Direct democracy at UVic
The University of Victoria Students' Society held a most eventful Special General Meeting on March 30, 2007.
First, the SGM passed a motion establishing an independent legal investigation into the 2006 general election by a named lawyer - Bruce Hallsor - without specifying a spending cap on this investigation. The 2006 election was marred by controversy, involving incumbent Chairperson Penny Beames suing the UVSS over the issue of whether or not opponent Mike Waters, who received slightly more votes than she did, should be disqualified for alleged campaign rule violations. As a result of this motion's passage, only another general meeting can alter Mr. Hallsor's authority to investigate the election.
Bruce Hallsor is involved with Fair Vote Canada, and he is also a Conservative Party activist, and a former candidate for the Canadian Alliance. He was recommended by Erica Virtue, the incoming UVSS Director of Services and the sole winning executive candidate from the "Vote A.C.T. Now" slate. Virtue may have to mend some fences this year; Erin Sikora, a former director of the UVSS, has alleged that she made some unconciliatory comments regarding her competitors at the close of her election campaign. (Virtue is also part of the "UVic Young Republicans" and "A referendum to have the UVSS leave the CFS" Facebook groups.)
The second interesting motion that was introduced was a motion giving $20,000 a year to various student engineering societies - which likely would have passed, since engineering students dominated the meeting room - except that opponents of the motion staged a walk-out, forcing the meeting to lose quorum. This exact strategy was used at the SFSS Annual General Meeting in 2003, and a modification of that strategy was used to derail an impeachment effort at the Douglas Students' Union just a few months ago. (Even if the SGM remained quorate, however, it is doubtful that the engineers would have been able to get their UVSS gravy train; under Robert's Rules of Order, no business can be legitimately entertained at a special general meeting unless previous notice of motion is given.)
General meetings of students' unions are required by provincial legislation in British Columbia, but the phenomenon is not universal. To my knowledge, Alberta and Ontario students' unions do not have general meetings. In contrast many have linked the success of the Quebec student movement to their reliance on direct democracy in the form of student general meetings.
[EDITED the third paragraph 2007-04-21.]
First, the SGM passed a motion establishing an independent legal investigation into the 2006 general election by a named lawyer - Bruce Hallsor - without specifying a spending cap on this investigation. The 2006 election was marred by controversy, involving incumbent Chairperson Penny Beames suing the UVSS over the issue of whether or not opponent Mike Waters, who received slightly more votes than she did, should be disqualified for alleged campaign rule violations. As a result of this motion's passage, only another general meeting can alter Mr. Hallsor's authority to investigate the election.
Bruce Hallsor is involved with Fair Vote Canada, and he is also a Conservative Party activist, and a former candidate for the Canadian Alliance. He was recommended by Erica Virtue, the incoming UVSS Director of Services and the sole winning executive candidate from the "Vote A.C.T. Now" slate. Virtue may have to mend some fences this year; Erin Sikora, a former director of the UVSS, has alleged that she made some unconciliatory comments regarding her competitors at the close of her election campaign. (Virtue is also part of the "UVic Young Republicans" and "A referendum to have the UVSS leave the CFS" Facebook groups.)
The second interesting motion that was introduced was a motion giving $20,000 a year to various student engineering societies - which likely would have passed, since engineering students dominated the meeting room - except that opponents of the motion staged a walk-out, forcing the meeting to lose quorum. This exact strategy was used at the SFSS Annual General Meeting in 2003, and a modification of that strategy was used to derail an impeachment effort at the Douglas Students' Union just a few months ago. (Even if the SGM remained quorate, however, it is doubtful that the engineers would have been able to get their UVSS gravy train; under Robert's Rules of Order, no business can be legitimately entertained at a special general meeting unless previous notice of motion is given.)
General meetings of students' unions are required by provincial legislation in British Columbia, but the phenomenon is not universal. To my knowledge, Alberta and Ontario students' unions do not have general meetings. In contrast many have linked the success of the Quebec student movement to their reliance on direct democracy in the form of student general meetings.
[EDITED the third paragraph 2007-04-21.]
Labels: victoria
29 Comments:
Hey Titus,
McMaster has General Meeting, just the Executive calls them at the last minute in March for the middle of the day when they know students cannot attend. Students at McMaster are planning to force a Special General Meeting in the fall.
UToronto SU held a quorate assembly this past fall.
UGuelph has General Meetings.
