The Canadian Federation of Students' AGM Agenda

Canadian Federation of Students May 2011 Annual General Meeting Agenda

Well, it's that time of year again: the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) is holding its Annual General Meeting from Tuesday, May 31st to Friday, June 3rd, 2011 somewhere in the national capital.

I would like to immediately start by raising a red flag pertaining to a motion that is truly disturbing: the University of Toronto Students' Union (Local 98) has introduced 2011/05:N15 Motion to amend bylaws (which can be found in the above agenda on page 9).

Furthermore, I have typed out the entire motion below and added emphasis on the particularly troubling areas that seem to be, in my opinion, giving complete power of all future referendums (both to adhere to and defederate from) on CFS membership to the Federation's National Executive.

As it currently stands, whenever a referendum is held at any post-secondary education institution to either adhere to or defederate from the CFS, a committee known as the Referendum Oversight Committee (hereafter referred to as ROC) is immediately formed in order to, well, oversee the all aspects of the referendum. According to Bylaw 1, Section 4.b of the CFS Constitution and Bylaws (page 19), this committee is "composed of two (2) members appointed by the prospective local association and two (2) members appointed by the Federation"

This committee is responsible for the following (as per Bylaw 1, Section 4.i through 4viii):

i. establishing the notice requirement for the vote in accordance with Section 4-c of this Bylaw and ensuring that notice is posted.
ii. establishing the campaign period in accordance with Section 4-d of this Bylaw.
iii. approving all campaign materials in accordance with Section 4-e of this Bylaw and removing campaign materials that have not been approved.
iv. deciding the number and location of polling stations.
v. setting the hours of voting in accordance with Section 4-f of this Bylaw.
vi. overseeing all aspects of the voting.
vii. counting the ballots following the vote.
viii. establishing all other rules and regulations for the vote.

Along with the following added responsibilities (as per Bylaw 1, Section 6 [Vote to Decertify] - 6.c.vii and 6.c.vii):

vi. tabulating the votes cast;
vii. adjudicating all appeals

Once again, below you will find the Local 98's motion that would completely overhaul the current oversight of the Federation's referendum:

--------------------------------------------------------------------

2011/05:N15 MOTION TO AMEND BYLAWS
Local 98 – University of Toronto Students’ Union/

Whereas the York Federation of Students recently had a review of its elections policy conducted by Davis LLP; and

Whereas David compared the York Federation of Students procedure to that used by other students’ unions as well as by Elections Canada; and

Whereas the report emphasised the importance of a streamlined voting process with decisions vested in one individual empowered to supervise the election; and

Whereas almost, if not all, students’ unions in Canada have a chief returning officer who is principally in charge of overseeing elections and referenda; and

Whereas having such an officer, who is responsible for overseeing all aspects of the vote, and is accountable to the membership through their elected National Executive, will increase transparency and accountability; therefore

Be it resolved that Bylaw 1, Article 4.b be struck and replaced with:

b. Chief Returning Officer

The referendum shall be overseen by a Chief Returning Officer appointed by the National Executive, who shall be responsible for:

i. establishing the notice requirement for the referendum in accordance with Section 4-c of this Bylaw and ensuring that notice is posted,
ii. establishing the campaign period in accordance with Section 4-d of this Bylaw,
iii. approving all campaign materials in accordance with Section 4-e of this Bylaw and removing campaign materials that have not been approved,
iv. deciding the number and location of polling stations,
v. setting the hours of voting in accordance with Section 4-f of this Bylaw,
vi. overseeing all aspects of the voting,
vii. establishing all other rules and regulations for the vote,

Be if further resolved that Bylaw 1, Article 4.e.v be amended to read:

v. Campaign materials shall not be misleading, defamatory or false. The Chief Returning Officer shall be the sole arbiter of whether materials are misleading, defamatory or false.

Be it further resolved that Bylaw 1, Article 4.h be amended to read:

h. Appeals

Any appeals of the referendum results or rulings by the Chief Returning Officer shall be adjudicated by the Federation’s National Executive.

