WHO KILLED TOMMY DOUGLAS?
So, the Ontario NDP leadership has, in the words of Toronto Centre federal candidate Susan Wallace, slagged “your grand-father’s NDP.” As a New Democrat, who is “Your Grandfather?” Well, Tommy Douglas of course!
I asked several party insiders to generate a list of the Ontario NDP’s top 10 most wanted—those who are responsible for assassinating Your Grandfather’s NDP and continue to lead the party into financial and electoral ruin.
Listed below are the runners-up, those who clock-in at slots 10—2.
Each of the top 5 winners will be posted separately and their bios written by a different party member who is acquainted with the lucky winner.
10. Kayle Hatt: For simply being a knob.
9. Scott Piatkowski: For being snide.
8. Salome Cerqueira: For being a big, screaming, petulant baby.
7. Matias de Dovitiis: For being a smug little bugger.
6. Deb Parent: Because no one can explain what the hell this woman does.
5. Andrea Horwath: Rudderless leadership
4. Darlene Lawson: For being an A-1 sell-out.
3. Penny Marno: For incompetence and just plain shrillness.
2. Sandra Clifford: For delusions of adequacy.
1. Gissel Yanez: for creating the illusion in her own mind that she IS the Party
10. KAYLE HATT : For simply being a knob.
This over-the-top little butt-kisser is too much of a caricature to be believed. The darling of the corrupt leadership, he is being trained to take-over from them. His treatment has to be the clearest sign that the leaders are not interested in skilled, intelligent and principled people stepping into leadership roles. But rather, seek underwhelming sheep that will tow the ancient labour line.
9. SCOTT PIATKOWSKI: For being snide.
With no real power and no prospects, he overcompensates by dripping with bitterness. He has probably turned-off more members from participating at the Executive and Council levels than any other person.
8. SALOME CERQUEIRA: For being a big, screaming, petulant baby.
Without a doubt, she has driven away more volunteers than any other person in the NDP. With staff like her, who needs Liberal spies? She loves to scream at people, but if anyone so much as raises an eyebrow at her, she’ll run straight to Gissel Yanez with hurt feelings; or better yet, run to Darlene Lawson in tears as she causes a revolt of the unionized fundraising staff, like she did last spring, due to her hyper-oppressive management-style.
7. MATIAS DE DOVITIIS: For being a smug little bugger.
It’s bad enough to be as arrogant as this guy is, but to be so smug even after you bungle, fumble and waste so much money on a by-election like he did when he managed the 2009 St Paul’s campaign…is priceless. Officially, about $85,000 was spent for a 0.2 point bump in voter support. Although it was underplayed by the party’s brass, it was a huge embarrassment for Horwath, as it was her first electoral test, and she didn’t do all that well. Of course, this price tag does not include the extra $30,000 phone bill incurred AFTER the campaign closed, because Dovitiis forgot to cancel the telephone lines. And this “rocket scientist” still is allowed to handle the party’s money with his Toronto-area NDP Council, a useless, powerless, extra level of bureaucracy that the party cannot afford in these nearly financially bankrupt times. He is an example of the “thoughtful” people the party recruits to its provincial executive, and province-wide Election Planning Committee.
6. DEB PARENT: Because no one can explain what the hell this woman does.
We know she is great at running around like a chicken with her head cut-off, excels in the language of bullshit, knows how to spend the Party’s money, but what does she actually do? Her real skill has been her ability to protect her ass by snuggling under Gissel Yanez’s wings; not an easy place to get to and only a few ever get this close to this woman, even fewer survive the encounter. But once Yanez is gone, the mob will come for Parent’s head on a stake.
5. ANDREA HORWARTH: Rudderless leadership.
For two reasons:
A. For being lackluster and for allowing herself to be cocooned by her too numerous handlers.
B. For not being number one on the list of ignoble NDP personages.
4. DARLENE LAWSON: For being an A-1 sell-out.
Although in her previous career she did do some impressive things, her guidance of the ONDP, as its Provincial Secretary, has been a train-wreck. She is in-charge of the day-to-day running of the party, apart from the Ontario Legislature caucus at Queen’s Park. Besides not knowing the political culture she stepped into, she has shirked from her responsibilities many a time. Her ultimate sin is to have allowed both president Sandra Clifford and caucus chief of staff Gissel Yanez to make her their plaything, by blindly executing their wishes, even if it compromises her position. On her watch, labour relations within provincial office have deteriorated, with a major grievance that deals with using short-term contracts to allegedly avoid paying “permanent” staff benefits. Also, allegedly she allowed some of her staff members to be paid by Queen’s Park, but employing them at provincial office, which likely is a violation of Ontario Legislature rules. Her stewardship can only be described as day-to-day crisis management.
