Green Party enthusiastically supports Elizabeth May and polling data particularly in Central Canada is respectable we are gaining strength.

Challenging Party Leaders from inside membership ranks to be expected in anticipation of election and means to ensure leader is of good spirits to challenge conventional thinking.

Thanks for noticing Green Party as we build on strong Parliamentary Traditions and Eco-Friendly Prosperity.

I withdrew my membership in the GPC scant months after I’d applied for it – which was the only time I’d joined a political party.

Left for two reasons: the failure of the executive council to do a leadership review after the 2008 election, and the changes partisanship had wrought on my exercising my critical thinking skills.

Don’t mean the last as a slur on all members of political parties. A rare few seem able to maintain their objectivity. Haven’t a clue how they do it given partisanship would seem to demand sifting everything through glasses of a certain hue.

Anyway, the more I’ve read about the goings-on with the GPC the better I feel in having withdrawn my membership.

BTW, since 2000 I’ve voted Green. I was impressed by GPC’s policies and values. Were an election held today, I wouldn’t do a repeat. It’s good to have great policies. However, if you can’t manage your own house and do it in democratic fashion, you’re not ready for the big time.

@Chrystal – I agree, partisanship more often than not turns otherwise reasonable people into sycophants and obedient Kool-Aid drinkers. It’s why I have always resisted pledging allegiance to any one party. It’s a bit too much like a substitute for religion for people — both requiring strict observance of the doctrine and blind faith.

It may well be that formal political parties cannot bring about change, as they so often lead to a kind of mindless echo chamber, and end up mirroring the very thing they started out to change. That is the why so many promising “movements” (which are more ad hoc and goal-oriented) don’t translate well into political parties.

I must say that one of the greatest disappointments with the current GPC leader is how her public rhetoric of non-partisanship runs so counter to her private behaviour and expectations, almost as if she thinks partisanship applies only to political parties. It applies equally to devotion to party, cause, faction, person, or idea.

I take this as one of the sad legacies of the Bush administration — that it has become so widely accepted that you can blatantly lie to the public — the say precisely the opposite of what you believe.

And unfortunately for the Greens, many committed to the ideas (if not ideals) have withdrawn in the face of the leadership cult.

A good leader recognizes what they don’t know, seeks counsel, and ultimately has good the judgment to make good decisions based on the best information. But if you are too arrogant to acknowledge you don’t know everything (if you act like you are smartest person in the room, chances are you aren’t!), too insecure to listen to others who might know something you don’t, and consistently demonstrate poor judgment when called upon to make key decisions, well, then maybe you aren’t cut out to be a leader.

@Graeme – if GPC members so enthusiastically support the leader, why not allow the leadership vote to prove it? And make no mistake, GPC polling is down from where it was before the 2008 election. You can’t cherry-pick which polls you like, you have to look at all the data.

Good points Greg, and I think a leadership vote should take place at the convention, and then a leadership race right after. The best way for the party to get out of debt, and create some much needed media attention is to have a leadership race. While Elizabeth has done some good, the party needs to move forward with some new blood and new ideas, otherwise all the gains made over the past few years will be lost. The party needs leadership, and that leadership is no where to be found at the present time.

There is a green party ? I thought it was the elizabeth may party.

Elizabeth May is the biggest liability the Green Party has. Her performance in the debates last election was embarassing; her constant interruptions were ill-mannered, ineffective, and juvenile. Mercifully, it’s unlikely that the GPC will be included in the next debates.
Thank God.

“It may well be that formal political parties cannot bring about change, as they so often lead to a kind of mindless echo chamber, and end up mirroring the very thing they started out to change. That is the why so many promising “movements” (which are more ad hoc and goal-oriented) don’t translate well into political parties.”————————————————————- Except it’s political parties that implement the change — specifically the political party that wins government. In our system, the opposition really doesn’t matter. Right now there is a party in power that is systematically dismantling the federal government, except in areas of defence, foreign policy and international trade. They are making changes through orders in council and through the most crass, retrograde appeals to their base and key interest groups. People vote for somebody they’ve heard of, so it’s all about getting awareness where it matters. In our system, that is the riding level in terms of getting a seat and at the leader level in terms of getting media attention. I think the Greens should plow everything into getting their leader elected in a particular riding. THAT will make the news. Obviously the party infrastructure needs to be fixed, but getting a seat will make serious people take a first or second look at the party.