Be it further resolved that Bylaw 1, Article 6.c be amended to read:

c. Chief Returning Officer

The referendum shall be overseen by a Chief Returning Officer appointed by the National Executive, who shall be responsible for:

i. establishing the notice requirement for the referendum in accordance with Section 4-c of this Bylaw and ensuring that notice is posted,
ii. establishing the campaign period in accordance with Section 4-d of this Bylaw,
iii. approving all campaign materials in accordance with Section 4-e of this Bylaw and removing campaign materials that have not been approved,
iv. deciding the number and location of polling stations
v. setting the hours of voting in accordance with Section 4-f of this Bylaw,
vi. overseeing all aspects of the voting,
vii. counting the ballots following the vote,
viii. establishing all other rules and regulations for the vote

Be it further resolved that Bylaw 1, Article 6.f.v be amended to read:

v. Campaign materials shall not be misleading defamatory or false. The Chief Returning Officer shall be the sole arbiter of whether materials are misleading, defamatory or false.

Be it further resolved that Bylaw 1, Article 6.i be amended to read:

i. Appeals

Any appeals of the referendum results or rulings by the Chief Returning Officer shall be adjudicated by the Federation’s National Executive.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

To make a long story short, this motion would essentially eliminate the current oversight body, the ROC, and replace it with a single Chief Returning Officer that would be appointed by the Federation's National Executive. This person would have all the same responsibilities as the ROC currently has.

However, this motion removes the local association's ability to even out the playing field if (and I mean this would never, EVER happen) the person appointed by the National Executive happened to be biased towards the pro-CFS camp.

Many examples exist of dysfunctional ROCs but I will simply point out one of the more recent cases, which I covered extensively on this blog, involving the University of Regina Students' Union (URSU). You can view my blog postings on that failure of a referendum by clicking on the links bellow:

University of Regina's Referendum on Continued Membership in the CFS ends today

WTF: U of R referendum results?
 
UPDATE - WTF: URSU referendum results
 
Une semaine plus tard...
 
UPDATE #2 - WTF: URSU referendum results

Then, on December 15th 2010, a confidentiality agreement along with a joint letter were signed by each party's legal counsel which further delayed the release of the results until certain prerequisites had been met to the satisfaction of both parties.

By March 7th, 2011, the URSU was served with this letter from CFS's legal counsel warning it that if the two parties could not come to an agreement on a joint announcement of the referendum results, the CFS would unilaterally release them on March 9th, 2011.

Then, on March 9th 2011, CFS's legal counsel once again served URSU with this letter which extended the original deadline, that was to have expired on that very day, to noon on March 10th, 2011. The URSU responded with this press release questioning the CFS's motivation behind the release of the results without first having dealt with any and all remaining issues, as per the December 15th agreement.

And finally, on March 10th 2011, CFS chair, Dave Molenhuis, served this letter to the URSU, partially in response to the URSU's press release from the day before, but mainly to unilaterally release the referendum results. The URSU quickly responded with this press release expressing its disappointment in regards to the CFS's unilateral release of the referendum results and thus ignoring the unresolved issues that remained.

Following the release of the referendum results, the URSU's former President, Kyle Addison, and First Nations University Student Association's President, Jesse Robson, released a joint statement on March 14th, 2011 which essentially explained the whole controversy surrounding the referendum on continued membership in CFS and attempted to display that both organizations remained allies despite the recent turmoil caused by the confusion surrounding voter eligibility.

Lastly, the former URSU executive did the responsible thing by releasing the cost of the entire referendum process: "The total costs of Administrative, Legal, Campaign personnel and material was $64,002.13." The communique also "urges the CFS to follow suit by disclosing their expense amounts from the Local 9 referendum." Unfortunately, to my knowledge, the CFS has failed to release these costs.

As much as the current process may be slightly imperfect (listen to the In Brief podcast at the bottom of this post to better understand the main issues with the ROC at the U of R), eliminating the ROC, in my opinion, is taking the easy way out. Obviously, with 2 members being appointed by the CFS National Executive and 2 members being appointed by the Local association, the potential for gridlock to arise is apparent. However, simply giving the oversight powers to one individual, appointed by the CFS National Executive enables an amount of centralization which would almost definitely ensure an abuse of power thus leading to more legal battles. It's not the right answer and I would strongly suggest that the SFUO delegation think twice before supporting such a simplistic approach to reforming the medium by which future CFS referendums will be overseen.

NoCFSConcordia asks you...

..."Has the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) threatened YOU with a lawsuit?"



This is a topic that nobody from the CFS can ever address in a debate.

A fundamental question must thus be posed: Is this your student union... or the CFS's?

Effective lobbying or misguided tactics?

