Conversations with the Internet Party Executive starting 14/06/2018
These conversations are internal party conversations between myself and the Executive, although mainly with Suzie Dawson as the other Executive seem to run and get her as soon as people start asking questions or demanding answers.
Under normal circumstances I wouldn’t release these but the people involved are all political, public figures except for me and a few others who I have XXXX’d out. Also, Suzie Dawson has already seen fit to use internal conversations outside of Party channels so apparently I am the only one who feels that way.
These conversations were later removed by the Executive.
To give some background, after 2017 when the Party lost New Zealand’s 2017 Election having gained only 499 votes there was a bit of a break (For an idea of how bad that result is, you need 500 members to be in the Election). It was the worst result in that Election.
This conversation takes place 8 months after the election , 2 days after I found out the Party had been de-registered and that they had also failed to submit on New Zealand’s Privacy Bill. A Bill sponsored by the head of the GCSB in NZ and completely in line with the Party objectives.
It should also be pointed out that where it says (edited), it was done by the participants, not me.
Jo – 06/14/2018
To date, I have confidence in the legality of everything I’ve done as secretary – In terms of the membership numbers at election, Fred our former secretary declared our eligibility and until recently when our new members director @Daymond looked into it I had no concrete count of financial members. Once we confirmed the count the Electoral Commission had no choice but to de-register us. I’d like see hear from anyone interested in continuing with membership of the Internet Party – as you are the lifeblood of our existence as a registered political party. I’d like to call a by-election and get the #InternetPartyPeople voicing the way forward, but the @Executive does have confidence in continuing and intend to stand for (something) in the next election.
This is an interesting statement from Jo as he is responsible for reporting the numbers of members to the Electoral Commission. Not just once a year but, as the Electoral Commission puts it, he is to, “Ensure the Commission is notified if the party’s membership falls below 500 current financial members who are eligible to enrol at any time.” The previous Secretary Fred Look had declared the eligibility before April 30th 2017.
Daymond – 06/14/2018
In my opinion the Internet Party did the best it could have given the resources we had in 2017
But I will apologize for not analysing the new Privacy Bill, I’ve been meaning to do it and haven’t gotten around to it. As IP Policy Chairman(edited)
Been too focused on the membership stuff.(edited)
The Internet Party received $50,000 in 2017, half of which was paid to Suzie Dawson. The previous secretary alleges that they were,”raising invoices after the event to pay off those contracts out of the broadcasting allocation for work that was either not done or unnecessary in the first place“.
Daymond then apologises for not submitting on the Privacy Bill saying that he was too focused on the membership which doesn’t make sense to me as the membership was due April 30th and the submissions for the Bill were due over a month later.
masonbee – 06/14/2018
Well, bring in the other members folks. Time to have a chat. Also, when is the election?
Or would you prefer to set a time to get everyone together? (this is part of the reason I thought Loomio would be better. It isn’t so instant) Or set a time for the election? And for that matter, how many members do we have …fourty? When can all fourty be in the same place?
It carries on with me asking for the other members to be called in either for a talk with them about what to do, or to set a time for an Election. At the time I think it is forty. This is probably from the conversation directly prior to this one.
Daymond – 06/14/2018
The by-election would likely happen at the next AGM
Actually the Constitution says shall be conducted at the next AGM (7.7) and when there is a vacancy in the Executive it says a by-election should be carried out as soon as practicable(8.19).
masonbee – 06/14/2018
Which is when? the constitution says asap from memory?
No, hold on, you have to do one earlier as you have exec vacancies.
masonbee – 06/14/2018
8.19 Where a position on the Executive Committee is vacant, the Party Secretary will conduct a by-election as soon as practicable(edited)
See above.
Jo – 06/14/2018
raised it before the election. wasn’t practicable, raised it after, wasn’t practicable. still keen to have one asap
Remembering that the Internet Party has it’s AGM’s and by-elections are largely online this is a very interesting thing to say. All that is needed is the candidates, some time and some emails. Since Jo gets to decide the,”voting procedure and conduct for a by-election”(8.20) in my view it was practicable all along.
masonbee – 06/14/2018
So when is it folks? It is now six months into the year, the last video stream was Oct 16, 2017. The website doesn’t appear to have been updated (certainly since Suzie (excuse name mispelling before) resigned as she is still on it as leader. Daymond now says he hasn’t put anything in for the Privacy Bill (Christ, even I did). When will there be movement?
Jo, considering we only have fourty members we can have it next week. I would like to see some discussion first about the path the current exec has taken and see if there ae other candidates who would like to stand and what they would stand for.
Largely me trying to get some movement. By now I had had my ‘blowout’ and it was time to get things moving. What I didn’t know then was that it looks like Suzie was making quite a bit of money using name of the Internet Party. If you look at the below graph of her bitcoin donations I have placed a dot where the 2017 Election was. I believe this made her actions biased.
The full graph is here.
Jo – 06/14/2018
@Daymond i’ll email out a notice to the 40 members of you can compose it – the “death” of the party is as good a hook as any. @Suzie any comment?
And we have movement…..
masonbee – 06/14/2018
Yay!!! She is here.
Or she isn’t?
OK, ciggi break.
Where is Colin?
Who remains from the exec and IP Assets?
This is probably the last time I would ever be happy that Suzie had arrived. A conversation that was going places suddenly took a turn for the worse. Added to this I am not as good at arguing as she is, but then winning the argument doesn’t always mean you are right.
Jo – 06/14/2018
@IPA @ex-Officio
Jo confirms that Colin is on the board of Internet Party Assetts and on the Executive as an ex-offio member (unelected, no voting rights (8.10)).
Daymond – 06/14/2018
I like the idea of having Party Chat for Full Members, its a good local setting.
It was a good idea. Unfortunately, the only really active members of it were myself and the executive. I argued with them over the course of a year in private chat trying to get them to take notice of New Zealand and failed. After that, they shut it down. These are those conversations. It goes downhill from here.
Suzie – 06/14/2018
I have put my 2 cents into #news where @masonbee originally posted
In addition to that, and with regards to the above I would say:(edited)
1. A retrospective: I have been smeared, defamed, lied to, lied about, deceived, sabotaged, and I’m still here working for free and putting my name and rep on the line for the Party. This goes with the territory in activism so I tolerate it. Should my efforts not be respected I’m happy to step aside.
2. Current situation: we are waiting for funds, at which point we can pay full time staff, build a mobile app, revamp the website, proceed with the new membership drive, and build towards 2020. I’m happy to author a campaign strategy for us and help find us a suitable new leader, and with the previous exec not involved to undermine that strategy, we should have a much better chance.
