SFSS Candidates
Simon Fraser Student Society (SFSS) elections are well underway; nominations closed yesterday, and campaigning starts tomorrow. Four referendum questions are on the ballot. This is the list of acclamations and contested
ACCLAIMED CANDIDATESMore information is coming....
Despite the high number of candidates there was also a rather surprisingly high number of positions which went uncontested. The following individuals will assume these positions automatically, as they were the only people to apply for the jobs:
Adam Lein- Treasurer
Sean Magee- Internal Relations Officer
Joel Blok- Graduate Issues Officer
Chris Sandve- Business rep.
Keli Liang- Education rep.
Bryan Ottho- Applied Sciences rep.
Clea Moray- Grad member at-large
Ravi Patel- Poli. Sci. Forum Rep.
Trevor Rabb- Earth Science Forum Rep.
Niusha Bakhtiari- Business Admin Forum Rep.
Robin Steudel- Economics Forum Rep.
CONTESTED POSITIONS
Here at the people who will actually have to face a competitive election (arranged by positions):
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES
Ike Birke
Giles Grafstrom
Derrick Harder
Xenia Menzies
EXTERNAL RELATIONS OFFICER CANDIDATES
Sasha Fox
Jonathan Leighs
Lori Macdonald
UNIVERSITY RELATIONS OFFICER
Andrew Fergusson
Ali Godson
Amanda van Baarsen
MEMBERS SERVICES OFFICER
Daniel Green
Waseem Javed
Joe Paling
Joel Warren
ARTS REP.
Aman Bains
Tyler Masse
SCIENCE REP.
Henry Ma
Anna Belkine
MEMBER AT LARGE
Natalie Bocking
Alexander Hemingway
Paul McCulloch
Jeff Shemilt
Labels: sfu
115 Comments:
Interesting. I see a lot of bloggers on the list.
For President, I see two former members of The Peak.
Should be an interesting race.
It's odd to see people acclaimed as Forum members. I don't remember my department's Forum rep contacting the DSU asking for nomination...
Forum reps don't need to be approved by anyone in order to run. It's only a convention that the DSU's chose them, not a law.
For the record:
Lori MacDonald is running for ERO. Lori is the girlfirend of the former impeached president of the SFSS. A month after her boyfriend tried to fire long-time staffer, Hattie Aitken, she got a job at North Island college as a staff person.
North Island is a notorious pro-CFS school and I wouldn't be surprized if she was given a reference by the CFS.
Even though she was staff there she campaigned heavily in the last SFSS by-election and is now running here at SFU. She is also running for ERO...the SFSS position (besides the GIO) which is responsible for dealing with the CFS and attending all their meetings.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Oh no! Not a NOTORIOUSLY pro-CFS school! I would hate to be notoriously in favour of a national student organization. Shit. I didn't know that we should judge candidates by whom they date and how notorious the organizations they work for are! Seriously - does who she date even matter? It shouldn't. And somehow, I really think it wouldn't matter who a male candidate was dating.
You know I think it's time candidates stop wading in the cesspools of the past and that they be judged on their merits - their skills and their plans for the future. No job interviewer would dare ask you who you were dating, and the poster above should be ashamed for doing that!
I wonder if thats the same Ike Birke i went to high school with...
Hmm... seems the SF NDP Facebook group is running someone in every contested election save the Science Rep election... Could we perhaps have a secret slate?
http://ubc.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2243029008
"And somehow, I really think it wouldn't matter who a male candidate was dating. "
i hate to wade in, but this isn't true, as i've been attacked in some capacity for my relationship with jan gunn in every election i've run in at SFU. the garbage cuts both ways.
-derrick harder
In addendum, Waseem Javed has decided to drop out of the race for MSO. He will still be running for the Senate, however.
So the pro-impeachment crusaders aren't so holy after all.
After the impeachment, they took power in a hastily advertised by-election held during the December exam period. After taking office, the crusaders, with fresh blood on their hands, changed the election rules to shorten the campaign period and ban slates.
Lest you posit that these changes are about making it easier for running in an election, anyone who's done a little academic study on electoral matters will tell you that these changes have been designed to favour the incumbent candidates.
Titus, I find it curious that your fascination with bylaws doesn't include these changes which have rigged the sfss election.
Also, I noticed that you have joined a few facebook groups that support a specific candidate in the election. Surely you aren't purporting to be writing about this election with any shred of objectivity.
Quick, someone call CUP. There is a dirty secret that needs to get out: The election is rigged and there is a pro-Titus slate with blood on its hands. Shocker.
I'd like everyone to take a gander at the IEC website's candidates' page. I just finished it!
http://www.sfss.ca/elections/candidates.htm
Hey, JJ, are candidates allowed to post with their names?
(the masked candidate)
I guess people are just tired of all these elections, straight one after the other. That is why positions that are usually contested, such as Treasurer and IRO, are now left to the good souls who decided to take them up in times of hardship.
I wish the best of luck to Sean Magee, and hope that this time people will be fast at recognizing CFS faces and stay away from them - I am making no names :)
oh, and by the way: jj, thanks for making SFSS election procedures understandable to the lay man (and woman) for the first time in who-knows-how-many years. The website is great.
This post has been removed by the author.
Did we have the right to make these electoral changes? I campaigned on amending the election rules, most notably counting Senate advertising as a campaign expense (which, as I recall, was something that our past research and policy coordinator refused to consider). And I got voted into office. So I think I have a mandate.
There's been some musing, or should I say 'bitching,' around the office about banning slates - these new rules are a pain in the ass for us: an incumbent slate would have demolished all rivals and we know it. Now we have to work to get in to office.
Is this a power grab? The post-impeachment electees were from three different slates (and then we had to nominate a Health Sciences rep from forum). Of the December 'Think Pink' team, only Derrick is running in a contested election. Amanda is also running, but didn't run in December. This strikes me as either a very poorly planned coup, and one with an even more lethargic opposition.
I wish to ask: "Anonymous," do you have a name (on a ballot perhaps? or maybe on a CFS staff roster?), or should we call you "Ann" for short?
Sasha pretty much summed it up there, but I have some more to say...
Frankly, I don't understand why many of you posters have to take such a "conspiratorial" view of things, as though everything that's happened so far is part of some massive plot. News flash: there is no plot. Anyone who takes the time to examine the elections process and rules will quickly learn that they're actually harder, as Sasha says.
This is the nature of the beast that is politics. It involves networking with folks who share your concerns and organizing yourselves into a coherent whole, which, I surmise, is also how society itself is formed. Politics isn't just about ideals and visions, but also about human relationships.
Now, to answer specific charges...
"Also, I noticed that you have joined a few facebook groups that support a specific candidate in the election. Surely you aren't purporting to be writing about this election with any shred of objectivity."
Under that reasoning, no one would be allowed to write about the election because everyone has a personal preference or bias. Being objective does not involve having no opinion, which is impossible, but being able to set aside one's personal bias and see just the facts. Titus isn't perfect, I'll admit, but is anyone?
Besides, as an SFSS member who's not in the IEC, he's allowed to endorse whomever he wants.
"So the pro-impeachment crusaders aren't so holy after all."
Let the man who is without sin cast the first stone.
Oh, god. Not Joel "I'm a bad-ass revolutionary" Warren again. I thought he'd graduated by now.
Juan,
I don't think anyone was suggesting only someone that was totally impartial should write about an election. However, you shouldn't pretend that you are writing objectively when you're clearly not. This site pretends to be journalistic as though it was some news medium and not purely an editorial one. That's the problem. Admit your biases up front and then write your opinions.
"Surely you aren't purporting to be writing about this election with any shred of objectivity."
Last time I checked this was Titus' personal website, developed on his own initiative, without student money. I think he should, and will, feel free to write with just as much objectivity as he desires...
"However, you shouldn't pretend that you are writing objectively when you're clearly not."