3. PENNY MARNO: For incompetence and just plain shrillness.
Where to start with the woman who can be almost solely held responsible for the Party’s demise. Could it be her introduction of a broken Stalinist-model of centralized organizing; or her wasting resources, and personnel, on campaigns that turned into definitive disasters? Now it’s true this “brain-surgeon” has a Master’s Degree in Social work, but when you look at this quote from her thesis, regarding empowerment, you have to conclude she does not follow the theories she writes about, because in practice, her reign was the anti-thesis of empowerment. Here is an example from her thesis on empowerment:
The concept of empowerment has become a central theme in social work literature. Although it was originally a critique of conventional social work practice, its widespread use has since obscured its meaning. Taking the position that there is a direct link between ideological perspective, the understanding of social problems and their resolution in social work intervention, this study examines the links between ideology and the concept of empowerment in social work literature. Using the framework of Robert Mullaly (1993), the influence of neo-conservativism, liberalism, social democracy and Marxism are compared. Liberalism is found to be the dominant ideological paradigm influencing the meaning of empowerment. However, unlike the liberalism that informs mainstream social work practice, the liberal notion of empowerment recognizes power relations and inequality in society. But the solutions to these problems are true to the liberal paradigm: individual change within a democratic pluralism of government intervention, rather than societal transformation.
Marno, instead of empowering her workforce, and organization, constantly devolved power and decision-making back to her office, leaving staffers and riding volunteers relatively powerless. The work climate at both the former and current provincial offices can only be described as seemingly one of fear and intimidation, hardly the empowerment she wrote about, and probably not the ideal model of a workplace that is supposed to be representing the political aims of organized labour.
Her financial “wizardry” is also another reason that the stake is almost through the heart of the ONDP. An example is when she told a west-end Toronto riding association to use it’s limited resources to go out and rent a campaign office for the Spring 2003 Ontario election. However, there was no Ontario provincial election that spring; and the riding association did not then have the funds to rent a campaign office when the election did occur much later that same year. Now most strategic thinking people would have waited for the election to be called, before a low resourced campaign spent what meagre means they had. Not Marno.
Another example from the disastrous 2003 campaign was how she essentially lied to a sitting member of Toronto City Council, in order to get her to run for the party. Not only did said candidate get the shit kicked out of them at the polls, but this west-end politician lost her seat on council, because she had to decide whether to run provincially or municipally that year. The consequences of Marno’s strategy was that the progressives on council lost a valuable ally, the riding association became mired in debt, and sadly, the end of the candidate’s political career. All that can be said is that the Liberals did not need a secret agent working behind the scenes, when they had enemies like Marno, the Colonel Klink of provincial campaign strategy.
But why talk about the distant past, when the most recent Ontario general election also had nuggets of her incompetence. Here is another example where her allocation of personnel and money was wastefully spent: bringing in campaign managers from out-of-province to manage local campaigns.
For example, a riding that the NDP had totally no hope of winning, Etobicoke North, hired a campaign manager from Winnipeg. The party had to pay his salary, but also pay for his room and board, car rental, and finally, his cellphone. They also hired three staff people. In total, the central campaign authorized approximately $30,000 in salaries and related worker expenses for that campaign. Meanwhile, all that money ended-up adding point-five of a percentage point to the already anemically low vote totals the NDP gets there. Instead, they could have hired one campaign manager, from several local people, who could have managed the campaign for an honorarium of between $1,500 to $3,000, and used only volunteer staff, and had the same or very similar results.
Now another question to ask is “did this pull resources that could have gone to winnable ridings?” Yes, because Marno’s decision to go overboard in Etobicoke North, directly cost the ONDP one of their sitting MPP’s seats, Paul Ferreira in the neighbouring riding of York South-Weston.
So Marno not only wasted money by bringing in outside expertise (btw this is no slight on the manager or the candidate, they did a good job in a hopeless riding, made worse by an awful central party campaign), but wasted her resources by misusing them in the absolutely wrong ridings. She would seem to, allegedly have deliberately lost York South-Weston for whatever allegedly vengeful reasons against Ferreira. So not only is Marno’s fiscal management ability highly suspect, her strategic abilities are also highly suspect; hardly the person anyone would want as “Director of Organization.”