As one of those organizational staffers who was laid off I’ll throw my two cents in.

It is clear to me that the council is mired in personal conflict not because of questions of leadership but rather the actions of a few councillors who have not grasped that in order to participate in electoral politics we have to spend money for organizational efforts – the reality is that the GPC needs regional organizational direction in manageable unit sizes.

I would doubt if we have the ability at the moment given a sudden election call to field a full slate of candidates with the ability to run in more than a handful of ridings a meaningful campaign.

The Council is being swayed by false arguments of several individuals who are determined to undermine organizational efforts and our political legitimacy. It has been the posit of several voices on council that fiscal prudence is not spending more money than we have on hand. Sounds good – but a false argument. Unlike any other charity or nongovernmental organizations the generous rebates for political parties should have lead them to the conclusion that fundraising is the answer – not dismantling the modest party staff core and the prevailing organizational model. The answer lies in fundraising that has to be new and innovative instead of clicking a mouse to send a message to the same old party faithful again and again.

The answer is not to change the leadership that everyone knows and recognizes is capable and is publically identifiable – it lies on getting a council unified on a direction in which to proceed. It means some serious restructuring of the party so that an executive with skill, ability and experience can offer council real options other than tweaking and dismantling the few things that were working.

I vote to stick with the current leader and elect a council that can work to get her and others in this party elected.

No loss, goodbye.

I appreciate your comments, Drew. I understand you see this through an organizer’s lens but it’s just not the case that the current Council in-fighting is over the organizing function; it’s over leadership issues (which has consumed Council since the party’s singular focus right now is to get the leader elected).

I agree 100% with you that the GPC needs a genuine regional structure — one that aligns the organizing, administrative and governance functions. But that means precisely “dismantling the prevailing organizational model” because it is flawed. Whether there are 4 organizers or 8 is immaterial; organizing should be done by and responsible to regional organizations, which at present don’t exist (are only now beginning to form on their own).

The GPC needs to adopt a federated model — national, regional, local, each with different responsibilities, but all tied together. 1 national organization (GPC HQ), 20-to-25 regional organizations and 308 local organizations, each an order of magnitude great than the other.

The key are the 20-to-25 “natural” regions (12-to-15 ridings on avg) — big enough to efficiently run regional campaigns, but small enough that they still have shared concerns. The 4 biggest provinces (ON, QC, BC, AB) would have multiple regions, while smaller provinces would be a single region. Per-vote subsidy revenue should be shared with these regional organizations, fundraising revenue (done exclusively by HQ) should be shared with local organizations (EDAs). Each regional organization would have its own 5-person Council, the chair of which sits on Federal Council. Each regional organization would have its own (part-time) organizer, hired by and responsible to the regional council (who salary is paid for by the per-vote subsidy).

This kind of system would align the organizing, administrative and governance structures into one system that’s always working towards the goal of earning votes.

It’s good to have a full slate of candidates, but far too many of the GPC candidates even in the past were paper candidates, filled at the last minute. It’s true that it might be even worse this time. But the reality is the party needs to drastically change the way it approaches organizing for it to see substantial changes. But to do so would mean moving to a more decentralized approach that I touch upon above, but the current leadership group neither understands nor values this approach.

As to your point about spending, the GPC purports to be “fiscally responsible” but yet can’t even balance its own budget. You seem to equal more spending with more success, which is patently untrue. You can do a lot more with a lot less. There is no doubt the GPC needs to limit its borrowing going forward.

Determine 20 ridings which appeal most broadly to resident and have best regional contest in those ridings. Candidates that are well known in respective ridings have best chance of garnering wider support as we realize danger of bringing outside carpetbagger candidates who purport to represent community interests.

Attack Libs Cons NDP ruthlessly and professionally based on opposition party inability to keep Conservative Party of Canada vote-rigging and threatening democracy.

Liberal Party and NDP are fair game we are running not only for Green Party interests but Canadian long-term viability as a vibrant healthy democracy.

Canadian Identity of Eco-Friendly Prosperity Transparency and Inclusiveness.

I think the Greens should plow everything into getting their leader elected in a particular riding. THAT will make the news. Obviously the party infrastructure needs to be fixed, but getting a seat will make serious people take a first or second look at the party.

Intuitively this makes sense. To date, more than $700,000 has been spent on getting Elizabeth May elected. And that does not count her salary or her aide because those are party fundctions.