This site is a mix of news and editorial, and that should be completely clear to any reader from a quick skimming of a few posts. In fact, this site PROCLAIMS that it is a mix of editorial and news, if you look at the blog title, it reads (and always has read), "StudentUnion.ca / News and views for student union activists in Canada"
"This site pretends to be journalistic as though it was some news medium and not purely an editorial one."
In response to the claim that this site only contains editorializing, I will point out that the post that we are all commenting on (or not) contains no editorializing whatsoever. It does nothing more than report the names of candidates running in the SFSS elections.
In response to an earlier post, yes candidates can openly post comments in blogs like these.
And thanks for the praise peoples... A lot of students have spoken with me and I'm glad to hear my various initiatives are doing what I intended- namely raise awareness and make the info more accessible to people outside the narrow SFSS subculture.
"After taking office, the crusaders, with fresh blood on their hands, changed the election rules to shorten the campaign period and ban slates."
Could you be more histrionic?
anonymous said
"This site pretends to be journalistic as though it was some news medium and not purely an editorial one. That's the problem. Admit your biases up front and then write your opinions."
Would it be too pedantic to point out that journalists write editorials sometimes?
God forbid the Globe and Mail ever be held to this test!
Great site Titus. Good facts heard here first, a few overstatements on occasion, interesting opinions, and lots of debate on the "letters page". Everything you want in a good news paper!
I'm actually really looking forward to the comments on candidates. I did one for the last election and I was talking to titus about it at the time too. He stayed fairly impartial, only posting where to get information... i, on the other hand, thought it was important to lay out the other things I thought and knew about candidates.
I already know he's not supporting me but I'm curious to see which approach he takes this time. And, if he does critisize, what he might pick. Titus knows a LOT about the SFSS and about most of the candidates. I think it might just be hard to pick what to write...
anyway, this site has been really valuable for me for gaining information and some opinions on other student unions and on some going-ons in our own... the impeachment brings to my mind memories. Titus was the one who emailed me when I was travelling in Rome to give me a heads up on what was going on at the time.
Definitely a good source. Thanks Titus (even though you aren't supporting me haha ;D)
Ben Milne here, an original board member who both called the hasty election and also supported banning slates.
1. We could not wait until the new year to have an election because we did not have the necessary number of board members to really do much legally. There was nothing we could do to avoid such a situation. Indeed those that did run are also students and were also involved in exams/Christmas plans. Several of the board members who won weren't even in the province during some of the campaigning but still won.
2. I'd like to see anonymous cite at least one instance where an academic has said that banning slates favours incumbents. If we as the board were so grossly misinformed then why didn't you come to one of our meetings and show us this academic evidence. There had been notice of this motion for at least a month. Our you could have gone to the Constitution and Policy Review Committee and told them as well. All these meetings are open to all students. Lastly none of what did violates any of our by-laws or those of the society's act.
3. Please show us how Titus is favouring candidates he supports?
I have been off campus this semester. Can anyone let me know why banning the slate for election?
There were a number of reasons, but this Peak article sums up the basics: http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/2007-1/issue7/ne-sfss.html
It seems that the problem with the slate system was that a. it often allowed unqualified or less capable people to be elected because they were part of a certain slate, and b. the successful candidates would/could potentially be tied to the others via political alliances formed during the election.
None of those issues would have arisen in people's minds, I think, were it not for the crisis during the previous semester. That sorta brought it out for everyone.
Politics works best when there are a diversity of views. A slate system increases the opportunity that there will be no dissenting views on the executive. And we all know what absolute power does...
If an executive team is elected from two slates, you can also have the situation where each part of the executive is trying to subvert and/or collect dirt on their hated opponents, for the next election. If you can eliminate that artificial division, the odds are much higher that the executive will work well together as a team. Their views may be diverse, but they respect each other.
That's one way to flush out the truth.
Sorry, but I had to say that.
There remains the issue that candidates are allowed to back each-other and are providing each-other with help. While there are no official parties, there is still the potetial for the same problems. I have no idea how to fix this.
This said, I am interested in taknig your suggestions for future amendments to our electoral policy.
I'm thinking:
- preferential ballots
- none-of-the-above as an option
"We all know what absolute power does."
OOOOHHHH, I know, I know! Pick me, teacher!
Does absolute power, say, corrupt absolutely?!
About Joel Warren...Seriously how is this guy still in school? Is he working on his third PHD?
Someone should tell him to get a freakin job.
Sasha,
One of the easiest ways to prevent candidates backing one another is to leave in the "real or apparent" clause that was taken out. Essentially what it does is provide the IEC with the ability to make judgements as they see fit and act as a deterrent.
That said, it requires a lot of faith in the IEC, which is something the AMS had for its Elections Committee, which has functioned impartially with great success for years. Perhaps it would be worth reconsidering the wording at a later date. The change the SFSS made was sensible for the current culture of the SFSS but hopefully in a few years a higher standard could be successfully applied.
As for a preferential ballot, that could be hell for Forum elections but perhaps the Board could benefit from being elected that way. Alberta and Dalhousie do it now (Alberta also uses it for Council elections) and a group at McGill is considering a push to an IRV model. Also, a none-of-the-above option should be in any election anywhere. Alberta also uses that within its IRV model.
There's other things that could be done through bylaw changes as well. For instance, have the president and directors at large elected by the general population and have the more bureaucratic positions elected by the incoming/outgoing members of Forum (see USC at Western Ontario).
Oh, and as usual, the Fire Hydrant is right. Split executives were off and on the norm for about ten years at UBC and created havoc. The last two slateless years have not necessarily been models of efficiency but definitely weren't the cesspool of back-stabbing and politicking that was the status quo.
What you will likely see though is that while voter turnout will remain the same or even go up, the number of votes for individual races will go down as people choose not to vote for all positions. Though personally I think that's ok. It means student societies have an accurate idea of who gives a shit.
Candidates at SFU are lucky the local CFS hacks didn't get a chance to pick the CRO as they seem to be doing everywhere else.
Election rigging (i.e., Salter-CROing) is going on on the East coast as well as Ontario.
Let's not forget Terry McDonald who won his election last year but disqualified by the CFS, I mean CRO, because he failed to declare a three dollar expense for safety pins? WTF?
The CFS needs a slap.
Response to post #6… Hey, Annon-nitwit! So you think we should NOT “judge candidates by whom they date and how notorious the organizations they work for are!” So you think that it’s unimportant to know that a key position is being contested by someone who is dating a failed recently impeached former SFSS president who cost the student society $150,000 plus in unnecessary legal fees and other expenses during his 6 month reign as the emperor with no clothes on…So you really really think that’s unimportant???
Man, all I can say is I hope if I ever need a brain transplant I get yours, since it's obvious you’ve never used yours and I’ll be getting a nice fresh one…
By the by…who are you dating?…it wouldn’t be someone from the CFS, would it???…
What I'm about to say is probably not going to appeal to many of the commenters.
I honestly don't see why Lori's association with the CFS has to count against her so strongly. Sure, she's connected to people that most of you have come to despise, but does that in itself disqualify her?
I happened to attend the debate between the executive candidates, and from what I can tell, she's at least very well spoken. Unlike the other "CFS-hacks", she actually seems to care about the activism and rallies. While I probably won't be voting for her, it won't be because I find her inherently incompetent or corruptable.
Of course, there's really no way of knowing just how "deep" she is into the CFS sub-culture (apart from hearsay, that is), and I'm probably being too optimistic. However, I really do think we need to stand back and regard her - and every other candidate's - abilities and potential objectively. Even if we stick to our previously decided choices, at least we'll have been the better for having seriously looked at the issues.
Who you are dating should NOT be an election issue. It implies that this woman couldn't make her own choices, and instead, the man she is dating would have control over her professional choices.
It's really an offensive statement.
FYI: Lori Macdonald and Shawn Hunsdale broke up several months ago. But regardless, it still shouldn't matter who someone is dating. :)
To the person who said they 'found it entertaining that Natalie Bocking had a facebook campaign group up well before the start for campaigning.' -
I'm glad you find that entertaining. I enjoy fiction too.
