- After the protest/tea party, G7 members had staged a 24-hour "camp-out" in the Board of Directors office, ensuring that at least one member was present in the office at all times.
- The G7 have written emails to the Departmental Student Unions, Graduate Caucuses, and clubs of the SFSS, claiming that the freeze of the SFSS bank account, and the subsequent inability of the SFSS to provide grant funding to these students groups, was "because of the actions of Students for a Democratic University." SDU responded with a statement.
- The G7, through Don Crane (counsel to the SFSS [Simon Fraser Student Society]), presented an offer to the Ottho Law Group (counsel to SDU [Students for a Democratic University]), requesting that SDU accept an arrangement whereby SDU would accept that the G7 would stay on as directors, on a "without prejudice" basis (that is, without harming the legal case of SDU that the SGM [Special General Meeting] was valid), pending a decision by the courts. SDU rejected this, as (1) they were impeached because they had abused their powers as directors, and (2) we didn't believe that we had the mandate to speak on behalf of the remaining members of the Board - or the 1000+ students who participated in the SGM.
- On Tuesday, SFU President Michael Stevenson released an official statement recognizing the results of the Special General Meeting, "pending a decision to the contrary by the Supreme Court of BC."
- Also on Tuesday, University Relations Officer Andrea Sandau and Graduate Issues Officer Joel Blok wrote a letter to Don Crane, informing him that, as counsel to the SFSS, he was to no longer seek direction from any of the G7.
- Employees of the SFSS received their paycheques on Thursday. Cash revenues from the Pub were deposited in a second (already existing) bank account, at a different financial institution. Cheques were then written from this financial institution to our employees; these cheques were signed by employee signing officers, not by the G7. (This reveals that the Highland Pub isn't doing so bad after all, financially speaking!)
- Also on Thursday, the Board of Directors held a meeting. The Board voted to request that Vanessa Kelly, Glyn Lewis, and Wei Li agree, on a "without prejudice" basis, to remove their names from the list of signing officers.
- On Friday, SFU Security changed the locks on the offices of the SFSS. Security will not give keys to the G7.
- As of the writing of this blog entry, the Society's main bank account is still frozen.
Labels: sfu
25 Comments:
"On Friday, SFU Security changed the locks on the offices of the SFSS. Security will not give keys to the G7."
Ouch
I'd figured that changing the locks was the logical thing to do, and that it would make sense to do it at night, and immediately before the President announced his inevitable position -- what took them so long?
I might as well throw in a prediction or two:
1) Don Crane sides with ex-Directors, against the surviving SFSS Board. This necessitates his replacement as SFSS counsel. The only way I see this not happening is if the remaining ex-Directors all decide to give up, in short order.
2) An election or byelection is eventually held, which the CFS rigs. Undergrads end up with a CFS health plan, but the grad students are left alone for a few years.
Oh - I forgot to mention:
At Thursday's Board of Directors meeting, the Board voted to remove Don Crane as the Society's legal counsel.
They (the G7) has hired on the CFS National Vice-Chair to make sure that the CFS remains firmly in control of the SFSS. I expect they will rig it too.
If an election is held they should try and have it run the way the KSA election was just run. Maybe even get the guy who ran that election - make the CRO an officer of the court and find someone independent of CFS, SFU and SFSS with strong background in doing elections
group7 has hired someone from CFS. Is there any policy to unhired him?
Any unionized new hire will be on probation for a specified term, at which point they should be given a review and at that point the employer may decide they are not the right "fit".
After probation there is a requirement of progressive discipline.
Terms of probation and discipline are spelled out in the collective agreement.
However, it is never wise to just go after people for the wrongs of their hiring committee.
Perhaps since the SFSS impeachment drive organizers have links with CUPE over the firing of an SFSS employee, they should consult with the union about next steps and fairness to this person.
Actually, you can legally let a new employee go for any reason at all during the first 3 months. They should just say "we don't think you're a great fit" right now.
And I'm not sure about SFSS, but probationary employees aren't normally members of the union until after their 3 months passes.
IC. thank you for answering my question about the unhiring policy.
I have learned a lot from here.
