Former MLA Corky Evans has written this letter and given us permission to share it:
I think that the current, and very public, troubles inside the NDP must be hugely confusing to citizens. In order to try to help folks better understand the debacle I am inclined to try and offer some history about how political parties function in times of stress and how mine (and ours) has functioned over the last few weeks.
Leadership, in any Party, is not a right. Every Leader understands that they serve the Party they lead. Power, of course, is addictive and extremely difficult to abandon. This is true in all institutions from the family to a community group to a company to a political party. Power is also isolating. When we have power we have a position of status and we tend to be surrounded by people who support our status and may even benefit from our position by virtue of their wages or their ambition. Surrounded, as we are by such people, we lose contact with the views of the citizenry at large and need the intervention of others, outside our circle, to tell us what is really going on.
Political parties resolve these contradictions, at least in a democracy, in various ways. One of the most straightforward methods available to help a Leader understand what is happening outside their circle is to have some of the elected people they work with simply go and tell them how things look out on the street. These interventions are universally “in confidence” and, to my knowledge, have rarely ever been discussed outside of the circle of people actually involved in the discussion. An MLA who meets with their Leader to suggest that the Leader needs to consider moving on in life has to be tremendously brave. The Leader does not have to agree with them and can make their life difficult in future. Obviously, the discussion works best when the Member is trusted by the Leader so that the Leader can believe that the Member is not acting out of ambition or malice.
The Leader can, of course, decide to accept the advice of the Member or decide the Member is wrong and stay on. Regardless of the outcome, however, we who were not in the meeting never hear about the exchange because it is never in the best interest of the Party to have their internal discussions made public.
In 1986, when I was a candidate and prior to the election, I was asked to sign such a letter to Bob Skelly, suggesting that he resign as Leader. I declined, but others (I believe) signed the letter and (I believe) MLA’s delivered it. If such a letter and meeting actually happened, Bob Skelly, as was his right, chose to disregard the letter and the request to step down. I have never seen the letter and do not know who the MLA‘s were, as it has always been treated as an “in confidence” occurrence. I know none of this to absolutely true because, correctly, none of it has been discussed with me by any of the participants.
Same thing with Mike Harcourt. (I believe) a group of MLA’s visited Mike to discuss their wish that he resign in order to make the Nanaimo “bingogate” scandal go away for the good of the Party. He chose to take the advice but, because it was a private meeting, I do not know if such a meeting took place or who went to see him or what they said. I was part of that government and I do not know, and have not asked, what private communications took place prior to Mike’s resignation.
Same thing with Glen Clark. I believe MLA’s suggested to Glen that he resign. Glen (as was his right) chose to resist the request and then was forced to step down by virtue of actions by the Attorney General. As with both Bob Skelly and Mike Harcourt, private discussions with Glen by MLA’s who (may have) asked him to resign remain “in confidence” to this day. I was part of that government and I do not know, and have not asked, what private communications took place prior to Glen’s resignation.
For all I know, similar meetings have taken place between Socred MLA’s and Bill Bennett Jr.and/or Bill Van derZalm, and Liberal MLA’S and Gordon Wilson, and/or Gordon Campbell. The point being that MLA’s of all Parties have always had the right to request of their Leader that they resign or submit to a Leadership review and those discussions have always been, and should always remain, private. The Leader can decide to step down or decide to remain in office. Everyone involved, however, always understands the assumption of “confidence” involved in the process. It is also important to understand that when these kind of private meetings have happened in the past, they are most likely to happen with Members who personally like the Leader. Members who wish to personally replace the Leader or have antipathy for Leader do not attend because their motives would be suspect. These are private meetings to discuss a private issue raised in the best interest of the Party in question, not the personal feelings or ambitions of the people in the meeting.
Precisely in keeping with this historical tradition, a group of New Democrat MLA’s came to the conclusion a few weeks back that it was time to hold a Leadership convention.
A small group of those MLA’s took a letter signed by the others and themselves, to a private meeting with their Leader. Both the letter and the meeting were private. It was assumed that they would always remain private, because that is the way that it has always been done.In keeping with historical tradition the Leader had the absolute right to consider their intervention and decide to take their advice or reject it.