I know for a fact that Natalie's facebook group was not up before the campaign period. Know why? Because I created it.
Thanks for checking out the group, though. Hope you liked what you saw.
Well Robin, when I checked facebook at 6am and found the group up, and campaigning was supposed to start at 10am, either you or I was stuck in a space-time anomaly.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mmm...calamari.
Actually, I have a bad gut-level reaction to calamari, although I'm sure it's actually somewhat tasty. I prefer shrimp, or crab.
...Expensive tastes, no? :P
looks as if there is an unofficial cfs slate - they're just running it out of the campus ndp club. it also appears that they are the folks who did the end run around the traditional process of getting support from your dsu to sit on forum. standard cfs operating procedure: if you don't have popular support find the loophole in the rulebook that gets you what you want anyway. classic.
Joe Paling here. Although I have no qualms about Lori MacDonald as being a capable person, my issue is the Shawn Hunsdale connection. It wasn't that she was dating Hunsdale that is the problem. The problem is that she was in a common law relationship with him while he was doing these dispicable things. When my fiance tells me I'm doing something dumb, I pay attention and I try to change my behaviour. Either she told Hunsdale his actions were good, or he ignored her telling him this. Either way, Lori's job with North Island College is (allegedly) directly linked to the CFS, much in the same way Hunsdale was (allegedly) trying to get a cushy 100k a year CFS job by subverting the grads on the health plan. I think Lori should be willing to tell us what her thoughts were on the actions of someone she saw everyday, who'se despicable actions were fairly public. Did she agree with Hunsdale while she was dating him? If she did, she was wrong!
Now on elections to Forum. If I am elected, I will get rid of this loophole in the by-laws at the AGM, so forum reps are elected by their DSUs and accountable (and thus removable/impeachable) to their DSUs. This is the only way to make forum democratic, not with acclamations!
Hear hear, Joe.
There have been at least two attempts in previous AGMs to change the bylaws so that uncontested nominees must go to a yes/no vote before being elected (I know this because I managed to obtain the agendas for the 2004 and 2005 AGMs). Of course, the lack of quorum precluded such amendments...
I might not know everything about this, but aren't the student numbers on the acclaimed Forum reps' nomination forms checked against university records so that only those qualified (i.e. taking a course in that department) are counted? I mean, I'm quite sure that this is what happens. Of course, I can see how someone can get elected by people who have never attended a DSU meeting...Still, I don't this it's that big an issue.
And...can't Forum reps be impeached anyway by their DSUs? n.n;
Juan -
The only way to remove a Forum rep is by impeaching them by "special resolution" and unfortunately, that's the same process to impeach a director. That's because once upon a time, forum reps were directors - and the bylaws weren't perfectly updated with structural changes.
It's totally obvious that half the commenters on this forum are just on a witch hunt. You can't find anything to smear Lori with so you just target her (ex?) boyfriend. Listen, this is Canada not Stalinist Russia - you can't impugn someone just because of what their friend or family member did. So what if they were "common law"? Who friggin cares? If you want to know the policies or platforms of this candidate, then ask her, challenge her, but stop running a dirty smear campaign based on her possible relationship. It's really no one's business.
The CFS is right about one thing at least: quality declines as tuition fees increase.
I cannot believe the dumb comments on this site! You are supposed to be university students...graduate students even. These arguments are not cogent, not even close. I amazed that such "progressives" could be acting in such an anti-democratic, misogynist fashon: argument about who people date and whether or not they are common law?! Really people? Are we moving back to the 50's?
This whole debate about the CFS seems all to partisan. I think there is less biased debate about the Iraq War on an average hour of Fox News than there is informed debate on CFS in these posts.
None of you will ever recognise or accept that you are the people that Stephen Colbert is making fun of. Uninformed, bitter, sensational, spoiled yuppies who are to stupid and self-involved to search for anything that lies beyond the end of your nose.
A "tip of my hat" to the students of SFU and a "wag of my finger" to the CFS for their "undemocratic" nature. Everyone run out and vote for Sasha Fox because it takes a grad student in gender studies to tell us all that we should hold people's past relationships against them...and that's the word!
ps - would love to sign my name but you would probably hold my partner responsible for my opinions.
Thank latest Anonymous - I needed a chuckle with my coffee on a Sunday morning. That post is just about the funniest thing I've ever read on here. Sure, drawing conclusions about someone based on their personal associations is ridiculous, but what's even more ridiculous is castigating an ENTIRE message board for it. You drew conclusions about every person that has ever posted here - talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
And while drawing conclusions based on personal relationships isn't wise, it's miles away from mysogony. But I suppose in your mind I'm a racist for the whole pot and black kettle comment above...
Interesting that the only people who keep persisting this ludicrous discussion are the "holier-than-thou's" who live to exagerate situations like this...
Having taken another look at the by-laws, I can say that you're right about that n.n;
Technically, there isn't any specific statement against DSUs removing their reps, but on the other hand, a non-enumerated provision has no legal power if we go by the SGM court case.
Joe Paling again,
I do not think It's misogynistic to question someone's choices of the people she surrounds herself with. She served with Hunsdale on the board and is not only close with Shawn but with the rest of the G7. Again, I think Lori is capable of doing the job, but she has not flat out said anything on the impeachment or whether firing Hattie was the wrong thing to do. This is the issue, that even though it shouldn't matter who one dates or lives with, she is completely avoiding the issues of substance.
Those who were acclaimed to the forum are reasonable people, taking courses which allow them to represent the specific DSUs. Furthermore, should the DSUs vote to remove them as forum representatives, legalities of such an action aside, they would most assuredly step aside. They want to be participants in the democratic process, and as such participated in a democratic process. Finding scandals where there are none amuses me, it is why I am here.
Furthermore, I am aware that one particular forum representative has participated in their DSU, and I have yet to see a single member of either DSU decry either forum representative's actions publicly.
On the topic of a "slate" existing within a particular political campus club: One should expect high participation in politics within a political club. It would be quite sad should the SF NDP club be full of apathy towards student government. And if accusations of "slate" are to continue, partnerships between current incumbent board members and those seeking election for the first time should be examined in a similar manner.
I sincerely hope that nobody is disqualified this election. It has been fairly fought with new restrictive rules, aside from the new found liberty regarding the closest one can get to slander and libel without crossing over into illegalities.
One poster speaks of issues of substance, and entirely focuses on the past. The current board of directors has said time and again that their policy overhaul was crafted to prevent another "Hunsdale" from happening. Take them at their word; for they have accomplished little else other than the bare minimum that the student population should expect of their elected officials after events such as impeachment and scandal.
I hope that people chose to vote for change this election. Fresh blood and new ideas will make the SFSS relevant once again. Damn talk of budget and expense, the SFSS is a student society, not a Fortune-500 corporation. Self serving interests need to stop now, for this politicking that all sides decry has made the SFSS ineffectual, irrelevant, and invisible to the students at Simon Fraser University.
--Andrew Fergusson
Andrew, what in the hell are you talking about? Your tirade makes absolutely no sense.
Take a deep breath and try to form one coherent thought.
Ok, what I cannot understand is, am I confused or is Sasha? I cannot tell if Sasha is a boy or a girl. I mean not that it matters any more than who Lori, Kelly, Dhillon, Brandon, Steve or Donna dated. I mean I am just saying Sasha is a confusing person. Not that it matters. You know in this progressive era we certainly would not talk about that and then pretend it did not matter all the while focusing all our attention on the subject. So please let me know your opinion? My vote, by the way, is on boy just a confused one.
Wow. You can fuck right off and learn a bit more about gender identity before you make something that has absolutely nothing to do with this election a matter of public debate. That comment was really disgusting.