Both the 2003 and 2007 campaigns left the party with a debt legacy that still persists to this day. I could go on and on, but I have to end this thread. Since she no longer is the current Director of Organization, she only rates being number three on the list, though her past actions seem to have played a large part in adding to the current financial and organizational mess the party is in today.
2. SANDRA CLIFFORD: For delusions of adequacy.
It is shocking to see the Peter Principle in action, and made manifest by the ONDP’s President, Sandra Clifford. It is bad enough that this union fart-catcher managed to become the President when no one else wanted it. Three terms have passed since she was elected President, and she still does not know Roberts Rules of Order, even though she chairs all the Admin Committee and Executive meetings. I guess that is why there is no discernible reason or rhyme to how meetings are run, because it certainly seems like she makes it up as she goes. That in itself is bad enough, but when a political entity is trying to achieve government, and shows little competency in governing its own affairs, how can they hope to persuade the voting public that they will be competent managers of the province?
Clifford’s idea of a fair vote, for instance, is to call an emergency meeting of council, then call for a form of voting not authorized by the party’s constitution: email voting. Bad enough that this form of voting is not prescribed in any rules of order that the party follows, nor a fully up-to-date email listing of all council members, but the fact that there was no process even thought out in advance really showed this president is an amateur. I guess she misread the lessons learned from Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine, because the party should not be constantly ruled as if it is in crisis management mode.
It gets better. Under her “leadership”, anyone dissenting from the usually unconstitutional practices she imposed, or other lame-ass ideas brought to the executive, would find themselves exiled from the executive.
In my opinion, her greatest sin is captaining the ONDP into the “descent of unaccountability”, by encouraging the same gravy-train politics that the other two major parties practice. Traditionally, the NDP has been seen as the conscience of the Legislature: not anymore. On her watch, a shadowy organization was grafted onto the party, in a pure Frankstein-monster kind of way; of course, I am talking about the potentially nefarious Cornerstone Corp. Cornerstone was a fundraising scheme, presented to the party membership, as a means to acquire a fixed asset. Instead, the party officially does not own its headquarters, apparently they only have a share of the corporation that owns it, and the funds raised, appear to have been allegedly used as a “slush fund”, just like the Liberal Party of Canada’s infamous “sponsorship scandal” funds. Under Clifford, the party has descended to the level of it’s political rivals — not something to be proud of at all.
One example of the “slush fund” practice, was to make a second-floor addition to an Admin Committee member’s house in Etobicoke- Lakeshore, during the height of the Cornerstone Campaign. This was noted internally as the “off-site project”. To individually profit from this scheme, one had to be a friend of the Cornerstone board, which meant that as long as one was willing to turn a blind-eye to what was going on, one could personally make a financial gain. Obviously the person in question, who had a powerful position of responsibility within the party, shirked their duty to the rank and file members of the party, by being obviously bought-off in a payola scheme that would have been unthinkable a generation ago in the NDP. Thanks Sandra (irony intentional).
1. Gissel Yanez: for creating the illusion – in her own mind – that she IS the Party
Well the big day has arrived! Who will make it to numero uno? That’s the question many of my readers have been asking for a little over two-weeks. There is little surprise who should be my number one on the list of the ignoble within the Ontario NDP. More than anyone else, or even topics, I have received more emails, and information from my sources and readers on this person. The NDP under Donald C. MacDonald, Stephan Lewis, Michael Cassidy and even Bob Rae have never sunk to the level of dysfunction that the party now embraces. The person that is number one on this list, is responsible for much of the current dysfunctional atmosphere associated with the party. The winner of my “Gong Show Sweepstakes”, number one in infamy, is none other than Ms. Gissel Yanez, the Chief-of-Staff of the Queen’s Park NDP caucus. More than anyone else presently, she has sullied the name of the Party, eviscerated its fighting-spirit, and created enemies out of allies or former members. As stated in other posts, Yanez was trained by Penny Marno, and cut her teeth as Trinity-Spadina MPP Rosario Marchese’s Executive Assistant (EA).