For the first time in history (that I know of) Carole James chose to respond in a different, and utterly unpredictable manner. She advised others in her Caucus and staff what had happened and named the MLA’s who had come, in confidence, to see her and then proceeded to turn the upcoming Provincial Council meeting into an opportunity to divide the signatories of the letter, and their supporters, from the rest of the Party.
The Provincial Council of the NDP is a wonderful institution. Alone (as far as I know) the NDP understands that democracy inside the Party requires that constituencies have the right to run the Party and oversee it’s activities. In spite of the huge financial costs involved the NDP representatives of every constituency in the Province come together a few times a year to debate issues and hear reports from their committees and their Leader and to meet with their MLA’s.
I was honored, recently, to have been elected as a delegate to Provincial Council by the constituency of West Kootenay. A meeting of the Provincial Council was scheduled to occur a few days after the meeting between Carole James and the MLA’s who had asked her to consider calling for a leadership convention. .
As we walked into the hotel the morning of the Provincial Council meeting, staff members stood in the hallway outside the meeting room and gave yellow scarves to everyone EXCEPT the folks they knew had signed or delivered the letter, and a few of the rest of us they figured might support the 13 signatories. The result was surreal. It was also the most divisive thing I have ever witnessed in our Party. The MLA’s who had NOT signed the letter asking Carol to resign were identified, in front of their peers and the Press, as Loyal and Good. Thus, the folks WITHOUT yellow scarves were immediately and publically identified as Disloyal and Bad.
It was awful. It was so unprecedented and unexpected (deriving, as it did, from a respectful and private meeting that everyone involved, except Carole, had intended to remain Private regardless of how she decided to respond) that none of us knew how to react, or feel, or think.
The meeting opened, as they all do, with a reading of the Party’s Harassment Policy. If I, or any of us, had had our wits about us, we would have responded by pointing out that the scarves, themselves, constituted Harassment of the worst kind. I am sorry to say that this appropriate response didn’t occur to me until some days later.
I think it fair to say that some of the present trauma can be said to have begun with the expulsion of Bob Simpson from the NDP Caucus. To many of the constituency associations in the Province, Bob’s expulsion constituted a symbol of the erosion of democratic principles that allow members of the Caucus or the Party to express their thoughts. Thus, constituencies (including the one I had come to represent) had sent in motions urging the reinstatement of Bob Simpson.
The motions urging the Leader to reinstate Bob Simpson were declared unconstitutional. It was determined, by the President, that the Party had no constitutional right to comment on that issue. This change to the agenda was simply wrong. Nobody in that room had wanted to “instruct” the Leader how to do her job. The motion simply said the Leader be “urged” to reinstate Bob Simpson. The Party has the right to “urge” the Leader to do anything they want. We could “urge” the Leader to stand on her head for an hour a day if we wanted, and she has the perfect right to ignore the advice if she sees it as wrong thinking or not in the best interest of herself or her Caucus or her Party. It is certainly unconstitutional for members of Provincial council to “instruct” or “demand” that the Leader take some action. It cannot, however, be unconstitutional to simply give advice. If advice from the members is unwelcome or unacceptable, then what is the Party for except to function as an electoral machine?
I can only guess that the President and the Executive did not want to have the motion concerning Bob Simpson to see the light of day so they declared it Unconstitutional and then voted down a challenge of the Chair, to make their judgment stick.
Yesterday, Jenny Kwan asked publically that her Leader call a Leadership Convention. She suggested that if Carol wants to keep her job that she ask for a mandate to do so in a “one member, one vote” open forum. I cannot imagine (and I have tried) how this difficulty, could be resolved otherwise.
Carole James has done something I never heard of before, which is to publicize and castigate MLA’s who, rightly or wrongly, thought they were acting in confidence and in the best interests of their Party. She could have told them they were wrong and stayed in her job. That has been done before in parliamentary democracies, probably hundreds of times. She could have accepted their advice and stepped down as Leader, perhaps while remaining as an MLA. That, too, has happened before, probably hundreds of times. Instead, she chose to do something that I have never heard of before (no doubt there is some historical precedent somewhere, although I don’t know about it and I can’t imagine that it turned out well) and publicly attacked those who came to her in confidence.