Yes clearly a question about who the female candidate is dating is much more politically correct, and in fact REQUIRED knowledge for me as a voter. I must know who female candidates are dating! Also, when they run for SFSS, I MUST know thier viewpoints on confidential personnel matters, especially if they are not running for the position that directly oversees staff.
Dammit, I demand a full public review of all staff members from every potential SFSS executive! Please tell me all their previous infractions and whether any penalties given were warranted. Do it on studentunion.ca right now or else you clearly must be dating the devil federation 666.
This post has been removed by the author.
Cutting across the unanswerable low-brow comments...
Actually, #56, Andrew Ferguson's comment made enough sense to me, although he does need to work on expressing himself. I'll look at some of his assertations:
"Those who were acclaimed to the forum are reasonable people, taking courses which allow them to represent the specific DSUs. Furthermore, should the DSUs vote to remove them as forum representatives, legalities of such an action aside, they would most assuredly step aside."
While I don't doubt that these Forum reps will do a good job, I still believe that there needs to be a reform of the current system. A Forum rep can better represent his department if his DSU had a direct hand in his election rather than simply a number of "random" students who happen to take courses in that department. It's ultimately about who he reports to.
"On the topic of a "slate" existing within a particular political campus club: One should expect high participation in politics within a political club. It would be quite sad should the SF NDP club be full of apathy towards student government."
Agreed on all counts, with a caveat: being active in a political party or group doesn't necessarily prepare one for student politics, which is an entirely different sort of animal. Still, I'm all for having avenues such as these to provide the original impetus to active political participation, as long as one doesn't let it go to his head, that is.
"It has been fairly fought with new restrictive rules..."
This seems to be a common assertion among certain people. Okay, so maybe they are restrictive, as you say, but how? If you're going to call the rules "restrictive", then please do us the courtesy of providing a specific example. All the rules are online, after all.
"One poster speaks of issues of substance, and entirely focuses on the past. The current board of directors has said time and again that their policy overhaul was crafted to prevent another "Hunsdale" from happening. Take them at their word; for they have accomplished little else other than the bare minimum that the student population should expect of their elected officials after events such as impeachment and scandal."
That is precisely why this interim board was elected in December, to "focus on the past" and fix the Society in time for this spring's election. A lot of crazy stuff happened last semester, and it will take a while to clean up completely, extending even after this election.
"I hope that people chose to vote for change this election. Fresh blood and new ideas will make the SFSS relevant once again."
The relevance of the SFSS has more to do with who's willing to participate rather than who's in charge. The students, after all, elect the directors and make demands from them, as they should. If no one participates, then nothing gets done and no progress is made. Also, how are we to be sure that "fresh blood" has the requisite skill necessary to properly a student society? I am not going to vote for someone just because they are new; I am going to vote for someone because I think they'll do a good job, whether they're "fresh" or not.
"Damn talk of budget and expense, the SFSS is a student society, not a Fortune-500 corporation."
This statement reveals more about your grasp of the Society's system than the failings of the current Board. "Budget and expense" are precisely the sort of things that one must deal with in non-profit societies like these, and in fact are the very first concerns that must be dealt with before any action is done. Before we can have events, or organize rallies, or even order a cappuccino, money must be allocated, distributed, and spent properly.
Also, there's a common fallacy here in the assumption that the SFSS functions primarily as a toll for political action. The truth is that advocacy is only one of many functions that the Society performs, along with providing services and activities. Advocacy is very important, yes, but we can't forget that the organization of the SFSS does much more than that. Running the Society properly involves a lot of work in terms of contracts, networking, and balancing priorities, including financial priorities. If we don't deal with these sundry and mundane operations, then we won't be able to even send people to the Days of Action. The system works the way it does because it must, so that we get what we want.
"Self serving interests need to stop now, for this politicking that all sides decry has made the SFSS ineffectual, irrelevant, and invisible to the students at Simon Fraser University."
I agree with this, too, but before you go around making such broad statements, perhaps you should consider that, maybe, your political adversaries actually have a point. One of the worst things one can do is assume that everyone is your enemy, because if you do, then it's likely that no one will be your friend.
Not everyone has the same opinion about what works best, but everyone, at least, wants to try and make things better. Don't forget that.
If you're curious about my gender, I suggest looking on my facebook account (linked off of the IEC's webpage), on my blog, in the recent Peak, to anyone who works with me, or you can just ask me. I endeavor to receive non-rhetorical questions without offense, and answer most.
For future reference, a polite way to ask someone about their gender (or that of someone know to them) is "do you (or they) have a pronoun preference?" I would also suggest avoiding the term "confused," as it is often used to cast aspersions on someone's decision-making, maturity and/or sanity.
This said, if you were suggesting that asking about my gender is as bad as as talking about political and personal ties, then I disagree.
Someone's gender is not really a matter of choice, nor does it imply a potential conflict of interest, nor does it suggest unstated political goals. I am interested in Queer rights, gender egalitariansism, and brutally frank political humour, but this does not constitute a hidden agenda since I have put "gender activist," "women's studies student," "Rhino Party" and other like information on my campaign publicity past and present.
On the other hand, having ties to people or organizations can suggest, but does not prove something fishy. It may be the case, when ties are in the past and are no longer active or have been cut (as is the case for several incumbent directors and the CFS), that they are no longer an issue. In such cases, the person in question may be adverse to their past associates.
Even if someone is in a conflict of interest, they can always declare that this is the case, and withdraw from decision making on that one issue - as Derrick does when Jan's CUPE local comes up, which I do when I am involved with at decision related to the CFS referendum, and which any board member can do as they see fit.
On this note, whether it's about my gender, or Lori's ties, can I suggest that we eschew future speculation until we have asked the person in question? You can ask me about my gender - and if you think that it will somehow affects my work as XRO, you can or should post my answer here. Similarly, if anyone is concerned about Lori's ties, I'd suggest asking her for her opinion on the matter.
I hope that covers it, but when you say "my vote is on boy..." shall I assume that you'll be voting for me? Hope so :>
Sasha I think you should be commended for your articulate and mature response, to a comment which clearly didn't deserve it.
It's nice when someone can rise above the nonsense and make a conscious decision to return the debate to a civil and intelligent level - especially when you would have been fully justified in ignoring the comment altogether, or responding with an obscenity laced tirad. Well done.
While we're waiting for the next blog post (Titus, wtf?!?), here's something to amuse ourselves with. As seen on the wall of the CFS Facebook group:
"The CFS group is NOT RELATED with the NDP. The Related groups board only shows the most popular groups within the CFS group members. It only happens that a majority of our members are also member of the NDP group, that's it."
I think the sanctimonious defences of Sasha kind of missed the point. My sense was the issue of his/gender was raised to put the sexist attack on his opponent in context. However, like most self rigteous asses most of you seemed to miss the irony and sarcasm. Don't get me wrong I don't realycare what sasha's gneder is I just won't be voting for him/her because he/she can dish out the slander and personal attacks but cries like a baby when he/she gets a little of it back.
Nasty poltic tactics must be denounced ...unless of course unless you pricks are doing them (e.g. scream bloody murder about CFS and then hold bogus election in december, stage a coup over a personel matter and then turn around and fire someone whose politics you don't like as your first act in office -- liberation front indeed. May the purges continue apace!!!!
As evidence that no one should ever jump to conclusions, I (yes, little ol' Anonymous me) posted one of the "sanctimonious" defenses of Sasha. And, while hiding behind this veil of anonymity, I guess you'd never know that I regularly take shots at the CFS on here. Just goes to show you, anyone who divides this debates into pro and anti CFS sides is being far too simplistic. This isn't a team sport, and it's not about putting on your jersey and cheering for your "side" - it's about what's fair and right.
And before someone takes a shot at the anonymity, I would LOVE to be able to post openly on here (as I'm guessing many others would). Unfortunately, many staff at student unions accross the country aren't free to have their own opinions...
