The CFS campaign

Here are all the interesting websites relating to the defederation campaigns at SFU, Kwantlen, and the University of Victoria:

Pro-CFS:
CFS campaign site for Simon Fraser University: www.yescfs.ca
CFS campaign site for University of Victoria Graduates: www.uvic.yescfs.ca
Camosun College Student Society site: www.cfstruth.org
CFS-BC 'membership development': www.iamcfs.ca
I AM CFS Facebook group

Anti-CFS:
Simon Fraser Student Society site: www.sfss.ca/independence
Kwantlen Student Association site: www.cfstruth.ca
University of Victoria Graduate Students' Society site: cogitoergono.blogspot.com
WE WANT OUT Facebook group (SFU)
Kwantlen students want out of the CFS! Facebook group

Neutral:
The Canadian Federation of Students Debate - A Neutral Forum Facebook group


Also, the CFS has applied to the Supreme Court of British Columbia for an injunction postponing the KSA's defederation referendum to the fall of 2008. The KSA has put up a site listing the documents filed by both sides in this case: http://www.kusa.ca/cfsvsksa
Erin Millar reported on this controversy at Macleans.ca

In other news, the written war has begun at SFU...

From this week's Peak:

• Give the CFS a chance by Aman Bains (opinion, pro-CFS)
  
• The Deceitful Dancing Duo by Robin Steudel (opinion, pro-CFS)
• B.C. Chairperson of the CFS responds to Harder and Paling by Shara Lee (news)
• Why We Should Leave by Amy Fox, SFSS ERO (opinion, anti-CFS)

... In which we attempt to stop the re-writing of history...

...And so yesterday I attended the opening plenary meeting of the Semi-Annual General Meeting of the Canadian Federation of Students - British Columbia. Here is a precis of the more interesting things that happened.

After preliminary matters, we came to:

8. Preparation for Committees

All committees were struck (Campaigns; Finance; Organizational and Services Development; Policy Review and Development).

When the motion was moved to adopt the Finance Committee agenda, the Simon Fraser Student Society (SFSS) noted that the Finance Committee agenda curiously did not include any information on audits. This was rather odd, given that the CFS-BC was, at that time, 2.5 years behind in its financial statements. The SFSS moved that the Finance Committee agenda be amended to include (1) Review of Audits, (2) Appointment of Auditor, and (3) that the Auditor be present at the Finance Committee meeting as a resource person. Amendment approved.

9. Consideration of Motions Served With Due Notice

A great deal of motions were moved, seconded, and referred to an appropriate plenary committee. The motions included matters relating to general meetings; research on student financial assistance, Campus 2020, private loans, and international students. The Malaspina Students' Union submitted this gem: "Be it resolved that a handbook on best practices in financial management be produced as a resource for member local boards of directors and staff," which was submitted to the Organizational and Services Development Committee.

The only motion that aroused controversy during this meeting was this resolution, submitted by the Graduate Students' Society of the University of Victoria:

Whereas a CUP resolution was passed such that the Death Star fund not be otherwise appropriated; and

Whereas no other vessel or vehicle is sufficiently evil or potentially, advantageously destructive; and

Whereas construction has begun in a secret facility hidden in a galaxy far, far away; and

Whereas a construction job of that magnitude would require a helluva lot more manpower than the Imperial army had to offer – I’ll bet there are independent contractors working on that thing: plumbers, aluminum siders, roofers…!; therefore

Be it resolved that independent contractors hired by the CUP be offered benefit packages accordant with the hazardous working conditions posed; and

Be it further resolved that in the interest of an egalitarian destructive weapons base, funding be increased for the Death Star Gay Bar; and

Be it further resolved that in the case that the pesky Federation discovers the weakness of the yet incomplete Death Star, i.e. typos on Joey Coleman’s blog, that the independent contractors be evacuated promptly; and

Be it further resolved that minacious posturing by the Federation be tantamount to a declaration of boredom, and that, foreseeing spurious debate upon the cryptic nature of such ridiculous resolutions

Be it further resolved that we acknowledge on behalf of the CFS that a safely completed Death Star is disastrous, as Darth Vader would never vote NDP, and therefore must be barraged at all costs with Mark Hamill’s wooden acting and reactionary plenary oversight

This motion was fairly clear to the small group of us in the room who (1) had attended the May 2007 National General Meeting and witnessed the plenary notify the National Executive about the "attempts by the Canadian University Press to influence the decision-making of the [national plenary] Organizational and Services Development Committee" and (2) were actually familiar with CUP's joke "Death Star" motion [which is hilarious in and of itself].... It's hard to tell what the rest of the plenary felt about this motion - and we will probably never know, since a motion was promptly moved to Object to the Consideration of this motion.

9. Presentation of the Report of the Executive Committee

Now this was interesting. The Report of the Executive Committee was presented, even though the Executive Committee itself never had a chance to review and approve the report.... Two particularly controversial portions of this report were aroused great controversy, under the most amusing heading "Membership Issues": Douglas Students' Union and the Simon Fraser Student Society. The Douglas Students' Union section read as follows:

LOCAL 18 - DOUGLAS STUDENTS' UNION
For almost two years the administration at Douglas College refused to remit local and
Federation membership fees collected for the member local union. The College's
intial claim was that the member local union was not in compliance with the
College and Institute Act, the legislation in BC that obligates institutions to
collect and remit students' unions' and provincial and national students'
organisation's membership fees to the respective organisations. Upon the member
local union's demonstration of its compliance with the Act, the College created
a list of demands that it required be met before the member local union's and
Federation's fees would be remitted. The demands from the College far
outstripped the obligations of the member local union according to the Act and
sought to undermine the autonomy of the Union. The Union refused to meet the
College's criteria and remained firm in its resolution that its compliance with
the Act obligated the College to remit the dues it was illegally holding.

In response to the College's unwillingness to fulfill its obligation, the Union
initiated legal action to obtain its dues and ensure that the Federation's dues
were remitted. The College launched a counter petition, requesting that the
Union be put into receivership with a receiver manager of the College's
choosing. The College named as its desired receiver manager expensive firm
Deloitte and Touche, the Union, agreeing that the appointment of a receiver
manager would be beneficial, proposed Local 44-University of Victoria Students'
Society General Manager Marne Jensen.
Given that it had a vested interest in a responsible resolution to the dispute, the Federation sought and was afforded
intervener status on the case and expressed its agreement with the member local
union that Jensen be apointed receiver manager. In early January, the case was
heard before the BC Supreme Court; the judge's ruling not only agreed with the
member local union and Federation's request that Jensen be appointed as receiver
manager, but also vindicated their assertions that the Douglas College
administration had been illegally withholding both the member local union's and
the Federation's membership dues.
Since the ruling, Douglas College has
released the dues it was illegally holding to the member local unions and the
Federation. The Receiver Manager, working with the Students' Union's Board of
Directors, has enacted appropriate financial controls, and is working to ensure
the Board is able to stabilise its financial situation and complete its late
audits.
Elections for the Board of Directors were held in April and the new
Board took office May 1. Federation membersin BC have been supporting the newly
elected representatives so that they are able to address internal challenges
while offering useful servicces and effective representation for
members.