3. I do not believe the 40 members is reflective of the amount of people who want to be members of the party, or we wouldn’t have even got the 500 votes. The 40 members is actually a reflection of Fred’s mishandling of the membership data and of the extremely disfunctional membership database, which was not fit for purpose and which we are in the process of recreating. I also believe we had more than 500 supporters, but as usual people were falsely urged to believe that they had to vote for a major party in order for their vote to count, and we were part of that collateral damage. I believe holding an AGM before a membership drive and getting our funding would be detrimental to the party interests, but I’m not entirely opposed to having an AGM either.
4. The work we have done internationally, networking with big-name activists, tech people and activism orgs around the world is not worthless. To the contrary, we have built a strong international reputation that, while enduring a blackout nationally within New Zealand, is an important tool for us going forward. The events we have been and are involved in is giving the Party a presence where otherwise it would have virtually none.
5. Our communications with the Electoral Commission have been professional and timely, our relationship with them is good, they are happy for us to reapply for registration once we have completed a new membership drive and have above 500 members. Full credit to @Jo @Daymond and I guess myself, for putting in the hours to meet the compliance and keep in good standing with them despite the membership database debacle inherited from Fred/previous exec.
6. The sources of criticism about the Party have been from those who were either instrumental in degrading it to the point it was in in 2017, or who were not willing to commit themselves to getting on board and doing the work. Actions speak louder than words. I am well aware of who has poured the hours in to trying to keep the party afloat, and those who have sat on the sidelines or engaged in undermining the Party at every turn. You, XXXX are a talented person who obviously cares about the Party, and someone from whom the Party would benefit from being more involved. I urge you to do so in whatever capacity you are able.
7. The community that is being built on this discord is one that could help to support future promotional efforts by the Party as the issues are all intertwined. IP has supported Assange, WikiLeaks, press freedom, human rights, privacy etc since its inception.
In that regard I wouldn’t look a gift horse in the mouth.
That’s all I have to say for now – tag me or text me if you need me.
Unfortunately for activism, I believe most of the above statements are incorrect.
Suzie Dawson is forever going on about being, “smeared, defamed, lied to, lied about, deceived, sabotaged” and in my experience of her it is because she doesn’t like the truth. There is a perfect example of this straight afterwards when she states she is working for free and that she is happy to stand aside.
She definitely wasn’t working for free. A previous Party Executive loaned her $8000 of his sisters money which Suzie then refused to pay back. Later that year the New Zealand government paid her $25,000 out of the Internet Party’s funding allocation. At the same time it appears she was using the Internet Party’s name to legitimise herself politically and increase her bitcoin donations.
Suzie then goes on to say they are waiting for funds. It appears that without these funds the Internet Party is unable to do anything. It cannot even change the picture on it’s website saying that she is the leader ,although she hasn’t been for a month and a half ,without paying someone to do it. She appears unable to consider the Party doing anything unless it is a fully funded which isn’t likely to happen as the Party only got 499 votes at the last Election.
Point number three is just bizarre. Having admitted there are only 40 members, against the evidence she asserts that she thinks the number should be 500 because of the Election result of 499. It appears though that all Party’s in New Zealand have lower numbers than their voting numbers and that this has been falling over time. She then seeks to blame the past Secretary (this is an ongoing theme) even though it has been a year since he was forced to resign. It also appears she hasn’t read or understood the Party Constitution where it states that an AGM shall take place every year (7.5). It is not her decision to make.
In point number four it is true that she has done, with the help of other members, a lot of work with International activists and organisations. But how much of that was for the Internet Party? Suzie seems to continually conflate her own work with the work of the Internet Party and, yet again, appears not to have read the objectives of the Internet Party (3) and how they are to be achieved in which she is, “bound to act in accordance with”(8.4). The reason these conversations began was because I accused the Executive of ignoring New Zealand and not acting to achieve the objectives of the Party.
She goes on to say in point number five that the Executives communications with the Electoral Commission have been professional and timely. But this is apparently contradicted by the Secretary (and the Secretary before him) who says they had no idea how many financial members the Party had for almost a year even though they had an obligation to the Electoral Commission to report if the membership numbers fell under 500 at any time. This certainly doesn’t meet my expectations of professional or timely communications. Yet again, she tries to shift any blame onto the previous Executive.
Point six is quite frankly laughable, especially the attempted ego stroking of myself. The Executive who had been, in her words, “instrumental in degrading it to the point it was in in 2017, or who were not willing to commit themselves to getting on board and doing the work.” were the ones that had nursed the Party along from a massive Election defeat in 2017. In many cases paying for it out of their own pockets. She would not know this as she was not a Party member until that Executive approached her to be the Leader and in one case lent her money borrowed from their family.
If actions speak louder than words then perhaps perhaps the current Executive could look at their own which, in terms of the Party objectives, have been minimal and, in terms of the Party’s ability to contest an Election, disastrous.
In rebuttal of point seven, the community on Discord could support future promotional efforts for the Party except that there aren’t many New Zealand members on Discord. In the words of one member of the Executive (ex-offico), “Discord as you mentioned is full of foreigners.” While the Party reaching out to overseas membership isn’t a bad thing, the Party abandoning it it’s New Zealand membership is. The conversations I have released would be, in my estimation, upward of ninety percent of the New Zealand members use of Discord who would seem to be, at the most, ten people. This is backed up by the AGM where there were only twelve people.
Finally, yes, the Internet Party has,”…supported Assange, WikiLeaks, press freedom, human rights, privacy etc since its inception.” but not to the exclusion of New Zealand. The ‘Moment of Truth’ was not about the Internet Party going worldwide but instead to explain New Zealands place in the world so we could choose to change ourselves in the 2014 Election. Yet, again, the objectives of the Party and the methods to achieve those objectives are written in the Constitution(3). The Executive should be justifying their actions as per those objectives and, if the actions are not achieving the objectives, change course.
masonbee – 06/15/2018
@Suzie Still in transit, sorry. I will rebutt once I get out. Initial thoughts are;
1) Interesting
2) Still?
3) Bullshit
4) No, you are an NZ party…remember.
5) Good
6) That is what I am doing.
7) The population of Discord appears to be non New Zealanders, goto 4
At the time of writing I was flying to France so my comment is brief and to the point. It is interesting to note, at least to me, my views at the time which don’t have the benefit of hindsight. These initial views are further expanded on in problems.pdf which is posted further on in the thread.
Suzie – 06/15/2018
if you answer to 3 is “bullshit” there isn’t much left to talk about. my tolerance for being treated callously is waning.
re 4 & 7 you might like to refer yourself to the 3 years of tweets where Kim has repeatedly stated that he wants internet party to grow worldwide and that that has always been his vision. you might also refer to the fact that membership is open to people everywhere, not just to nz’ers.