To the last anonymous post;
I don’t think Sasha has ever publicly bad mouthed Lori in any fashion. To make such an unsubstantiated comment is to speak from a particularly biased position. Drawing from the context of your post (i.e. “bloody murder about the CFS”, “holding bogus elections”, etc.), you’ve obviously got a stake in the outcome of these elections- why else would you try to dissuade people’s negative opinions about the CFS?
There are two types of people who visit this blog; informed students who are well aware of both the pros and cons of the CFS, and those who log on to anonymously slam those who speak negatively of the CFS. You seem to be of the latter persuasion.
Get a fucking job, get a fucking life, and quit interfering with Canadian students’ right to control their own student politics.
Who was fired?
I believe that's a reference to Brandy Zimmerman- the SFSS's Pro-CFS Research and Policy Coordinator who has been on leave for some time. Hence the bias inherent within that post.
No, Brandy resigned after a lengthy leave. The poster was referring to Angela Reniger, who was wrongfully hired by Marion Pollock and Glynn Lewis to temporarily replace Brandy. According to the collective agreement hirings are done through a hiring committee consisting of 2 employer and 2 worker reps. The committee was unable to reach a decision and those two little shit bags hired Angela instead of reposting or coming to consensus. Which of course resulted in a grievance. The resolution to the grievance (dealt with by the new Board) was reposting the position, at which point Angela was welcome to apply again. Since James Popodopolous is now the research and policy coordinator, I can only assume Angela didn't apply, or did and just wasn't selected.
Another expensive legacy of the impeached 7. And another ridiculous mischaracterization by cfs supporters.
Well, I'm glad that's settled. . .
JosephP said...
"... Hunsdale was (allegedly) trying to get a cushy 100k a year CFS job'
100k CFS job? I've been involved in student politics in the past, and to the best of my knowledge, there is no "CFS job" that pays anywhere near that amount (I think event the National Chair position is somewhere around 40k).
There are lots of reasons to have problems with the CFS, but some of the anti-CFS campaign claims have been absolutely counter-factual (i.e. the posters on campus claiming that "BC tuition has risen steadily since 1981", when in fact there was a freeze between 1995 and 2000, and a 5% REDUCTION of tuition fees in BC in 2001.
If the anti-CFS campaign is really supposed to be about better, more democratic student politics, it kind of sucks seeing some elements of it slipping into the same sort of tactics (mis-representing issues to manipulate students) that they (rightly) have berated the CFS hacks for. It's starting to look a lot like a case of 'same shit, different pile.'
How much do Lucy and Philip make?
Okay, so to the spelling-challenged person here calling Sasha names:
Sasha has never once verbally defaced her opponent. Sasha has always spoken about her qualities, not going off all half-cocked like you and screaming nonsensical slanders.
I strongly dislike cfs tactics and their leadership. That being said, I also agree with a previous poster about cfs finances. When you talk about money and the cfs, you can't be talking out of your ass. Get a copy of the audited financial statements from the delegates who attended the most recent National General meeting - wages are listed in an appendix.
I have no doubt that dodgy things are happening with our membership fees (like unauthorized loans to Douglas) but check your facts first.
I didn't think that there were audited financial statements.
Re: "Anonymous said...
How much do Lucy and Philip make?
1:56 PM"
I'm not 100% sure, but I'd be surprised if any of the unionized positions pay above $50k in salary. I'm pretty sure that this info is available to CFS members, either on the audited statements mentioned by another poster or by request.
That being said, the staffers mentioned above are a good example of a real structural problem with student organisations in general; that people can and do make long-term 'careers' in student organisations, both at the national and local level (even some PIRGs come to mind here). I think a lot more staff positions should be elected and for fixed terms, kind of like the TSSU, rather than having people linger around in student politics for decades after they're actually students. There is something pretty unsavoury about the idea of 40+ year old non-students wrapped up in ferocious political intrigues with 18-22 year olds undergrads.
Anyhow, it would be nice to see a student politics focused on substantive solutions to the very real problems with student organisations, rather than on more of the same old opportunistic 'the ends justify the means,' 'say whatever it takes to win/get my way' mode of politics that seems to be rearing it's head again in this campaign.
...and BTW, for those who think CFS lobbying has been ineffective, CASA is definitely not the solution. I've never seen a more sycophantic bunch of ass-kissing, careerist hacks than the CASA reps I've observed in the past at education policy events, government meetings, etc.. They rarely even challenged Liberal government policy in any substantive way the times I saw them in action. Take a good look at where most of their national leadership end up after - generally as aides to Liberal (or sometimes even Conservative) politicians, or in patronage-type positions with the federal government.
Unless things have changed substantially in recent years, the CASA leaders really seemed like people looking for better jobs rather than effective lobbyists for students.
If the CFS is unreformable (which I'm still not completely convinced is a lost cause, if people really made a concerted effort), an independant student org with other BC schools is a way better idea than CASA, though I suspect it will take a lot more work than people maybe realise.
Now, I assume when you mentioned 40+ people hanging on for dear life as 50k+ per year working for students you were talking about Hattie Aitken. Non?
"Anonymous said...
Now, I assume when you mentioned 40+ people hanging on for dear life as 50k+ per year working for students you were talking about Hattie Aitken. Non?"
I don't actually know her personally, and am most definitely not interested in attacking any particular individual. I'm trying to make a point about the structural problem of bureaucracies that are not democratically accountable to constituents, and the danger for democratic organisations of bureaucracies that are not organically connected to the membership. This can apply to student orgs, the labour movement, and any other sort of constituency based democratic group; power in student orgs should rest with people who are (or recently have been) students, in unions by workers, etc.. This is clearly not the case in many student organisations, where power is often exercised (formally or informally) by people who have been working in the organisation a long time and 'know what's going on.' Certain CFS staffers are (justifiably) attacked from this perspective, but the problem has existed in student orgs I've seen at a number of schools, including in PIRGs, CFS and non-CFS schools.
I think an argument can be made for people sticking around longer if theire job is PURELY administrative (i.e. accounting, business management, etc.) and if their is a firm line enforced between political and adminstrative responsibilities. However, I think political staff positions (researcher & policy, etc.) should probably be elected and/or limited to terms of maybe 4 or 5 years, max.
In the case of Hattie Aitken's job position, I'm really not familiar enough with the responsibilities to voice an opinion one way or another. If the position does allow for de facto 'setting policies' or even facilitates the person doing it having significant influence over policy debates/decisions, then I think the position should be elected (either directly, or through forum).
Well first of all as the anonymous poster who called people on their sanctimonious defense of Sasha several things need to be clarified. The rank stupidity and hypocrisy and CFS mania are on full display in the responses. In terms of the CFS I was previously involved (no paycheque) and supported the CFS but became a bit disenchanted with the group think. As an entity I think it is incredibly important and has done some great work. That said, there are some people there who have been around too long and need to move on. Now I know this post will come as a shock to some – a nuanced view of the CFS that sees the importance of the organization but has reservations – but in the real world things aren’t always as easy as CFS is great vs. CFS commits war crimes. The juvenile posts on this blog generally fall into the latter category. The group think on that front is every bit as silly and scary as any CFS group think I have encountered – most pathetically it seems to be driven by perennially election losers whose greatness wasn’t recognized by the CFS (like a spurned lover, no?). Hell hath no fury like an SFSS hack who loses a CFS election.
On the SFSS front what I find hardest to take is the hypocrisy. Who could criticize the CFS on process issues after having bogus December elections and firing a capable and good person simply because they supported the CFS? Bullshit aside aside that was a CFS style purge facailtated by CUPE scabssettling personal scores. Who could play victim about a personal attack after claiming, along with his/her supporters, that people should vote against the woman running against him/her because she dated – gasp – a CFS supporter and political opponent? Only an SFSS hack. Can you tell the difference between an SFSS hack and a CFS hack? I can’t. Nastiness and hypocrisy define both.
"Can you tell the difference between an SFSS hack and a CFS hack? I can’t."
Well I can!!! and you're definitely a pro-CFS hack.