Representatives of the Douglas Students' Union pointed out the following flaws in this section of the Executive Committee report:

• The DSU has never, since the controversy began, become compliant with the Society Act's requirements of annual audits. (For more information, please see the following extracts from court documents: Affidavit of Karen Maynes #1; Exhibit G (draft, unaudited financial statements for 2005); and Exhibit L (Don Crane's demand letter that claims that the DSU is in compliance with the Act.)
• The DSU Board of Directors never agreed that Marne Jensen should be appointed General Manager; the DSU's lawyer, Don Crane, made this submission to the Court without their consent. [Interestingly enough, Mr. Crane's position happened to coincide with that of the Federation's position...]
• they said that the Courts never "vindicated" the position of the Federation re: the alleged 'illegality' of Douglas College's withholding of CFS fees; their only Order was to appoint Marne Jensen as receiver manager.
• they disputed the assertion that "The Reciever Manager, working with the Students' Union's Board of Directors, has enacted appropriate financial controls, and is working to ensure the Board is able to stabilise its financial stituation and complete its late audits."

The Kwantlen Student Association (KSA) then moved that that portion of the report be referred back to the Executive Committee. When the vote was called for 'in favour,' half a dozen students' unions raised their voting cards, while the majority of them didn't do so. When the vote was called for 'against,' a couple of voting-card-carryers half-raised their cards - I presume hoping that the other Fedhead unions would join them in shooting down this motion. This did not happen, however, and so rather than bravely raise their cards in the air, these two 'half-against' student unions simply put their cards down - meaning that the motion passed unanimously! My interpretation was that they were too embarassed to attempt to rewrite history without the support of all the other loyalist/Fedhead students' unions in the Component.... (Interestingly enough, one of these voting-card-holders was Steve Beasley, Executive Director of the Malapsina Students' Union....)

(I have uploaded onto my webpage hundreds of pages of court documents that I pulled from the Supreme Court of BC registry several months ago relating to the Douglas Students' Union case. Read them, and then tell me whose story you believe!)

Immediately after this vote passed, a number of rather unhappy Fedhead delegates came to the microphone. One delegate insisted that this motion was out of order. Anita Zaenker, the Plenary Chair, disagreed.

A motion was then moved to approve the Executive Committee report, except for the Douglas Students' Union portion.

Then came the Simon Fraser Student Society, who objected to this portion of the Executive Committee report:

LOCAL 23 - SIMON FRASER STUDENT SOCIETY
In March a letter from a member of the Local 23 Board of Directors was received by the
Vancouver office, stating that the Local had held a referendum to defederate.
The Federation clarified to the Local that no referendum had been held.

The SFSS moved that that portion also be referred back to the Executive Committee.
While this was being debated, the Douglas Students' Union then moved that the ENTIRE report be referred back to the Executive Committee, citing yet additional flawed references in the Executive Committee report to the Douglas Students' Union....

The motion to refer the entire Executive Committee report to the Executive failed, with UVic Grads, DSU, SFSS, and KSA voting in favour.

The amendment relating to the SFSS succeeded on a very tight vote. (A motion moved earlier that this vote be taken by roll call was defeated.)

Finally, the main motion passed. UVic Grads, DSU, SFSS, Capilano Students' Union and KSA voted against, citing the continued inclusion of false statements in relation to the Douglas Students' Union case in the report....

The entire meeting was rather emotional, even though we were not debating the expenditure of money or the launch of a campaign; all we were doing was arguing over a certain version of events. It was clear that CFS-BC (or rather, the at-large officers and their loyalists) wanted desperately to spin the situation as "Evil Douglas College versus Oppressed Douglas Students' Union," presumably so as to justify the hundreds of thousands of dollars that CFS-Services and CFS-BC lent to the DSU in 2005 and 2006 (without Board of Directors resolutions, might I add) and portray the Federation as "liberator" rather than "participant in cover-up" or "waster of money," etc.

In any event, today and tomorrow we have committee meetings, speakers, caucuses, and workshops of various sorts. Sunday is the day for Closing Plenary, when motions that have been debated in committees get voted on.

I agree with Aaron Takhar!

On banning slates, that is.

In his March 26 letter to the editor, SFU student (and former Kwantlen Student Association executive) Aaron Takhar argued against the recent decision of the SFSS Board of Directors to ban slates from its annual general elections. He claimed that the incumbent Board of Directors "have just been given — by themselves via a vote on the resolution — an even greater advantage over those new students who (almost) cared enough to consider running in the election." "You can’t ban politics," he continues, "you can only restrict it from the less fortunate; in this case it is new students that sought to run but eventually decided against it" — such as, say, himself.

Now, I'm not entirely convinced of Mr. Takhar's argument. Prior to the Alma Mater Society's ban on slates, the "Students for Students" slate won election after election through the inculcation of its brand name, even though (in general) only one of it's incumbent executives was running for re-election. Perhaps the 2007 election at SFU is different due to the large number of incumbents running for re-election.

However, in my opinion, there are at least three good reasons to oppose the banning of slates:

1. As a pure matter of principle, banning slates is anti-democratic and contrary to freedom of speech and freedom of association. Everyone should have the right to join together with like-minded fellow students and seek to influence the direction of their students' union, both during elections and outside of them.
   
   
2. Many students' unions have a very large number of different 'categories' of positions for which one can run in an election. Many large students' unions have five or so full-time executive positions, plus a large number of unpaid Council positions; many smaller students' unions have over a dozen separate executive positions. Without a degree of coordination amongst potential candidates for office, it is likely that many positions would lie vacant or be won by acclamation. [Of course, adjusting the structure of a students' union's Council/Board could eliminate this issue.]
   
   
3. Banning slates simply obscures what will likely happen anyways, behind the scenes. In particular, the 2007 election at SFU seemed to produce two 'non-slates': (1) the incumbent SFSS directors and their allies, and (2) a group of candidates from the SFU NDP club.

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 CANDIDATES
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

More information is coming....

Previous blog entry removed

My previous blog entry, "Ryerson Students' Union appoints Eric Newstadt as Chief Returning Officer," has been removed, following my receipt of a demand letter [PDF] from counsel for the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS). I removed this blog entry after noting that The Eyeopener had itself removed the article that I referenced, presumably after receiving a similar letter. The article made certain statements concerning the CFS that The Eyeopener was presumably unable to prove. Under Canadian law, the burden of proof of the truthfulness of an allegedly defamatory statement lies with the publisher of the statement in question.

Accordingly, I should make a correction to a statement that I made in that blog entry. Referring to the 2003 elections at Simon Fraser University, I referred to an article in The Peak by Derrick Harder. I should have stated: "Derrick Harder wrote about his participation in a CFS-BC-backed slate at Simon Fraser University in The Peak last November." To my knowledge, the CFS had no involvement whatsoever in that election.

Likewise, in 2002, the posters for the "Access All-Stars" slate at Simon Fraser University were designed on CFS-BC computers, in the CFS-BC provincial office, during CFS-BC office hours. And the persons who were giving the Access All-Stars candidates campaign advice were employees of CFS-BC. Again, to my knowledge, the CFS had no involvement whatsoever in that election.