Gissel Yanez became Chief-of-Staff after Andrea Horwarth was elected as the provincial party’s leader in 2009. She took over from the highly competent Paul Ferriera, a former MPP. Under Ferriera, the caucus was a smooth-running operation, with little drama or dissent. Many members of both caucus and staff believe he still should hold that position. When Yanez took over from him, the atmosphere at Queen’s Park, and on the party’s Provincial Executive, appeared to become quite toxic. Ferriera had a good working relationship with both caucus, the provincial executive, and provincial office. Under Yanez, a noxious relationship appears to be the only way to describe the relation between caucus and the provincial party’s governing bodies. It would seem that Yanez had the influence to guarantee that Darlene Lawson was hired as Provincial Secretary, over another candidate that was selected by the executive search committee. As well, it also seems that Yanez has managed to consolidate party-related power into her office, and away from the executive and council. Here attempt to control every aspect of the party, and consolidate all this power into one office, is unprecedented. It is also in violation of the party’s constitution, Queen’s Park rules, and more generally, the most basic principles of participatory democratic governance. She has managed to become a dictator, and more-or-less eliminated participatory democracy within the party.
In a repeat of her conduct as Marchese’s EA, Yanez picks and chooses what elements of the Chief-of-Staff position she likes and discards the rest. Currently, she has added to her duties by trying hunt down the identity of yours-truly, rummaging through old files in Marchese’s office and at the party’s provincial office, in a vain attempt to determine what evidence of her past sins have been leaked: too little, too late.
Yanez has always operated on two guiding principles, both of which are now beginning to bear fruit:
1) No one pays close attention to the actions of the Legislature’s Third Party; therefore, we can circumvent any rules, legislation or unwritten conventions that rule party political activities at Queen’s Park
2) Attack and destroy anyone who disagrees.
Not only has her past conduct jeopardized her position, and the good-name of the party, it has also put the re-election bids of at least four MPPs – including the leader – in serious jeopardy. Her managerial history in labour practices, as both an EA and as Chief-of-Staff, have left a trail of embarrassment that, as they come to light, will seriously jeopardize the Party’s relationship with organized labour. I cannot comment much on these transgressions, because there are numerous complaints either being brought forward, or already in the official greivence process, by staffers, and I do not want to jeopardize their cases.
During her tenure as Marchese’s EA, Yanez never learned how to manage a budget. She always overspent Marchese’s budget and moved money around without regard for rules. As a result, in 2006, Yanez had no problem charging expenses from Anthony Perruzza’s Toronto City Council campaign, or Olivia Chow’s federal campaign, to Marchese’s Queen’s Park budget. She never learned that money’s from different branches of the party and governments are not allowed to be mixed. She did it anyway, and taxpayers paid for things that should never have been financed from the public purse; like, allegedly fundraising expenses for an MPP, or planning a federal election day campaign from her office at Queen’s Park.
It is now well known that Yanez has created a fractured and toxic atmosphere in caucus. In a caucus of only 10 members, she has alienated a third of them, and castrated at least one. One of the most baffling projects has been Yanez’s seeming determination to ensure Cheri DiNovo loses her seat in the upcoming election. Many have tried to explain her rancid animosity towards DiNovo, but all that can be said is that Yanez keeps grudges . Explanations have ranged from anger over DiNovo’s quick support of Peter Tabuns during the leadership race, or to some unknown personal grudge, but most likely, she sees DiNovo as a strong alternative to Horwath’s – aka Yanez’s – weak leadership.
Yanez has little regard for rules, including ones that if not followed, could cost the leader her job. It has been alleged that she and Marno used their privileged positions within the party, to manipulate the process that allowed unions to affiliate with the party, and thus turned away the TTC’s Amalgamated Transit Union local 113 from joining the party, and possibly providing enough votes to prevent Horwarth from winning the leadership. She also allegedly had access to information, lists, and provincial office help that the other leadership campaigns did not have, because of her relationship with Marno. This lack of understanding of the importance of following processes and rules of procedure is the result of putting a person in a position of power without the requisite skill-set. Horwarth has only herself to blame.
So, with a record of financial mismanagement, a complete disregard for rules, an inability to manage people in something that does not seem like a dictator, and holder of grudges that ultimately come back to backfire on her, one really has to wonder how this seemingly inept person was put in charge of caucus, and allowed to consolidate power that was not hers to hold. Gissel Yanez is unquestionably the person that is currently driving the Ontario New Democrat Party into the ground, because she seemingly ineptly controls every facet of the party’s management and organization. The fact that there is a split in the Social Democracy forces in the province, soon to become more formalized, was expedited by the autocratic rule of Ms. Yanez. By removing the democracy element out of the party, she has caused more destruction to the party, its organization, and its electoral hopes, than anyone in the modern era. For doing her best to put the final stake in the heart of the party, no else but Gissel Yanez could make it to numero uno on the list of ignoble personages in the Ontario NDP. Congratulations!