The other problem that I see regarding the staff is that most of them are practically invisible to the membership as a whole. With the exception of the Student Union Organizer, whose job in itself makes him very visible, we know virtually nothing about what the staff do and what their exact responsibilities are supposed to be. Heck, it seems that the most info one can get about the staff is on the website's contact page and that photo of Sam's poster that I uploaded to Facebook.
Now, I don't wish to intrude or even seem to intrude upon the quiet, dedicated work of our staff, nor do I wish to make demands or anything like that. I just want to be able to know what they're doing to contribute to the Society. After all, the membership of the SFSS ought to be able to become aware of every aspect of their Society's working that isn't contractually obligated to secrecy.
Speaking of which, I just have a question to throw out to any Board members: How much information about the staff are we, ordinary members, privy to, anyway? I know that labour bargains are top secret, but is there anything else other than that?
Perhaps I'm just being very superfluous in my questions, but I've always thought that the dumbest questions are the ones that are never asked.
I personally would like to see the SFSS' staff's collective agreement made public. From what I've heard, the CA states that it holds higher legal authority in the Society than the SFSS constitution. That is enormously important, if true. Because then the SFSS is more or less stating that it exists primarily to provide work for unionized bureaucrats.
Which I think IS in fact the primary reason it exists. Keeping these people on the payroll is the one fact of life about the SFSS which is beyond compromise or re-examination. No one can ever be fired ever.
This post has been removed by the author.
(responding to the 1:37 PM post)
Indeed, I've taken a look at the CFS salaries, and it's true that the salaries are siginificant, but not extravagent - the top execs make just under $40k/year.
This said, there are many positions available in CFS student unions which can make more than this. How people get promoted into these positions remains another issue.
As for checking the CFS audits, I've seen the draft audited statements from the BC-CFS and found it to be decidedly uninformative; almost deliberately obscure - legal fees are rolled into the line item they're attached to, such as "membership development," so we can't tell exactly where our money goes.
What about the posters and the "steadily rising" issue? On one hand, the poster does go on to specify that tuition has "never gone down." On reflection, and especially given the 2001 fee cut (which is news to me - although I should have known better, having been around to pay it), I realize that this is a foolish header.
I remember being pissed off that the 1995 "freeze" didn't come with adequate funding to cover it, and so caused systemic university deficits, which students wound up paying off through massive tuition hikes, often halfway through their degree (conveniently timed for after an election that the BC-NDP knew it was going to lose). I knew that the posters should have spelled this out, and that the "steadily rising" header should have read "tuition funding is chronically deficient," but I okayed this poster, and its title anyway. That was a mistake and, as the leader of the "YES" campaign, it's entirely my fault.
You're right: CFS criticism should not turn into "Same shit different pile," and this was creeping up on that line. Thank you for calling me on that.
Eddie:
There are actually two CUPE unions that comprise SFSS employees. CUPE 3338 is the Food and Beverage Services employees, and all the "regular" employees are in the new CUPE 5396.
While I don't know all the details, I do know that CUPE 5396 is a new union that was formed a couple of years ago (?) because the previous CUPE 2396, which included employees from other student unions, was having, shall we say, internal conflicts (a lot of which had to do with CFS employees, it seems). Don't take my word for it, though; the Peak has more reliable information.
CUPE 5396's collective agreement was just recently devised and probably isn't compiled yet, but I do know where you can get the most recent copy of CUPE 3338's agreement. It expires this April, so there's a new one coming out, but it's there for you to look at: http://www.3338.cupe.ca/ca_sfss_2007.pdf
Be warned that it's an horrendously long document.
I realize that we're starting to deviate quite a bit from the original topic, but...yeah, well, that's how it goes n.n
“On the SFSS front what I find hardest to take is the hypocrisy. Who could criticize the CFS on process issues after having bogus December elections and firing a capable and good person simply because they supported the CFS? “
I find this statement nonsensical. What exactly was “bogus” about an election following an impeachment (upheld by the supreme court of BC)? And who is this fired person you’re referring to? As a poster previously wrote, only one person could be considered to have been “fired.” That situation was a result of a grievance brought forward by the union.
Eddie: Collective Agreements are public documents. If you’re a member of the SFSS, please go and ask the Internal Relations Officer for a copy.
I urge you not to parade your ignorance of labour relations law so proudly. It is not the case that the CA can override the Society’s Constitution and By-laws. Both are legal documents which work in cooperation. When there is a conflict, the Labour Board of British Columbia is called upon to settle disputes. Likewise, the BC Supreme Court is also a body empowered to adjudicate. Labour law in British Columbia is heavily weighted to side with an employer. Your fears that the SFSS exists to employ “bureaucrats” is unreasonable and unfounded. The elected representative and membership of this Society are the decision makers. No court in the land would dispute their right to manage the Society as they see fit, under the confines of upholding legal agreements to which they are a party. Like the Collective Agreements with unionized staff. To suggest that an employer can’t fire staff is beyond ridiculous. The employer can do whatever they like – as long as they follow the rules to which they have previously agreed. Such as those “collectively” “agreed” to in the Collective Agreements.
The fact that the SFSS manages the student society poorly at times is a completely separate matter. If you’re concerned about mismanagement then you should run for election.
I don't think it's appropriate to chastise people for their lack of information on this site regarding SFSS procedures. It isn't easily accessible information.
The only reason a student would know how to access this information is by going into the office and asking a Director. While I realize this seems simple enough for the forward and confident student, that office is intimidating to many others. Directors have capitalized titles and cubicles. This can be intimidating.
If someone on here makes a comment that some find ignorant and that answer is available, attempting to answer it without belittling the inquirer might help more to prove that the SFSS isn't the "same shit, different pile" than all the assertions to the contrary can.
Amanda van Baarsen said...
I don't think it's appropriate to chastise people for their lack of information on this site regarding SFSS procedures.
When people make assertions like: "No one can ever be fired ever," when they've previously stated that they've never even read the Collective Agreement, it is in my opinion, a valid reason to chastise them.
"It is not the case that the CA can override the Society’s Constitution and By-laws."
Actually in MOST provinces (though I am admittedly not well versed in BC labour law, I have no reason to think it would be any different) the ONLY thing a Collective Agreement cannot supercede is law. A CA DOES in fact over rule the constitution, bylaws, and any other internal regulations.
Let's keep in mind that it takes TWO parties to agree to and sign a CA - hence the collectiveness inherent in the name. It is the duty of management (i.e. the directors) to ensure the CA does not conflict with the constitution and/or bylaws and is indeed in the best interests of the organization and the students. Don't blame the employee's if you've got a 'bad' CA...
See what happens when Titus doesn't post for two weeks - the conversation gets WAAAAAAY off topic. :-)
Explaining an earlier post. If you can't undertsand why December elections for a student unions are bogus then chances are you are hack who benefited from this bullshit tactic. On the Regnier front you are right, it was a tag team that fired her: SFSS hacks and CUPE scabs.
Also here's a story idea for Titus: the comprehensive CFS report on Islamphobia that drew substantial media coverage. Oh shit, I forgot this is the anti CFS Pravda blog.
Scab: someone who works (or provides workers) during a strike.
Hacks - well that's your opinion, but scabs? Was there a strike at the SFSS that I didn't notice?
I couldn't let these comments go :)
"CASA is definitely not the solution. I've never seen a more sycophantic bunch of ass-kissing, careerist hacks than the CASA reps I've observed in the past at education policy events, government meetings, etc.. They rarely even challenged Liberal government policy in any substantive way the times I saw them in action."
Well... the Liberal Party generally takes their education policy word-for-word from CASA policy documents these days. That being said, it was still a very young organization when a lot of the bad things (education cuts and tax credits) were happening and didn't yet have the influence it has now.
"Take a good look at where most of their national leadership end up after - generally as aides to Liberal (or sometimes even Conservative) politicians, or in patronage-type positions with the federal government.