It appears there was quite a lot more to talk about, but as for the three years of tweets there are two easy rebuttals to that. Kim Dot Com does not speak for Internet Party New Zealand unless authorised to by the Party Secretary and considering the Party is called Internet Party New Zealand and, I imagine, Kim Dot Com helped write the Constitution it is curious that it says nothing about Internet Party New Zealand being an international body. Yes, you can be a member if you are not a Qualified Elector in New Zealand but you cannot be a full member.
This is important because, by my reading, only Full Members can be nominated for the Executive (8.13) and other positions must be ex-officio who have no voting rights (8.10). This is one of my arguments against Suzie Dawson being Party President as she is not a full member and can’t have voting rights in the Executive but one of the functions of the Party President is casting votes and, as such, she is unable to fulfil her duties (8.9).
masonbee – 06/16/2018
@Suzie That just makes the numbers worse as you now have members over population of world instead of just members over nz pop. And you aren’t being treated callously, I want you and the executive to understand the abject failure of their plan. They have lost the election and now the Party. They have lost the membership. You are a New Zealand Party and you have lost your home base by almost completely ignoring it.
As for KDC’s tweets, that is all they have been and they are not part of the objectives of the Internet Party NZ
My post was unfortunately quite long so I will attach it as a PDF. If people require different formats then contact me and I will post them.
Attachment file type: acrobat
Problems.pdf (I have inserted the Problems post here but this is the link to the original)
33.44 KB
In reply to your comments on the News thread.
1) My problem isn’t with the last election or what you expected or got. I supported your efforts in the last election. But it failed spectacularly.
2) The honeymoon period is over. You can no longer blame the past exec members. The executive is responsible for the current state of the Party and have had plenty of time to fix anything that needed to be fixed.
3) Kim has been saying he is going to fund the Party for so long I can’t remember. I’ll believe it when I see it. Stop relying on Kim.
4) Stop blaming the past exec. Really…move on.
5) I am glad you have offered to resign multiple times. It shows responsibility. You are owed no funds by the Party however. The executive creating a contract for you that relied on paying you without the funds to do so could be called fraud and should be dealt with as such. If you were a party to the decision then it is called hope and you knew that they didn’t have the funds when you signed it.
6) We weren’t de-registered because of the last exec (Still blaming?). We were de-registered because the current executive and Leader did nothing about the membership during the 260 days since the last election.
7) Really? Have you thought you might be part of the problem?
In reply to your comments in this thread.
1) Welcome to politics. I think you should step aside. You are very talented, great insticts, good in interviews, and a natural leader. Unfortunately, this is the Internet Party NZ and you haven’t concentrated on New Zealand and IPNZ. As a result of this we have been deregistered.
2) If these funds are coming from Kim then refer to #3. Also, if the Party can’t stand on it’s own feet without magical KDC saving it then it is doomed. If it constantly relies on him then it is a puppet party.
3) You have had more than enough time to sort out the memberships. If 40 is what you have come up with then 40 is what you have. 500 people in the election is few enough that much of it could be accounted for by joke votes. Either way if 500 is what you got then that is what you got. You are not only required to hold an AGM you are required to hold it at least two months before the end of the year. However, if you are lacking voted in exec members then you are required to hold a by-election as soon as practicable.
4) It is worthless if you lose the Party at home. KDC can have his vision for IP World all he wants. This is the Internet Party NZ. It is primarily involved with New Zealand issues. Something the executive seems to have lost. Your legal objectives are written in the constitution. I would suggest someone reads it.
5) Your communications to the Electoral commission can be as legal as you want. The membership issue was ignored until we were de-registered.
6) This source of criticism is me and the failure of IPNZ both in the last election and the membership debacle is the responsibility of the Exec. Stop blaming other people. There is a benefit to the party in this criticism in that it is honest and from a member that cares deeply about his country and it’s problems. No, I don’t want to be on the executive or stand in a seat and I have refused in both cases. I suppose it is possible I might be forced to at some point but as I am spending more and more time overseas it won’t be shortly. I do seem to end up constantly having to get the executive to take notice of the members. Members make the Party. You say actions are louder than words, you seem to have forgotten the corollary. Results are what counts. You were given the position of Leader in IPNZ. Since then there as been a massive loss of Exec, members, votes and focus on the objectives of the Party. The final result of your leadership has been the de-registration of the party.
7) The Discord membership is fine but wasn’t more important than the New Zealand membership and the focus on foreign affairs is not more important than New Zealand affairs. There are nine objectives in the constitution you are legally bound to enact. Seven of which directly say New Zealand. Seven tenths of your efforts should have been aimed directly at NZ. Support Assange/Wikileaks/etc..all the exec wants but they are not the purpose of the Party and focusing the Party’s efforts/abilities/assets on supporting overseas people is a breach of the constitution.
Conclusion
I would like you (edit) to remain a part of the Party but I don’t think you should be a part of the Executive anymore. Your leadership has led IPNZ to disaster.
Problems
– The Party has been deregistered.
– There is no Leader as Suzie is unable to stand.
– The website has not been updated.
– The executive did nothing about the Privacy Bill.
– The executive did nothing about the membership records.
– There has been little to no communication with members.
– The Party is focused on foreign affairs, not New Zealand.
– There has been no apology for the dismal failure in the last election.
– There has been no apology for the de-registration of the Party.
– Suzie was made President after only getting 500 votes in the last election. – – There has been no by-election of executive positions.
– Although there are people in Discord (100?) few of them appear to be New Zealanders or focused on NZ.
– Loomio is dead and whenever alive the Executive seems more intent on fighting than trying to work things through.
– Nothing appears to have happened for at least six months.
– The President lives in Russia and appears to have little to no interest in New Zealand (Is she ever returning?).
– There has been a constant blaming of Fred for membership database problems but in the two thirds of a year since taking over the new executive has made little effort to fix it.
– The Party isn’t following its legal obligations in the constitution.
Basically me repeating what I have already said although, yet again, it is interesting to see my views at the time and contrast them with how I view things now.
Daymond – 06/16/2018
Just to clarify, the 40 members I Identified as being Full Members are from New Zealand and the ones that I could verify that had paid there membership. I identified a lot of members that were considered as Full members but because I could not find a record of paying there membership I could not list them as Full Financial Members for the purposes of the EC.
Daymond clarifies that the Party has only forty full members.
masonbee – 06/16/2018
Thank you, but what you got is what you got. I am about to go out for dinner and then catch a plane so I will be back on in a couple of days. :airplane_departure:
Another flight? I imagine I was transiting through Abu Dhabi at this stage.
Suzie – 06/16/2018
Pointing out problems and building solutions are two different things. If you are willing to step up to exec and get more involved let us know.