A message from the Simon Fraser Student Society

The Simon Fraser Student Society released the following message today:

The Simon Fraser Student Society is pleased to announce that Hattie Aitken has been reinstated with full back pay and damages to her position as Graduate Issues and University Relations Coordinator. On behalf of the Student Society, we apologise for and withdraw any statements made on behalf of the Student Society which suggest or imply that Ms. Aitken is not honest or trustworthy or that she conspired with others against the interests of the Simon Fraser Student Society or its members.

(I don't know which organ of the Society authorized this statement.)

Paul Browning files complaint regarding SFSS by-election

This complaint was filed today with the Independent Electoral Commission:

To: SFSS Independent Electoral Commission

I am hereby submitting a complaint as follows:

The message below (both the message and the forward) were sent to a Departmental Student Union e-mail list.

In this message, contents of a blog/weblog by Titus Gregory at his website, www.studentunion.ca were copied by an individual named Theresa Hughes and then further distributed by an individual named Anita Swallow. The original posting is accessible on studentunion.ca is accessible as a posting on December 5th, 2006 with the title "SFSS By-Election: The Candidates."

I believe that this is a biased commentary on the candidates that could influence the election and could therefore be considered an unauthorized form of campaigning by Mr. Gregory, as well as the individuals that forwarded the message.

Also, in the comments underneath the posting, Xenia Menzies makes a comment on how she is voting which can also be considered an unauthorized form of campaigning. Furthermore, if you view the comments on the wesbite, other individuals including Derrick Harder and Chris Sandve also answer people's questions and/or give out their e-mail addresses in cases voters would like to contact them. I consider the postings of Harder and Sandve along with the numerous third-party comments to also be forms of unauthorized campaigning.

Sincerely,

Paul Browning

(I do not have the "message" that allegedly constituted 'unauthorized campaigning.')

I have been advised that four other election complaints have also been submitted to the Independent Electoral Commission by Paul Browning, but the Commission staff refused to deliver these to me for some reason....

SFSS by-election results

I've just received word that the unofficial early results of the SFSS by-election are:

• President: Derrick Harder, 329; Bob Wilkins, 123; Eric Lyndon Koch, 73, J. J. McCullough, 67
  
• External Relations Officer: Graham "Sasha" Fox, 255; Nigel Tunnacliffe, 173; Anita Yung, 108
  
• Internal Relations Officer: Sean Magee, 331; Lindsay Gabelhouse, 158; Kristiana Bruneau, 78
  
• Member Services Officer: Chris Sandve, 242; Bryson Yuzyk, 183; Matthew De Marchi, 103
  
• Treasurer: Adam Lein, 344; Freda Carmack, 194
  
• At-Large Representatives: Jacqueline Hiew, 179; Joseph Paling, 169; Tyler Massé, 158; Derek Andrew, 155; Karilyn Kempton, 139; Niusha Bakhtiari, 80; Ashley Nijjer, 78; Serenna Romanycia, 29

Note that absentee ballots have yet to be received and counted, so the results of the At-Large race are not yet final.

Looks like the "Revive" slate was shut out completely.

SFSS court case Reasons for Judgment released!

The Supreme Court of British Columbia has finally released the Reasons for Judgment in the case Simon Fraser Student Society v. Gregory.

You Don't Say....

From the home page of CUP: "Impromptu SFU student election cause for concern"

SFSS By-Election: The Candidates

A by-election is taking place to replace the "Group of Seven" on the Simon Fraser Student Society Board of Directors - and as far as I can tell, most SFU students don't have a clue that this is taking place! The Independent Electoral Commission helpfully informs us that voting will take place on December 18 and 19 - after final exams are all finished - and that "advance polling" will take place on December 7, 8, 12, and 15.

And what of the candidates in this by-election? No doubt many of them will be putting up glossy posters of themselves in the next few days, but this reveals little, if anything, about the candidates themselves. Fortunately, thanks to Facebook, Google, and my own knowledge of matters political at SFU, here is a brief précis of the hacks and hacks wannabe:

(1) President

• Derrick Harder is a perennial candidate and general hanger-on in matters SFSS. He was elected in 2003 as an At-Large Representative, on the Access Coalition slate, a slate that he later asserted was largely managed by various current and former Canadian Federation of Students officials. Mr. Harder was subsequently elected University Relations Officer in 2005. In a contentious by-election, he was elected to the Board of Governors of SFU (joining me). He holds other positions within the NDP and The Peak, and he is one half of SFU's Ultimate Power Couple.
  
• I have little information on Eric Lyndon Koch, beyond his entry in Facebook.
  
• J. J. McCullough is the editor of Filibuster Cartoons, a right-wing cartoon that is regularly published in a number of publications, notably the right-wing Western Standard. He is a columnist for The Other Press, the student newspaper at Douglas College; his column is called "Right Hook." He describes himself as "Very Conservative" on Facebook.
  
• Bob Wilkins is the Chair of the History Student Union of SFU. He wrote an Affidavit in support of the Respondents in the SFSS SGM trial.

(2) External Relations Officer

• Graham Fox first ran for President in 2004, as an Independent protest candidate. He tried again in 2005, this time running for President with the DoublePlusGood slate. In his spare time, Mr. Fox found time to run in the riding of Burquitlam with the Rhinoceros Party, garnering 125 votes.
  
• Nigel Tunnacliffe is a Science student; in spring 2006, he ran (and lost) on the Orange Revolution slate for At-Large Representative.
  
• I have nothing on Anita Yung.
  

(3) Internal Relations Officer

• Beyond her Facebook entry, I know nothing about Kristiana Bruneau.
  
• Lindsay Gabelhouse ran in 2006 for At-Large Representative on the Orange Revolution slate with Nigel Tunnacliffe. She is a supporter of the BC Liberals, according to her Facebook entry, and is part of the group "The Canadian Federation of Students hates students". She is the Secretary of the Kinesiology Student Association.
  
• Sean Magee served two terms as Science Representative to the SFSS, having been elected in 2004 and 2005. Mr. Magee is also a Student Senator. His Facebook entry shows him to be a CFS-hater along with his competitor Lindsay Gabelhouse.

(4) Member Services Officer

• Pretty much all that I know about MSO candidate Matthew De Marchi is his persistent opposition to the impeachment of the "Group of 7." According to the Special General Meeting minutes [PDF], Mr. De Marchi questioned the appointment of Chair Patrice Pratt; questioned the legitimacy of the Forum meeting which had called the SGM; and attempted to have the SGM consider the By-Law amendments after the impeachment motions. He wrote a letter to The Peak prior to the SGM, questioning the entire basis for impeaching the "Group of 7." After his efforts to prevent the impeachment failed, Mr. De Marchi called the SGM "A good ol'-fashion' lynchin'," "an incredible 'circle jerk,'" and a "Nuremburg Rally." He also criticized the security volunteers as "arm-banded brownshirts." Interestingly enough, one of these "brownshirts" is none-other than candidate for Internal Relations Officer Sean Magee....
  
• Chris Sandve ran for University Relations Officer with Orange Revolution in the Spring 2006 elections, finishing third (behind me). In November of this year, he was elected President of the BC Young Liberals (province-wide). His Facebook entry also shows him to be a supporter of the Conservative Party of Canada.
• Bryson Yuzyk ran for Member Services Officer in the spring 2005 elections, with the DoublePlusGood slate (along with Graham Fox), losing to Common Sense candidate Shawn Hunsdale.