Unless things have changed substantially in recent years, the CASA leaders really seemed like people looking for better jobs rather than effective lobbyists for students."
I'm happy that you were not willing to categorically deny that change is possible with CASA because it really isn't the case that most end up working in government these days. Some do, obviously, but so do some CFS types. I can think of one person in the last three years now working for any of the federal parties.
"If the CFS is unreformable (which I'm still not completely convinced is a lost cause, if people really made a concerted effort), an independant student org with other BC schools is a way better idea than CASA."
Definitely a positive, especially because CASA only works on the federal level.
I've been very curious where the idea that CASA is ineffective come from. The Liberal mini-budget before the 2006 election had loads of CASA policy - things like the Canada Access Grant for low-income students.
I'm also curious how this poster would characterize effective at the federal level. The Millennium Scholarships were originally going to be 100% merit-based until CASA's national director, Hoops Harrison, lobbied to have it changed to 95% needs-based grants. Does effective mean yelling at politicians and bureaucrats? Because after the CFS lobby day this fall, most MPs no longer want to let CFS into their offices anymore because that's what they did. Protests only work if you also have champions within the bubble of power that are willing and able to give more substantial arguments than the one-line chant.
Personally, I believe that the CFS and CASA should realize that it's not actually a bad thing to have two student groups if only they talk to each other. Martin Luther King would not have been as successful without Malcolm X. Fatah would not be the darling of the western world right now if Hamas didn't exist. Nobody would care what the Sierra Club had to say if there wasn't Greenpeace.
Canadian students could have a lot going for them right now in a great good-cop, bad-cop routine if only these two groups were willing to work together. CASA even elected Gavin Gardiner, who was a member of the CFS National Executive at the time (USask was a prospective member of the Fed and in CASA) onto their board of directors in 2005-06, so the fear isn't from them. The impression I get is that the CFS considers anybody that is opposed to *anything* they do an enemy and therefore they should not work together.
And that's unfortunate.
Well, I really hope CASA has improved, but the track record of CASA national directors has a number of people who took jobs with the very governments that were slashing post-secondary funding, or alternately directors that were involved in scandals (including one criminal conviction). It's not a pretty picture, at least for those looking for effective/honest student advocacy:
James Kusie (2003-2005) “James Kusie has been hired by Treasury Board President John Baird to work as an assistant to Parliamentary secretary Pierre Poilievre. He'll be working in Mr. Poilievre's office, but is still considered a ministerial staffer”.
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/members/login.php?fail=2&destination=/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2006/march/20/climbers/&c=2
Liam Arbuckle (2001-2003) “CASA Director Arbuckle implicated in scandal, resigns as SSMU considers dropping full membership”
http://media.www.mcgilltribune.com/media/storage/paper234/news/2003/02/18/News/CasaDirector.Arbuckle.Implicated.In.Scandal.Resigns.As.Ssmu.Considers.Dropping-372672.shtml
Patrick Fitzpatrick (1996 - acting National Director while Alex Usher was on sick leave)
“Patrick FitzPatrick entered a guilty plea in defrauding the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations for an amount not exceeding $5,000 in a Fredricton, New Brunswick courtroom yesterday.” http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/1998/January/28/default.htm
Alex Usher (1995-1996), immediately slid into federal government appointments after his term was over, and then went on to direct “research” for the Millenium Scholarship Foundation that claimed tuition fees were not a major barrier to university participation.
Also, re: "Well... the Liberal Party generally takes their education policy word-for-word from CASA policy documents these days."
I always got the sense that the policy flow between the Liberals and CASA moved in the opposite direction from what you suggest here.
There is a more generic and accepted definition of the term scab applied to anyone who undermines a fellow union member in collaboration with management.
Sound familiar?
Yeah, I would say there have been some pretty significant changes. People were not too happy with Kusie going to work for the Tories. As for the other characters, yes they've done some sketchy things, but since then a lot more accounting controls have been put in. Though I'm happy to defend Alex Usher. You're criticizing him because of differences of belief, which is fine, but I think he has proven himself to not just be a careerist. The guy is a substantive and respected researcher, even though some people often disagree. But that's good. It's part of the academic progress.
And as for the CASA-Liberal policy relationship, I met with Ralph Goodale about an hour after the 2005 Economic Update and the money quote was, "We just copied your policy statements."
The other thing to consider is that while some sketchy things have happened at CASA, the people that did them are no longer there unlike (and I'm happy to be told I'm wrong) some other groups.
So is everyone who files a grievance as a result of an improper hire, promotion, harassment, abuse, or safety infringements as scab, as they could all potentially undermine a fellow union member?
Results now on the IEC website.
And the winners:
President: Derrick Harder
Member Services: Joe Paling
External Relations: Sasha Fox
University Relations: University Relations
Arts Rep: Tyler Masse
Science Rep: Anna Belkine
Referenda:
Grad Autonomy (all three): YES
Leave the CFS: YES
University relations: amanda van barseen
I'd like to know the margin on those votes when you get a chance!
While I'm no expert on labour law, I'm pretty sure that the constitution and bylaws counts as a legal document to which the CA's must conform. Besides, CAs mostly deal with labour and worker relations rather than the basic operation of the Society. However, more knowledgeable people are free to correct me on this (as they usually do ;)
Gonig back to the topic...Congratulations to our new and re-elected board members! May the next year bring fruitful work for the SFSS.
For those seeking the actual vote totals, visit http://www.sfss.ca/elections/data.htm
Anonymous wrote: "There is a more generic and accepted definition of the term scab applied to anyone who undermines a fellow union member in collaboration with management.
Sound familiar?"
Man you guys are wayyyy off base. The union person "scabbing" with the Employer was Brandy Zimmerman working with Shawn Hunsdale to plan this whole thing. And she's quit.
Gosh, what a marvel... only a decade after web pages become commonplace, the IEC finally finds its ass with both hands and a flashlight and actually announces the results in a timely fashion instead of waiting for the Peak to maybe-possibly publish the results in the following week's issue if it happens to be in the news cycle!
Kudos to the IEC under the new stewardship of J. J. McCullough, for grasping the notion that people like to be told basic things like this.
(PS. Is it wrong for me to say Chris Sandve is cute? ;) Even if he is a right-winger. :P )
hey fire hydrant..what did you do with the link.
http://www.sfss.ca/elections/data.html
..sorry
http://www.sfss.ca/elections/data.htm
(no html,htm)
Thanks for the kudos. I indeed pride myself on my ass-finding skills.
My whole agenda as IEC chief has been to spread awareness and information relating to the election as openly and honestly as possible. I engaged in a lot of unprecedented campaigns to this effect, not the least of which were my "go vote" posters around campus which I hope you all saw this week.
And yet in the end, it really made very little difference. The turnout was still low, and we had few candidates and too many acclamations. Every year people write and bemoan about the apathy, generally suggesting that the problem can be solved through information and awareness. Well I did my best to apply prescriptive solutions, but there was no notable difference. In fact, if anything, there was even a negative correlation. It's partially a cultural problem, but its much more so an institutional one, in my mind.
I believe SFSS elections are simply not working in their present form, and should probably be scaled back. I think it is very difficult to build interest when so many vague and unclear jobs are up for grabs. It makes the elections seem intimidating and confusing for anyone outside of the SFSS subculture. Then when outsiders do run they are mocked and belittled for not "understanding" how the SFSS works, even though this is very difficult to learn unless you are already inside the system to some degree. Thus we get elections which are really more about establishing elite consensus over which members of the elite are fit to rule rather a genuinely, widespread democratic exercise. And this harms everyone. It certainly harms the politicians because they believe they are elected with a broad democratic mandate from the students when they really aren't. And the outsiders are harmed as well, since they become quickly frustrated and disillusioned with a system that outwardly professes to be quite democratic and powerful when in actuality it is quite weak and elitist.
