fbpx
  • Home
  • News
  • All
  • Nadine Wellwood Appealing Nomination Disqualification in Livingstone-Macleod By Party Elite

Nadine Wellwood Appealing Nomination Disqualification in Livingstone-Macleod By Party Elite

PDF Download

November 7, 2022

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

On November 7th, 2022, I received a letter stating that the Party Candidate Selection Committee (PCSC) rejected my application based on a referral from the Executive Director of the UCP. 

Please let it be known that it is my intention to appeal this decision. In fact, because of the tremendous support I have received from thousands of UCP members and residents alike over these last few weeks, I will be ramping up my efforts to meet with as many residents in the riding as possible in preparation for the 2023 General Election to represent Livingston-Macleod. 

I began campaigning the day the nomination opened in Livingstone-Macleod on October 17th, 2022. Since then, I’ve spoked with thousands of local members who have pledged their support receiving triple the number required signatures to become a candidate while selling memberships across the riding. 

On Tuesday, November 1st, while I was on my way to meet with the Local Candidate Nomination Committee, I happened to receive a call from a Senior Government Staffer that advised me that the Party had already decided I was to be disqualified before local members had a say. This was disappointing to say the least. 

I met with the Local Candidate Nomination Committee that evening and following that meeting I was approved by the LCNC with unanimous support. The approval and support of grassroots members is important to me, and I would not be campaigning to represent the riding of Livingstone-Macleod without their efforts and encouragement. 

As the Local Candidate Selection Committee for Livingstone-Macleod unanimously put forward my name in support of my nomination to become the Candidate on record, I believe that the Party Elite have over-reached their authority and this action itself threatens the integrity of the UCP by denying the grassroots members and their chosen local committee members the choice in who represents them in the Legislature. 

I knew in putting forward my name as a nominee that the hardest part of the process would be to get past the gatekeepers installed by Jason Kenney. As some may be unaware, the Jason Kenney faction of the UCP board is still in place and making all Party decisions until the newly elected members are able to participate at the first UCP Executive Board Meeting later this month. 

The reasoning given for my disqualification, most are conjecture, or a matter of personal opinion based off of social media posts I had interacted with, as little as a “like” or a retweet, in the past. Similar disqualifications were conducted under the previous UCP Leader, in ridings like Rimbey-Rocky Mountain House-Sundre or Cardston-Siksika, to ensure a preferred candidate would be selected. 

 In closing, I believe that this decision should be overturned as it is a direct violation of a fair and just democracy and does not reflect a free election process. I will continue to meet with constituents, host events, and listen to the concerns of residents in the riding. Hundreds of new UCP members have already stepped forward in support of my nomination, and I will not withdraw my nomination or give up on their hope for a strong and principled voice that will represent their views and interests in the Legislature. 

In Your Service, 

Nadine Wellwood for Livingstone-Macleod 

– 30 –

Comments (3)

  • I support the ban. There is no room in my political life for a leader who doesn’t understand the silent majority. The Maverick Party of Alberta and the PPC failed to elect one MP in the last federal election and it was because the general public understood the pandemic was a global issue and the federal government did not send our mixed messages and was reelected.

  • One of Danielle Smith’s campaign promises was to amend the Alberta Human Rights Act to name political expression as a protected ground so that citizens were free to hold and share their political views without fear of being fired from their jobs, kicked out of university, or banned from membership positions in institutional bodies and other organizations.

    The only arguable distinction that could be made between the substance of this proposed amendment to the HRA and Nadine’s situation is the notion that a political party must maintain a certain degree of ideological congruence among its representatives to properly function and successfully compete in elections. Therefore, as a means of conveying to the public that this condition is and continues to be fulfilled, potential and serving representatives must preserve an impeccable track record in their statements and publications demonstrating their adherence to what is essentially a set of preconceived party values. It would follow that to allow an ideological outsider, or an individual who at some point in time released statements or publications that were not only contrary to the party’s values, but so egregious and irredeemable that to permit the conduct would heavily undermine the party’s functionality and/or electability, would thereby defeat the purpose of the party altogether and in the process fail to justify protections under the proposed HRA amendment.

    Now, as Nadine pointed out in her release, even if the above argument is accepted, the question then becomes which mechanism or mechanisms within the party ought to define and/or enforce its values, as well as what should the general process should look like. Should it be a relatively stringent and bureaucratic exercise carried out by an executive board that not only defines what the party’s values are but then goes on to serve as the judiciary in enforcing its own definition? Perhaps it would be better handled if an executive board maintains limited authority in exigent circumstances to conduct investigations into party members or candidates who have ostensibly breached a “party value” provision in the code of conduct, in which case a report is prepared and delivered to the membership detailing the evidence which is then adjudicated by the membership in the form of an internal referendum. And finally, and most notably opposed to the first option, the party line could be arrived at more organically through the primary process itself, where party values begin in conception during the campaign period as an inordinate collection personified by the primary candidates, their histories and platforms, with the final product ultimately decided upon by the party’s membership at the ballot box.

    In my opinion the latter two approaches may be more difficult and in certain cases more costly to facilitate, but they would nonetheless come across as more legitimate and engaging than what we’ve seen in your case. I wish you the best with your appeal Nadine. If things don’t work out you should give Caylin Ford a call and share a bottle of wine!

  • Hi Nadine,
    Weren’t you communicating with me by email about a year ago as a representative of the PPC Party? Are you still affiliated with the PPC? I thought your communication was informative and intelligent representing grass- roots people in Alberta.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

SiteLock
Authorized by the Official Agent for Nadine Wellwood