[fvc-wat-disc] Meeting with Bardish

Mon Nov 20 12:58:00 EST 2017

Hi folks. I'm only partially following this discussion.. but if it's that
Bardish's office wants the names and addresses of all attendees, so that
they will only allow people who live in the riding to attend, in organizing
MP visits with Liberals across the country in the past 1-2 years, that's
pretty common practice for the assistant to require that. Sometimes you can
give them a few names and addresses and then kinda add other people in who
just show up with you. But they don't want to deal with non-constituents.

Anita

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Mary Jackes <mkj at bell.net> wrote:

> Yes, indeed.  Anything other than a polite approach to a politician is
> completely counter-productive.  Perhaps simply asking for clarification?
> That could present the opportunity to say that we find a requirement of
> details on the visiting group unprecedented.
>
> Based on 13 years of association with Fair Vote and other groups here in
> Waterloo, plus years in Alberta, I would say such a request is
> unprecedented.  And it's for that reason that I find asking for names and
> addresses odd.  Definitely "intimidation" comes in different forms in
> different countries (I've worked in several where intimidation could mean
> really bad things - for me up to and including a wall and a sub-machine gun
> in one country and being chased by armed goons through the night in
> another).  But in Canadian terms.......... My reaction to Stu's email was
> that "intimidating" was a reasonable word for him to have used, in the
> sense of inducing anxiety.
>
> Mary.
>
> On 11/20/2017 10:16 AM, Stephanie Janzen-Martin wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Thank you for the responses. I am all in favour of pushing MPs
> (respectfully), on policy issues. My only concern with how this email
> thread was going was that it seemed to be veering into territory that
> seemed unnecessarily harsh and negative - if we see our MP as treating
> people as second class citizens and intimidation etc, those are big claims,
> and I hesitate to throw them around lightly. (I've lived places where that
> is a real threat, and that kind of stuff actually does happen, and it looks
> very different from this - trust me! :)) Not that there isn't maybe a way
> that Bardish could have handled this better, but jumping to intimidation
> just seems unrealistic to me - especially since, as far I can tell, nobody
> has even asked her why she wanted the info. Feels like a lot of negative
> speculation that is very thin on facts. :)
>
> Why would we confront Bardish (even if it is done politely) and tell her
> that some people didn't like her request, and are accusing her of
> intimidation, when we haven't even bothered to ask her why she asked for
> the info in the first place? Shouldn't we learn more first?
>
> Let's have a great chat with Bardish about PR and policy, and be smart and
> clear-headed about it. Let's not jump to falsely positive conclusions
> (overly naive), but let's also not jump to falsely negative conclusions
> (overly cynical).
>
> Thoughts?
>
> SJM
>
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 9:59 AM STUART CHANDLER <stuchandler43 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Stephanie‎ (and all)
>>
>> I, for one, certainly value your viewpoint. It's good to know you've had
>> a positive experience working with Bardish's office.
>>
>> Personally, I always approach life from the perspective of "Expect the
>> Best", so, I want there to be no misunderstanding of my intent. I agree
>> 100% that we should approach EVERY meeting with ANY person or group from
>> that positive perspective.
>>
>> However, I believe it is wise to consider all factors before such a
>> meeting, so as not to be blind-sided by something that, in retrospect we
>> should have seen coming. And we are left standing with mouths agape, not
>> knowing what say in response. I also believe it is possible to say
>> challenging things ‎in very respectful ways.
>>
>> In my opinion, the best way to approach this would be to respectfully
>> advise her office of how the email is being received by some people, and to
>> add the assurance that we imagine that reaction was not intended.
>>
>> I have identified 3 reactions: 1) surprise and concern over the
>> introduction of a new practice in the visit to the MP's office. ‎2) the
>> feeling of intimidation generated. 3) the feeling of possible exclusion (or
>> being considered 2nd-class) if a prospective visitor lives in a different
>> riding.
>>
>> As we are a group that is focused on the promotion of increased
>> Democracy, I suggest that before we passively accept a new practice by an
>> MP, we consider if it is likely to advance the cause of Democracy (and
>> access to MPs) or more likely to have the opposite effect. ‎To me, this
>> seems to have the opposite effect. And an MP should be respectfully
>> advised.
>>
>> Sincerely.
>>
>> Stu.
>>
>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.
>> *From: *Stephanie Janzen-Martin
>> *Sent: *Monday, November 20, 2017 9:00 AM