WrightPercy's Blog (Act II) 
It’s inconsequential really, that these names are all women. They are, what would be referred to as “animus-possessed” to use a Jungian term. Relentless ambition and the overriding desire for control and power supercede any human considerations or empathy in terms of how they operate. That is not something that is unique only to women, just in this situation this is the lineup….and I do agree, the order can be changed on this list.
I would consider adding that so-called “poverty pimp” Cathy Crowe! I would suggest also adding to your list of questions:
If the Crowe campaign was so successful, and raised a good amount in fundraising, why did most of the ONDP cheques written to vendors for the campaign bounce?
Vendors have been hounding Crowe ever since, as well as the riding association.
Is this how we treat our candidates (even though I can’t stand the woman), and our riding associations after they work a campaign-and we expect them to come back for more?
I would add COPE 343!
I would also put more blame on Horwath. She’s the Leader and where the hell has she been during all this crap?
Although, from my limited knowledge of the situation, COPE 343 seems to have dropped the ball on a major grievance filed by past and present members of the bargaining unit. The grevience deals with the allegedly inappropriate short-term contracts that the ONDP kept using for its fundraising staff. This grevience seems to be stalled and allegedly this is due to COPE’s bungling of the grevience.
I personally know several COPE members who feel that they are being sold-out by their union. Allegedly, COPE is acting like a “company union”, i.e., it is more concerned with helping the employer’s interests rather than the rank and file’s interest. A sad comment on the supposed “party of labour” if indeed these allegations are true, which certainly seems to be the case.
Since COPE is not a person, they won’t be posted on our wall of infamy.
Members need to file at the Ontario Labour Relations Board against COPE 343. Enough is enough! COPE 343 is indeed a “company union” check their donation to the ONDP in the 2009 return….Andrea Horwath is a former COPE member, you figure it out…
COPE is a joke!
Horwath used to belong to COPE. Director of COPE, Janice Best and Horwath are friends. I think COPE is affiliated with the Party and it is a major financial contributor to the Party.
COPE is infamous for allegedly working with employers to keep employees in-line while collecting dues, even in BC they have problems with COPE.
Do you really think COPE and ONDP management are going to jeopardize this snug relationship?
It seems that COPE does almost everything in it’s power to not forward grievances. The poor staff at Provincial Office are not being taken care of by COPE. Last year, it was exposed that the Party was keeping staffers on short-term contracts, not for a few months, but for years, in violation of the collective agreement. This meant that staffers that put in many years of service, did not collect any benefits that they were entitled to. Another example of COPE’s lacklustre performance is when MPP Cheri DiNovo fired all her staff: her QP EA, Rowena Santos was represented by OPSEU and got a nice fat deal and a cushy job at Queen’s Park, while constituency staff received practically nothing, rarely even their phone calls returned.
COPE is just as much a racket as the ONDP seems to be. Time for staff to affiliate with a neutral union, not beholden to the employer.
I agree. COPE 343, in my opinion, is a useless local in relation to the ONDP. Patty Clancy is the rep and simply doesn’t appear to do her job…allegedly she is busy texting her contractor about a house she is building in Collingwood all day. Andrew Lauer is a wimp, there is no other word for it! It appears that he just wants to keep his job and thus usually defers the filing of any grievances to Patty, who, most of the time, simply doesn’t answer emails or return phone calls.
Clancy is the national women’s representative on COPE. The incidents she has ignored, and failed to file grievances about, that have happened to COPE staff, are horrendous violations of the law and the collective agreement. She she apparently just doesn’t give a S*&$! Several organizations, including the Worker Health and Safety Centre, have had to allegedly threaten decertification in order to get her removed as rep. So perhaps that’s what ONDP COPE workers need to do — organize to get her and Lauer removed!
wow! this gissel yanez really made some enemies?
“You bet your sweet bippy” on that one.
She’s a real piece of work to be sure. Even Sandra Clifford thinks that and one would know one to recognize one.
Yanez has only herself to blame for all the enemies she has created through her total and complete lack of integrity and ruthless, self-centred ambition. She is currently earning more than a $110K salary if you check the public disclosures salaries here…IMHO she is not worth it, absolutely not worth it, Andrea Horwath and ONDP Caucus made a serious, serious error in hiring her in this position.
http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/publications/salarydisclosure/2010/legassembly10.html
Legislative Assembly
YANEZ GISSEL Chief of Staff, New Democratic Party Caucus $110,089.12
Solidarity? Hey never!
Ouch! Horwath did not make number 1. That’s gotta hurt!
