You Don't Say....
From the home page of CUP: "Impromptu SFU student election cause for concern"
From the home page of CUP: "Impromptu SFU student election cause for concern"
Labels: sfu
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Resources
CFS Documents OnlineCASA Documents Online
Student Union Officers Compensation
Canadian Student Union Database
Canadian Student Newspapers Database
Links
International Student Organizations (updated!)Blogroll
Macleans EducationJoey Coleman's Blog
Post-Secondary Education Blog
UBC Insider: Separating the Truth from the Chaff
The Wayward Reporter
steveleeblog
OUSA Blog
Patmeister on Politics
Whispering Into the Mirror
The Internet is a Series of Tubes
What is the Points of This Story?
An Intellect Rivaled Only By Garden Tools
Inkless Wells
SFSS Democracy Now
Dalhousie Student Union
Executive Bloggers
cusablog
UVic & UVSS blog
UNBC Student Politics
Just One Student
Websites of Interest
Students for a Democratic UniversitySFSS Forum [old website]
Educationet. The Grass Roots UK Education On-Line News Service
Contact StudentUnion.ca
titus DOT gregory AT gmail DOT comPrevious Posts
- Another Disputed Election, Another Lawsuit In an ...
- SFSS By-Election: The Candidates A by-election is...
- Stunning Display of Apathy: Douglas Students' Unio...
- Victory! The Supreme Court of British Columbia ha...
- A Holiday Poem for Students (Author: sadly unknown...
- SFSS Legal Documents Posted I have posted the leg...
- Kwantlen Student Association Post-Audit Memorandum...
- SFSS Bank Crisis Resolved; Trial Dates Set The fr...
- Video Documentary of the Special General Meeting ...
- McMaster Student Union Dismisses Student Newspaper...
31 Comments:
Typical CUP wank, but at least their correspondents are writing about the situation at SFU, an improvement from before, when the only folks following the matter closely were the Peak (which is one fine-looking newspaper, for the most part).
Does anyone have a link to the full-text of this article? I don't know if I can wait until January to read it...
http://www.ubyssey.bc.ca/2006/12/08/sfu-rushing-through-executive-by-elections/
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Oh ... sorry... Keys beat me.
I noticed that the only candidate he quotes is J.J. McCullough.
Can the IEC send out another email? put it on mySF? those TV screens?
They should have had more posters about the by-elections up; I only saw a few of them after the SGM, and mostly in the MBC (There was even one attached to the glass door on the east side of the AppSci building, but it was taken down). Glad to see that an e-mail was sent out on Tuesday, though.
IMHO, I don't think that lack of notice is necessarily that big of a problem. Unfortunately, many people wouldn't have voted anyway :/
interestingly enough, the writer did not include any comments on the CFS, yet he asked both Bryan and Jann numerous questions about them.
so, when do the mass defederation campaigns begin? SFU, Douglas, Kwantlen and VCC all seem like schools that could do a lot better without the CFS pulling the strings on our executives...
The moment Vancouver schools start defederating, there won't be a "conservative" or "progressive" voice at UBC that'll be against working with them. Even the progressives at UBC hate the CFS.
The CFS will never let SFU go without a gigantic fight - we're the 2nd largest dues paying school.
Are we ready for such a fight?
What happens to the CFS ability to campaign if all the schools defederate with the same referendum date?
they focus on SFU b/c it is worth the most money and would be most difficult ot get back. the smaller schools can be re-won more easily later on and in the short term don't matter as much financially. when you are busy sueing student activists and funneling money to who-knows-where you need to keep the big paycheques coming in.
We keep hearing about all these lawysuits, but are they for real? Perhaps there is a perception that a lawsuit is imminent, but there is actually no suit?
I tried looking up the lawsuits the CFS has allegedly started against students and student unions on a legal database, and I can find only 1--which they lost. There is lots of evidence of student unions thinking they are under threat, (showing it in the minutes or student press) though, and then backing off.
I would love to see an online compendium of letters threatening law suits, if they really exist... Something like Titus did for the G7 suit on the forum site.
For two reasons... if it is really just rumours (as the CFS suggested in some news items I saw) then people should not worry about it.
If there truly are lots of letters from the CFS lawyers sent out sying they will take legal action against an SU defederating, then perhaps a public record will shame the CFS into being more cautious.
Two problems present themselves in trying to compile a compendium of legal actions involving the CFS.
First there is the issue of access to information. Only decisions of the court are published publicly (and even then many are not easily available!), while letters between lawyers, statements of claim, and other documents involved in litiagtion are not. Since most disputes are resolved outside of court, there would be little public record of them happening.
Second, oftentimes the CFS as a legal entity is not the primary player in legal disputes -- instead, certain CFS friendly individuals or smaller student organizations will be the main parties to a dispute, while the CFS establishment involves itself through financial, legal or organizational support. This was the situation recently at SFU, as with the dispute at VCC a year or so ago. This makes researching the legal history of the CFS a bit of a nightmare.