I heard last year that $20,000 per month was being spent in the SGI campaign. I watch all the numbers, and what kind of waste is entailed in the quixotic decision making. I still thought that $20K figure was probably an exageration. Having seen all the 2009 Elections Canda filings, its not. Counting the GPC paid staff solely working on the SGI campaign, its a lot more than $20K per month.

If the election comes in October, the accumulated total for electing May will be at or above $1million. And if the election is later, as I think it will be, keep adding the tens of thosands per month.

That is more than the accumulated deficit of the GPC, which it does not have the means to pay off, and is headed for a bigger financial crunch.

I agree that if you can get a seat for even a million dollars, its worth it. Considered in the abstract at least. But for one thing you arent getting a seat. You are BETTING everything on getting a seat. Even with all that spending, and more if it were available, May is still on an uphill battle. She loses, and YOU are screwed. [And she is gone.]

Not to mention that the reason it took so much money is because of all the quixotic decision making and lack of leadership. The obstacles were just as great in the UK, and they elected an MP without laying waste to the organization on the way there.

And Greg is right- spending money to make money only works if you are disciplined and focused. A minimum of leadership is a prequiste to that.

Put another way:

More GPC money is spent every month in SGI than was aved in all those layoffs. The fundraising is flatlined or going south. Adrian Carr is peddling fast to find new people to boorow from, to repay loans due. Energy that should be going into fundraising.

Even to grudginly go along for the ride- your reservations notwithstanding…. it doesnt add up.

What kept 2009 from being an even bigger financial train wreck, was the subatantial increase in the quarterly subsidy because of the 2008 vote increase. That happened after more than a year of May being very much in the news and the darling of a chunk of the media.

Now she is never in the news and acknowleged to be concentrating on winning her seat. So from a position of being very much less visible than in the run-up to 2008, she is going to be out of national circulation, and the GPC is headed towards the election from a base lower than it had in 2008.

And you are going to have less than half the money to spend on the national campaign and to distribute to the ridings.

Whats the likely outcome of that in vote share? When even a fraction of a percent drop will have a very big impact on the GPC monthly income. And after even drastically reduced national campaign spending still adds to the indigestible debt load.

And just to get it out of the way:
Yes I’m in the NDP. No, I dont do this to help the NDP.
Seriously, the longer you stick with Elizabeth May, the more it will hurt.
If my only interest was the NDP’s benefit, I’d not say a word.
My interest and reactions are empathetic and visceral.

Given the indictment in this blog post, why shouldn’t this party just dissolve?

@Ed – well, almost a million people voted Green last time, so I doubt it will dissolve any time soon, although a fall 2010 election (if accompanied by excessive borrowing) could put it in serious financial trouble.

Excessive borrowing would be fatal.
But even a vastly scaled down election budget will end with new debt. And ANY new debt added to the current situation is a big whack of straws on the back of an aleady very strained camel.

If the campaign budget is scaled down to just 36% of 2008- which is pretty drastic and is bound to have an effect on the vote share, thats $1million.

Half of that come back in rebates. Leaving half a million in NEW fundraising [on top of what you would have got and needed for the quarter anyway] that has to be fundraised to breakeven.

Parties raise suprisingly little [extra] during and around a campaign. I think the GPC has done a bit better at that proportionally. But still, you’ll be doing well to raise $250K over a normal quarter during the election.

that would leave net new debt of $250,000, which would have been a very modest addition to the debt in 2008; but not this time.

Let alone the immediate aftermath on the financial situation from what you can expect to happen to the vote share and the subsidy with such a big reduction in campaign spending [and the less visible Leader].

Push the total campaign budget down even further so that there will be less debt? But the visibility factor will decrease your campaign fundraising.

@Ken – yes, that about sums it up. And yet, many within the GPC (including the leader) still believe that limiting borrowing is a bad thing. BTW, I think you are being optimistic saying the campaign budget will be 1 million, probably more like 1/4 of 2008 (750k). Although to be honest, I don’t think lower spending will make a lot of difference – most of the 2008 funds went to a few terrible TV ads, which probably made little difference. But having the leader spend 80% of the campaign in her riding might lower their profile (esp if she doesn’t get into the debates).

To be fair, they did pass a motion limiting their borrowing to the amount of their per-vote subsidy (currently what $1.6 to 1.8m?), as you rightly point out, that’s not nearly strict enough, since it that amount of borrowing would sink the ship.