I don’t care if Carole wants to keep her job or not. Neither do I think this trouble is “about” Carole personally. I have, as probably every citizen does, thoughts about her leadership skill and style and believe they are irrelevant to the discourse. This is now about the democratization, or not, of how we do politics. It does not appear to be an issue that is limited to the NDP or even to B.C. I have heard similar thoughts about the erosion of democratic process and about the centralized control of political parties of late from members of the B.C. Liberal Party, the Federal Liberal Party, and the Alberta Conservative Party. It could be that this is a moment in our history when the political process is broken and reform and renewal are on the horizon.
As a New Democrat, I am heartsick at the troubles and I fervently wish Carol James had not orchestrated the public division of her Caucus. As a citizen, I am hopeful that the democratic process in Canada is being reborn. As her friend and supporter, I will go where Jenny Kwan goes, come what may.
Corky Evans
Corky once again proves that even after years of service to this party his priorities are right, his principles untarnished and integrity in tact.
I too “will go where Kwan and Corky go, come what may.”
This is the finest example of leadership I have seen in the NDP, I dare say in my entire life.
Great piece, Corky, it reminded me of my treeplanting days, -the 21 years that I was a professional silviculture worker in the BC ‘forest’ industry. As unorganized piece-work planters , people are acutely aware of the injustice, repression, and abuse that workers are treated with in that industry. Planters are obviously keenly aware of this. But when one gets promoted to a foreman position, initially one thinks, -I serve the treeplanters first, the contractor who employs us second, and the logging corporation client third. One imagines, as a newly-promoted foreman, that the best interests of the workers will always be priority. But how very soon that changes. As one starts to get an inside overview of the operations, -one gets centralized in between the worker, the contractor and the client, the interests of the employers begin to take on more importance, and inevitably, the rights and concerns of the planters start moving down the priority list. And in time, one begins to discount their concerns even, -one starts seeing such as just more whining and complaining from people who should be thankful for their jobs. One thinks they should just shut up, or go away if they don’t like it.
So after 10 years of foremanning, I went back to being a treeplanter (made more money, less stress) and then that whole worker perspective came instantly back to the fore… It’s a terrible thing, but truly, power corrupts and proper leadership must be derived from the roots, not from the top. Top-down leadership is inevitably repressive, and ultimately corrupt.
Cheers, Ingmar
Wow, that guy Corky sure takes your breath away. He is the most solid bundle of common sense ever discovered. Pretty nearly everyone knows the NDP needs new leadership in order to renew the party’s vision and purpose. Not just a new leader but new leadership across the party structure. Any leadership contest that does not include Corky Evans will be incomplete. Humility is a strong component of competent leadership.
What a wonderful letter. Thank you for this explanation.
Watching this unfold is like watching the story of an abusive, dysfunctional family, where there is secrecy and bullying, where people put in situations where they are opposed to each other instead of being assisted to work together. It is all very, very sad.
I completely agree with Corky, We are in situation where the people who support the party raise money, volunteer on campaigns etc are disappointed with the leadership of the party. The fact is the next election is ours to lose and the current leader cannot get people over to our side despite a collaspe of Liberal party. I for one am sick of privitization,Hst,anti union legistation,P-3s. Are we going to remain loyal to Carol or are we going win the next election and make real changes that affect real people?
Thanks for the careful, thoughtful and well-reasoned letter Corky (and the heart behind it).
An honest appraisal of what Carole James has done and said.
It is obvious that when she as party leader should have been vocal on party future policies ie in the up coming election,and MOST IMPORTANTLY the last election.She was silent.
To all of this she fumbled and stumbled was inept in many interviews,and was silent in to the point that left the public wondering just what she and the NDP stood for.
The NDP party as a whole ended up in limbo all due to Carole James ineffective incapabilitiwes as a leader.
When she should be holding the Liberals and Campbell’s feet to the fire,where was Carole?
HERE TO AGAIN SHE IS AND WAS SILENT!!.