The archives of this website prsent the most comprehensive documentation of recent disputes. I would encourage you to dig through the files, and see just how many scandals have presented themselves simply in the last 12 months. This should present a sobering picture of the situation.
Although what have these files really portrayed? It has been shown that a lot of crazy people have too much power at some student unions, but it hasn't all been connected to CFS. As far as I can see, the only strange thing was the loan to Douglas Student Union...which doesn't really seem corrupt, but perhaps not financially sound. Still, I can imagine many labour unions like CUPE or CLC would loan a member local money if it was assumed it would be safely returned.
The other issues like what's happened at SFU, etc seem like poor judgment calls on the local leadership....not some insidious plot from the CFS.
Acadia Student Union will be going to court sometime next year. They left almost ten years ago.
That being said, the lawsuits are largely an intimidation tactic but if you don't follow the CFS Bylaws to the letter, it's a breach of contract and your organization is liable. And the rules are so stacked against a successful defederation referendum (or a federation referendum failing) that you really need to have a large number of schools defederating at once.
It should be noted that this kind of corruption was the primary reason that CASA was started, and not because of perceived ideological differences (though they have developed over time). 16 schools held referenda at the same time across the country and it mostly worked.
I think it was more ideological. It was after a shift to the Liberal government, and whereas most students felt OK rallying against Mulroney, many students were divided over the Chretien government.
Student unions can leave the CFS. It's happened before. They don't sue schools that follow the bylaws (from what I have heard. any evidence otherwise?). It seems Acadia's referendum was not held in accordance with the bylaws...
It seems dumb to me. If the students there really don't want to be members, they should have just had another referendum.
I heard that the KSA was the only student union in Canada to hold membership in both CFS and CASA at the same time
whats casa?
CASA = Canadian Alliance of Student Associations
http://www.casa.ca/
OUCSA-K (Okanagan University College Student Association - Kelowna), now known as the UBC Student Union - Okanagan (CFS Local 3), was both a CFS member and a CASA associate member around 2001 or so.
And I would largely have to agree with the statement that the split was perhaps less ideological than some may think. The emails and letters I have seen from that era focused mostly on questions of corruption and inefficiency. One example I particularly remember was a statistic that members of the CFS National Executive in the late 80s or early 90s (I can't remember the exact year) spent more time in Mexico for conferences on workers rights than lobbying MPs. The complaints were definitely in place before the election of 1993.
Oh, and I'll also add that I have yet to see any examples of schools being sued directly by the CFS if they followed the bylaws (though lawsuits often occur through other agents as "law student" pointed out). The real issue is that the referendum procedures laid out in the CFS bylaws are incredibly restrictive to member schools while providing almost unlimited powers to CFS. An example from the USask referendum - the Referendum Oversight Committee (the composition of which is a topic for another rant) decided that in order for something to be deemed election materials, it had to say the word "referendum" or "vote" but anything else would fall outside of the jurisdiction of the election staff. Thus, CFS was able to spend thousands of dollars advertising CFS services, the CFS in general, ISIC cards, etc. etc. with no effect on their bottom line.
The rules also say that only members of the local student union and CFS staff may campaign. This means a given campus can be flooded with CFS organizers. If not enough local students can even be found to put together a Yes campaign (for federation) or No campaign (for defederation), isn't that already reflective of the local opinions re: the CFS?
Sorry. Just an effort to procrastinate even more.
Well how many CFS staff can there possibly be in Canada? A dozen? Two dozen? I doubt they all vacate their offices for a whole campaign. It seems if there aren't 12 or more people who are against the CFS...well, you see my point.
I believe U. Manitoba and U. Saskatchewan's SUs have also been part of CASA and CFS at the same time, and they weithdrew from CASA.
I take your points Spencer about the procedures being restrictive. However, I think people should be cautious not to be too hyperbolic. It seems that it is not accurate to say CFS tries to sue all the schools who want to leave. I think it weakens any argument to use exaggerated points...so I would caution everyone to not raise critiques that might be misleading.
"It seems that it is not accurate to say CFS tries to sue all the schools who want to leave. I think it weakens any argument to use exaggerated points...so I would caution everyone to not raise critiques that might be misleading."
It's true that the CFS doesn't sue every school that tries to defederate - nonetheless, the CFS does make a habit of threatening lawsuits on a regular basis. When I was a Board member at the Simon Fraser Student Society, The Peak wrote something unflattering about the CFS. I was told by then news editor, Stephen Hui, that CFS chair Ian Boyko had called up The Peak threatening a lawsuit if they wouldn't print a retraction. Stephen came to me to get a comment on the subject. It was quite embarrassing. Ask other student newspapers how many times they've be similarly threatened.
Also, anyone is welcome to call up the Teaching Support Staff Union at SFU to ask about their recent confrontation with angry CFSers at a graduate student employee conference and the subsequent intimidation tactic of...you guessed it - legal action!
I seem to recall a certain USSU last year whose president also sat on the CFS exec as the SK rep. When Students' Council was asked by the executive to choose between upholding the Referendum Oversight Committee or upholding its own Elections Board, he mentioned something about choosing between lawsuits, one from one of the USSU's own members or one from the CFS. Remember, this came from someone on the CFS exec and it is recorded in USSU minutes (March 30, 2006 if I'm not mistaken).
