Points of Contention

The Canadian Congress of Student Associations (CCSA) has been covered a fair bit on this blog in recent times: how an alternate conference has been organized; how the CCSA and its sub-conferences have been incorporated, mainly by provincial and national executives of the Canadian Federation of Students; and how CCSA conference organizers have struggled to prevent dissatisfied student associations from abandoning the conference itself. But thus far, I have not gone into much detail describing the root of the recent conflict.

The attached "Letter to Potential CCSA Delegates" [PDF] should provide some important background information. It is a letter that was circulated by seven student associations (Alma Mater Society of Queen's University; Alma Mater Society of the University of British Columbia; Brock University Students' Union; Students' Union, University of Calgary; University of Alberta Students' Union; University of Regina Students' Union; and University Students' Council of Western Ontario) to their counterparts across Canada. It claimed that "many student associations have been disappointed with the demise of the CCSA conference over the past two years." Waxing poetic, the letter cited "political backdrops" that had "cast a looming shadow over flickering rays of innovation and the general will to share ideas and make progressive strides together." And to the end of "generat[ting] proactive resolutions" to this quandary, it offered the following prescriptions:

1. "AMICCUS-C Must Attend the Conference as Delegates." "General Managers are vital arteries in many facets of successful student associations.... this conference represents an ideal situation for student leaders to develop strong working relationships with their general managers." (The letter said nothing about the many student associations that do not have general managers.)
2. "Professional Development Component." "Giving the timing and nature of the CCSA conference, there must be sessions focussed on professional development and sessions focussed on organizational development respectively."
3. "The Conference Must be Apolitical." "It is paramount that no staff members from CASA or CFS participate in the CCSA conference as delegates, visitors, session chairs, or session presenters."
4. "Open Space Concept." The letter urges the CCSA organisers to provide for multiple workshops in a given time, so that delegates could attend whichever workshop they felt most applicable to them.
5. "Session Presenters." Without saying so explicitly, the letter seemed to request that student association managers be given a more prominent role in leading workshops.
6. "Joint Plenary Session for Future CCSA Conferences." The letter urged the formation of an organizational structure, complete with a set of bylaws that were helpfully attached to the letter.
7. "Conference Agenda." The letter requested that a "detailed conference outline" be made available by February 3, 2005 [sic].

And what can I say about the proposed "governance package" that was attached to this letter? Simply put: I cannot conceive of a better way to guarantee employment security for professional parliamentarians. Let me go through the main procedural problems with these bylaws:

• Student associations are referred to as "schools;" interpreted literally, this means that the university and college administrations would be running the show! Interpreted with a bit more flexibility, this terminology would allow high school student councils to attend the conference, while prohibiting the participation of student associations that represent graduate students only, undergraduate students only, students from a specific campus (in the case of a multi-campus institution), etc.
• The bylaws define a "complex motion" as meaning "a motion requiring a two-thirds (66%) majority affirmative vote from the present voting members in order to pass." Aside from the hackneyed nature of the term "complex motion," this sentence is absurd: the terms "two-thirds," "66%," and "majority" all have completely separate and distinct meanings. (And yes, there have been times in parliamentary history where the vote exceeded 66% but was less than 2/3.) Unanimous votes are irritatingly referred to as "ultimate motions."
  
• The bylaws stipulate three different motions that can override the bylaws (i.e. itself): a unanimous vote, a two-thirds vote, or a unanimous vote of a sub-conference (MoneyCon, SuperCon, and Canadian Academic Roundtable). In essence, this means that people who are trying to keep track of the conference's rules need to keep track of all the various "ultimate motions" and "complex motions" that would have overridden the bylaws at various times.
• A membership fee of $250 "per school" [sic] is established, but there is no means by which non-payers can be penalized.
• The entire operation is to be overseen by a "CCSA Steering Committee," of which one of its members is to be the "President of the host school [sic] or their designate." This arrangement excludes student associations that have no President from ever hosting a conference.
• The bylaws relating to SuperCon, MoneyCon, and Canadian Academic Rountable stipulate that "Votes by secret ballot or by role call [sic] may take place at the request of no fewer than five members of the [sub-conference name] membership. All other votes shall be carried out by a simple show of hands. This bylaw contains no provision for dealing with a situation in which five (or more) members want a secret ballot vote at the same time that five (or more) other members want a vote by roll call.
• SuperCon, MoneyCon, and the Canadian Academic Rountable are all given the power to enact bylaws, each in their own section. However, there is nothing in the bylaws that suggests that bylaws enacted by the conference as a whole take precedence over bylaws enacted by a sub-conference. This sets the stage for various sub-conferences enacting their own bylaws, potentially creating a huge mess of contradictatory bylaws....
• When electing members of the sub-conference Advisory Committees, delegates are prohibited from voting for "fewer candidates than there are available seats;" such votes "shall be deemed spoiled." Why?
  

In any event, it should be noted that the entire "Letter to Potential CCSA Delegates"
was dated November 28, 2005, well after the incorporation of the Canadian Conference of Student Associations and its various sub-conferences took effect! All of which means that a "governance package" had already been selected - though not necessarily in the form suggested by the authors of this letter. In accordance with the Canada Corporations Act, these four corporations do have a set of bylaws to guide their internal operations.

And what exactly do these bylaws say? Stay tuned.