(5) Treasurer

• Freda Carmack is all about politics. She is the President of the Political Science Student Union, and in a more partisan capacity she sits on the Executive of the New Westminster/Coquitlam Federal Liberal Riding Association. Her Facebook entry suggests that she was a supporter of Michael Ignatieff.
• Adam Lein is a Computing Science graduate student. He is the CS graduate rep on Forum, and in that capacity he was elected to the Lawsuit Committee, which represented Forum in its efforts to uphold the Special General Meeting.
• I have no information on Chris Rasmussen beyond his Facebook entry.

(6) At-Large Representative

• I have no information on Derek Andrew.
• Niusha Bakhtiari would be the perfect "Manchurian Candidate" - there is virtually nothing available on the Internet about her. Except one. The minutes [PDF] of the September 15, 2006 meeting of the SFSS Board of Directors show that then President Shawn Hunsdale nominated Ms. Bakhtiari nominated her, successfully, to sit on the Stipend Appeals Committee, which handles appeals from directors and Forum members over stipend deductions.
• Jacqueline Hiew is the Vice-Chair of the History Student Union. She served as Forum Rep from July 19 to September 22, 2006, and ended up being at the centre of a legal dispute over the legitimacy of the September 27 Forum [PDF] meeting.
• There are plenty of Google hits on Karilyn Kempton, but I have no idea whether they are referring to the candidate in these elections.
• Tyler Massé is a member of the Executive of the Geography Student Union.
• Ashley Nijjer's primary accomplishment to date appears to be her incendiary letter to the editor of The Peak, alleging that former President Clement Abas Appak had impure motives in pushing for the impeachment of the Group of 7, due to his affiliation with Canadian Students for Darfur. (This letter was rebutted in a subsequent letter to The Peak by Mr. Apaak.)
• Joseph Paling has written quite a number of articles to The Peak over the years.
• I have no information on Serenna Romanycia.

So that's that! SFU students: find out all the information that you can about the candidates, and please take the time to vote!

Non-SFU students: again, my apologies for the SFU-centric nature of this blog. As soon as the by-election - and my final exams (!) - are over, I will again have enough time to offer a more pan-Canadian perspective on this blog.

Victory!

The Supreme Court of British Columbia has ruled:

• that the October 25, 2006 Special General Meeting (SGM) is valid, and the impeachments are effective;
• that there no problems with the September 27, 2006 Forum meeting that called the SGM;
• that even if there were problems, the Court would nonetheless have upheld the validity of the SGM; and
• that the G7 shall pay the legal costs of the Respondents.

I will upload and post the text of the Court's judgment as soon as possible.

SFSS Legal Documents Posted

I have posted the legal documents relating to the court case over the disputed October 25, 2006 Special General Meeting on my Forum website. All in all, 19 major documents have been filed. These include:

• The Petition to the Court, filed by the Petitioners (the G7), which intiates the proceedings and spells out their intial position.
• Affidavits of various parties, which are used to affirm facts. These affidavits also contain a number of "exhibits," which are documents that will be used as evidence.
• Outlines: one outline of the Petitioners, and two outlines of the Respondents (given that we have two different lawyers). These outlines lay out, in brief, the legal arguments that each side will be making in support of their position.

SFSS Bank Crisis Resolved; Trial Dates Set

The freeze of the SFSS bank accounts has been resolved. Following a mediation session that was held on Monday, the impeached directors (the G7) and most of the remaining directors agreed on a compromise to restore the operations of the Student Society. My understanding is that the Supreme Court of British Columbia approved the following Court Order:

THE APPLICATION of the petitioners coming on for hearing at Vancouver on the 22nd day of November, 2006 and on hearing Donald G. Crane, counsel for the petitioners, and Susan Coristine, counsel for Janis Gunn, Heather Ball, Joel Blok, Melody Lee [sic], Ben Milne, Andrea Sandau and Ivy So, and BY CONSENT;

THIS COURT ORDERS that:

1. The authorizing signing officers of the Simon Fraser Student Society shall be:
   - Nancy Woodcock
   - Lawrence Jones
   - John Laurin
   - Brenda Phillips
   - Glyn Lewis
   - Ivy So
   
   
2. All cheques must be signed by two (2) of the above noted six (6) people.
   
   
3. All cheque requisitions shall be signed by each of Andrea Sandau, Joel Blok, Glyn Lewis and Margo Dunnet.
   
   
4. Stipends to the end of October of 2006 shall be processed. Stipends for the period commencing November 1, 2006 shall not be processed.
   
   
5. Legal fees shall not be processed.
   
   
6. The above terms are for the interim period pending a ruling of the Court on the matters raised in the Petition herein.
   

In addition, the Court has set the (final) Court Date for the trial on the legitimacy of the Special General Meeting for November 30 and December 1, in the Vancouver courthouse, starting at 9:45 a.m. on both days. I do not yet know the court room number.

.................
UPDATE (2006-11-23): I have made a couple of minor changes now that I have actually seen the text of the Consent Order.

Video Documentary of the Special General Meeting



Not complete, but it still gives you a good idea of the feel of the meeting.

Click here for a downloadable version of the documentary.

Special General Meeting Minutes Posted

Click here [PDF] to download the draft minutes of the October 25, 2006 Special General Meeting of the Simon Fraser Student Society. Many thanks to Amanda van Baarsen for acting as Secretary of the meeting!

Lawsuit

I am being sued. The Petitioners are the Simon Fraser Student Society, Margo Dunnet, Erica Halpern, Shawn Hunsdale, Vanessa Kelly, Glyn Lewis, Wei Li, and Marion Pollock. The Respondents are myself, Jan Gunn, and Bryan Jones. Please see this Lawsuit page for more information. The lawsuit asks the Court to order that the October 25, 2006 Special General Meeting is null and void.

Now, the interesting thing about this lawsuit is that the Simon Fraser Student Society is listed as a Petitioner, even though the Society has made no motion authorizing legal action to be taken. Furthermore, the solicitor for the Society is listed as Rush Crane Guenther, even though the Board of Directors voted on Thursday, November 2 to remove Rush Crane Guenther as their legal counsel!

Also interesting is a letter that was sent to Forum [PDF] on Thursday, November 8 by Rush Crane Guenther. This letter informs Forum that "Counsel for the Petitioners and Respondents have agreed on a date for a court hearing, being November 22, 2006." This is false. First, the Ottho Law Group (which is representing me and Bryan Jones) has made no such agreement. Second, the Ottho Law Group is not (at present) representing Jan Gunn. Rush Crane Guenther never approached Jan to ask her who her lawyer was, nor did Jan file an Appearance with the Court to this effect.

I completely concur with Geof Glass' thoughts on the Special General Meeting. In particular, this quote:

But there is no technicality. I saw Wei Li, alone at the microphone. I saw Margo Dunnet in the same place. These people are in over their heads, I thought. They are in this place, surrounded by people who reject them without even knowing them, and they don’t know how they got here. I felt for these people, even as I voted to impeach. Now I think of their faces and think: they are so ordinary, and they are tyrants.