I think the SFSS should probably appoint more of its executive jobs internally, rather than say, making a very complex, bureaucratic job like "internal relations officer" an elected position. No student voter can ever hope to understand a job like that in any sophisticated way, let alone determine who is most qualified to hold it. While scaling back the elected SFSS offices I'd like to see the SFSS place much greater emphasis on publicizing the Senate and Board of Governors elections, since those are the bodies that actually make significant changes to university policy- which is in turn what most students are interested in. But Senate and Board elections are notoriously- and I believe purposely- invisible and underreported, and the student body is even less informed about the affairs of those institutions than they are about the SFSS. Which really warps the political culture and spreads ignorance. When people say the "SFSS doesn't do anything" it's because they have overly high expectations of what the SFSS is capable of doing in the first place- expectations which are driven by the fact that the SFSS appears to be the only student representative body on campus, and that it holds vast, expensive elections every year in which a large number of "politicians" are elected on highly populist slogans about changing this-or-that and delivering results for YOU. But they never actually deliver, and I would argue it's because in many ways the SFSS can't really deliver much to students in the first place. The SFSS should drop a lot of its democratic pretenses and openly embrace a more purely bureaucratic role and identity, while students should be encouraged to look more to the BoG and Senate for genuine, democratic student political leadership. The problem of the SFU political culture today is not so much a lack of information as it is a problem of MISinformation, perpetuated form many sides.
My core thinking about the fundamental worth SFSS has not changed much despite the fact that I myself am now much more of an "insider" in the system. If anything, my experiences have strengthened my original convictions. I befriended all of the candidates during this election, but I honestly did not care who won and who lost in any given race. I'm not really interested in the politics of the student union- only the institutions. And in whatever way I can, I will continue to stay involved in trying to achieve institutional reform at the SFSS, so long as I am a student at SFU.
But enough of my ramblings. Thanks to everyone who voted and ran in this election. There are many criticisms to be made, but at the end of the day those who do make the decision to get involved in student life- whatever their motivation- will always deserve praise.
A very thoughtful post, J.J.
However, I will have to very much disagree with the main point. I don't think that the "institution" is the problem, but the membership, something which I've always maintained. It is not that the students are alienated by a incomprehensible institution (although that is certainly a factor), but rather its because the affairs of their student society is, unfortunately, a rather low priority for them.
I'm sure that I'm going to be accused of reviving the ghost of "youth voter apathy", but I'm not doing such a thing if the "ghost" is still very much alive. In this modern society of ours, there is an increasing sense of fragmentation and individualization, something that is also reflected in the attitudes of your average student. "What does this have to do with me?" they ask. "I don't see how this affects my daily life," say others. As long as the club and DSU funding keeps flowing in, and as long as there are others that will do the work of organizing for them, freeing them up to do whatever it is strike their fancy, then they frankly couldn't care less about what happens around them. The sad irony is that, by relying upon others to be involved, these people are surrendering their freedoms to those who may not have their best interests in mind.
We live in the world were many people, including our peers, are only concerned with what is immedietely perceptable. There is a loss of the idea that somehow we are all part of something bigger than ourselves, whether it is the nation or the student society, and this is a far more fundamental problem than a onerous institution. If the student body continues to internalize itself, then no amonut of effective campaigning or outreach which ever strike them.
I admit that this is a rather dreary assessment of the situation, but I am just frustrated that this deleterious attitude is constantly perpetuated by the zeitgeist. But that doesn't mean I've given up. No...I still have plenty of hope for my vast stores of optimism that, somehow, things are going to get better (really, I do). Even if people are becoming increasingly fragmented from society, ultimately they will be prompted by the very innate disposition to form community with others. Though I do believe that apathy/disconnection is the great problem, I believe even strongly in something called "human nature", and if people are naturally political animals, then some kind of awakening is bound to follow. At the very least, I'm relying on it.
Of course, all of this depends upon the choices that we will make. So...what do you choose?
Joe Paling, MSO in May
A couple days have passed since the election results arrived. I would just like to take a brief moment to thanks all those who took the time to research the candidates, make an informed choice and vote!
I would also like to point out that for my position, many of my opponents had some good ideas. I believe very strongly that a winning candidate has the duty of not only representing the people who voted for him, but also the people who voted against him (this is even more apparent when winning with 45% of the vote).
So, I am going to take a closer look at my opponents' platforms, and see which issues are feasible and can be done within our budget. This is a balancing act, so I hope no one expects the implementation of all of Dan Green and Joel Warren's policies. Rather I want you, the membership to tell me what you want, and to be receptive of the budgetary limitations imposed on the society.
We can do a lot, but not everything.
Joe Paling
facebook or joseph_paling@sfu.ca
I think that banning slates often reduces voter turnout. One of the rationales for banning slates is that people recruit their friends to run for positions they might not know a lot about. Is that a bad thing? As long as the slates are non-binding (e.g. you can vote President from Team Red and ERO from Team Yellow), no one's hands are forced. More importantly, the way most students get involved in a club, a society, any thing really, is when a friend gets them involved. There are only a few really hyper politicized people who will get involved in SFSS themselves. More will join if a friend brings them in as a volunteer and later encourages them to run as a candidate.
It's also way, way, way harder for voters to navigate voting for almost a dozen different people when there are no slates. There's nothing immoral about wanting a team of people with roguhly the same goals for a year.
As one of the Forum reps on the committee that drafted the revisions to the election rules ("CPR"), I spent a lot of time thinking about the implications of banning slates, and also asked a bunch of people what they thought of this idea. I think that there are many pro's to the slate system, and also many con's.
I've heard a few people say that voter turnout is lower without slates. I'm not personally concerned about this because (1) noone has yet given me any evidence in support of a strong relationship between slates/no slates and voter turnout; (2) There are many other changes that could be made to increase voter turnout if this is a concern; and (3) I don't think a decline in voter turnout that results only from eliminating slates constitutes a real problem.
I agree that many people becaome involved in student politics because thier friends encourage them to get involved, but I don't expect that eliminating slates will stop this from happening. It *would* do so if the motivation of "hyper politicized people" for getting friends involved were only to fill up their slate with candidates -- and if this is the main motivation at play then we have much more serious problems to deal with than whether or not we have slates!
I am an incoming board member, and I was not planning to run in this (slate-less) election until someone encouraged me to do so. I personally encouraged several people to run in this election who have no previous involvement in student politics above the DSU level, but who I thought would be good at the job (none chose to run). I think it's unfortunate that so many positions were uncontested in this election, but this might well be because this is the first election without slates, and this might correct itself next year.
I agree that "there's nothing immoral about wanting a team of people with roughly the same goals for a year" - but I also haven't ever heard anyone state the contrary! Also, I don't think that eliminating slates stands in the way of a cohesive board of directors - students will always vote for candidates whose platforms they agree with, which is unlikely to result in a board comprised of people with diametrically opposed platforms.
Overall, I do agree that the slate system has good points as well as bad; but in my mind the bad has outweighed the good at SFU in recent times.
A lot of very odd statements get made regarding banning slates... on the topic of it somehow reducing voter turnout, theres no real statistical evidence.
UBC has now held three general elections sans slates (thankfully), and voter turnout hasnt dropped in any real way.
Also, is a higher boter turnout a good thing?
I would prefer if you had higher voter education and lower turnout than the other way round.
Does banning slates increase or decrease voter education? Fucked if I know, but it certainly doesnt particularly affect turnout.
Just to echo Pat's comments, UBC's voter turnout (despite numerous inaccurate stories to the contrary) has not significantly changed in the last three elections. However, turnout for individual races has plummeted. What we saw was voters showing up to the polls and choosing not to vote in faces where they didn't have a definite opinion, or maybe because they didn't like any other candidate.
Changes that should be made: include a "None of the Above" option on the ballot.
Changes that should be considered: Approval voting where you can cast a vote for each candidate of yes/neutral/no to express your opinion of them. That translates to votes of +1/0/-1 and the candidate with the overall net vote wins.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home