More Peak articles posted
After a three-week absence, The Peak is beginning to post its recent issues in online format. Here are some interesting articles. Please note that articles in The Peak may contain one or more of the following: lies, confusion, misinformation, bias, libel, an utter lack of fact-checking, posturing for a future election run, and facts.
SFSS Fiasco - News
After a three-week absence, The Peak is beginning to post its recent issues in online format. Here are some interesting articles. Please note that articles in The Peak may contain one or more of the following: lies, confusion, misinformation, bias, libel, an utter lack of fact-checking, posturing for a future election run, and facts.
SFSS Fiasco - News
- Campus: Letters answer sought-after questions by Earl Tapia, News Editor
- Campus: SGM scheduled for October 25 by Iain Reeve, Associate News Editor
- Speak Out: Transparency and SDU by Margo Dunnet, SFSS External Relations Officer
- To the barricades! by Victor Finberg
- SDU thwarts democracy by Glyn Lewis, SFSS Member Services Officer
- SDU confusion by Lisa Wall
- Trust is still the issue by Brianna Turner
- Campus: Rent revolt results in partial victory by Iain Reeve, Associate News Editor
- Radical campus: take charge of your education by Sean Hibbitts
Labels: sfu
5 Comments:
RE: Letters answer sought-aftr questions
Very interesting, but only the board can sign the contract.
I would be interested to know what "conspiring" means--to work to get particular people elected? Depending on what was actually said this could be really damning or just an opinionated employee saying more than they should.
Obviously staff should not act unilaterally against the direction given by a board but one must consider what damage is actually done by being honest with a broker (ie. I like your contract but our lawyer and my boss don't).
Not sure why telling a broker that their legal counsel says a five yer contract gives SFSS no benefit is a bad idea--I think they should be told this and then the info leveraged to get better offers!
A five year contract, in any case, is a bad idea unless it guarantees the current price for the current coverage for the full five years.
i would agree with anonymous. but at the Discussion yesterday it was stated that no one has considered a 5 year contract yet. So this is apparently made up by G7!
By the way, nice work at the Discussion yesterday, Titus!
I am very glad to hear there has been some success for the families in residence.
anon 1 and 2 you are speculating based on hypotheticals. I think only the applicable staff would have access to this kind of information
anonymous 3,
anonymous 1 and 2 are responding to the peak article "letters answer sought after questions".
The five year contract is an issue raised in that same article, saying the board sought advice about such an offer.
You are right--we don't know... but if I could bet on the scenario here, my money is on the following:
Staff member works closely with one group of students and isn't shy in saying she is pissed off when her board imposes things those students don't like. Sometimes this is a great attribute in an advocate, but staff person unwisely shares this sentiment via email with professional contacts.
Board overreacts to the staff person's email correspondance, has grandiose fantasies of conspiracies against them.
Result? titusfodder extraordinaire!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home