Hat-tip: Joey Coleman

• After the protest/tea party, G7 members had staged a 24-hour "camp-out" in the Board of Directors office, ensuring that at least one member was present in the office at all times.
  
  
• The G7 have written emails to the Departmental Student Unions, Graduate Caucuses, and clubs of the SFSS, claiming that the freeze of the SFSS bank account, and the subsequent inability of the SFSS to provide grant funding to these students groups, was "because of the actions of Students for a Democratic University." SDU responded with a statement.
  
  
• The G7, through Don Crane (counsel to the SFSS [Simon Fraser Student Society]), presented an offer to the Ottho Law Group (counsel to SDU [Students for a Democratic University]), requesting that SDU accept an arrangement whereby SDU would accept that the G7 would stay on as directors, on a "without prejudice" basis (that is, without harming the legal case of SDU that the SGM [Special General Meeting] was valid), pending a decision by the courts. SDU rejected this, as (1) they were impeached because they had abused their powers as directors, and (2) we didn't believe that we had the mandate to speak on behalf of the remaining members of the Board - or the 1000+ students who participated in the SGM.
  
  
• On Tuesday, SFU President Michael Stevenson released an official statement recognizing the results of the Special General Meeting, "pending a decision to the contrary by the Supreme Court of BC."
  
  
• Also on Tuesday, University Relations Officer Andrea Sandau and Graduate Issues Officer Joel Blok wrote a letter to Don Crane, informing him that, as counsel to the SFSS, he was to no longer seek direction from any of the G7.
  
  
• Employees of the SFSS received their paycheques on Thursday. Cash revenues from the Pub were deposited in a second (already existing) bank account, at a different financial institution. Cheques were then written from this financial institution to our employees; these cheques were signed by employee signing officers, not by the G7. (This reveals that the Highland Pub isn't doing so bad after all, financially speaking!)
  
  
• Also on Thursday, the Board of Directors held a meeting. The Board voted to request that Vanessa Kelly, Glyn Lewis, and Wei Li agree, on a "without prejudice" basis, to remove their names from the list of signing officers.
  
  
• On Friday, SFU Security changed the locks on the offices of the SFSS. Security will not give keys to the G7.
  
  
• As of the writing of this blog entry, the Society's main bank account is still frozen.
  

The Peak - October 30, 2006

Interesting articles in this week's Peak:

News Articles

• SGM achieves quorum by Earl Tapia and Sean Wilkinson
• SGM: What happens now? by Earl Tapia and Sean Wilkinson
• Douglas College Student Union faces possible impeachment by Iain W. Reeve

Opinions

• Editorial Cartoon by Mike Hingston
• A good ol'-fashion' lynchin' by Matthew De Marchi

Letters to the Editor

• An open letter from Shawn Hunsdale, by Shawn Hunsdale
• Ex-directors must step down by Joel Blok, Titus Gregory, Clea Moray, and Bryan Jones
• Against the SGM by Paul N. McCulloch
• A victory for democracy? by Juan Tolentino
• A biased meeting by Paul Browning
• Accept impeachment by Brianna Turner

(Note: Matthew De Marchi, Joel Blok, Titus Gregory, Clea Moray, Bryan Jones, Paul N. McCulloch, Paul Browning, and Brianna Turner all verbally participated in the SGM.)

Andrea Sandau, the University Relations Officer of the Simon Fraser Student Society, has written the following affidavit:

Statement of Andrea Sandau

University Relations Officer, Simon Fraser Student Society (SFSS)

On Tuesday June 6, 2006 in the early afternoon, between approximately 2:00pm-4:00pm, I spoke with Ms. Margo Dunnet in the Board of Directors office of the Simon Fraser Student Society (SFSS) (MBC 2220) regarding one of the SFSS’s employees, Ms. Hattie Aitken, the Graduate Issues and University Relations Coordinator.

In that conversation, prior to the commencement of an investigation that led to Ms. Aitken’s firing, Ms. Dunnet informed me that the SFSS was planning to fire Ms. Aitken. I did not realize it at the time, but it would soon become clear that the investigation was launched specifically for the purpose of generating the justification for her termination. I believe this decision to fire Ms. Aitken was already made prior to the discovery of the evidence upon which her firing was allegedly based.

During that conversation, on that June afternoon, I stated that I had to schedule a meeting with Ms. Aitken within the next few days, before I was to leave for Europe. I did not know Ms. Aitken well, so I asked Ms. Dunnet for suggestions about how to interact with Ms. Aitken. Ms. Dunnet responded, “You won’t have to worry about her when you get back anyway.” I asked Ms. Dunnet, “Why, are you guys gonna’ fire her?” Ms. Dunnet smiled and nodded. She replied: “Yeah, we’re looking at letting her go. We don’t trust her. She attempted to bring speculation upon the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) at the CFS conference in May by publicly asking inappropriate questions during some of the meetings, and she missed most of the workshops she was supposed to attend.” I asked some questions about the CFS conference, but I asked no further questions about this employment issue.

At the time that Ms. Dunnet shared this information with me, we shared a positive working relationship, having recently run on the same political slate, “Common Sense.”

I shall post a scanned copy of this affidavit when it becomes available.

The bank account of the SFSS has been frozen. I am not entirely sure who is responsible for this. All I know is that if said bank account does not become unfrozen very soon, the SFSS will likely be forced to (temporarily) shut down....

Post-SGM Aftermath

So the G7 are refusing to budge. Shawn Hunsdale and Wei Li sent a draconian letter Thursday to all SFSS staff. This letter contains nine instructions, and warns that "deviation from the direction given in this memo will be viewed as insubordination and grounds for discipline or discharge." The instructions are designed to centralize power in the hands of the G7, and to strictly limit the powers both of the staff and of the other members of the Board of Directors. Let us examine these instructions one by one, and note how they violate the By-Laws and/or the regulations, even if they were, in fact, still legitimate directors of the Society:

1. "All direction to staff will come in writing from Wei Li, Internal Relations Officer. Any requests from employees should be directed to Wei Li, Internal Relations Officer." A violation of AP-18 (3), which states: "Employee workload priorities shall be set by the Executive Committee in consultation with the employees concerned. However, this shall not preclude Executive Officers from giving direction to employees as needed to ensure that the duties associated with their portfolios are fulfilled, and/or to ensure that the Society’s day-to-day operations are carried out."
   
   
2. "All correspondence to and from University administrators should be directed through Margo Dunnet, External Relations Officer." A violation of By-Law 4 (7) (a), which states that the University Relations Officer (Andrea Sandau) shall "act as a liaison between the Board and the University."
   
   
3. "All contact with on-campus student groups, including the Graduate Issues Committee should be directed to Glyn Lewis, Member Services Officer." A violation of By-Law 4 (2) (a), which states that the Graduate Issues Officer (Joel Blok) shall "act as a liaison between the Board and the Society's Graduate Issues Committee." GIC is not a "student group," but a committee of the Board of Directors. Furthermore, this instruction effectively prevents Sam Bradd (Student Union Organizer) from doing his job.
   
   
4. "All contact with off-campus groups should be directed to Margo Dunnet, External Relations Officer." Valid (assuming Dunnet was not impeached, that is), but draconian.
   