It seems a little hypocritical that this whole impeachment campaign was launched over the supposedly political firing of a staffperson (e.g. they were fired for having the 'wrong' politics), but now you would advocate firing this new person because their politics are 'wrong'? I don't know all of his/her qualifications, but I strongly disagree with manufacturing a reason to fire someone who might actually be qualified for the job. It seems to go against the spirit of cooperation (rather than dictatorship) with staff that the SFSS is supposed to have.
Anyways, what is going to happen to this person's vice-chair seat on the CFS executive? Will there be a by-election at CFS?
When was the last time you heard of a by-election at the CFS? They'll probably just hire someone new. I heard Shawn Hunsdale is looking for a job...
the reason there is talk about getting rid of the new policy coordinator isnt because shes a cfs-er but because she was hired against the unions will. i believe they are grieving it.
She was hired against policy. There was not a competition for the position. If she earned the position, there would not be a problem.
It seems a little hypocritical that this whole impeachment campaign was launched over the supposedly political firing of a staffperson (e.g. they were fired for having the 'wrong' politics), but now you would advocate firing this new person because their politics are 'wrong'?
Can't say I agree more. I know that a lot of the commenters and visitors here have a...thing with the CFS, but I don't think we should jump the gun and move to remove this new person just because of her strong CFS ties. Shouldn't ability be the real concern?
And what the heck is this about "rigging"? I really hope that this whole thing wasn't initiated by an "evil CFS" conspiracy theory. There are valid reasons to have called for impeachment, but not political suspicion.
Hmm...didn't really look at the posts after that. My bad o_o
"I don't think we should jump the gun and move to remove this new person just because of her strong CFS ties."
The CFS has relied on exactly that kind of thinking, and everyone's insistance on "playing fair" for years - and it's gotten them very far. They also relied on people being unwilling to call them on it - and that has to change.
Fact is they wouldn't think twice about canning someone because they had CASA ties. What's worse, is it wouldn't even take 'alledged' ties, or even voiced opposition to their beliefs - I've seen people shuffled out of the picture simply because they didn't support 'the cause' strongly enough.
Really? People have been fired from a student union staff for not supporting the "cause" enough? Is this what happened to Hattie Aitken and the catalyst for this whole affair? Why repeat this on someone else? The fact is that this former exec would be SFSS staff and have to listen to the goal the exec sets out. Don't become the kind of politics you hate. Unless you know him/her, don't presume they won't be a good staffer, and don't fire them just based on past political connections.
uh...yeah. Didn't you read the affidavit from Andrea Sandau? That's exactly why Hattie Aiken was fired.
I think if you go through the record, you will see a number of other cases like this across Canada. The GM at U of T fired (without cause) for not being sufficiently "with it" (this one ended up costing students 250K because of the lack of cause). GM at U of Manitoba - gone for the same reason (wasn't it Amanda Aziz who pulled the trigger on that one?).
Staff by definition have the long-term interests of an institution at heart. They may see that things done for short-term expediency may have long-term effects that are hard to undo. Nowhere is this more true than when it comes to CFS referenda which are very, very, very hard to undo. That's why when a CFS-friendly exec gets elected at a non-CFS school, somehow firings then follow in fairly short order.
As for this Alison Regnier - has she actually resigned from her CFS post? (I note she is still listed as Deputy Chair on the CFS website) Is she holding two jobs simultaneously? Is she drawing two salaries simultaneously? How does either organization allow this?
All right. Let's assume that "lack of loyalty" to the CFS was, in fact, a key factor in the firing. Does that mean that we should fire this new person for being "too loyal?" That doesn't sound right at all.
Now, I am all for holding the CFS accountable for its actions, and for ensuring the autonomy of the SFSS. However, it would be detrimental to the student society if we started practicing the same dirty politics of which we accuse them. I agree with what the previous anonymous said; we have to take the high road, and take this new staffer for their merits, regardless of their political and organizational ties. That would be the best way to ensure that the society is cleaned up, by being better.
As for whether she's retained her old position...I'll suspend judgement until more info is available. I'd also like to know more about the union's grievances, as someone mentioned (a link would be nice).
I also have a question for Titus: Assuming the impeachments were valid, how did the Board vote to remove Don Crane without four executives? Maybe I'm missing something here, but it struck me as strange.
