Great moments in constitutional drafting
While I was reviewing the websites of students' unions in BC, I came across a most interesting Constitution of the Selkirk Students' Association. Have a look in particular at paragraphs 4 and 6:
ANNUAL REVIEW
4. The Union shall be required to exercise an annual mandatory review, along with a full-membership referendum in order to join or remain in any external organization that requires monetary fees. This clause is unalterable.
DISSOLUTION
5. Upon the winding up or dissolution of the Union, any assets remaining after the satisfaction of its debts and liabilities shall be given or transferred to such Canadian organization or organizations promoting objectives similar to those set out in paragraph 2 herein, as may be decided by the members of the Association at the time of winding up or dissolution. This clause is unalterable.
CANADIAN FEDERATION OF STUDENTS
6. For all purposes, the Canadian Federation of Students, the Canadian Federation of Students -Services and the Canadian Federation of Students – British Columbia Component shall not be considered external organizations. This clause is unalterable.
11 Comments:
Clauses cannot be unalterable. Governing bodies cannot restrict the power of future incarnations of the same body.
That's to say nothing of the absurdity of placing the CFS in such a high regard.
Actually, the ham-stringing of future boards is a common practice. Even the Simon Fraser Student Society's first four rules have a similar clause "...any motion to suspend Rule X is considered out of order." That said, as long as you got enough people to change your constitution, nothing can really stop you short of a legal challenge to your change, which would probably not stand up in a BC court.
A non-removal clause for the CFS was probably agreed upon before the referendum. Though I am notoriously no fan of the authoritarian CFS, I have been witness to their mentality and the CFS clause makes sense. Their trust in democracy is very low.
The fact that people might have a legitamte reason to defederate is beyond the comprehension of the CFS staff and the executive they help elect. As such, allowing the public to vote on such a proposition year after year would be nerve-racking for them.
That said, most organizations would rather not deal with a constant referendum on membership and having to campaign again and again everytime people decide to leave the organization (though this would likely not happen, depending on how you worded the referendum question.
"Governing bodies cannot restrict the power of future incarnations of the same body."
Oh but they can! Section 22 of the Society Act provides for "unalterable provisions" in a Society's constitution:
http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/S/96433_01.htm#section22
Of course, just because they *can* adopt unalterable provisions does not mean that they *should* do so. As it stands, the Selkirk Students' Association will be forced to go to referendum, year after year after year, to join or to remain a member of *any* "external organization that requires monetary fees." That includes Greenpeace, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, CASA... all *sorts* of organizations.
Except, of course, the Federation.
To respond to gwalgen, it would take an equal proportion of support to amend the bylaws as it did when it was first enacted, so I would not say that is an example of a governing body restricting the power of future incarnations.
Titus: It does seem that this provincial act allows for certain unalterable clauses in their constitutions, which are distinctly seperate from their bylaws. No such provision exists in the act (from my reading) that applies to bylaws.
However, societies can be terminated (Part 7) and a new one formed to take its place, so in fact those clauses are alterable, just not in any sort of convenient way.
Who's afraid of change? The people who wrote those clauses. That's who.
What is even more interesting is the fact that Selkirk once dissolved itself and then re-formed in order to cancel their CFS membership. Obviously, that didn't exactly work out...
But why would the student body agree to this in the first place (assuming that the constitution was voted on in a referendum)? Did they fail to notice this important tidbit (which is perfectly plausible considering the lack of attention the average student has to any sort of politics), or was there some behind-the-scenes campaigning by pro-CFS people? Perhaps a little of both.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, anonymous, but I thought the by-laws /were/ part of the constitution per se...
One way or another, if you look at the link that Titus posted, you'll see that the clauses under discussion are actually part of the Constitution and *not* the bylaws. Bylaw 1 follows the CFS clause in the constituion.
The clauses don't mean they can't defederate. Just that they are not required to have a referendum on membership in the CFS Every year. Why is that out of line? Seems consistent with every other student union.
I don't know what trigged the first clause. That bit of history might be interesting.
You know, I used to think Joel Warren was just being one of those hoity-toity candy-asses who loves to play-act the daring revolutionary while not thinking of ever giving up his privileged background and upbringing.
So I dismissed his comments regarding the CFS when he wrote about it way back in 2003 or whatever it was.
Today, while I still think he's a candy-ass who play-acts the revolutionary (god, making speeches with the stupid Subcomandante Marcos bandana...), I also think he had a very good point about the CFS.
http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/2003-1/issue5/ne-sfss2.html
http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/2003-1/issue4/op-so.html
And who is behind Selkirk? None other then Dustin Grof (Selkirks Chairman), a CFS-BC Executive member (suprise suprise)...oh and didn't he also just get promoted to National Rep at the CFS-BC Provincial Meeting? Hmm...talk about being a CFS hack...
I don't believe in promotions. As far as I've heard he ran unopposed last meeting. People attending had the right to vote yes or no (correct me if I'm wrong) and he won by majority of Yes votes. I do not know much about Grof's history, but I know that Selkirk's student council came first and then the CFS into his life, not the other way around.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home