We have general meetings at Scarborough too. That is, if students show up. Which they did this year. Yay!
I don't believe Universities in Alberta have general meetings, but until just about three years ago they were mandatory as a part of the Societies Act for the students' associations at colleges and technical institutes. That requirement changed when the Post Secondary Learning Act was past, and as part of my tenure as VPOF at SAGMC, I got rid of them in the constitution of Grant MacEwan College. I know for a fact that they continue to be held (and continue to fail to get quorum) at other colleges and technical institutes in Alberta, either through a lack of constitutional change to catch up with the PSLA, or misplaced nostalgia, I suppose. The PSLA requires instead the capacity for student-initiated referendum processes, with a 10% petition causing a binding referendum. That provision has not yet been used, to my knowledge.
The Ryerson Students' Union has two general meetings every year, and usually the dates for these are set well in advance. They have a relatively high quorum for their meetings (100 students) but in recent years have done a pretty good job of getting through the agenda.
Of course, BC Student Societies are under the BC Societies Act, not the University Act and so have a requirement to hold an AGM.
The AMS/UVSS has always had two meetings to conduct business. I haven't bothered to look at how things have evolved but the Engineer Student Societies had a dedicated fee put in place during my term as Director of Academics and it is puzzling why they would should be receiving extra fees.
In addition, as the budget is required to be passed at the AGM in the fall, any amendment to that budget would require a two-thirds vote to amend it.
The first requirement of members of a Board of Directors is to learn the rules, the second is to obey them and to ignore who say that bylaws and policies are only "guidelines."
The SUB bureaucrats are employees of the BoD and have to be consistently reminded of this. Unfortunately, the BoD was castrated by its employees. They cut the meetings down to about 30% of what were held before.
Marne has made you all irrelevant and your predecessors marched willingly to the guillotine.
George, I am not sure what you mean by:
"They cut the meetings down to about 30% of what were held before."
When we were students the UVSS had an SGM and AGM plus one BoD meeting a week, save for holidays.
That hasn't changed, although the monday nights only meeting was changed for a while...
"[Ryerson has] a relatively high quorum for their meetings (100 students) but in recent years have done a pretty good job of getting through the agenda."
Ya, it's amazing how many students you can attract to an AGM by manufacturing some unsubstantiated fear that Muslim students just might lose their prayer space once again...
Just a heads up, the UVic Young Republicans group is obviously a joke, and Erin Sikora's blog should not be cited as fact.
Stacy, the BoD was scheduled to meet 22 during this year and met 25 times this year.
They used to meet weekly except for two or three weeks at Christmas.
George,
having been involved in many non profits, I would contest the idea that meeting weekly makes you a more effective board, or makes the board have more control over the organization.
In my experience, meeting weekly can take time away from time spent looking into major questions about long term plans for your organization.
What really matters is whether the board understands its role and feels free to give the general direction to the organization.
Stacy, you changed oars on me.
Student Societies are not your average non-profit. First, membership and a hefty fee are forced onto you whether you like you it or not. Second, the BoD is in charge of a multi million dollar business which is managed by a large bureaucracy. This only works because they are subsidized by student fees.
It is in the interest of this bureaucracy that the Directors never realize that they are the ones in charge.
Once Rob Fleming left, the tradition of student reps keeping a close eye on the finances of the Society ended. Thus came the Business Manager who stole a huge stack of student dollars.
The Martlet has been particularly bad in their coverage of the UVSS over the last couple of years as well. Students will never find out what's going on if the press ignores what goes on in the SUB
I bet you I could go through the monthly Accpac printouts and find all kinds of interesting misspending that the Board is unaware of. Maybe not as fun as someone putting down a down payment out the UVSS's funds but interesting.
Of course, as you are in a similar role now in the GSS, it's not surprising that you disagree with me.
Wow Titus, if you're treating Erin Sikora's blog as even slightly credible then my opinion of you just fell dramatically. The UVic young republicans Facebook group is a huge joke, a couple young New Democrats are in there.
I have to agree. Don't believe everything you read on blogs, wikipedia, Facebook etc. This should be common sense, but it does not appear to be.
Please read the minutes of the March 12, 2007 board meeting.
http://www.uvss.uvic.ca/board/minutes/2006-2007/minutes%202007-03-12.pdf
There you will learn that the Engineering Students made a more than reasonable attempt to put this motion on the agenda before the SGM by presenting a petition with more than enough signatures to the board. The board chose to vote against this.