What the ONDP counts on is:
–that people will continue to support them based on ideology;
–that they are the “only game in town” and there is no other special interest/labour oriented alternative to vote for;
–that their attempts at slick PR and the image they have crafted (minus the latest Yanez orchestrated bungled attempt about Andrea’s heels) will be enough to keep their numbers at the voting booth, which, after all, is all that matters….
Essentially, however, it’s a “dead” organization. They do not follow the rules nor the laws even of their own constitution. So in effect, what all their volunteers, members and supporters are working flat out during every campaign for is to give them money to continue to pay party members to have nice jobs with fat salaries….
Hardly what I would call progressive…..or a worthwhile investment of time….
I’m surprised you have Andrea at number 5. I supported her for Leader, but I would put her higher after reviewing her accomplishments over the past two years:
–She has not done anything to stitch the Party back together after a 4-way leadership race
–Despite the fact we only have 10 MPPs, she has alienated at least 3
–She has not brought in significant amounts of money
–We have lost, not gained members
–A splinter left party has been born on her watch
–She has put one of the most disliked and non-respected people in the chief-of-staff position
–Council and Executive have all been but dissolved in name on her watch
–Cornerstone is emerging as a scandal on her watch
–She has not been able to win one of the numerous by-elections
–She has ignored Executive
–She has managed to purge many highly skilled members
–She has attacked ONDY, LGBT, ELC and TYND
–She has alienated the North
–She gave up the silly anti-HST campaign to the PCs
–And finally, those unfortunate posters, she managed not only to insult those who think of Tommy Douglas as the Party’s Grandfather, but also feminists, women,environmentalists, socialists and the poor
Am I missing anything? After this list I am almost frightened to see the 4 that stole her thunder.
Good choice for #4 — Darlene Lawson. I agree, in her former career she did some good things, but she simply didn’t know what she was in for dealing with the likes of Gissel Yanez……..and now that she is starting to realize it, will she stay on until the provincial election?
This blog is a breath of fresh air. Airing the dirty ONDP laundry.
Eagerly waiting for the top 3…..Percy you are right on the money, people-wise and of course the mantra of this site now….”follow the money”…..
When Percy asked if I would write the entry for Darlene Lawson I declined.
I would still like to make some comments on Darlene.
I have known Darlene for many years, even before her party involvement. I have enormous respect for what she has accomplished as a tireless advocate for women who have had their voices silenced. I applauded her YWCA Toronto Woman of Distinction social justice award and thought it well deserved.
Like many that who know Darlene from this “other” life, I was left scratching my head when it was announced that she would be the party’s new secretary.
Why would Darlene, about to enter the top tier of her career niche, suddenly switch over to take over the Ontario New Democrats? What could the party possibly have offered her.
After a few months, the answer became clear: it is not so much what the party offered her or promised her; it is what the party DID NOT tell her.
I sympathize with Darlene and hate to see her on this list (that is why I declined Percy’s offer). I am of the strongest opinion that Darlene was not told the full extent of what she would be wading into: crushing debt, fractured alliances, labour disputes and not to mention what have appeared here, numerous ethically questionable decisions.
I think it is unfair that Darlene has been drafted into a no win position, through false advertising and will be the one who will take the blame for whatever goes wrong.
Darlene has little political experience. When things go sour in political party, ours especially, caucus will point the finger at the leader, the leader will point the finger at the president, and everyone points the finger at the secretary.
All this being said, Darlene should have known better. She should have asked more questions. She should have done more research.
For these reasons, I hope readers and posters will be sympathetic to her and her impossible position.
Well she has a choice…she can resign and thus free her mind from dealing with these nefarious, shadowy underworld types…..I am sure however, there will be lots of pressure on her to stay put right now, from Yanez, Clifford, Horwath etc.
I agree, she did not do her research before taking on the organizing of Andrea’s campaign for the leadership. Remember too, that she was appointed to the position despite the committee’s choice of another candidate: that should have been a big clue to her right there.
However she could stand up to the Yanez/Clifford/Marno combo by refusing to allow workers allegedly paid by the OLA to be working at provincial office; and also to uphold collective agreements with respect to the issue of all the workers who were on short-term contracts denied benefits.
I think Darlene is a pawn–a high level one, but I think she’s been boxed in.
No name says “social transformation” to me like Penny Marno!
Glad to finally see her name on your list Percy. I was worried you might have forgotten all of Marno’s work. You might want to add that her former position as Director of Organization remains vacant and will remain so. This brings into question the relevance of her position at the time she held it because quite frankly, it always appeared to me as she was running the entire party on her own.