Carole James in her mind has tasted the possibility of becoming Premier,and as such has put her own personnel feelings ahead of the NDP Party.
She is ignoring what every responsible leader should be doing,and that is PUTTING THE WELFARE OF THE NDP AHEAD OF HER OWN TWISTED CONDUCT AND BIASED FEELINGS.
It is imparative for the welfare of the NDP to win in the next election,if the party is to survive.
She is attempting to hide her inadequancies as leader,at the expense of the NDP,and the caucus,which is inexcusable.
I believe Carole James is now broken the cardinal rule by projecting her own personnel agenda ahead of the party welfare as a whole.
In other words her attempt to gain support at the expense of the party ‘HAS CROSSED THE LINE’
Carole James must be relieved of her position irreguardless.
The Liberals are in a position now to elect a new leader,hold an early election,and BLOW THE NDP OUT OF THE WATER FOR GOOD.
ALL OF BC WILL LOOSE AND IT MAY VERY WELL BE THE END OF THE NDP FORGOOD AS A PARTY,ALL AT THE PERSONNEL EXPENSE OF CAROLE JAMES’S PERSONNEL AGENDA.
GET RID OF JAMES,OR LOOSE THE PARTY,THERE IS NO CHOICE TO BE MADE,SHE MUST GO.
As usual Corky cuts to the quick of the matter.
I was a strong Corky supporter in the last leadership race and sincerely hope he throws his hat in if the opportunity arises.
The NDP hasw strayed too far to the centre and has lost sight of their principles that has forced me to stop voting altogether.
Corky for Leader!…Corky for Premier!
Very well put. Common sense is still here in BC.
I wrote to Carole earlier today, speaking about the abuse of power. And now I read Corky’s exceptional piece. Corky, we need you back. We need you at the helm.
This was the freshest and most concise, easy-to-understand explanation of the situation that I have seen..precisely the reason why we have to convince Mr. Evans to stand for party leader and sieze the reins again…I posted this letter on my FB page, and feel it should get the widest reading possible..
Thon thanks to Corky Evans’ revelations of what took place at the meeting as his thoughts on the Old Guards’ hold on power reveals the political conundrum in BC (and Canadian) politics. I’ve addressed a letter to Carole James and the NDP Caucus and stated how unimpressed I was by her leadership over the past eight years, and even though I voted for her as my MLA for Victoria and have confidence in her abilities as a Cabinet member, i no longer have a belief that she has a vision for the NDP. In fact, I believe she doesn’t know as the current leader of the NDP, what she wants as a government-in-waiting (other than the NDP won’t do what the Liberals are doing). As a grandparent I must consider the future course for political policies for BC and if there isn’t the accountability of a leadership convention, I will NOT VOTE in the next election as whatever political party is elected will come by power illegitimately.
What a thoughtful letter. Thank you for giving us your insight into the issues going on within the NDP today. I hope things will be happily resolved long before the next election.
Corky, the sooner we hear your voice of reason (and sense of humour) in the legislature, the better off we’ll be. You’re an honest and ethical person, which is sorely lacking in the party today.
The media is having a heyday over this, and the MLAs who have questioned Carole’s leadership have been publicly branded as ‘dissidents’ and ‘the Baker’s Dozen’. I can’t help but believe these titles have come from Carole’s allies.
As an ordinary citizen – non-union, ex-government employee who had the honour of serving government and the people, I truly believed my career as a civil servant was a noble calling.
I also believed that the NDP would depoliticize civil servants so that they could continue to serve British Columbians. After all, isn’t that what the NDP stands for? The ordinary person?
My faith in that has now been shattered. If this is what happens to MLAs who confidentially deliver bad news – ‘this might not work, there are genuine hazards ahead, and here are the options’ – what becomes of the public servants who’s duty it is to do the same?
I am shocked to see what the NDP has become: outing ‘dissidents’, ganging up, ‘holding MLAs to account’. (What does that mean? It sounds rather ominous – MLAs are perpetually held to account, aren’t they?)
Thank you for writing this. It has restored my sense that there are responsive, ethical and truly decent candidates and MLAs in the NDP – even if they are currently being vilified by the leader and the Provincial Executive.