As my regular readers know, I'm no fan of the way the Canadian Federation of Students conducts its affairs both on the national and provincial levels: I have often been the organization's chief critic regarding its lack of transparency and accountability. And yes, when raising legitimate concerns and criticism regarding the CFS, I've even been accused of being a troll on Twitter (i.e. asking why votes taken during CFS AGMs couldn't be recorded so students could know how their delegation voted, I got this in response: @climbrandon We should demand that delegates vote with their blood for true transparency! Srsly, you're trolling dude. #cfsfcee #fcee10). But then again, anybody who dares criticize the Canadian Federation of Students is automatically cast aside by its ardent supporters as being loony, right-wing hardliners who are attempting to destroy the entire student movement. Obviously, in my case, nonsense.

In the past year, I have often been quite disgusted with the various "tactics" used by the Canadian Federation of Students who, during past protests, have embarrassed students from all across Canada. Although the students pictured below may not have caused any trouble during this summer's G20 Summit protests that took place in the streets of Toronto, I find it to be quite unfortunate that some of these student protesters felt compelled to cover their faces which COULD have led the public to believe that these students were only there to cause trouble while at the same time easily identifying them as being a part of the Canadian Federation of Students. Hence, the potential for the creation of a negative public perception of both students in general, but also of the organization and its various causes. Further tarnishing the public's perception of students was this unfortunate situation involving the Graduate Students' Union of the University of Toronto.

Now, as I have made very clear in the past, I absolutely support the rights of freedom of speech and of peaceful assembly which are both integral parts of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. With that said, when you are a part of a much larger organization such as the Canadian Federation of Students and the Alliance of Nova Scotia Student Associations (ANSSA), one must realize that, when you're marching behind its banners in public, your actions will be linked to the organization as a whole. In other words, these students are marching behind an organization's banner that is supposed to be (or at least making efforts to be) representing all 600 000 members - including 32 630 (approximate undergraduate student population at the University of Ottawa - fall 2009) including yours truly. When the public sees students covering their faces in an attempt to conceal their identity, like it or not, they will assume that these students are up to no good (not to mention the fact that "Black block" "activists" used very similar tactics). The association that the public could and undoubtedly did make should not simply be ignored. We are talking about the credibility and legitimacy of a national, student-run organization with a multi-million dollar budget that is put into question. In the end, whether these students caused trouble or not, these kinds of tactics potentially creates a negative public perception of ALL students.

With that said, I stumbled upon this video that was posted to kingstvnews YouTube channel. "Kings" refers to the University of King's College situated in Halifax, Nova Scotia. The video above is entitled "Off with their heads" Feb. 2 Day of Action" references the protests against the high price of post-secondary tuition fees. When I first viewed this video, I was at a loss for words. While reflecting, I asked myself some questions: 

1) How was it that this kind of behaviour (the act of cutting off the head of a dummy with a guillotine) acceptable?

2) What relevance does a mock killing have to the issue being protested?

A joint CFS-ANSSA rally: The green posters are those of the Canadian Federation of Students and the white posters are those of the Alliance of Nova Scotia Student Associations

The fact that these tactics could be viewed as crude and highly offensive made me wonder if the act was premeditated and in fact sanctioned by the organizers of the protest (including Nova Scotia's provincial branch of the Canadian Federation of Students and Alliance of Nova Scotia Student Associations). 

Having found this video on Friday, I decided to reflect on its content before blogging about it. In the man time, MacLeans OnCampus writer Robyn Urback caught wind of the video and posted a scathing blog post. Shortly after Urback's blog post was published, an individual by the name of Bethany Horne posted this comment:

My name is Bethany Horne and I shot that video you saw on Unews.Your headline is wrong: the theatre group consisted of no current students. Also, you are wrong to assume the dummies represent a politician. They were to represent the (political) parties as a whole. As theatre often does, the presentation was meant to shock and cause discussion. As for how students are going to be taken seriously: one way would be for them to get their facts straight and not write incendiary blog posts with no research or understanding of events. Not only did you fail to talk to anyone to find out the full story around the video (which wouldn’t have been that hard: I published the names of the artists), apparently you also failed to read the video caption. Or perhaps you chose to ignore it, because it makes your ignorant rant more persuasive?
“NDP, Liberal, Tory — same damn story.” “They all must go.”
On the CFS Day of Action – Street theatre meet the crowd at the intersections of South Park Street and Spring Garden Road (and blocks their way north). Jill Ratcliffe, Noah Logan, Dave Bush and the other members of the political street theatre troupe are **former students** from Dal, NSCAD and King’s. They wheeled a guillotine down the street to show what cuts to education looked like. The sign above the guillotine reads “The Cuts we’d like to see,” and the guillotine fell to chop off the heads off all the political parties. The troupe says all the political parties have failed students over the years.”