And given the way there is no seperation of the borrowing even that limitation is purely formal.

There will be some borrowing during that time to refinance the repayment of existing loans. Its an ongoing revolving door.

And who else outside the bubble knows what loan is for what? “Oh THAT chunk wasn’t for the campaign.” Or later, wasnt for the ________.

They’ve been playing shell games longer than any of them who are doing it now, from before you were in there for that matter.

Thanks for the update Greg. You are right that the delays, inaction and lack of sincerity in terms of honoring the constitution, is a reason why Sylvie has decided to make it known publicly that she wants to run for the leadership of the Green Party.

Unfortunately, this whole affair has been handled very poorly by the party. Yes, there is an issue with the constitution in that it doesn’t take a minority government into account. But instead of making wholesale changes to the constitution, we should be tweaking it so that it does take a minority government into account. It is most definitely a mistake to cancel the one thing that has proven to be the best way for the Green Party to grow. With a Francophone candidate like Sylvie running in a leadership contest, the Green Party has a tremendous opportunity to grow the party in Quebec just as it did in Ontario in 2006.

In my opinion, a leadership review is not in the best interest of the party as it will do nothing to grow the party and stop the slide that we are currently experiencing.

I call on Council and the current leadership team to withdraw their motion for a leadership review and do the right thing and allow for a contest to take place.

If GPC members think that its not appropriate to have a leadership contest before the next election then so be it, I’m easy, but don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater by getting rid of a contest in favor of a review just because it may be inconvenient to have the contest now. Let’s do the right thing and honor the intent of our constitution.

If people would like to learn more about Sylvie Lemieux and her vision for a new Canada, her campaign website can be found at: http://www.sylvielemieux.ca.

Thanks,

James O’Grady
Former Director of Campaign Communications for the Green Party of Ontario, 2007 Ontario provincial election

Hey Greg,

The one thing I have to severely criticize you on is your characterization of the new executive director. The tech guys tend to be the smartest and most capable individuals in any organization. Don’t confuse modesty with capacity.

Craig Canton, has far more real experience in politics that any of the past executive directors, having spent 7 years in communications and technical services with the official opposition in the last 90s, and served as the deputy campaign manager in the last election for the Greens.

He has been responsible for developing the GPC GOTV software (which is actually quite powerful for being build in house). I’ve worked with him on by-elections and he isn’t an ideologically distracted like some Greens.

Personally, I was quite glad when I heard him take over the role as I think the fit is right.

-Dan

@Dan – my characterization of the “tech guy” running the party (and my use of Craig’s joke that he’s “just the coax cable guy”) was meant to illustrate how strange things are in the Green Party, not a criticism of Craig. I apologize, I can see how it would be interpreted the other way around. I like Craig and think he’s very capable, although I think his talents are better used on the political side than in a managerial role (the ED is not really a political role, btw). he’s one of the few who understands what it takes to build a party from the grassroots up. but as i understand it, he’s not continuing as ED, which i think is a wise decision. so there will be another ED after the Toronto convention. i’ve sent Craig an apology in case he was offended.

To paraphrase Ghandi. First they ignor us, then they laugh at us, then they attack us, Then we win.

I have never seen such vicious twaddle in my life. Thanks for moving us closer to victory.

First off Greg thank you for the post. It is much needed public commentary on the Green Party. We boast about being grassroots, innovative and the alternative to status quo politics in Canada. Great. Now we have to prove it and we get things right and we gets things wrong. The issue for me personally is that what we have wrong strikes to the core of the above boast and needs to be addressed and fixed.

Grassroots? Well everyone has their own interpretation of what that means and I’ve heard the arguments from other parties and frankly they haven’t worked it out either. To me its obvious. Grassroots means the membership is active and when it comes to internal governance, the vast majority of our membership has been asleep at the wheel in the last four years. There is an expression from when I was a kid referring to devout spiritual people. It goes like this, “Some people are so heavenly minded their no earthly good.” Green Party members are passionately concerned with climate change, national and global environmental issues, democracy, as well as economic and social justice. That’s great but we have to be the functional expression of these ideals as well. The leadership contest mess is just one problem that has to be dealt with at the national convention in August. The membership needs to turn its passions inward and take a hard look at what has been going on internally.
A grassroots membership stands up to the leadership and says no. A grassroots membership, passionate about democracy and political alternatives, remains vigilant. We don’t have a delegate system. We don’t use proxy voting. We use one member one vote. That puts the responsibility directly on the shoulders of each member. The leadership across the board has taken advantage of the apathy within the Green membership and it has brought us to this point. This leadership has to take responsibility for their actions. It’s time for the membership to wake up and start asking hard questions. A grassroots membership accepts their responsibility, takes control and cleans house when its needed. It seeks constant renewal.