The funny thing about that is the board had no right at all to not put the motion on the agenda. They broke the society act when they did that.
Titus, the slate is called "act now" not "vote act now" do your research, or don't write a blog that presents itself as news and fact.
Geroge,
Perhaps I am biased due to my job at the UVIC GSS, but still... a board that is meeting every two weeks (which is not 30% of what the UVSS did in past, btw) --and signing all the cheques in the case of the executive-- gives a board of directors every opportunity to question every expense. And they should certainly do so.
At the GSS I have been asked by a director to provide more explanation for expenses, and I always take it as a sign the board member is doing their job.
Perhaps it is my bias as you say, but I don't think you can lay a culture of not watching the books (if that is what is happening) entirely at the feet of the staff.
Staff are culpable for their mismanagement of the money, when they do this. But the board is responsible for their own due diligence.
Students on a board not only should but are obliged to ask questions and know the details for how the money they are responsible to oversee is spent.
Now, if you were saying students at any student union were refused information about the finances when they asked the staff, then I would think there is a problem--whether talking about a small NGO with a budget of $1000 or a large student union.
You are right, student unions are different than other non-profits. But many non profits also have businesses, larger budgets, and much more staff and those non profis boards should also be exercising diligence--yet, even still, they usually meet only a few times a year.
I would suggest the reason many student unions should meet more frequently than quarterly as done in other sectors is not the fincances but that you want you the board directly involved as representatives on campus and with hands on campaign development.
You don't need a board meeting to ask questions about the money.
George,
PS I am glad you think Rob did a good job--so do I.
Stacy
Bloggers link to other bloggers all the time. Get over it.
And to the anonymous person questioning my credibility: I stand by ever word that I have written. For the post in question, I have an insane amount of witnesses for everything that I wrote. People should be more careful about things that they yell out so publicly.
Yes bloggers quote bloggers all the time, but it is good practice to only quote the *opinions* that bloggers make. It is not good practice, however, to quote the facts that are claimed that do not come for more legitimate sources.
You can stand by everything you say all you want, but that doesn't make everything you say and claim necessarily true. While some claims are spot on, others I would strongly debate.
What the heck is an "insane amount of witnesses" anyhow?
Yes, Stacy and he's likely to be the next leader of the NDP as Carol is messing up big time.
I edited the third paragraph of this blog entry so I am no longer citing the claims made in Erin Sikora's blog as fact.
SUs in Alberta are incorporated through the Post-Secondary Learning Act, and the Act gives all authority to govern SUs to their Councils. While an SU's bylaws can certainly authorize general meetings (for instance, the U of A SU's annual election forum is technically a general meeting), no decisions can be made by general meetings. The only way to have direct democracy is via referendum.
-- Chris Jones
wasn't erica's sgm motion served without notice like the engineering one? neither of them were on the agenda.
does that mean they "do not count" or whatever?
According to UVSS bylaws you don't have to serve notice to amend the agenda of an AGM, unless in cases of impeachment or policy ammendment.
Both Erica's motions and the Engineers motion were ruled out of order by the chair but then were successfully challenged by the floor and put on the agenda. The chair of the meeting was Scott Payne, a past UVSS board member and B.C. chair of the CFS.
The Engineers tried to put their motion on the agenda in advance but were denied dispite organizing a petition. Several members of the board were given advance notice of Erica's motion and had discussed it prior to the meeting.
Anonymous said: "According to UVSS bylaws you don't have to serve notice to amend the agenda of an AGM, unless in cases of impeachment or policy ammendment."
But this is a Special General Meeting, not an Annual General Meeting. What do the UVSS bylaws say regarding Special General Meetings? (Speaking of which: can anyone get me a copy of the UVSS Bylaws?)
If they don't say anything (other than 'Follow Robert's Rules of Order'), then previous notice is required for all motions at an SGM, because Robert's Rules of Order mandates previous notice for all motions brought before special meetings (10th ed., p. 90).
In other news:
Erica Virtue has stated on her Facebook group (http://tinyurl.com/2kxmma) that Penny Beames, outgoing UVSS Chairperson, has proposed a motion at today's UVSS Board meeting appointing Sandra McCallum to conduct the internal inquiry into the 2006 and 2007 elections.
In the UVSS Constitution and Bylaws, the same rules apply to Annual General Meetings, Semi-Annual General Meetings, and Special General Meetings.
