Recommendation 2 (Support)

That a new By-law 5.13 be adopted as follows: The Federation will not make donations to:

1. any federal, provincial, or municipal political party.

2. any individual candidate or group of candidates seeking office in any federal, provincial, or municipal election.

3. any individual seeking the nomination for any federal, provincial, or municipal party. Concomitantly, the Federation may not directly affiliate to any political party. Locals of the Federation have the autonomy with regard to political donations but will ​not use Federation grants for this purpose.

​

I do support this; however, if we want to be politically active and support members running for political positions as a future bargaining strategy, we may want to revisit this.  

​

As Recommendation 3 and Resolution 1 are very similar, we may want to suspend the rules of order to discuss which one has the better wording.  Then move that version.  If we vote down Recommendation 3, then technically it has been dealt with and Resolution 101 would be out of order.

​

Strikethough represented by grey highlighted text

​

Recommendation 3 (Support)

That By-law 5.1(a) be amended as follows: There shall be an Executive Committee, which shall consist of a President, First Vice-President, Second Vice-President, Immediate Past-President (when applicable), and nine Members-at-Large, elected in such a manner as to ensure that at least three of the Member-at-Large vacancies are filled at each AGM. One Member-at-Large position shall be designated to be held by a racialized member member of colour and one shall be designated to be held by an Aboriginal member. The designated positions shall have the same term and role as the non-designated positions. The Executive Committee positions are elected by the Annual General Meeting and shall take office on the following July 1. Each member of the Executive Committee shall be a member in good standing entitled to vote, in accordance with By-law 1.1. An Executive Committee member may be removed from office under the provisions of By-law 1.7 or By-law 7.

​

Resolution 101.  (Support)

18) That By-law 5.1(a) be amended as follows:5.1(a) There shall be an Executive Committee, which shall consist of a President, First Vice- President, Second Vice-President, an Immediate Past-President (when applicable), and nine Members-at-Large, elected in such a manner as to ensure that at least three Member-at-Large vacancies are filled at each AGM. One Member-at-Large position shall be designated to be held by a racialized member who is a person of colour and one shall be designated to be held by an Aboriginal member. The designated position shall have the same term and role as the non designated positions. The Executive Committee positions are elected by the Annual General

Meeting and shall take office on the following July 1.   Each member of the Executive Committee shall be a member in good standing entitled to vote, in accordance with By-law 1.1. An Executive Committee member may be removed from office under the provisions of By-law 1.7 or By-law 7.

​

I have listened to members of colour and the updated terminology is now more preferred by these members.  In previous meetings  original wording, racialized member was the preferred term.  

​

Recommendation 4 (Support)   (Uncertain)

That By-law 5.1(f) be amended as follows: The Member-at-Large position designated to be held by a racialized member a member of colour is open to the election of a member who identifies as racialized a person of colour.

For clarity, this is intended to include individuals who:

a. identify as people of colour, and

b. themselves or their ancestors are settlers and/or immigrants and/or refugees and/or were brought to Canada,. including those members who identify as being Aboriginal.

​

We continue to update our language to clarify intent.  I support changing the wording to 'person of colour' based on my understanding of advice given to the Executive. 

 

My reading of changes in part b. excludes Aboriginal persons and non persons of colour but can still include an Aboriginal person who also identify as a person of colour as defined in b.

​

I do share a concern that this does set in policy to intentionally exclude a person of Aboriginal ancestry who does identify as a person of colour but does not identify in any part of b.  This is questionable to set an exclusion for some persons of Aboriginal Ancestry.  It is also sets a boundary to hold space for members of colour who don't also identify as Aboriginal.

​

We need to decide as a membership what we believe about excluding members from positions and what restrictions can be in place to hold space for other equity seeking groups.

​

​

​

As this is a bylaw change, we can't amend at this meeting, it may be better to refer back to the executive for further clarity before having potentially divisive debates.

