPE has only succeeded majority 2 times. 37. Strategic agreement – not an agreement on policy. 38. We didn’t have a strong spokesperson. 39. Media – difficult getting earned media. 40. Get message out and earned media. Date, time, media strategy – messaging. 41. Nomination – advocate for meeting in June, instead of September. 42. Have nomination adjacent to others, nominate at the same time. More

opportunity to raise money.

• Question 2:

1. Minimum amount of money available. 2. September – gave a lot of time between. Gave them (Vision) a lot of time to

get their names out. 3. More media coverage if names are out there and confirmed. In hind sight –

didn’t have the experience. 4. Vision/NPA – 20,000+ doors already knocked on (three months) prior. NPA

and Vision. Should have meeting at same time as other campaigns. 5. Earned media. Strong messaging, earned Tim front page. Articles in Province,

Sun – a lot of coverage. 6. Messaging strong – campaign reflected earned media. Proud to be a member

of COPE – campaign. 7. Vision/NPA fight. 8. NSV – will be running again next time. 9. 18 neighbourhoods represented – may be an ally -‐ ally for future. Could have

been a good ally? 10. Your candidates are muzzled – do not agree with Vision. 11. Media – can’t say anything. 12. Money bag – doesn’t sit well – “here you are” 13. Technical – bus ads, after the election? Saw them after – end of October up

for the month. For a certain number of weeks. The timing was there that we wanted.

14. 24/Metro/ power framing conversations – presence less there. 15. Timing of nomination meeting – Vision had theirs’ before we had our

meeting on the agreement (?)

22

16. Objectivity – self respect, coalition partners/before the agreement was made.

17. Coalition COPE/Vision – NDP – “orange crush” -‐ standing with Liberals – looks ridiculous.

18. Self respect – COPE – lack of mental block – looked strange. 19. Timing – Vision and NPA were already in full campaign mode and we were

still searching for candidates.

• Question 3: Space that COPE can occupy?

1. Engage membership/other challenges. 2. Knock on doors – people have no idea what COPE is. 3. Better community outreach/connect with them. 4. Long term perspective – smash strong hold on NPA – we have achieved that. 5. COPE has been effective in its history – 2 examples – forces outside our

control. 6. COPE minority voice – put forward policies by the positions. Put them

forward strongly, this is the right, correct way to do it. 7. Remain a “minority party”. 8. Future – cement that! 9. WARDS – Wards can guarantee electing some COPE members. 10. Control our destiny – move forward the “majority” of Vancouverites –

renters, etc. 11. Future – what are we going to occupy? Honest, face the fact – one seat – big

loss. 12. Strategic future, live up to the facts – minority party – enter into a

relationship with another party – a failure. 13. Made a mistake – signal – way forward tricky. 14. Logistics of what COPE can do – points of critique that are coming to the fore

Sun/Province ie – housing, grassroots, frame of City Council. 15. We are going to be a minority and our voice is not going to have glout. 16. Split – NDP/alliance with Vision. 17. Play this game – get our integrity and principles back. 18. Development – representing developers, remember our roots and who we

are supposed to represent. 19. We didn’t do poorly – 45-‐47,000 range (vote). 20. What are we going to do moving forward? Reflect decisions being made at

Park Board – Brent and Donalda will continue to get coverage. 21. Meetings every couple of weeks – COPE Council Caucus – enunciate COPE’s

position – get media coverage. 22. Dismantling of public services. 23. Stronger position – Identify the forces we are up against – i.e. NPA. 24. Decimation of the landscape and area – COPE’s long term partnership with

Labour. COPE can put forward a strong position on questions.

23

25. Galvanize our position – we won’t always agree with Vision. 26. Occupy movement – inequality has been brought to the mainstream

conversation. 27. Inequity – is something that we can address (our advantage). 28. Wards – COPE presence on Council – reintroduce the concept. New

Canadians would not have even known about it. 29. Next 3 years – between elections – take a break – move focus onto

ourselves, shape Vancouver’s society. 30. Continuously critique. 31. COPE universal. Very important principles – informed, engaged. Not focused

on candidates anymore. 32. Cohesive arguments on all issues of concern – i.e. housing, affordability. 33. We’ve been in this position before – been here more than anywhere else. 34. Strong voice for those that don’t have one -‐ fight for what’s right for people. 35. Not just an electoral machine – democratic process. 36. Haven’t won many elections. 37. Vision-‐ @ Schools -‐ isn’t a problem, @ Council – don’t trust them. Fight loud

and clear. 38. Do what is right – proud of being a COPE member.

• Question 4 (suggestions of points to be brought forward to whole group): • Discussions being looked at now and the Spring, AGM important. • The previous candidates engaged – makes sense. • Staking out positions, key priority. • Acted with membership decision. • Cooperation with Vision needs to end. COPE has to go forward. Didn’t

work last time, won’t work next time. • Housing – i.e. 114 Unit being built at Kingsway and Boundary. Not one

unit of social housing. • Own distinct party. • Contracting out at City Hall (Vision). • Mayoralty candidate. • NSV -‐ looking at progressive view points. • Not a consensus that the strategy wasn’t a good one. Hold the people

accountable for the decisions made, even if they are our friends. • What turned out was a big failure. • Future – next election – focus on the work and what COPE stands for –

fighting for affordable housing – stronger, relevant. • Focus should be on looking at the make up of who showed up today –

reaching out – more universal – today doesn’t look like the citizens of Vancouver.