   
5. "All contact with media, both on- and off-campus, should be directed to Shawn Hunsdale, President and Margo Dunnet, External Relations Officer." Valid (assuming they were not impeached), but still draconian. Seriously impacts Anthony Maragna's (Communications Coordinator) ability to do his job.
   
   
6. "All correspondance with the SFSS financial institutions are to be through Vanessa Kelly, Treasurer." Seriously impacts the ability of the Financial Coordinators to do their jobs.
   
   
7. "All correspondance with the SFSS auditors should be through Vanessa Kelly, Treasurer." Translation: whistleblowers, beware! A recipe for creating a financial scandal even greater than that currently afflicting the Douglas Students' Union.
   
   
8. "Other than payroll-related expenses, no cheques are to be processed." This will effectively shut down the Society in a few days.
   
   
9. "All questions regarding the legal affairs should be directed to Shawn Hunsdale, President and Margo Dunnet, External Relations Officer. Only these two directors should be in contact with the SFSS legal counsel, Rush, Crane, Guenther, and Associates." A violation of By-Law 4 (6) (f) which states that the Treasurer (currently vacant, but according to Hunsdale and Li, Vanessa Kelly) shall "coordinate the commercial and legal affairs of the Society."

The letter closes with this gem: "While it may seem that this direction is overly restrictive and limits employees' ability to perform their duties, the employer has taken this action for the protection of staff." Oh, how thoughtful! How gracious and compassionate! Mr. Hunsdale and Mr. Li are clearly very concerned about the protection of the staff, as clearly evidenced by their actions over the past few months....

The G7 have overstayed their welcome. SDU is preparing a legal challenge to their continued hold on power. In addition, some students have adopted some... unorthdox tactics. At noon today, around 30-40 members in good standing of the Society staged an impromptu "tea party" in the Board of Directors office, demanding that the impeached directors accept the results of the special general meeting.... Photos of this sit-in are available on Flickr, courtesy of Saxifrage and doviende.

On a side note, it would appear that our good friend Shawn Hunsdale observed the proceedings of the SGM from on high, surrounded by a small coterie of people who look like students, but who apparently decided against participating in the SGM. Question: are these SFU students?

Special General Meeting Successful

(For pictures of the SGM and links to blog entries from other attendees, please see this comprehensive blog entry on Joey Coleman's blog. Paulman Chan has a bunch of photos on Flickr, as does Aleszcz. Chris Demwell has an excellent bird's-eye view photo of the SGM.)

It was a cold, blustery day yesterday on Burnaby Mountain, but that did not stop around 750 students from assembling in Convocation Mall for a Special General Meeting of the Simon Fraser Student Society (SFSS). Patrice Pratt was appointed Chairperson pro tem, and over the next three hours, students voted to impeach seven directors of the SFSS and to amend the By-Laws in two places to give increased autonomy to graduate students within the organization. The results of the votes on impeachment were as follows:

Director's name	Position	In favour	Against	Abstain
Shawn Hunsdale	President	724	6	13
Margo Dunnet	External Relations Officer	613	14	61
Wei Li	Internal Relations Officer	573	20	45
Glyn Lewis	Member Services Officer	607	22	3
Vanessa Kelly	Treasurer	597	10	30
Marion Pollock	At-Large Representative	492	20	57
Erica Halpern	At-Large Representative	382	60	155

The votes on the amendments in support of graduate student autonomy (note: not independence) were near-unanimous.

I am told that somewhere between 40 and 60 people attended the Annual General Meeting (AGM) taking place in the East Gym, including SFSS staff (who were all required to attend the AGM if they were working at that time) and a number of family members of "G7" directors, who were there to offer moral support.

Some random thoughts before I go to bed:

• Instead of presenting arguments against impeachment, the handful of opponents of the impeachment motions in the hall resorted to a host of procedural tactics to try and prevent the meeting from taking place. One student raised a Point of Order, claiming that the Special General Meeting was invalid; the Chair ruled that point not in order, citing the legal letter [PDF] that SDU's lawyer wrote to the lawyer for the SFSS on that subject. Another student attempted to amend the agenda to add an unrelated matter (relating to residence students), preventing the assembly from dealing with the business that drew everybody to the meeting in the first place. Still another student unsuccessfully moved to eliminate all constraints on debate, potentially allowing a single fillibusterer to discuss Hamlet, etc.
  
  
• The most comical event of the meeting would have had to have been when an anti-impeachment student tried to move to take the vote on the impeachment questions by roll call. That is to say, this student wanted the Chair to record, one by one, each of the 600+ assembled students' name and vote on the motion - a process that would take, by a conservative estimate, three hours per vote. The Chair announced that a vote would be taken on whether to adopt this change in the voting procedure; at this, Margo Dunnet raised a Point of Order, claiming that a roll call vote must be taken on the request of a single member. It took me great pleasure to cite the relevent provisions in Roberts Rules of Order, which clearly specify that a roll call vote shall be taken on a majority vote of the assembly :-).
  
  
• That said, some of the opponents of the impeachment motions gave some actual arguments. One student objected to the general meeting impeaching directors over a human resources' decision (i.e. firing Hattie Aitken), a decision that, according to the Collective Agreement, must be kept confidential, thus preventing the G7 from effectively defending themselves. (This student did not note that these directors had, through their Member's Update and classroom speaking, doing exactly such defenses.) Another student claimed that Students for a Democratic University's (SDU) actions were mere political posturing to remove their ideological opponents and set themselves up for a return to power in the subsequent by-election.

• The AGM apparently ended early, and several of the G7 and their supporters made their way to the SGM to participate in the debate. (Shawn Hunsdale was apparently unable to produce his SFU ID card, and so the registration desk was unable to verify his student status (or otherwise!) in our brand-new registration system. [By the way: THANKS Computing Science Grads for programming that system! It worked spectacularly and efficiently.])
  
  
• One controversial issue was the time limits on debate. At the beginning of the meeting, we voted on a set of Special Rules of Order that provided that (1) each speaker would be limited to 3 minutes, (2) debate on each *motion* would be limited to 16 minutes, and (3) speakers would alternate between supporters and opponents of each motion. When the "G7" entered the room, they immediately complained that these limits were preventing debate, etc. Even worse, there was one student who kept calling the question after just two speakers had spoken (one for, one against), other than the initial debate on impeaching Shawn Hunsdale. I was very much opposed to this latter suppression of debate, but SGM members thought otherwise, consistently voting around 75% in favour of calling the question on each impeachment motion. Patrice Pratt told me that the assembly had every right to decide that they had heard enough debate on the issues over the past several weeks, an argument that I can understand, if uneasily. (Or perhaps the assembly didn't want the meeting to last beyond three hours [which is how long it lasted] in the cold.)
  
  
• I left my place at the front table (where I had been serving as parliamentarian to the Chair) specifically to vote against the motion to impeach Erica Halpern. The vote totals show that impeaching her was far from unanimous. My reasoning (which extended back to August, when I was part of the minority of SDU that opposed adding her name to the list of impeachees) is as follows: Erica was not part of the Labour Committee that conspired to fire Hattie; and she abstained on many of the By-Law-defying, process-ignoring decisions that followed. Now, I certainly have no intention of voting for her in any future election; however, I remain unconvinced that Erica's actions warranted a measure so grave as impeachment.
  