Regnier isn't guilty of just being "too loyal" to CFS - she's clearly in a state of conflict of interest. She cannot simultaneously serve as vice-chair of CFS (and hence hasve a fiduciray interest in seeing CFS get the health care plan) and be in charge of the impartial conduct of elections which may lead to acceptance or rejection of same.
Why get squeamish about firing her? Her hiring is the clearest possible sign that the G7 were more interested in the welfare of CFS than the welfare of SFU students.
And ask yourself a question - for what purpose, exactly? why was it so important to them that CFS get the health care deal? so that SFU students can generate profits for CFS which can then be used to illegally cover for the next Joey Hanson and the next Douglas Student Union?
Does this not all strike you as highly immoral? Isn't this enough? Fire her.
The firing of the Executive Director at UMSU was under the direction of Amanda Aziz. I was voted to Council soon after it occured.
The new E.D. was able to gain my confidence.
That having been said, there is a pattern across Canada here.
I know that this will make me rather unpopular, but...I still don't see any good reason to fire her immediately.
Now, I do agree that she shouldn't hold those two positions at once, and there should be steps to remedy that. However, that's the only real basis for her possible removal. The rest of your argument seem to focus on what she /could/ do, what /might/ happen, not what /will/ actually happen.
I know that there's been cases like this before, and that there's been a pattern. But...you can't just go around firing someone preemptively for something that could occur in the future. Besides, will the BoD up to be refilled with new faces, the danger of any possible CFS takeover or scheme seems to have been diminished. Let the new Hiring Committee worry about this.
I am not implying that Regnier is the best candidate for the position. What I'm trying to say is that we can't remove her just on the basis of a preformed expectation, because, as experience shows, nothing is certain.
Let's get something perfectly clear:
The Regnier hire violated the Collective Agreement. The only proper course of action at this time is to re-post the position and conduct a new hire.
In addition, the Board of Directors meeting that purported to hire Regnier was convened on less than 24 hours notice, in violation of Robert's Rules of Order, which requires that a "reasonable" amount of notice be given.
The entire process was one giant fiasco.
I'd like to comment on this comment:
"...The fact is that this former exec would be SFSS staff and have to listen to the goal the exec sets out. Don't become the kind of politics you hate. Unless you know him/her, don't presume they won't be a good staffer, and don't fire them just based on past political connections..."
The SFSS has already had several hires in the advocacy staff area that put CFS hacks, if you will, in place. These people didn't/won't "listen" to the goals that the exec sets out. They either undermine them or take the initiative and 'channel' CFS priorities and methodologies to the exec.
As has already been stated, the problem with Angela Regnier's hire is that the employer did not observe the terms of the collective agreement vis a vis hiring committee process.
This hire was driven by the former directors of the society--railroaded would be a better word. Given the intensity of their efforts to get Regnier in place, I'd be very concerned about why they'd be motivated to do that. And why they insisted on using their majority to get board approval for this hire, while on the other hand, insisting that the board did not need to 'fire' Aitken because the Internal Relations Officer had all the power to hire, fire and discipline.
Regnier has been confronted at least twice in the last 3 months about CFS involvement in Locals' elections and has catagorically denied that the CFS has anything to do with Local politics. Anyone seen Global's coverage lately? Or read Harder's account of how his own slate was engineered and steered by the CFS?
She is not playing it straight and I wouldn't expect there to be any change in her perspectives once she begins work on November 29th.
BTW, as a probationary employee, she is covered by the collective agreement and if she is relieved of her job during that time, it has to be for performance inadequacies or an elimination of the position. She also has the right to Union representation and can grieve any action against her employment with the SFSS. Also, as a temporary employee, she would be considered an 'internal' candidate for other permanent jobs that may open up while she's there.
However, the offer to employ her may be withdrawn with no penalty to the Society before her start date. There may be minor compensation due her in this case, like costs incurred in preparation for moving etc. but that would be about it.
She may or may not 'have' to resign her CFS national post before she starts work for the SFSS. As the national general meeting is next week, it would be really good if the SFSS withdrawl of an offer of employment were delivered to her before then so that she does not needlessly resign and lose her income from that position, and, before the meeting elects a replacement for her.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home