24

• We need the future – opens up the question – need everyone thinking about it.

• Things didn’t go well, but not everyone thinks it was a failure.

There was a Brief Break… Panel Discussion: 4 members provided their perspectives to the meeting. Bill Pegler, Paul Houle, Jay Catalan, and Kyla Epstein. Report back to full assembly:

1. Nathan and Kate did an excellent job as the co-‐campaign managers.

2. Strong views on both sides of the issue around the agreement with Vision.

3. More than 100 people in the room – discussing left wing politics for Vancouver.

4. Need to stay active and involved. 5. Discussion – what are we going to do? 6. Need to reach out – to citizens. 7. Campaign to change electoral funding. 8. Conservation. 9. Engage membership – grow members. 10. Engage membership in social movements. 11. Raise money.

• Each group reported back a couple of key points of discussion from their groups. The full documentation is listed above.

• Group 1 – 1. Need to build alliances with grassroots and cultural groups. 2. Differentiate ourselves without demonizing – show the alternatives we are.

• Group 2 – 1. Nomination meeting should be much earlier than it was this time. (Agreement open ended).

2. Vote splitting – the bigger issue – collective force without Cadman, not elected – Green alliance didn’t work out. Identify potential candidates now – spokespersons now for COPE – look at issues. 3. Volunteers – conflict – not enough volunteers in the campaign. • Group 3 – 1. No consensus about the past – strong feelings on how to

proceed – progressive alliances.

25

2. All policies move forward at all levels – previous candidates possible spokespersons. • Group 4 – 1. Move nomination meeting earlier. 2. Analyze how the NPA managed to increase their vote and inform our analysis. 3. Issue based organizing over the next 3 years – electoral reform – rentals, pots of money, contribute to certain issues -‐ attract volunteers. • Group 5 – 1. COPE strength – who and why and what gets represented in

community. On-‐line, newspaper. 2. Election finance rules. 3. Nominations – eliminate waiting. (COPE is strong – before tackling big issues)

• Group 6 – 1. Expand/cohesive grouping – increase more visible and non-‐visible minorities.

2. Shadow wards – reach out to other neighbourhoods – how does it fit into the larger platform. • Group 7 -‐ 1. Need to be clear about who we are – own identity. 2. Fundraising/funding – more conversation needed. 3. Grassroots, neighbourhood organizing – continue where we are strong and could be stronger. Build a social movement. Opportunity – affordable housing, continue to talk, a space to focus. • Group 8 – 1. We need a spokesperson or many. 2. Reach out and identify. Strong interest in committees and caucuses. 3. Good conversation with members. *Allan Wong was acknowledged and congratulated on being elected as a School Board Trustee. Open Discussion: Members present were invited to make comments at the end of the meeting. 9 members made individual contributions. Comments made by these members included: • NPA – party portrays itself as united. COPE has to come together – public

needs to see us as one party. Our nomination meeting was too late. Junior party of Vision – appears unimportant.

• Communication – CO-‐OP Radio, W2 CO-‐OP Radio – COPE encouraged to make use of this program – put the word out.

26

• Always have a lot to say and represent Vancouver – Real things: 1. Three elections without a Chinese candidate at Council. 30-‐40%

factor. 2. Leader -‐ no leader – no Mayor candidate. 3. Everything we ever needed is still needed. 4. Money -‐ $10 each -‐ creates a big pot.

• Co-‐Managers – last time we all worked together. People worked together – came together for 2 months – times we work well together. Listen, actions, outreach – apply it over the next 3 years. Be engaging. Focus on COPE! Don’t refer back to ideas where we have been divisive.

• Holding people accountable, don’t pretend it went well – only elected one person. Hold people accountable.

• Not good for the City – look forward – movement building. Hold ourselves accountable – take a look in the mirror, hold ourselves accountable.

• Gratitude – thank you – how COPE should move forward – inspire people to move forward. COPE – engage, inspire, take action – know what they are getting involved with.

• Talk about issues. Huge turnout today – positive and encouraging! • June 26th – 2 hours – split down the middle – what were we trying to do? Form

alliance? Vote splitting – what’s changed? Good discussion/self critical – will never have enough money.

• A party the people want to join. • Future – do it a bit harder, there are people being evicted right now. Pay Day

loan (Community). • A few individual questions and comments were submitted for consideration.

Sarena closed the meeting and thanked everyone for coming.

Announcements:

1. COPE AGM – Sunday, February 19, 2012. 2. Annual Winter Gala (TBA) – will honour previous electeds.

Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 4 pm

COPE Membership Dialogue Meeting

Documents