  
• The G7 aren't giving up! Some non-impeached directors approached the G7 after the vote, asking them of their position on the SGM. They were quite clear: the SGM is invalid, and the G7 are staying right where they are, exercising full control over the property, finances, and staff of the Simon Fraser Student Society. SDU is preparing a petition to the courts, and about a dozen of us have been tasked by our lawyer with writing affidavits in support of this petition. I will update this blog with any new information on the latest stage in this saga as it becomes information.
  
  
• I and several other organizers of the SGM were wearing radio headsets so that we could communicate with each other during the meeting. But we were not the only ones wearing headsets! Indeed, I could see quite the contingent of mysterious individuals wearing headsets rushing around the meeting, and I overheard one of them attempting to persuade an SFU student to attend the AGM instead of the SGM. However, interestingly enough, most of them (as far as I could tell) did not enter the meeting area, remaining on the outskirts during the entire meeting. (The meeting area was fenced off, and one could only enter the meeting at one of the registration desks, provided that one provided proof that one was an SFU student.)
  
  
• Oh, so cold! I was just wearing a fleece jacket over my shirt, which was entirely unsufficient to prevent me from shivering through the entire meeting....
  
  
• MANY THANKS to all our volunteers! This event could not have been organized without all your help. Security volunteers, registration clerks, vote counters, runners, computer system techs, AV tech, Secretary, Chair, promoters, and many more all worked together, some contributing many hours of their own time, to make this meeting a well-organized success. Particular thanks go to Josephine Wong for coordinating the entire operation. In fact, Patrice Pratt and our lawyer told me that this was, by far, the most well-organized of any 'insurgent' volunteer-organized general meeting that they had ever attended.
  

And now, to start working on a midterm assignment due this Friday....

The Peak for This Week

The Peak has published their SGM/AGM issue. Key articles:

News Articles

• The Peak's General Meeting Guide by Earl Tapia and Amanda McCuaig

Opinions

• The Harder Line: A tale of two meetings by Derrick Harder

Letters

• From one MSO to another by Sarah Caufield, MSO, 2005-2006
• SFU scandal: brooms and an apology by Clement Abas Apaak, Former SFSS President
• The SGM is lawful by Titus Gregory
• SGM is bogus by Margo Dunnet, SFSS External Relations Officer
• Synopsis of the SFSS' SGM and AGM by Clea Moray, Forum SGM Oversight Committee Chair
  

The Varsity highlights SFSS Controversy

The Varsity, the student newspaper at the University of Toronto, has an article on the impeachment controversy here at SFU. This article has a lot of detail. However, as is frequently the case, there are a few minor errors:

• The article states that "In order to have the university's student forum, an advisory body, call a campus-wide Special General Meeting to hold an impeachment vote, SDU needed a petition signed by at least five per cent of the student body." In fact, under our By-Laws, Forum has the authority to call a Special General Meeting whenever it wants to. The By-Laws also provide that the SFSS President must call a Special General Meeting upon the receipt of a petition signed by at least five per cent of the student body. However, President Hunsdale refused to call such a meeting, and Forum's decision to call an SGM was simply in response to his inaction.
  
  
• The article also states: "The conflict, which began as a purported murky conspiracy and has ballooned into a mud-slinging debacle of finger-pointing and denial, will reach its climax this Wednesday in two simultaneous student meetings, each of which declares the other illegitimate." Neither Forum nor Students for a Democratic University have ever suggested that the Annual General Meeting is illegitimate.

Aside from these minor quibles, however, it's an excellent article!

The Debate Continues

A debate between Clement Apaak (former SFSS President), Shawn Hunsdale (current SFSS President), Margo Dunnet (current SFSS External Relations Officer), and myself took place last Thursday. You can read about it in this week's Peak (or on Xenia's blog)... or you can listen to it online! Special thanks to CJSF Radio, who recorded this debate, and to Michael Letourneau for storing it on his server.

A number of webpages have appeared and disappeared in recent weeks.... Since the SFSS Powers That Be do not recognize the decision of Forum to call the Special General Meeting (SGM), I have created a website for Forum In Exile, which has information on the Special General Meeting. A MySpace account has been created called "I am going to the SGM." Bhuvinder has devoted his webspace to providing his perspective on the issue, and Derrick has written a fascinating post on the subject as well. A lively discussion is taking place on the online forum of the Computing Science Student Society.

As for the Other Side - well, one can find the agenda for the Annual General Meeting on the SFSS website. However, the Other Side's campaign website, yoursfss.org, has been taken down, reportedly on the advice of their labour lawyer.

I also found out that our Communications Coordinator was forced to remove all of the minutes of SFSS meetings from the SFSS website, upon receiving written orders to do so from one of the SFSS executives. SFSS staff have also been ordered not to cooperate with the SGM in any way whatsoever.

I am also very pleased to report that the Special General Meeting will likely be chaired by none other than Patrice Pratt! Ms. Pratt is the Vice-Chair of the Board of Directors of VanCity Credit Union, the former director of staff development and administration for the BCGEU, and the former president of the BC NDP. She served as a member of the Board of Governors of SFU until her appointment was rescinded by the BC Liberals in 2002.

(I will comment on the fascinating stuff happening with the USSU tomorrow!)

More Peak articles posted

After a three-week absence, The Peak is beginning to post its recent issues in online format. Here are some interesting articles. Please note that articles in The Peak may contain one or more of the following: lies, confusion, misinformation, bias, libel, an utter lack of fact-checking, posturing for a future election run, and facts.

SFSS Fiasco - News

• Campus: Letters answer sought-after questions by Earl Tapia, News Editor
• Campus: SGM scheduled for October 25 by Iain Reeve, Associate News Editor

SFSS Fiasco - Opinion

• Speak Out: Transparency and SDU by Margo Dunnet, SFSS External Relations Officer
• To the barricades! by Victor Finberg

SFSS Fiasco - Letters

• SDU thwarts democracy by Glyn Lewis, SFSS Member Services Officer
• SDU confusion by Lisa Wall
• Trust is still the issue by Brianna Turner
  

Non-SFSS Fiasco

• Campus: Rent revolt results in partial victory by Iain Reeve, Associate News Editor
• Radical campus: take charge of your education by Sean Hibbitts
  

Blog Reborn

Vanessa Kelly's blog seems to be back.

An Update on SFU Health Plan Politics

StudentUnion.ca has learned that several directors of the Simon Fraser Student Society are doing classroom speaking, explaining to students that they are trying to bring then a "non profit undergraduate health care plan." There is only one such plan in Canada: the National Student Health Network. The Board of Directors has never decided to limit their health plan choices to non profit entities, nor has any such decision been made by an entity acting under delegated authority.

SFSS Hires Catalyst Creative to Survey SFU Students re: Undergraduate Health Plan

Undergraduate students of Simon Fraser University are some of the last remaining university students in Canada not to have a student health plan. Starting in 2005, SFU graduate students obtained a health and dental plan following a student referendum, through Gallivan and Associates. And so, this past summer the Simon Fraser Student Society formed an "Undergrad Health Plan Negotiating Committee" to look into the possibility of obtaining a health plan for undergraduate students.