​

​

​

Recommendation 5  (Likely Support)

That By-law 5.4(a) be amended as follows: All nominations for positions on the Executive Committee shall be in writing and shall indicate the position(s) for which the member is being nominated. The nomination shall be by resolution of a general meeting of a local or shall bear the signatures of at least ten active members of the Federation in good standing and shall include the acceptance of the nominee. A person who has been nominated for a position may withdraw from nomination for that position at any time prior to the election by notice in writing

​

The reason to indicate ahead is to know which positions a member is running.  Until the nominating chair reports at the RA and AGM everyone doesn't know the candidates and which positions they are running for.  

​

This eliminates dropping around positions as a concept; however, it does publicly say 'I am willing to stand for a later elected position.'  For some this may change their voting to not vote for a person as a president because they can still vote for them as a member at large.

​

It is a different dynamic.  I haven't thought of all the ways it can play out yet.

​

​

Recommendation 6  (Not-Support)

That By-law 5.1 be amended to add the following: (g) To ensure a gender balance representative of the membership as a whole, at least five of the seven non-designated Member-at-Large positions be held by members who self-identify as women.

​

I believe that as a union we do have a core beliefs of equity and inclusion   I am proud of the democratically elected increasingly inclusive leadership in 20 years of recent BCTF history including over 4 of 7 presidents being women in that time.

​

Bylaw changes like this that have serious implications should be extensively debated prior to coming to the AGM.  This motion passed with minimal debate at the Executive.  The challenge with bylaw changes is that we can't amend them at the AGM so they need to be perfect before being passed.  This challenge could have been overcome by circulating the proposed changes in September and seeking feedback from various committees and the general membership.  That feedback could have coalesced into a recommendation with informed broad membership engagement in its formation.

​

Secondly - what problem is being solved by making a rule to control the gender mix of the 7 positions?  The message I read this change saying is "there have been too many men on the Executive and we need to prevent that from happening."  It also says that 7 of 7 Member at Large positions being filled by women can represent the 8000+ men who are members.  I totally agree this is possible; however, that statement has a corollary that 7 of 7 Member at Large positions being filled by men could represent the 30000+ members who identify as women.  2014 and 2015 are the only two years in the last 20 years where the full executive had more men than women on the executive.  The median number of men on the executive over the last 20 years is 3.  So what problem are we trying to solve by putting up barriers for men while attempting to make space and hold space for women that already exists.

​

In the supporting statement this bylaw attempts to reflect the percentage population of women in teaching.  I disagree with the premise and the method.  Achieving gender balance would be a balance.  Forcing representation by the gender of BC teachers would be skewed for society with a decline in men in teaching.  Do we not want the percentage of women and other equity seeking groups in teaching to reflect our society?  This bylaw creates a mixed message - that we want to have the teaching population of equity seeking groups in society reflected in teaching, but maintain higher levels of women in teaching than in society.

​

Next, if we want representative of the membership, we have a host of other considerations :

• from large , small and amalgamated locals,

• from remote, rural, and urban areas,

• from elementary, secondary, non-enrolling, adult education, on call teachers,

• being married, in a relationship, single, young, or older demographics

​

I realize that because I am speaking against a potential equity motion, I am not speaking against equity.  I am speaking against a flawed attempt at equity.

​

This recommendation is a major departure from equity and increasing opportunities for members. The flaws continue breaking away from removing structures and barriers to engagement to targeting men.  It has the ability to prevent men from even being eligible to run if 2 men are elected in one year.  The next year no men can apply.  Also if a man ran as a FTTO, they would not be able to drop down in that year.

​

In our Commitment to Solidarity, all members are equal and deserve mutual respect.  This motion makes men less equal to be elected to non designated members at large positions

 

I fully support growing equity and inclusion in our union.  I do not support this method.

​

I don't support exclusion in the name of inclusion.  This bylaw also reads that at most 2 of 7 non designated positions may be held by members who self-identify as men. This also specifically sets years where men cannot even run for a member at large position if two are elected in one year.

​

I do not believe that the median of 3 men in Member at Large Positions in the last 20 years is so toxic to the BCTF that we must prevent it from happening.  Democracy has already proven to have a greater number of women on executive committee 18 of 20 years.

​

​

​

​

​