We did invite you to do so last year @masonbee – as we have with anyone who was willing to positively engage and contribute
Unfortunately, it appears in Suzie Dawson’s world that positive engagement and contributing in the Party means agreeing with her.
masonbee – 06/17/2018
Well, you obviously didnt read it or perhaps you did and you have no defence to you’re trying to reframe the conversation. It isnt about me Suzie. It is about the destruction of the party. If you want that to happen then statistically all you have to do is stay on the exec. Yours or/and the executives choice.
…and another flight. 🙂
And statistically that is exactly what happened. Six months after in the second part of conversations nothing had really changed.
Suzie – 06/17/2018
@masonbee i gave you 5 well thought out paragraphs and got 5 words from you in response. at this point i’m just going to assume you are trolling.
At this point I think it is safe to assume she didn’t read my rebuttal.
XXXXXXXXX – Last Monday at 1:15 AM
I’m proud of Suzie and all that IP has accomplished…keep going, everyone! :heart: :globe_with_meridians:
I have no idea who this person is or whether they are a Party member.
Daymond – Last Monday at 2:48 AM
To my understanding, our strategy is to break through to the international media in order to hopefully break through to local media. Given that the local mainstream media have no intention of covering us (save for the odd hit piece on occasion) it may create a situation in which the local media has to cover us.
That is why we have been international focused for the past 6 months.
There was a remarkable lack of coverage of the Party before the 2017 Election, I wrote about it. Suzie did get a 20min interview with New Zealands largest radio station early in the piece but didn’t come across incredibly well to a non Internet Party audience. In May, Computer World covered the Party and again in August but noted that it still hadn’t fielded any candidates for an election that was the next month.
Mainly I remember being very hopeful that the Internet Party was back on track and that even if it failed in the election it would be raising issues about New Zealand again.
Suzie – Last Monday at 3:06 AM
ironically that was the strategy ratified by the previous exec
but more importantly, a close friend of kim’s and mine, who also happens to be one of the most important truth-tellers, whistleblowers, journalists and technologists in the world, and who internet party has resolved since 2014 to show public support with, is currently being held in hardcore isolation and at risk of extradition. so hell yes we are working to free him(edited)
Here she is referring to the use of Internet Party resources to support Julian Assange. It is telling that she calls him a close friend. Curiously, I can’t find an interview between Julian Assange and his close friend Suzie Dawson from this time. Perhaps I haven’t looked hard enough. Suzie has cited a number of people as endorsing her. I have contacted some of them and none who have replied have ever said they endorsed her.
Daymond – Last Monday at 5:25 AM
Its a good strategy in itself. And its working to some degree.(edited)
In my view, it wasn’t.
masonbee – Last Tuesday at 7:27 AM
No. Not trolling unfortunately. Just catching flights and yet again you haven’t answered anything nor have you given five well thought out paragraphs.
And no daymond. Loosing the party is not considered good strategy.
I think that speaks for itself.
Colin – Last Tuesday at 12:34 PM
Greetings Masonbee, (Was told it is you XXXX? Your post? does not sound like you)
We have been supportive each other in the past.
Do not loose the passion – I like it – Dissenting voices must not be quietened.
It does however need to be factual
Anyway
I was asked in Feb/Mar (prior election) if I would fill the roll of exec in IP Assets when the previous exec departed, this granted me an ex-afficio position on the IP Party executive. (I get invited to meetings to listen to what is being said and occasionally put in my 2 cents worth.)
In the months leading up to the last election, what I have discovered is that there has been a shit storm coming from all directions where people are trying to break up the party. Some you would not be aware off because it is directed at the individual members of the current exec, some very personal. Because of this I have notice some of the replies to your post are possibly a little out of context because of these other issues.
I have been able to weigh up the accusations being made and the counter claims, trekked back into the historical mail server records to see who was being truthful and who was lying.
I can see double dealing and fowl play at work, but not by the current exec.
It was the previous exec member/s who intentionally attempted to shut the party down (And still are).
They are/were the one/s who changed the membership to one year after the previous election.
If they wanted the party to continue then everyone would have received notice of that change plus a renewal notice at least “TWICE” over those following years.
Did you receive the notices from them because I did not and there is no written record of them trying that I have found to date!
As far as I am able to discern, they made no effort at any time to reach out to members to get them to rejoin after reducing the membership time period.
ESPECIALLY leading into that last election year, having NO CURRENT MEMBERS for the two previous years due to their membership rules change.
No members – no party!
It is the current exec that reinstated the electoral membership period. (Required because people actually paid for that period)
If heads should role for the current state of the party then my thoughts are:- those head/s have already left the executive.
What we need to do is ensure we do not get ourselves back into this position.
It would be interesting to find out if the people who voted for “the voice/s” are still members or if they disappeared once the internal vote was counted.
I would like to see a provision where you have to be a member of the party for at least one electoral term to be able to vote for “who” is on the executive and also “to be elected” to the executive.
This would stop membership loading which I believe occurred last internal election.
If you have joined the party for a month before the election you have no idea who you are voting for.
Having watched them work and worked with them, I have confidence in the current exec.
Discord as you mentioned is full of foreigners. I am with you on this one, it is!
The PROs:
What is not noticeable with all the pseudonyms is that some of those are active members of political parties overseas.
We have made political connections with for example: The Pirate Party International who think enough of us to mentioned us in their inaugural speech when they accepted their seat at the UN. (I think it was the UN).
They volunteered and helped during the last election – the sort of help you would need lots of money for and they did it for free – for us.
Suzie’s connections enabled this. This sort of activism / international connections is something Suzie excels at I would not want her stopped from doing it.
The CONs:
None of what is on Discord at the moment will put food into the bellies of hungry kids in Otara tomorrow nor get us the city or rural vote.
(Which I think might be your point of your discontent) There appears to nothing to do with local politics.
Where are the local policies – The membership drive?
In terms of membership, first be aware the voices are STILL active in trying to shut down the party. That has been taking up a lot of effort to resolve.
Remember the original membership drive stopped after the previous election and was dropped onto the current exec for them to “wear the brunt” just months prior to the general election.
Some of this is why we have been working with the electoral commission, which is why we are currently de-registered AND able to re-register once our numbers are back up.
There would need to be a re-registering of members now “anyway”, because the membership period is now due.
Pointing to the current exec and going “It’s all your fault” is unfair and unwarranted.
In terms of polices – we can do better but we did very well given during the last electron given our resources.
Labour actually used our research and Suzie has been “quoted” word for word in government security policy changes, you will just never hear that in the media.
So why so much activism in our media channels.
As far as I can tell Suzie’s income is derived from her activism work. With this current activity I am assuming/ hoping she is helping feed her family.
It would be happening anyway, the difference here is she is doing it under the banner of the NZ Internet Party.
If we were currently funding her then there might be a stronger case to argue.
If it were not from her activism work Discord would be quieter than a grave yard at midnight. (Except for the bots)
The observation here might be “The balance is all wrong”. That is probably true. Until we can find funding for individuals to work full time – it is what it is.