That’s a key element of this national convention.

Those are my thoughts.
Stephen LaFrenie
candidate – Trinity Spadina
shadow cabinet member
Toronto host organizing committee
Green Party national convention 2010

Ken Summers is typical of so many of the comments. His statement that implies that the GP is deep in debt. The current debt of the Green Party is all but paid back. Last I heard there was only one payment to make and that may have already been made. The Green party also has a lot of Electoral District Assn. with substantial funds on their own.

Is it not better to shut up than open it and expose your ignorance.

@NBurman – you said “Is it not better to shut up than open it and expose your ignorance.” You might want to heed your own advice. The one payment you are talking about is on the bank loan. But there is still $300,000 in outstanding private loans.

And that “one payment left” for the bank loan is pocket change of $250,000.

Pretending the private loans dont exist is a joke. Even if the lenders don’t care, Elections Canada will not allow them to go unpaid.

So thats $300,000 private loans plus $250,000 bank loan. I think the last payment was already due. And it will have been more “new” private loans to pay it. So now [or very soon] it will be simply $500,000 plus in private loans.

But it will be “Bank loan is paid off.” Period.

Next: even parties in tip top financial shape have to borrow for the election campaign- and no matter how little you plan to spend. That will be interesting for the GPC.

Will the bank even lend to the GPC? Subsidies are collateral, but banks dont take risks they will have to exercise on that collateral.

And if the bank won’t do it, that means scouring around for still more private loans. Thats quite the distraction.

@Ken – I think you can assume the bank loan is now paid off in full, so it’s only the $300k private loans left. As I understand it, they stopped the monthly stipend to the SGI campaign a few months ago (with nothing scheduled for the rest of 2010), so together with Q2 fundraising, the Q2 subsidy, and lower overhead (due to layoffs, resignations), I think it’s also safe to assume the bank loan was not retired with more borrowing.

But the rest of the yr will be interesting, since they’ve tapped their most reliable sources for the annual maximum already. Moreover, the GPC has a convention next month for which members must pay (which also counts against their annual contribution limit). And if the leadership motion to cancel the leadership race and extend E May’s term indefinitely gets “green-lighting”, as it might, it won’t even go to workshop or be debated. So many members may well simply not go to convention (why would they? there’s not much to discuss). In any case, the convention probably adds another $100k to the debt. And with likely soft Q3 fundraising, it will be into 2011 before they can re-pay the private loans.

But your point about the next election is a good one; can the GPC secure another bank loan? Good question. Private loans are do-able, although that was Jim Harris’s forte; it is not Adriane Carr’s, who is trying to do it now. I’m sure Jim won’t dare go back to his friends risking another repeat of E May’s torpedoing the GPC vote.

The only money that counts towards paying off the total debt, to picking up the pace, is new sources found.

So Q2 subsidies and fundraising are not new sources [unless there was a big bump in the fundraising, which its safe to say didnt happen.

The savings from the layoffs were new when they started. Its with them that they were able to move the debt down at all. But they dont count now for an ‘extra kick’ to do something they havent done before like pay that last bank loan payment of $250,000 without any new private loans.

Now, not bleeding cash to the SGI campaign, would be new. And if as you say that has been for several months, that could easily add up to $100,000… which would be a good start on making a $250K payment without new private loans.

But I seriously doubt they pulled that one off. Like you said, even if they did, its essentially just a short lived improvement in the frantic treading water exercise.

And by the way- the SGI campaign had a significant cushion early this year. If they are using up that cushion rather than cutting spending- then when the cushion is gone, it will be back to the same level of monthly transfers, plus the $80,000 the actual campaign will need.

A note about the private loans. They are written up to be repaid in a year or maybe a bit more. Thats to keep from being hammered by Elections Canada. So they are coming due at all times, and have to be replaced by new loans. There wouldnt be a time that there are not “new” private loans happening and/or being worked on.