Best wishes to you and your family,
Michele
Thanks, Corky, for saying it like it is. These times in which we are living require bold actions and we now have an opportunity to speak from the grassroots and turn the tide for those brave, progressive caucus members who chose not not be silent.
A renewed NDP Party is the only thing that can win us the next election.
Just when I have become disillusioned and totally unimpressed with most elected personnel because of their lack of integrity and ethics, ability to communicate, insightfulness and the ability to lead – Corky proves once again that not all is lost if we choose people to lead who have these abilities deeply ingrained.
Excellent letter from Corky. Finally someone who speaks the truth when the biased spin-media won’t. Corky, we need you as the next NDP Leader…please consider!
Ethics have always been a difficult concept for the NDP to handle, and this move by Ms. James seems to exemplify her lackluster leadership.
Castigating and laying blame for the Party’s abysmal record over the past ten years won’t help at all.
The difficulty now is that there is no real leader or person who exemplifies the NDP best now. Do we even know what the Party’s policies are or where their direction will take us if they are elected in this post-union era of growing small businesses?
Interesting read all the same.
To all those who wished for more democracy in the NDP, I would suggest you sign up as members and take part in rebuilding. It isn’t enough to vote nor even donate money, which is often misspent by those in control of the finances.
The NDP has won elections only when an army of volunteer activists have joined in the effort as in ’91 and ’96.
Supporters of the “heretics” in the party owe it to them and themselves to get as involved as possible – we may lose some of the party elite who have threatened/promised to leave the party now James has resigned, and need to replace their contributions with new blood and new energy. If 10% of those who have been commenting and keeping updated on this story would go to BCNDP.ca and enroll it would show the doubters there is a lot of support available – especially outside the old “box” the leadership has been living in!
The “on the street” of comments on TV have contradicted what pundits like Baldrey and Palmer are saying and shown what the 13 and most of BC already knew. There is far more support for party renewal both in participation and voter support than the old inner circle understands.
Lately the ideas (and invective) coming from status quo supporters in the NDP have been indistinguishable from those of Baldrey and Palmer and Gary Mason etc. No wonder MLSs challenging autocratic leaders, be they named Campbell or James, (or dare we hope, Harper?) are looking much better to the average voter than the leaders themselves.
What a wonderful piece of insight to the workings of a political party. It is also an incredible job of explaining the ‘mystery’ behind so much of what we can only guess at by watching/reading the news of the day.
I agree with the commenters here – your voice and wisdom is missed in the Legislature.
If there was ever a time for someone like you to return to politics, it’s NOW.
The NDP needs you, and more importantly, the people of BC need you.
Come on – your only 62; a young man.
If this letter was the only thing you put forward as a platform by which to return, I think it’s all it would take.
Corky, you are always eloquent and that gives you advantage and privilege. Your words are aimed at influencing opinion and action. You imply abuse of power and I challenge you to examine your own use of power. Because something has always been done one way, it does not mean that is the only or right way.
all New Democrats have a responsibility to examine the depths of their own sexism and the role it plays when any woman presumes to lead. I also trust New Democrats will have the wisdom to realize there is more at work behind these scenes and that eloquence does not always lead to the truth or the most ethical outcome. The best friends are those who risk wrath by holding a mirror to our faces. The powerful in-crowd of the NDP would be very unwise to ignore the wisdom and analysis of “regular” folks.
Richard, thanks for keeping the Corkster’s neurotic piece, longing for the old way of doing business in the Family up and available. He sounds like the Hyman Roth character in the Godfather II saying, “I didn’t ask questions, I didn’t complain. I just said this is the business we have chosen!”
Every time I need to refer someone to the general background on why there are continuing leadership troubles in the NDP, the Corkster’s letter is an irreplacable bit of evidence.
BTW, do you have a handy link to his daughter’s letter to all the papers in the summer of 2008, saying thank God my Dad has quit so now I can tell everyone how much contempt I have for Carole James?
I do not have the link Rod. I remember it well enough. Perhaps someone else will forward it to CC.