We need both the International and the Local faces to the party. We cannot ignore world events just as we cannot ignore our people here at home.
Suzie has the international face sorted. I am happy to let her go for it.
If it is you XXXX, I personally would like to have you on board as an exec, ex-offico or otherwise. You can always resign if you find it is not to your liking.
My reply to Colin is a couple of posts down. Basically it is more of what has been said already. Note again the heavy blaming of the past Executive. Something definitely happened internally as noted in Suzie Dawson:Exile or Fraud with four members of the Executive and the Secretary leaving before the Election. Unfortunately the Executive, both past and present, haven’t seen fit to release their deliberations although Colin says there is an email train which would be interesting to see.
Suzie – Last Tuesday at 4:15 PM
Wow @Colin that was so fascinating to read as I’ve never interacted with you one-on-one but have worked on exec alongside you for a long time now, so its extremely interesting to read how you see everything from where you sit
you are correct that my journalism/activism is my sole source of income, and what i haven’t made a song and dance about but what is in fact the case is that i’ve been funnelling money that i really can’t afford to, back into supporting the party and some of the members who are owed money to try to support them, while we wait for funding
if you’d told me when i was first asked by the people attacking me to be leader that not only would i have to survive without getting my wages & expenses but i would end up myself paying others – i would have laughed and then said ‘no thanks!’ but this is the situation i now find myself in.
i mostly accept that situation because a) i am used to working on activism campaigns that have little to no funds/operate on the smell of an oily rag b) i understand that kim is a target, the party is a target, and the #1 priority of those forces who target activist-related-orgs-and-people for destruction go after financial resources first and foremost. The resource depletion is not accidental but utterly intentional and c) i trust and know kim well enough to know that once bitcache launches he WILL fund the party and it will from that point be able to operate in the way it needs to in order to expand, both internally and in the public consciousness.
from my perspective, the exec was a toxic work environment (understatement) where people viciously attacked each other, backstabbed, undermined every initiative to progress the campaign and build-up the party,until the resignations of fred/miriam & miriam’s friend in august. at that point their sole goal had been to prevent us standing candidates at all as @Jo and others can ratify. after failing to make us fall short on those statutory requirements, post-election fred in particular though i suspect it is miriam behind him pulling strings, has been waging a campaign to get the party deregistered, both by contacting the EC directly to complain to them that we should be deregistered, and by harrassing the exec. Loomio was long since turned into a toxic platform by those people which is why I don’t bother engaging there but instead focus my time on the people and platforms which are engaging in important work and working well together
i am very proud of what the party has done, proud of the antispybill campaign last year where we pulled off 9 events on the smell of an oily rag, proud of the kiwifairgo debate where in a matter of 5 days we built a platform for ALL political parties in NZ to have a voice, proud that the IGIS of the intelligence services implemented a reform devised by us even if they don’t have the gumption to credit us for it, proud that jacinda ardern is running around building Tech Councils (our initiative) and appearing at events as a hologram (my initiative).
ultimately, we ran a general election campaign on less than $1000 donation income, with 1/6th the digital spend of 2014, under a total and complete NZ media blackout, and still held world class events, and achieved an actual political reform without even being in parliament. if someone else could have outperformed that under these trying circumstances i wish them all the best.
Suzie manages to leave out $30,000 or more of money she has received from Fred and the Internet Party Election allocation, blames the past Executive, portrays herself as the victim, and takes credit for other peoples ideas.
masonbee – Last Wednesday at 6:24 AM
@Daymond If the strategy is working then how many full members have signed up since the General Election and how many months will it take to achive 500 full members at that rate?
This question was never answered.
masonbee – Last Wednesday at 8:12 AM
@Colin ( @Jo can I have a current copy of the by-laws please?) Unfortunately another long reply so PDF it is again.
This was never answered either. I can only assume that there are no by-laws as they are supposed to be available on request (17.2). My reply to Colin is below.
Attachment file type: acrobat
Colin_Reply.pdf (Again, I have inserted the pdf into the conversation)
23.49 KB
@Colin#5308 Yes, it is I. Curiously I always sound like myself to myself 🙂 In rebuttal to your post.
I haven’t lost the passion. I think the party has lost it’s way and the facts would seem to prove this.
In regards to the past executive. It has been almost 300 days since the last executive yet people are still blaming them instead of being proactive. In the 260ish days between the election and de-registration with a supposedly stable exec no member emails have been sent out and there was no effort put into sorting out the membership database until the week/s? before the de-registration. The ability to contest in a New Zealand general election is vital to the aims and objectives of IPNZ and yet the matter was not dealt with by the executive.
I am aware of the problems in the past exec. The present exec is the current problem, not the past. I am not accusing the current exec of double dealing and fowl play. I am accusing them of acting against the aims and objectives of the Internet Party NZ. I would like them take responsibilty for the failure of the strategy they have followed and resign or at least change strategy. I would like them to hold a by election to fill the empty executive member positions instead of constantly hiding behind what is practicable. It is practicable now.
My understanding of the membership time period is that it would only cover newly signed members. ( @jomangee#5037 can I have a current copy of the by-laws please?). The constitution doesn’t appear to have been updated with the change back to three years…perhaps it is a by-law…..or is there another constitution since the party was de-registered?
Who are “the voices”?
Your idea of terms before being able to vote would either disallow Suzie, Daymond, etc… from sitting on the exec committee in the last election. Probably not a good idea with so few members. Currently it would give control of the Party for the next three years to 40 people?..try it with one AGM instead of electoral term.
THE PROs:
Unfortunately that strategy didn’t work and needs to change. BTW, has the Internet Party NZ officially told the Pirate Party International that we have been de-registered? My argument is not that Suzie enabled that cooperation but that that cooperation did not result in helping the aims and objectives of IPNZ and as such has to change.
THE CONs:
Nothing on Discord or the website or the videos appears to be helping the aims and objectives of IPNZ. Furthermore any assets of IPNZ or IP Assets that go toward non NZ activities would appear to me to have a very dubious basis since both are aimed at New Zealand solely and without real positive results for IPNZ are not in line with the aims and objectives of IPNZ.
There has been plenty of time to do something for New Zealand and IPNZ but nothing appears to have been done. As for money, the executive seems soley focused on getting money from KDC. Correct me if I am wrong but there has been no effort to make money in other ways (exempting donations). There are a number of ways IP Assets could provide value to members and memberships for little money. For example members being able to use an IPNZ vpn would be cheap and easy. A virtual server with 1TB of transfer costs about $10/month. If the tech nohow isn’t around then partnering with a VPN provider, or other providers of services that complement the A&O of the party, for kick backs would provide funds and further the A&O’s of the party.