There is a brick wall on this somewhere. Its anybody’s guess how soon. The coming election could be the last straw. But even if it isnt- somebody gets to deal with the reckoning.

Hey Greg if you know so much why are you not aware that a couple of weeks ago a fund raiser here in Calgary raised over $20,000.00 over the span of about one hour. When a party can do this in Conservative country how can you make such statements about what is owed. If any is owed as of this minute the cheque is almost certainly being processed

I hate people who pull one small part out of situation and try to brand everything on basis of that small part. So ofter in the political culture of this country the attacker is not even using correct information.

When are the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP going to admit our parliamentary system is broken and work together to fix it. Righ now the House of Commons works primnarily on an adversarial basis with no sense of decorum or cooperation.

As for the Boc, they are laughing at us. They got fewer votes in the last election than the Green Party and look at who has members in Parliament.

Time to get rid of the fossils who hide behind any rule they can find rather than address the real problems.

“When a government starts trying to cancel dissent or avoid dissent is frankly when it’s rapidly losing its moral authority to govern.”

- Stephen Harper, Canadian Press, April 18, 2005

Actually, you are the one focusing on one small part of the picture and trying to say it represents the whole thing.

Its going to take quite a few $20,000 checks to get out of the hole and stay there. And how many more of those are there?

The Liberal Party had some tremendous fundraisers, but they just went into the maw of keeping from falling behind on the treadmill. they are still there.

And that $20,000 wasn’t raised [if it is even that much] in an hour. A bunch of people worked their tails off for weeks, and pulled every conceivable rabbit out of the hats.

If doing that was sustainable the Liberals would be in the gravy.

Its possible to get completely out of a hole as big as the GPC has dug itself into. But it takes focus, continuity and leadership. The leadership required isnt the talking head variety. So the GPC currently has none of what it takes to get out of the hole.

@NBurman – perhaps the only one you know about is the one from Calgary, because that’s where you live? But you forgot to mention fundraiserS where the GPC lost money — you know, like this one. My purpose wasn’t to run down a list of each event the Greens have done. Like selectively highlighting the polls the Greens like, it seems that some (like you) also want to highlight the money-making events, while forgetting about the money-losing ones.

As for the Bloc (who assume you meant), you said: “…they are laughing at us. They got fewer votes in the last election than the Green Party and look at who has members in Parliament.” This one isn’t too hard to verify:

Bloc Quebecois – 1,379,991
Green Party of Canada – 937,613

It seems that it is you whose facts aren’t correct. My information is solid. The GPC still owes $300,000 in private loans. I understand you might not want to hear bad news, but it doesn’t make it less true. And since when was telling people the truth an “attack” on the party?

You’ll get no argument from me about the current state of parliament.

@Ken – private loans are more flexible than bank loans. If there is a fall 2010 or early 2011 election, they might be in a jam, but if its fall 2011, that means you have the first 2 quarters to retire private loans. That’s do-able with even a drop in fundraising (recall they raised $1.6m last yr). They’d still need to borrow for a fall 2011 election, so would everyone else.

#11 has no back up re the greens down 50% in # of donors ,can you state where it is?

@Constantine – the link is there for #11, but it’s a long post at Pundit’s Guide, so might be hard to find. It’s in the 3rd paragraph below the colourful chart titled “Selected Financial Metrics, by Party, 2009 Fiscal Year”. It says:

“…the Green Party could count on 9,115 contributors, down substantially from 17,308 contributors in 2008, and even from their 10,081 contributors in 2007.”

The # of donors is down 47.3% from 2008 (i.e. almost 50%, as stated).

There’s some interesting stuff about the fundraising. Since the Second Quarter Elections Canada filings were due yesterday, I thought I’d wait for those. But they aren’t in yet.

Meanwhile, aprops to those Q2 results, convention fees would be included. The cutoff date for the Q2 filing was June 30- would there have been any significant early payments of BGM fees by then?

@Ken – unlikely they got a lot of fees in time for Q2 filing. So far < 200 people have registered, although that will probably pick up. Even still, I expect they’ll lose ~$100k on the convention. The budget for the convention was ~$200k + contingency, call it $230k. The fees are $200-400, so $300 avg. So they would need 750-800 people to register just to cover their costs. So a ~$100k loss is 400-450 registrations. If the leadership motions get green-lighted (60% support online) then they won’t even be debated, so some people might cancel their registrations.