Surely the number of times CFS had sued or threatened to sue students or student associations is a red herring. What matters is their culture of secrecy, corruption and intimidation.
This is an organization that collects millions in student fees but does not publish ANY financial data (let alone the results of audits!)
This is an organization that taxes students hundreds of thousands of dollars (can't say how many, because the financials are secret) hidden in "finders fees" from its health care broker.
This is an organization that is largely run by people who haven't been students in years and have no connection to the student body other than a need to feed off its carcass.
People who question its actions are threatened with lawsuits or (in some cases) are fired.
Do you really need more reasons to de-federate? What levels of depravity must CFS sink to before people will stop defending it?
To quote a great man, if you aren't scrambling to leave - "what's your problem"?
;-)
This is typical CUP pandering...sigh
Re: Reasons to defederate: The complete inability of the CFS to listen to their member schools and their concerns coupled with their dubious fiscal practices are enough reason to de-federate. The reason we don't hear more about this is because of the iron-tight, gag order grip head office has on their members. That is, if head office even bothers to tell its members what's going on.
-Jen "blogger won't log me in" Bond
Hm, I'm not sure what you think should be done instead. Yes, CFS is run by some people who haven't been students in years...you usually have to be President or Vice-President of your local for a year or two, and then you are on the CFS exec for 2-3 years...but this isn't so different from who runs your local student union, give or take a year or so. They still have to get elected.
I was under the impression that all the financial were in every student union office, just not on the internet. Is that wrong?
My understanding is that not only are audited financials distributed to all delegates at CFS general meetings, but that the budget is distributed to all member locals, and that it is thoroughly reviewed by a budget committee comprised of CFS members, and then voted on by all the general meeting delegates?
As a person who has been involved with not-for-profit orgs for a number of years, I can completely understand why they would not want to post their financials online. The vast majority of people do not understand the realities of running a national not-for-profit, and until they had a year or two of experience in that world, they would take such financials out of context. I've had to walk newbie's through financial statements many times, and each time, they have been much less "outraged" once they understand how things work.
BTW, alleging corruptions means that you believe that someone is stealing money from the organisation, or engaged in a conflict of interest. I doubt if either is the case.
If you don't think there is something troubling with the CFS financial management, you haven't been watching the news! There is certainly enough out there about *current* fincnacial issues to make any member concerned, and if similar stuff happened in other non-profits you would see similar controversy.
I can confirm that CFS budgets are passed at SGMs and CFS audits are passed at the AGMs, and every delegate gets a copy. I see no reason why it should not be shared, nor do I see why interested members couldn't simply ask the auditor for a copy. In fact the BC Society's Act states that a society must provide its statements to any member upon request, so if you want the financials, then send them a letter at the CFS office!
As someone else with lots of non-profit experience, I agree large non profits are often worried about sharing their financials because of public perception of the large sums involved in simply operating the society. However, there is also no shortage of controversy amongst large Not-for-profits and the way their money is spent either--often with good reason as CEO salaries at non-profits can be really high (especially for men--there is a big gender gap!!)--witness the recent controversy over MADD fundraising.
In some cases what I see is quite contrary what Anonymous describes... concern is so high amongst some non-profits that people understand the budget that many funding pleas I see (often from international development groups) actually give the percentages of the budget spent on staff, fundraising, administration and overseas programming right in their brochure. And rightly so... this comes from a huge controversy from when many donors found out that much of what was donated to some international agencies was going to agency staff, and little to the people the fund was meant to help. This is an ongoing controvery in the non profit sector.. go check out the October 2005 issue of New Internationalist about "BINGOS" (Big NGO's). http://www.newint.org
I think it is also worth noting that there is a difference between the CFS, a local student union or a union and other not-for-profits. Members vote to join and then have the dues taken automatically from then on until defedearation. I think this structure requires a higher level of scruitiny, as (a) members are not necessarily active in the organization directly as with other non-profits (ie the CFS doesn't have their members' addresses to mail them things) and (b) over the years, this structure means that many people (thousands!!) become members without voting or choosing to be members. I am not saying this is bad, simply that it requires more diligence in actively reporting to your members about their money.
After all, the moment I don't like what the Cancer society or the national anti-poverty organization or Greenpeace is doing I just stop paying them.
In some workers unions there is a requirement that the union staff are paid the average wage of their members. In other unions there is huge controversy over where the money goes--sometimes rightly so.
I think it would be worth comparing the CFS to other national lobby groups (like the CCPA or the Council of Canadians, maybe) to get a sense of whether the budget is realistic and the resources they offer are comparible. A lot of large groups get memberships from organizations that are $300-$400 per year, but then the organizations pay to send delegates to the meetings. A lot cheaper for member groups... is it less effective? The CCPA gets a lot of media hits, puts out excellent research and books. They do have to spend money on fundraising, which the CFS avoids, and is usually great if you can manage...
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home