The continued focus on KDC funds essentially makes the Party a lobby group for a single person. An example of this is the current international push. Suzie says that KDC always wanted the Party to be international yet there is nothign in the A&O’s to say this. Essentially we are dragging resources away from IPNZ to further the aims of KDC. Not IPNZ. Not New Zealand. Also, not in the constitution.
Who are these voices? Can you give me an example and why would they bother? The current exec strategy is doing more to shut down the Party in factual terms than anything I have come across.
I am not quite sure why you are bringing Suzies income up? Possibly I can’t find the reference.
As for Discord being quieter than a grave at midnight. From an IPNZ point of view it is. This discussion is only happening because I called for heads to roll on the exec and in it we have exactly the same members of IPNZ plus XXXXXXXXX ( I take it XX is an IPNZ full member? ) Where are the new full members resulting from the executives strategy? @ them in please.
I agree that the balance is all wrong and that we need international and NZ faces but I totally disagree with the way this has been done. IPNZ is not an international organisation. Please refer to the A&O’s. If Suzie/KDC/etc…want an international organisation then they can set one up with separate funding and objectives. It is not included in IPNZ’s objectives and needs to be completely separate from IP Assets and IPNZ funding and resources (Although I suppose a stipend could be set up).
It is possible I will run for exec, it is doubtful I will resign. 🙂 What does appear to be impossible currently is to get the executive to follow the aims and objectives of the party, change course in a strategy, communicate with members, update the website, take notice of NZ, or have some responsibility for the de-registration of the Party.
My reply to Colin.
Jo – Last Wednesday at 8:19 AM
@masonbee http://ipnz.github.io/Docs/ConstitutionAndRules/
Internet Party NZ
Constitution & Rules
Constitution & Rules
I believe this is Jo trying to reply to my request for the Party by-laws but he either hasn’t understood the request or perhaps he believes they are in the Constitution. I never found any in the links he gave me. If the Constitution had been changed I doubt it would have been viable anyway as, under the Constitution, the Party has never had enough members active to change it (18).
Suzie – Last Wednesday at 9:19 AM
its a media strategy not a recruitment strategy @masonbee. as explained to you multiple times, a proper membership drive with a release of a new member sign-up app and social media support from kim is planned
At the time of writing it is a year after this conversation and no membership drive with an app and social media support from Kim Dot Com has happened.
masonbee – Last Wednesday at 9:20 AM
Really? I when will this be happening?
I don’t believe this question was ever answered.
masonbee – Last Thursday at 2:59 PM
I would have gone we aren’t covered by the electoral act as we aren’t a registered party anymore. Currently i think we come under the heading society.
It is entirely possible I was trying to help Suzie with her arguments here. I do that sometimes.
Suzie – Last Thursday at 2:59 PM
We certainly were covered by it at the time Fred was actively trying to get us deregistered
And during what you call “the 260 days between the election” and now
During which time they carefully didn’t look at the database to know how many members they had? Recently, Fred Look has sent me a copy of an email he send to Suzie on the 08/02/2017 which says,
“Party engagement: we have a functioning exec and around half a dozen active members. However we do still have approx 2400 paid members that we send out emails to when necessary.
most of these memberships will expire in may..june ..july of this year“
It is entirely possible that if Fred, as she says, was trying to get the Party de-registered it was because he had made her aware of most of the memberships expiring and she had done nothing about it. It is, after all, not her responsibility but the Secretary’s. If Suzie read this email though it could almost certainly be said that she was at least aware of the coming problems with Party membership numbers.
masonbee – Last Thursday at 3:02 PM
Suzie, Oh just charge me with libel. As leader of the party you were on the exec committee which is in charge of running the party. You failed (so did Daymond, so did Jo) to sort out the membership mess and you had 260 days to do so. You knew it was coming up. You did nothing until the last minute it appears.
There have been a number of point where I have tried to get Suzie to take responsibility for things. As yet, all have failed.
Suzie – Last Thursday at 3:02 PM
yet another libel.
Suzie appears very fond of using the word libel.
masonbee – Last Thursday at 3:02 PM
lol libel libel libel…..
At this point the whole conversation becomes farcical. In my defence I was tired of arguing with someone who refused to even consider there might be other ways of doing things.
Suzie – Last Thursday at 3:03 PM
would you like me to just make up some shit about you? no, you wouldn’t. because that would be immoral and juvenile of me.
She does try later though by posting something from Twitter by a person named Ex and accusing me of doing it.
masonbee – Last Thursday at 3:03 PM
what part of that did i makeup?
Suzie – Last Thursday at 3:03 PM
meanwhile back in reality, i worked extensively for months to try to help with compliance and not leave jo in the shit that was created by fred/past exec. i designed a strategy with kim that mirrored how we got our original 500 members.
you just said i did nothing, without even bothering to ask what i did
just like you said i got us deregistered, when i did not
just like you said the constitution says president has to be a full member, which is does not
is there any other untrue shit you would like me to spend my day debunking?
Interesting comments. If she worked for months then when was that. Didn’t Daymond say that he had been working on the database? Why did it take months? What strategy is this? Kim got 500 members by releasing a phone app and requesting members on his Twitter account. That never happened in the 2017 Election.
In regards to her getting the Party de-registered, as Party Leader she was part of the Executive (10.2). Of course that makes her responsible. As Party President she is even more so (8.22.1).
In regards to her not being able to be Party President, by my reading, only Full Members can be nominated for the Executive (8.13) and other positions must be ex-officio who have no voting rights (8.10). One of the duties of the Party President is to use casting votes so ex-officio members who cannot vote are unable to fulfil the duties of the President.
masonbee – Last Thursday at 3:04 PM
Did you sort out the membership database over the 260 days?
Suzie – Last Thursday at 3:04 PM
cos funnily enough my human rights work is way more important
yes, we did. that’s why we have a new one. and we found a list of problems with the old one a mile long
including the fact that it didn’t even have the function to record the information that the EC required – “current financial membership”
This is interesting because, according to the Fred Look, it did have that function. He rebuts her statement here.
masonbee – Last Thursday at 3:05 PM
And doid you approach the members on that database over the 260 days?
Suzie – Last Thursday at 3:05 PM
which means our membership database never complied with the legislation
which means, it was illegal all along
the membership database designed by – guess who – fred
To repeat, according to the Fred Look, it did have that function. He rebuts her statement here. Additionally, this appears to a very stupid comment to make. Suzie is essentially saying that the Party did not know how many members it had when it contested the 2017 Election.
masonbee – Last Thursday at 3:05 PM
………
Stunned. At the time I had never heard this accusation before.