I would throw Marno a bone here and suggest that maybe as she was writing her thesis her mind got all confused in the middle of all the gobbly-gook she was reading and innocently interpreted “empowerment” to mean ruthlessly taking power away from people around her, bullying her employees, keeping them in constant fear of losing their jobs, unethical use of the perks of her position to further her political agenda? And presto! Instant empowerment.
Actually, I would switch Penny and Deb Parent’s positions on your list.
I have known Deb for as long as I have known Darlene Lawson, and of the two, Deb is the dangerous one…by far! She appears to be extremely dogmatic, to the exclusion of logic, and often to the point of recklessness. She seems to have mostly been immensly insecure about her lack of any real formal education, overcompensating with defensive attacks upon others she may perceive as brighter than herself (allegedly behind the scenes and always with a big friendly smile, of course). She would appear to be the definition of a passive-aggressive bully.
Deb also has a reputation of what some would call a bigot.
Back in the day, Deb was known as an outspoken Separatist. If you are unfamiliar with the term, it refers to a bizarre and radical stream of lesbian feminism that believes in full separation between men and women. Yes, just like Wonder Woman and her island of Amazonian women. To me it is just bigotry couched in political empowerment-speak.
You should speak with her ex-partner Yvette (from what I have read and heard, Percy, you are well-connected and industrious, so you should have no problem finding her on your own). They had a huge falling out because Deb could not live with the fact that Yvette was working for an AIDS organization. What is wrong with working for an AIDS organization? The problem? It was mainly run by, and for the benefit of–gay men. It would seem that Deb saw this as a violation of their relationship.
This may sound like a bit of old family gossip, but I think this should be a serious concern to a party that paints itelf as the party of progressive identity-politics, and minority rights. Her alleged conduct should be seen in the same light as if a person on staff belonged to a racist organization. It would not be tolerated.
Deb’s growing power in the party, with her attachment to the leader’s office, and organizer of Andrea’s upcoming upcoming Somali Community event, should warrant closer scrutiny of her beliefs. Her potentially negative-past could reflect directly upon the leader.
You should follow up on her past.
Well it sounds as if Deb Parent fits right in then, with the culture of bullying and harassment that is the management style of the ONDP, with the apparent total complicit support of the COPE representative.
That outdated thinking of lesbian separatism has pretty much gone out the door…can anyone say, “how 80s?” But some people never grow, they get stuck and DP sounds seriously stuck……
Marno seems like an excellent choice to put in charge of the 50th Anniversary workshops. Who better to head a money losing project that someone with so much experience at it.
Gosh, I never thought all this stuff would start to come out, especially about Penny Marno.
Penny Marno used to keep lists on staffers with respect to what election campaigns they worked on and what they did and how much time they clocked into campaigns. Now, did this have any bearing on how hiring decisions were made when positions became available? Isn’t this a violation of the collective agreements? What do people think of this?
Sorry Joradana but you seem a bit naive to say the least.
I can give you a definitive YES. They track how much you volunteer, how much you give, if you are on a PAC, who you know and who you don’t know. All of this goes into your chances for a job.
You have no idea how depressing it is to watch qualified members apply for jobs and know they don’t stand a chance.
The party keeps every bit of information on members and it is all tracked when needed. Even worse, it is freely shared within party circles.
Anyone who is on a discounted membership, the has “not gainfully employed” marked next to their names on the lists. This info is shared and affects your standing in the party. If you have this next to your name for too long, you can forget about ever getting a position with the party.
Merit is way down the list in making decisions on hiring. That’s how we ended up with the people on Percy’s list in the first place.
Percy, it is absolutely hilarious to hear party members huffing and puffing about your cowardly gossip site and you hiding behind anonymity, in light of the fact that gossip has been the official communication method of the party for years and it’s main tool of control and exertion of power over “wayward” members. They certainly have no problem with gossip when they are they ones starting it.
Keep using their own tools against them man!
I work with an affiliated union and the mood in our office has really changed since we started reading this.
At first everyone was united against the blog–pretty much all loyal Dippers here. But the labour issues you raise can’t be ignored anymore. Management’s shitty treatment of staff throughout the Party is probably the worst kept secret in the NDP. Seems like these hens are all coming home to roost at once.
Management is seriously damaging the name of organized labour in the province. This is only going to get worse if these issues are not resolved before the election–but I don’t think current management has the ability to do so.
Labour in Ontario needs a strong political arm and I don’t think there is any doubt that this should be the ONDP. I can tell you that NDP management’s hypocritical bullshit is now getting a lot of attention.