Interestingly enough, however, the Executive Committee of the SFSS just today approved a motion assigning to Catalyst Creative, Inc. the task of conducting a survey of SFU undergraduate students relating to a possible health plan. [Note: See update below for correction.]

Now Catalyst Creative is an interesting firm. Their Vice-President (also known as the "Strategic Director") is none other than Michael Gardiner, who also works (or at least was recently employed) as Organiser of the Canadian Federation of Students-BC. This article (PDF, p. 8), published by CCEC Credit Union, indicates that Catalyst Creative was founded in 2005 by just two individuals: Michael Gardiner and David Launainen.

Catalyst Creative's website does not indicate that they have any expertise conducting surveys or soliciting opinion. Their services (according to their webstie) are Merchandising, Print Media, Broadcast Media, Publicity and Earned Media, Events, Training, Positioning, Identity, Packaging, Web Technologies, e-Collateral, and Print Collateral. Their list of clients is interesting, however, as it includes the National Student Health Network (NSHN), owned and operated by the Canadian Federation of Students-Services. And, indeed, CIRA records show that the Administrative Contact for the NSHN is none other than Michael Gardiner.

SFSS records also indicate that the Catalyst Creative staffer responsible for conducting the survey is the same Mr. Gardiner. External Relations Officer Margo Dunnet's August work report states:

"The Undergrad Health Plan Negotiating Committee met with Michael Gardiner from Catalyst Creative to discuss what should be included in the survey to undergraduates. We mapped out the questions and he will get back to us with the format in early Sept. I talked to Ron Heath, Office of the Registrar, and he agreed to supply us with the e-mail addresses we need to administer the survey."

SFSS executives may wish to consider a historical perspective in this matter. In an article written in 1996 entitled "SFSS, This is Your Life," Peak writer Patrick Kolby wrote:

After the summer hiatus, Forum members decided to begin steps to hold a referendum on SFSS membership in CFS. The move was sparked by problems with the CFS' handling of SFU's health care plan broker, and an apparent conflict of interest between the plan's organizer, Joey Hansen, and the CFS. Hansen held positions both on the SFSS and on the CFS. Although not a concern of most students, the SFSS dissatisfaction with the CFS grew as they were blamed for the problems of the health plan. Adding to the push to leave the CFS was the creation of a new student organization, the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations. This new option has made the move possible for SFU out of the CFS and into CASA more likely than ever. How the implementation of the CFS-backed health care plan in May affects the proposed referendum is anyone's guess. It is also anyone's guess whether or not the plan will actually be implemented by May, if the past is any indication. In their final act of 1995, Forum voted to decide to consider one of the many options to increase efficiency after the $25,000 Ernst & Young accounting report was tabled. Good work.

Another article in 1997, entitled "Students axe health plan," provide a short summary of what happened to our previous health plan:

Although Simon Fraser students decided to remain in the Canadian Federation of Students in last week's referendum, they axed the federation's health plan.
....
The plan, implemented in January of this year, was the target of attack from a number of extremely vocal groups on campus. Aspects under fire included the inability of students with only basic provincial health care to opt-out, as well as concerns that the CFS was receiving a large commission from student fees.
....
Respresentatives of the federation deny allegations that it is profiting from the National Student Health Network.
"It's a break-even operation," said Michael Gardiner, provincial chair of the Federation. "The only reason the CFS operates the health plan is so that individual student associations don't get ripped off by local brokers. The National Student Health Network has brought prices down for everyone. Because of this, students across the country get their health care cheaper."

(The aforementioned Margo Dunnet is a member of the Executive Commitee of the Canadian Federation of Students - British Columbia.)
..............
UPDATE (2006-09-23): I have been informed that the Executive Committee of the SFSS merely received a report from the Undergrad Health Plan Negotiating Committee regarding the retention of Catalyst Creative; it did not actually pass any motion. The Undergrad Health Plan Negotiating Committee was struck by the Board of Directors on July 27, with a mandate to spend up to $6000 on a contractor to create a survey for the undergraduate health plan.

No Voice for SFU Graduate Students on Key Hiring Committee

The Board of Directors of the Simon Fraser Student Society (SFSS) has made its latest political mistake. The Board struck a hiring committee to replace former Graduate Issues and University Relations Coordinator (GIURC) Hattie Aitken, whose firing has sparked the latest controversy at SFU. Three directors applied for positions on this committee: undergraduate executives Andrea Sandau (the University Relations Officer) and Margo Dunnet (the External Relations Officer), and Graduate Issues Officer Joel Blok. But the Board, in its infinite wisdom stupidity, decided to reject Mr. Blok in favour of the two undergraduate executives.

As the job title implies, the "Graduate Issues and University Relations Coordinator" has two responsibilities: to assist in the university relations' work of the Society, and to serve as the chief resource person for graduate student issues. The SFSS is unusual in that it represents both undergraduate and graduate students. The GIURC regularly meets with the Dean of Graduate Studies, does research on the graduate health and dental plan, and generally supports the work of the Graduate Issues Committee. By rejecting Joel Blok, the Board of Directors (or at least the dominant majority) has ensured that SFU graduate students will have absolutely no voice in determining their chief resource person.

Current speculation is that the Board majority rejected Joel because of his alleged support for an independent graduate students' union at SFU. It is ironic, then, that their latest action may simply serve to build support for such a move.

Impeachment Petition Delivered to SFSS

Students for a Democratic University (of which I am a member) today delivered a petition containing 2,541 signatures to the Simon Fraser Student Society, petitioning for a Special General Meeting for certain purposes (which you can read here.) Less than 1,500 signatures were required to force such a Special General Meeting, according to the organization's bylaws.

This letter was accompanied by a cover letter [PDF] outlining the SFSS's legal responsibilities with respect to this petition.

Also, one can find several news items, opinion pieces, and letters to the editor on this issue in this week's Peak.

SFU political controversy heats up

Read this article in the Georgia Straight about the impeachment campaign at SFU..

Board of Directors minutes posted - August 9, 2006

The minutes from the August 9, 2006 meeting of the Board of Directors of the SFSS are now online. Relevant notes from the meeting:

• The chair was Lucas Schuler, former Chairperson of CFS-BC. However, he was merely appointed as chairperson pro tem, not as chairperson for the semester. The failure of the Board to appoint a chairperson for the semester is a violation of By-Law 8, section 10 [a].
• Even though there were 35 guests in attendance, the Board nonetheless voted to go in camera (i.e. closed session), and stayed there for 2.5 hours.
• After the 2.5 hour delay, the Board voted to move into a "committee of the whole" in order to permit an open discussion. Grad At-Large Representative Benjamin Milne moved that this discussion should last for up to thirty minutes, but this was quickly amended to reduce this to twenty minutes. Treasurer Vanessa Kelly (who supported the reduction in the discussion period) started off the discussion by "stat[ing] that the Board is, in no way, attempting to curtail discussion...."
• Internal Relations Officer Wei Li stated that the decision to terminate the Graduate Issues and University Relations Coordinator (GIURC) was his. He offered no explanation as to where this authority came from.