Suzie – Last Thursday at 3:05 PM
of which jo only very recently finally got full access as per our declaration to EC
but i’m sure none of those tiny pieces of information are of interest to you, since it negates the libels you are claiming
There are some problems with this. For instance Fred was extremely worried about Jo being responsible for the membership as he thought that they might have entered the Election with less than 500 members.
masonbee – Last Thursday at 3:06 PM
So you never had Freds membership database until the last minute?
Suzie – Last Thursday at 3:06 PM
the infrastructure of the party had to be prised from fred piece by piece from the time we appointed jo
he was extremely resistent to giving over access to any of it
This is rebutted by Fred Look’s commentry of events when he says the,”database has been in JO’s control and inaccessable by me snce mid June 2017“.
masonbee – Last Thursday at 3:07 PM
Oh, for gods sakes, when did you recieve the database?
Suzie – Last Thursday at 3:07 PM
these are questions you need to ask jo. he can attest to his experiences with fred better than i can.
but i can tell you that fred threatened resignation over access issues 3 times last year before finally leaving
and it was only at EC compliance in april that we discovered the database didn’t even record the information that was required under the electoral act
This was also recently rebutted by Fred Look who says the database could be queried with with something like,
select firstName , lastName , subscriptiondate from (select * from (select * from (select UID, MAX(depositdate) as subscriptiondate from payments where type="new" or type = "renew" group by UID) as w where subscriptiondate > "2018-05-14") as x where x.UID not in (select UID from resignations)) as y join subscriptions where y.UID= subscriptions.UID and subscriptions.eligibleToVote = "yes"masonbee – Last Thursday at 3:08 PM
@Jo can you tell me when you recieved the membership database.
That isn’t an argument in your favor Suzie. Not getting the database is.
Suzie – Last Thursday at 3:10 PM
as far as what i did, i can tell you the entire new join/sign-up process pages that exist on the new website were designed by me, so to claim i have done nothing is ridiculous, i also pushed for us to have a new database that actually can report on the information required by the electoral act and i’ve been liasing with kim about new mobile app and a proper new digital campaign/push for new members because ultimately it was kim’s social media reach that got us our 1000+ members in 24 hours in 2014 in the first place, so attempting to exclude him from this process would be extremely detrimental to the party
i also did a mountain of communications work trying to calm the waters with the EC while fred was contacting them trying to get them to deregister us
Some of this is also contested by Fred Look in his guest post.
masonbee – Last Thursday at 3:11 PM
That is great, but this actually hinges on when you got the database.
Suzie – Last Thursday at 3:11 PM
no, it doesn’t
because you – who says this is all my fault – and that i did “nothing” – are not the arbiter of history
you can make false allegations but you can’t change reality
Yet again I am accused of false allegations when, yet again, simple answers that could have been given weren’t. I have by now been accused of false allegations, harrassment and libel by Suzie Dawson a number of times and it has very rarely panned out for her. Once I had to change the number of Executives in a post I wrote. Somehow, trying to get a simple answer from the President of a Party, that I am one of forty members of, degrades into libel and allegations.
masonbee – Last Thursday at 3:12 PM
Yes, it does. If you recieved it ages ago then you had more than enough time to sort it out and failed to. If you recieved it …say under a month before the process was due then you didn’t.
Suzie – Last Thursday at 3:12 PM
the reality is that there are people here who have been working very hard to hold the party together, with no funds and little resources, and also working their butts off on other projects key to the party’s interests, and then there are people who disappear for a year then come back and throw stones such as yourself, and other people who actively sabotage the party with the EC such as fred, and none of the aforementioned will determine how we feel about the work we have done
masonbee – Last Thursday at 3:13 PM
Me dissapearing for a year didn’t put the party in this position. The exec did. You had control. You chose the path. This is where it led.
In other words, running is a lot of effort but is useless if you ae going the wrong direction.
Suzie – Last Thursday at 3:15 PM
well you’ve gone from “you’ve done nothing” to “running is a lot of effort” so i guess that’s progress.
masonbee – Last Thursday at 3:15 PM
It’s even worse if you decide that you shouldn’t change course because you have expended all that effort.
My, you did nothing refers to the membership database not being sorted.
I think here I am still shocked she has accused Fred of defrauding the Electoral Commission. Like I said, she is better at arguing than me.
Suzie – Last Thursday at 3:16 PM
we are planning to do what was successfully done in 2014: a professional digital and social media campaign for a membership drive in tandem with kim. that is a proven working model dependent upon funding.
the membership database is not now and has never been my responsibility although in good conscience i have made efforts to support the creation of a new one and all kinds of efforts relating to EC compliance. none of which i had to, but i did so for moral reasons.
It should be pointed out that the first paragraph has never happened and that she is correct in the second paragraph when she says the membership database is not her legal responsibility, it is Jo’s.
masonbee – Last Thursday at 3:17 PM
But your funding relys on KDC who doesn’t appear to be funding.
I still think that if the Party relies on funding or input from Kim Dot Com it will never be more than a puppet party. The Executive realises this as well, at least politically, as they made plain when entering the 2017 Election to disassociate the Party from Kim Dot Com.
Suzie – Last Thursday at 3:17 PM
kim is funding the same way he did in 2014.
in 2014 he funded IP from Mega launch.
Suzie appears to think differently which is weird because there is no mention of him giving the Party $3,500,000 in 2017.
masonbee – Last Thursday at 3:17 PM
Really, Jo says different.
I am unsure here which conversation with Jo I am referring to.
Suzie – Last Thursday at 3:17 PM
he has reiterated over and over that he will fund IP from bitcache launch.
if you have been watching what is happening with bitcache, they are well into UT already.
The Bitcache project was projected to be released in 2018. As yet it still hasn’t been.
masonbee – Last Thursday at 3:18 PM
And if he doesn’t?
Suzie – Last Thursday at 3:18 PM
what cause do we have to disbelieve the party visionary, a mandated permanent position, who has repeatedly supported us.
masonbee – Last Thursday at 3:19 PM
He said that he would fund the party pre last election and didn’t.
Suzie – Last Thursday at 3:19 PM
he thought he could launch bitcache in time but shit went haywire, as happens in SD all the time.
did it suck? yes.
is it his fault? no.
masonbee – Last Thursday at 3:19 PM
Well, there we go. A cause to disbelieve. Do you have a backup plan?
Suzie – Last Thursday at 3:20 PM
that’s not a cause to disbelieve. its a delay.
masonbee – Last Thursday at 3:21 PM
Somebody says they are going to do something and then doesn’t is a cause to disbelieve. Even just a little bit. Sure he may have been delayed….or maybe he will be delayed again….or maybe he won’t.
You are banking the party on a man who in his own words was poison for it.
Suzie says that she does a lot of things for free but as you can see here she doesn’t seem willing to anything without money.
