Chants of ‘shame’ erupt at Conservative AGM in GTA after organizer ‘unfairly’ disqualifies a slate of 30 candidates
Some Conservative Party members in the Greater Toronto Area are calling out a regional party organizer for “unfairly” blocking a slate of 30 candidates from the riding’s board of directors election at its recent annual general meeting.
At issue is the June 25 meeting where two competing slates of candidates were vying for positions on the Mississauga–Erin Mills, Ont., electoral district association’s (EDA) board of directors. The party constitution permits a maximum of 30 executive positions on the board. One slate presented candidates for all 30 positions, while the opposing slate had just 11.
Tamara Tomilko, a GTA regional party organizer who was overseeing the meeting, disqualified the full slate of 30 candidates, citing their failure to submit “appendix A”—the written affirmation of office for directors—prior to the meeting, according to four riding association members.
However, the party’s constitution does not require candidates to submit appendix A before the meeting begins. The written affirmation of office is a statement that requires directors to maintain the confidentiality of all information related to the party, riding association, or membership, and a commitment to carry out their duties with honesty and integrity. The party constitution does not specify a deadline for submitting the appendix. Based on its wording, it appears the statement is intended to be signed after the election has concluded.
“I, [blank space left for the name], affirm that I will keep the affairs and plans of the EDA and the Party confidential, that I will keep any personal information respecting members strictly confidential and that I will perform the duties of a Director of the EDA honestly and justly in conformity with the EDA and the Party constitutions,” states the written affirmation of office for director, which is available on the party‘s website.
The Hill Times reached out to two other Conservative electoral district associations to ask when appendix A is typically submitted. They said that, in their ridings, it is completed after the election.
The Hill Times also interviewed a former senior party official who has overseen these meetings, and they confirmed that the signed statement is typically completed after the AGM. Based on the official’s experience, the timing has never been an issue as long as appendix A is submitted before the first meeting of the new board. The source said that if the party organizer expected the statement to be signed before the start of the AGM, she should have brought printed copies, distributed them to the candidates, and requested their signatures on the spot.
Following the disqualification, Tomilko declared the slate of 11 candidates acclaimed, four sources told The Hill Times. When some of the disqualified candidates tried to persuade her to reconsider her decision, she declined. Tomilko abruptly left the meeting before the agenda was completed, sources said.
Tomilko did not reply to interview requests from The Hill Times. By press time, both the Conservative Party’s director of communications and the president of the Mississauga–Erin Mills EDA were also not available to comment for this article.
“If this is how the [party] co-ordinator [Tomilko] is operating at the lowest level of the CPC, I can’t imagine what is going on at the higher level!” wrote Mujtaba Shaukat, a riding association member and a disqualified candidate, in an email to Ontario national councillors, former campaign director Jenni Byrne, and the party’s executive director Mike Crase.
“Definitely reduced my confidence in supporting the CPC. I guess we’ll never win against the Liberals if this is how things will be!”
Shaukat provided the email to The Hill Times, and confirmed the details of the meeting. He also shared a copy of the email sent out to all riding association members by the party prior to the meeting, which makes no mention of appendix A. The email only specifies the date, time, and location of the AGM, and that potential candidates must be members of the riding by June 4.
“Please note, in order to be eligible to stand for election, or to vote at the AGM, you must be an active member as of June 4 (21 days prior to meeting date),” states the June 10 email sent out by the party.
Shaukat said that according to the party constitution, appendix A is not required to be signed by directors prior to the AGM, and he is unsure why the regional organizer, Tomilko, disqualified all 30 candidates. He also confirmed that once she blocked the entire slate from running and refused to reconsider her decision, attendees began chanting “shame, shame, shame” in protest. Shaukat said that it appears the party is trying to hand-pick who serves on the riding boards.
“It makes absolutely no sense that I needed to have ‘Appendix A’ signed and dated BEFORE the AGM meeting (as early as the DAY before, since Tamara announced that she had received Appendix A from [two] people [from the acclaimed slate] who emailed her last night)…as the Appendix A is to be signed by NOMINEES and not by members,” wrote Shaukat in his email to national councillors after the annual general meeting.
“Those people who had signed Appendix A without even being nominated could not do so, as the Appendix A is to be signed by the Nominees….not by members and how could they have been nominees the day before the AGM? You can only be nominated at the AGM…I was rejected my democratic right to even be nominated so how can I complete Appendix A?”
Shaukat told The Hill Times that he had not received any reply from any of the national councillors, or the party executive director by press time.
The Hill Times obtained a copy of the meeting agenda, printed on official party letterhead. It lists nine items, including a call to order, approval of agenda, report by the president, financial report, appointment of auditor, election of directors, review of code of conduct, candidate remarks, and other business.
Shaukat said that the review of the code of conduct was not taken up properly, and that Tomilko told attendees that the code of conduct was on the website, and everyone can read it there.
A second potential candidate who was at the meeting said they also have concerns about the impartiality of the regional organizer. They said that a number of party members felt that Tomliko’s behaviour was “disrespectful and discriminatory.” They said that members felt they were being treated as “second-class citizens.” The candidate spoke to The Hill Times on a not-for-attribution basis.
A third attendee who also spoke to The Hill Times on a not-for-attribution basis said that at the start of the meeting, Tomilko read out the names of all 30 candidates and they stood up to confirm their presence at the meeting.
They said that Tomilko read out the names of the second slate of 11 candidates, but they’re not sure if all of the 11 were even present at the meeting.
The source told The Hill Times that Tomilko also mentioned that two of the 11 candidates had submitted appendix A to her the day before the meeting, but that those two individuals were not present at the meeting. Still, they were declared acclaimed board members. Shaukat also confirmed the same.
“[Tomilko] left abruptly and she didn’t complete the agenda,” said a third source.
Maged Srour, a riding association member who was also at the meeting, told The Hill Times that he was surprised the regional representative blocked 30 party members from running over a technicality that isn’t even outlined in the party rules. He added that if submitting appendix A was truly that significant, Tomliko could have simply given the candidates 15 minutes to sign and submit it.
“We were not voting to launch some nuclear weapons, we were only voting to elect members of the board of a riding association,” said Srour.
All of the individuals who were interviewed for this article said that the party’s national council should annul the results of the June 25 AGM and call a new meeting to elect the riding board.
arana@hilltimes.com
The Hill Times
Conservative Party rules for the election of EDA board of directors
7.4 The following rules apply:
7.4.1: elections for the Board of Directors may not proceed without the opportunity for nominations from the floor;
7.4.2: each nominee must have the opportunity to speak, with the Chair to determine the speaking time allotted;
7.4.3: each nominee must complete the Affirmation of Office (Appendix “A”);
7.4.4: if there are more nominees than the maximum set out in Article 7.8, the election will proceed by secret ballot, otherwise all nominees shall be acclaimed; and
7.4.5: in the case of a tie, the tie shall be broken by drawing lots.
Source: the Constitution of the Conservative Party of Canada Electoral District Associations
LICENSING
PODCAST
ALERTS