>> *To: *FVC Waterloo Region Discussion
>> *Reply To: *FVC Waterloo Region Discussion
>> *Subject: *Re: [fvc-wat-disc] Meeting with Bardisheach meeting ‎
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'll add my thoughts in here, if you don't mind. I am not a particular
>> fan of the liberals (I'm NDP/Green) - but I have had several issues where I
>> have been working with Bardish's office (here and Ottawa) for the last year
>> or so. She and her staff have been extremely polite, positive and helpful,
>> while working with me on big questions, despite there being no immediate
>> fix available. (On another issue, they worked very hard with me over
>> several weeks and found an immediate solution, which was great!)
>>
>> Maybe she really is trying to secretly intimidate the opposition by
>> getting logistical info, or maybe this is a simple misunderstanding that is
>> being escalated every time someone else responds in the email thread. If
>> so, I am sure that any meeting we might get with her in this issue will be
>> compromised if we go in assuming the worst. How can we expect to work for
>> positive change if we are so convinced of such negative things about her,
>> based on so little info?  If that is how the meeting is going to be
>> started, then I'd rather not be a part of it, since I already have a great
>> working relationship with her and her staff, and I don't want to jeopardize
>> it with these negative assumptions.
>>
>> All I'm saying is that I would give the benefit of the doubt and get more
>> info before assuming intimidation... :)
>>
>> Hope that helps,
>>
>> SJM
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 1:09 PM Mary Jackes <mkj at bell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I must say that this leaves an unpleasant taste in the mouth.  It feels
>>> like intimidation.
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Mary
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/18/2017 9:21 AM, STUART CHANDLER wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks Sharon for passing the Bardish email along.
>>>
>>> Holy crap!!  More proof that Bardish has a HUGE amount of nerve, and
>>> indulges in covert/overt intimidation (although I'm sure she would cleverly
>>> try to sell it as "genuine interest in her constituants". ‎ I have no doubt
>>> that she has a pretty clear sense of the effect that "interest" (in having
>>> the names and addresses of those interested in visiting her office -
>>> particularly if coming with intent to complain or challenge) would have on
>>> anyone so inclined.
>>>
>>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.
>>> *From: *Sharon Sommerville
>>> *Sent: *Friday, November 17, 2017 8:08 PM
>>> *To: *FVC Waterloo Region Discussion
>>> *Reply To: *FVC Waterloo Region Discussion
>>> *Subject: *Re: [fvc-wat-disc] Meeting with Bardish
>>>
>>> Hi Cathe,
>>>
>>> That would be great, thank you!  Will
>>>
>>> Here is th email that I rec'd today from Bardish's constituency
>>> assistant:
>>>
>>> Hi Sharon,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for your email and for your call the other day, could you please
>>> let me know some info about who would like to meet? Could you please also
>>> provide their Waterloo addresses for our records?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks and I hope you’re having a great day.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>>
>>> In my experience, it is unheard of to screen constituents for a meeting
>>> with a MP.  Let me know if you want to provide Bardish's office with your
>>> address.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Sharon
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list
>>> Post a message: fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
>>> Unsubscribe: http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_
>>> listserv.thinkers.org
>>>
>> --
>>
>> Stephanie Janzen-Martin
>> Find me at: Menno Adventures... https://sustainabledevelopmentresource
>> s.wordpress.com     Director of Program Development - www.smcegypt.org
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list
>> Post a message: fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
>> Unsubscribe: http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_
>> listserv.thinkers.org
>>
> --
>
> Stephanie Janzen-Martin
> Find me at: Menno Adventures... https://sustainabledevelopmentresource
> s.wordpress.com     Director of Program Development - www.smcegypt.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list
> Post a message: fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
> Unsubscribe: http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list
> Post a message: fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
> Unsubscribe: http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_
> listserv.thinkers.org
>
>

-- 
*Proportional representation delivers more of what YOU voted for!*
Sign the Declaration: www.fairvote.ca/declaration
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.thinkers.org/pipermail/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org/attachments/20171120/d40e3ffc/attachment-0002.htm>