The Peak - October 30, 2006Interesting articles in this week's Peak:
News Articles
- SGM achieves quorum by Earl Tapia and Sean Wilkinson
- SGM: What happens now? by Earl Tapia and Sean Wilkinson
- Douglas College Student Union faces possible impeachment by Iain W. Reeve
- Editorial Cartoon by Mike Hingston
- A good ol'-fashion' lynchin' by Matthew De Marchi
- An open letter from Shawn Hunsdale, by Shawn Hunsdale
- Ex-directors must step down by Joel Blok, Titus Gregory, Clea Moray, and Bryan Jones
- Against the SGM by Paul N. McCulloch
- A victory for democracy? by Juan Tolentino
- A biased meeting by Paul Browning
- Accept impeachment by Brianna Turner
6 Comments:
Apparently, I made the Peak n.n
Titus, the latest issue of the Peak has some letters to the editor that states that they felt the SGM did not present that G7's perspective on their impeachment to the students gathered at the SGM.
My question is, do you feel that students have had every oppurtunity to become aware of why they were being impeached and therefore their point of view did not have to be presented at the SGM?
Or do you feel that the SGM fairly represented both sides of the argument and that many of these students had heard both sides adequately?
Though this was directed at Titus, I believe I might be able to offer a reasonable perspective on this.
I asked a number of students who were at the SGM and who I had never seen before why they voted for impeachment. A bunch said that they heard through their department unions which got really pissed at the 'cancelled' forum meeting. A few more said they were swayed by the attempt to 'trick' them into going to the AGM. But a number of them said that they didn't really feel like the Peak or any side gave them a clear picture of what was going on, cause of all the mixed messages. They came to the SGM to see what people had to say.
These people told me that seeing directors poor responses to the issues they were being accused of coupled with tactics to try to stall the meeting, make it go longer, declare it invalid and filibuster sealed the deal for them. Margo's attempt on the role call vote did it for a lot of people.
I personally feel the impeached directors in a number of cases did not touch on specific accusations because they did not have a defense. The only thing they seemed to be able to deal with was Hattie's firing, not trying to stop forum, not the 23 grievances, not avoiding the petition, not spending money illegally. Glen's speech was a clear example for me.
I think when people heard these allegations and did not hear some kind of shocking evidence to counter them in the 3 minute defense they all pretty much knew the score. I think Erica's vote reinforces that, with the reasonable defense made by Vanessa. The claim that it was all organized by losing candidates seeking re-election didn't hold up for most of the people there, I don't think.
More importantly, I think people felt that there was enough debate considering how cold it was.
All in all I think the ONLY reason the SDU was able to pull this off was because of the impeached directors themselves. Not approving Hattie's firing in a meeting activated all the old directors. Blocking Joel from the hiring committee activated the grads. Trying to stop forum generated almost 50 volunteers to go and talk to the unions. Holding the AGM at the same time got people to come to the SGM, while showing up to it last minute and looking foolish made everyone vote to impeach and made it legally look good.
I think someone should sent a card to the ex-prez that simply says "Couldn't have done it without you."
the above post is quite accurate. the directors who were impeached last week had multiple opportunities(three months worth) to reconsider their staff-relations strategy, their member-relations strategy, their public comportment, etc. and their decision to carry on as though no work was required to patch things up was disastrous.
rather than listen to their constituency, the ex-directors in question chose to marginalise and demonise members who were seeking information.
this is a political strategy of very, very slim margins. when the opposition is small, it can pay dividends, but when more and more people(e.g. all of forum) find themselves being called names by their elected officials, your fate is sealed. to be frank, at the beginning of september, i regarded the impeachment campaign as a political tool to get the attention of a board that was arrogant and ignoring its membership. had the board acknowledged mistakes, as shawn hunsdale did in his open letter this week, the impeachment drive likely would have slowed or stalled completely. by continuing to ignore their membership and claim some divine right to governance, these ex-directors forced the membership to resort to impeachment. they could have stopped this, but they dug their own hole instead.
a comparison to george w. bush's political strategy is somewhat hyperbolic, but it is apt, and he's likely to receive a similar comeuppance next tuesday. the one quality that he shares with shawn and is reviled by democratic populations across the world is unmitigated arrogance, and it is their mutual undoing as public oficials.
Thank you very much for the clarification.
What I found very interesting was that I'm halfway across the Country and from the information provided by this blog site, I was able to understand that issue with facts given.
Hattie got fired, students wanted to know why, students did not feel the response from the SFSS board was adequate, they responded to get their requests addressed, SFSS board shut them down and did break bylaws, then the rest is history once debate was held and the SGM was held.
Yet when I read the letters to the editor in the peak, those particular students did not feel that the G7 had time at the SGM to defend themselves. Well, they had 3 months to do something and they choose to do nothing from my obsevations. It is quite pitiful to see that when they know their time is up, they still make invalid arguments that have already been struck down by the very bylaws they use to try and defend themselves. WEAK.
Anyways, I wanted to commend Titus and the SDU for their efforts at SFU. Its really reassuring to see that they are students out there who give a damn about student government and making sure it serves the students.
Thank you for the update. I appreciate those standing up against the G7 and changing the locks. With the SGM, the majority did voice for the impeachment of the G7. This should be upheld untill unless the court decides otherwise as the president of sfu wrote in a letter. Thank you Titus for standing up for us students.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home