Suzie – Last Thursday at 3:22 PM
that’s a stretch. he said he was poison in the media context. his $3.5mil certainly wasn’t poison for the party.
we have seen the result of people making ad hoc efforts to build websites and build up the party in absence of kim. IP 2015-2017 was the result.
have you seen what the internet party website looked like before i came on board?
it looked like a 6 year old spent 3 hours working on it.
Actually, I agree with her there. Personal taste though. It was based on WordPress which did allow one thing that was never achieved on the old site which is to allow the members to have their own voice.
masonbee – Last Thursday at 3:23 PM
Also where is the party visionary in the constitution. I thought he was only in IP Assetts.
Suzie – Last Thursday at 3:23 PM
he is in the incorporated society constitution
which is the backbone of the exec and of the party
In my reading, that is incorrect. The Constitution creates IP Assets, not the other way around and the Executive on IP Assets have to follow the objectives of the Constitution (3.1).
masonbee – Last Thursday at 3:23 PM
Yes, not the constitution
I seem to be agreeing with her and maybe I was. However, I was wrong. See above.
Suzie – Last Thursday at 3:23 PM
the constitution refers to the incorporated society
This is true (14.1).
masonbee – Last Thursday at 3:23 PM
No, that is the constitution.
Some confusion.
Suzie – Last Thursday at 3:23 PM
no, it isn’t
Still confusion.
masonbee – Last Thursday at 3:24 PM
The IS refers to the constitution.
Not quite sure what I am saying here.
Suzie – Last Thursday at 3:24 PM
you need to learn a lot more about the backend structure of the party before making such claims
the visionary is a permanent position. it cannot be gotten rid of. it was designed that way from the outset.
it is to ensure precisely that the party cannot be wrested away from the person who invented it.
nor should it be.
Actually, I can think of one way at least.
masonbee – Last Thursday at 3:26 PM
3 ,1 (b) would be the reference.
Further the objectives of the internet party etc…
IP Assets is subordinate to the party. Change the aims and objectives and IP Assets changes. Collapse IP Assets and the party remains.
Collapse the party and IP Assets is disolved.
This is my reading of the documents. It appears to be Suzies relises this as well as she immediately changes tack.
Suzie – Last Thursday at 3:30 PM
want to get rid of me as president? that’s an achievable goal because i have no vested interest in remaining in the position other than altruism. want to get rid of kim? never going to happen.
Like I said. I can think of at least one way.
masonbee – Last Thursday at 3:31 PM
Actually 24.1 would seem to.
Personally it doesn’t worry me if KDC is on the board of IPA. It worries me when IPNZ becomes dependant on one person to exist financially and I would like that to change.
It doesn’t worry me if Kim Dot Com stays on the board of IP Assets. It is his continuing leverage on the politics of the Internet Party that worries me.
Suzie – Last Thursday at 3:33 PM
even if you get 10,000 members it will not be enough to professionally staff the party. all party’s require big-money donors, even labour, despite their propaganda to the opposite.
labour made a huge song and dance about having received a few hundred grand in small donations but their spending is 20 times that.
they have big-money and corporate donors, as do all the major parties.
Suzie’s case for the Internet Party becoming one man’s lobby goup?
masonbee – Last Thursday at 3:35 PM
If we got 10,000 members I think we would be fine. :smiley:
Suzie – Last Thursday at 3:35 PM
even the pirate parties in europe that have gotten into parliament had big money donors.
masonbee – Last Thursday at 3:35 PM
Donors…not donor.
Suzie – Last Thursday at 3:35 PM
well given someone with a social media reach of 700k+ is how we got the first batch of members, its going to take someone with equal pull to launch a campaign like that.
even professional marketing companies who will charge tens of thousands of dollars can’t get that type of reach.
masonbee – Last Thursday at 3:36 PM
How many members did he pull at the last election or didn’t he tweet?
For that matter, why didn’t he tweet before we got deregistered?
Tweet and they shall come….
I am still highly suspicious of the Party being a one man lobby group in New Zealand’s government.
Suzie – Last Thursday at 3:39 PM
kim wants us to build a next-generation mobile app and to design a proper professional membership drive
not just send ad hoc tweets
masonbee – Last Thursday at 3:39 PM
I mean, even with another $3m we just end up with another 2014?
Last time the Internet Party spent Kim Dot Coms money they achieved roughly one vote for every $116 spent.
Suzie – Last Thursday at 3:39 PM
which is precisely what we are planing to do
in 2014 everything was outsourced
masonbee – Last Thursday at 3:39 PM
That was quite expensive per vote.
Suzie – Last Thursday at 3:39 PM
we have done the opposite, and planned to have in-house positions
in-house produces a higher quality of work for less money. we budgeted 600k not 3 mil
masonbee – Last Thursday at 3:40 PM
Suzie, you said above we need to wait for funding for the website and app. That is outsourced.
Suzie – Last Thursday at 3:40 PM
about half of which covers a full team of staff, the other half advertising
no, we are not outsourcing it
masonbee – Last Thursday at 3:41 PM
So KDC is going to give you 600K when?
Suzie – Last Thursday at 3:41 PM
we paid a full-time web designer last yearand did our builds, graphics and collateral in house
masonbee – Last Thursday at 3:41 PM
When bitcache launches?
Suzie – Last Thursday at 3:41 PM
that’s why it cost 1/6 of the 2014 digital spend
again this year we will have an inhouse designer for web and mobile
masonbee – Last Thursday at 3:41 PM
Not without money.
So the plan is to wait for KDC to launch bitcache and give the party 600K?
Suzie – Last Thursday at 3:42 PM
i feel like i’m repeating myself, and i’ve spent now hours of my day talking to you, yet again
you can take any further questions up with Jo, as secretary this is all his realm
Again, Suzie evades a simple question.
masonbee – Last Thursday at 3:43 PM
You could always ignore me :smiley:
That is what you said before and i have messaged him
Good idea though. I should get ready for Fete la Music.
Jo – Last Thursday at 8:12 PM
Sorry, phone is muted at 1am 😉
14th May 2018 was when I first got a “reliable” count of financial members from the membership database.
The way I see it, Suzie was a Full member when brought into executive. So as an exec member in good standing we filled the vacant president position from the available exec in the interim until a new AGM/by-election found a new one. Not being able to vote in a nz election only affects party leader, who has to be a primary candidate.
Prior to Suzie filling president role the role rotated through exec, so essentially we just stopped rotating for the time being.
masonbee – Last Friday at 10:44 AM
Thank you, Jo. I disagree :bee: :womans_hat:
Right. Somewhere in my enbriated state last night I decided Suzie is right. We are both spending a lot of time arguing and getting no where. We have stated our points of view/cases and the best way to solve this, to me, is just to wait it out and see what happens……Either way, good luck people.
Conversations with the Internet Party Executive starting 28/02/2019 continues the conversation but unfortunately things had only gotten worse.