Only Special Resolutions require prior notice, the "proposed" agenda is set 14 days in advance of the meeting, but anyone can bring motions from the floor.
Message me an address Titus, and I'll mail you a copy.
Wow this certainly is an interesting discussion.
I think you are mistaken Erica. I cannot find a section in the bylaws specifying that someone is able to pass motions on the floor. If there is, please point me to it.
Bylaw IV - General Meetings and Referenda
4.8 Notice for General Meetings or Referenda
- outlines what notice is. Part of it is the proposed agenda.
4.11 Rules of Order
"Subject to any special resolutions of the Students' Society the most recent edition of Robert's Rules of Order (or another recognized rules of order agreed upon by the BoD) shall govern the conduct of all general meetings of the Students' Society"
Page 90, line 16 or RRoO
"With the exception of motions that relate to procedure without direct reference to a particular substantive item of business, only business mentioned in the call of a special meeting can be transacted at such a meeting..."
Page 116, line 21
"Motions that have the effect of changing or nullifying previous action of the assembly-such as the motion to rescind or to amend something previously adopted, the motion to discharge a committee, or a motion to postpone an event already scheduled- require previous notice if they are to be adopted by only a majority vote..."
The motion you put forward did not have notice. It did not "represent the general membership" because it was not included on the Agenda that was sent to the general membership.
The logic of being able to pass motions on the floor without notice would permit 100 students to go to an SGM and give themselves $100,000.
There is a clear hierarchy of resolutions for general meetings. "Special Resolutions" which are required to change the Constitution, Bylaws or Policy.
They require a Board motion or a petition of 1%, the Board cannot refuse to put a SR on the agenda.
"Ordinary Resolutions" is what people are calling "motions from the floor." They can be moved at any time during a meeting but is out of order if it goes against any part of the C,B or P. If it amending a prior OR passed during that Board's mandate, it requires a 2/3's vote to amend.
A Special General Meeting can only discuss matters as designated in the motion or petition which created the meeting. See Titus's Robert's quote. It is not an open issue meeting. If this was the reason these were ruled out of order, the Chair was correct unless the Engineers petition called the SGM which requires the signatures of 10% of the students. I doubt they found that many people who cared.
The BC Society Act which trumps all other references also states that the only business that can be conducted during a SGM is that business stated by the motion that created the meeting.
In any case, as the budget was passed by the AGM any motion that spends money is an amendment to that budget and a 2/3's vote is required whether it is at the SAGM or a SGM.
PS.
Of course, Jeremy, 100 students could go to an AGM and amend the budget to spend money any way they wanted to.
George the Reformer says: "The BC Society Act which trumps all other references also states that the only business that can be conducted during a SGM is that business stated by the motion that created the meeting."
The Society Act does not reference Special General Meetings. A sample set of bylaws (Schedule B) does make reference to "extraordinary general meetings"; however, the sample bylaws *only* apply if the society has adopted them as its bylaws. Since the UVSS has its own bylaws, the Schedule B bylaws do not apply.
It does not use the term "special" in the act but this section describes a general meeting that is called outside of the AGM & SAGM mandated by the UVSS bylaws.
"Requisition for general meeting
58 (1) In this section, "requisitionists" means the voting members who requisition a general meeting of the society under subsection (2).
(2) The directors of a society, on the requisition of 10% or more of the voting members of the society must convene a general meeting of the society without delay.
(3) The requisition may consist of several documents in similar form each signed by one or more requisitionists and must
(a) state the purpose of the general meeting,
(b) be signed by the requisitionists, and
(c) be delivered or sent by registered mail to the address of the society.
(4) If, within 21 days after the date of the delivery of the requisition, the directors do not convene a general meeting, the requisitionists, or a majority of them, may themselves convene a general meeting to be held within 4 months after the date of the delivery of the requisition.
(5) A general meeting convened by the requisitionists must be convened in the same manner, as nearly as possible, as general meetings are convened by the directors."
So as (3)a states in combination to what Jeremy quoted from Robert's:
"Page 90, line 16 or RRoO
"With the exception of motions that relate to procedure without direct reference to a particular substantive item of business, only business mentioned in the call of a special meeting can be transacted at such a meeting...""
and in combination with the definition in the UVSS bylaws of a SGM, my statement stands.
"the only business that can be conducted during a SGM is that business stated by the motion that created the meeting."
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home