If you really want to turf out these pseudo-solidarity posers running the Ontario New Democratic Party Gong Show, you really need to let the membership and unions know about the current management’s shitty labour relations record.
Current management needs labour’s support to stay in power, and labour needs to keep the confidence of the NDP membership. Break this chain at the weakest link (management) and you’ll toss these assholes out so we can get back to some serious work transforming the province.
In solidarity–Craig
Well the unions could start to put pressure on COPE to start aggressively filing grievances and getting ONDP management to start adhering to the collective agreement. Former staffers need to come on here and post their stories as well…the abuses have been going on for a long long time. The “long standing” traditions of how labour relations have been managed between COPE members and ONDP management just doesn’t work: the rep and steward need to be replaced. It would also be terrific if OPSEU would just take over all the constituency office workers: that would probably be the most expedient and viable solution. Decertify COPE: OPSEU takes over.
Examples to follow…..
http://ontariondp.com/en/your-ndp/your-voice/
Hey funseekers check out this link:
When you click on this page the message comes up:
Not Found
Sorry but you are looking for something that isn’t here.
Now, how appropo is that?
That’s the old site. Would be great to find out how much we paid for the new one. Every time I visit it I have to listen that annoying Horwath message!
On number 2, Clifford and Cornerstone. So, what you are saying is that the party has been stealing from us?
I agree with Al: Cornerstone, Cornerstone and Cornerstone!
I want my money back!
Salome Cerqueira was a key name attached to the Cornerstone Campaign.
Look at who worked on the Cornerstone failure and who is still with the Party, or brought back by Gissel Yanez.
Darlene Lawson was brought in to give an honest face to the Cornerstone cover up. The problem is Lawson has no idea of the history of Cornerstone, the skeletons and is probably way to honest a person to get involved.
As a few her have said: keep following the money.
So what would have been Salome Ciquiera’s responsibilities in handling the Cornerstone Campaign funds? Would Penny Marno have been her supervisor at that point in time?
How aware are the unions involved of the financial status of this Corporation?
This is what happens when a Party forgets its roots and goes middle-class
The more you push the harder they come down on us, but the more enemies they are making.
Keep up the pressure!
It’s really a pathetic and dismal state of affairs that senior executive members, who should be encouraging active youth participation, take it upon themselves to squash rising talent of youth, smart, highly educated youth. And that there seems to be absolutely no accountability in the part for all of this atrocious behaviour.
Thought you should know Gissel has basically taken over running provincial office
Where does it say anywhere that the Chief of Staff is the boss for staffers at provincial office?
Does Darlene Lawson mind?
whatconstitution:
Are you really surprised that Yanez is paid by Queen’s Park but now doing provincial office duties!? Gosh, hiring staff to work at party headquarters on party business while getting the province to pay their salaries is one of the things she’s been good at. That’s what we call balancing the budget… in heels.
The issue of raising money for accessibility and then not making the building accessible is, in and of itself, a HUGE story. What did they do with that money then?
How would this fly with all the “differently-abled” groups that are traditional ONDP supporters if they knew about this? How is it OPSEU itself, which donated the money, isn’t asking any questions about where the money went?
Well one of the arguments to buy the building was to give a place for Party and committee meetings. Obviously the committees have never been able to use the “Party’s” building for meeting because it isn’t accessible…
There are obviously structural problems and total lack of accountability in the ONDP.
Penny Marno put me off from the get-go. She was incredibly rude, bossy, domineering, pushy beyond words and had absolutely no interest in having a conversation with me about my skill set or background or interests. She seems to have a real sense of “entitlement” that “she knows best” about how things should operate. Very annoying, to say the least.
I was always left with the feeling that she was just looking for another unquestioning “election cog” — someone she could boss around with low level tasks, not people who could potentially contribute in a deep and meaningful way to the development of an authentic party.
And if you are an intellectual, forget it. The party doesn’t want people who think, they want elections cogs to do boring repetitive work to get (certain) people elected.
As a result, I developed an intense disrespect for Marno. People are not people to her: they are election robotic cogs and she doesn’t give a S*#(# what your opinion is on ANYTHING. She never bothered to have an actual intelligent conversation with any election worker from my observations: her only function was to be a slavedriver.
From what I’ve read on Percy’s blog, I’m not alone in thinking that this woman has been a big screw up for the party.
It’s not about all these folks being women, it’s about the domineering DRIVEN nature of them, it is sick, there is no other word for it.
Winning at all costs. But winning what, and for what purpose?