So, it was a theatre group of non-students who decided to take part in the rally to protest high tuition fees. Hey, the more the merrier, right? And yes, having myself many friends enrolled in theatre/drama programs, I understand that theatre is meant to shock and cause discussion. However, out of the unlimited shocking tactics that could have been effective in delivering the message in a much more, let's say, civilized way, this theatre group decided to wheel in a guillotine and perform a mock execution of a dummy. Again, I come back to the issue of PUBLIC PERCEPTION. If an organization wants the public to support its cause, it should be vigilant in ensuring (or at least attempting to ensure) that the tactics being used by protesters during their rallies are appropriate. The organization should also consider what might be said in the media. Putting in a little bit of thought before these protests are to occur can go a long way in effectively communicating the organization's message.

In closing, I think that the scene that played out during the February 2 Day of Action, whether sanctioned by the rally's organizers or not, whether these actors were students or not, reflects terribly on the Canadian Federation of Students and the Alliance of Nova Scotia Student Associations as organizations and their lobbying efforts. It should be noted that somebody who commented on Urback's blog post asked her why she decided to highlight the tactics being used by the protesters instead of concentrating on message behind the rally and the fact that 2000+ students were in attendance. In response, I would only say that the organizers of this rally were unsuccessful in communicating their message because, as demonstrates this blog post and the inevitability of future media coverage, the focus will not be on the fact that tuition fees are too high. The focus will be on the contentious tactics used by this theatre group which WAS in fact successful in shocking and causing discussion in the media. Unfortunately for the protesters and for the well-intentioned joint CFS-NS-ANSSA rally, the attention garnered by this protest won't exactly be "good press" for the organization or its cause.

Request to be an observer at CFS AGM = IGNORED!

Dave Molenhuis has all the time in the world to protest at the G20 Summit, to post CFS news releases on Twitter but no time to answer my emails

Exactly one month ago today, I sent this email to the Chair of the Canadian Federation of Students Dave Molenhuis. It was a simple, polite request: I asked to be given accreditation as an official observer at the upcoming CFS annual general assembly (November 24th-27th in Gatineau, QC).

It seems to be becoming more and more common that, when individual members of the CFS demand transparency and accountability from their representatives (both national and provincial), they are either ignored or turned away from AGMs. Gregory Kay is only one example...



Instead of denying the media, the general public and its OWN MEMBERS from attending important forums such as the CFS AGM (where all policy decisions are taken, the national executive is elected, the budget is approved, etc.), maybe the Canadian Federation of Students should in fact open up and embrace those very members who are showing an interest in the organization. Isn't that what "SOLIDARITY" is all about? Oh, I also sent this email to Dave Molenhuis and CFS Treasurer Roxanne Dubois on October 28th 2010 politely asking if they would be so kind as to provide me with a copy of the CFS AGM agenda. Well, I'm sure glad I kept searching for it myself because I have yet to receive any sort of acknowledgement of that message.

Canadian Federation of Students' National AGM Agenda - November 2010

On another note, when legitimate questions about the organization are raised (legal fees incurred from all the lawsuits either initiated by or brought against the CFS, sending numerous CFS employees to to join the "YES" campaigns during referendums on continued membership, simply trying to get a copy of the CFS's budget) are either ignored (which they are much of the time) or answered with unnecessarily aggressive rhetoric, dismissal, changing of the subject and/or unwarranted personal attacks, it's no wonder student unions all across the country are lining up to defederate from the organization.

"Remember, Remember, the 5th of November!"

The Cannon - http://www.thecannon.ca/whats_on/activism/2009_10_15/drop_fees_for_a_poverty_free_ontario_organizing_meeting

Aucune manifestation "À bas les frais!" a eu lieu cette année à l'Université d'Ottawa. Pourquoi? Selon Amalia Savva, l'organisatrice des campagnes à la FÉUO, qui parlait avec Isabelle Larose, une journaliste de La Rotonde, « [c]e n’était pas nécessairement le moyen le plus efficace et le nombre de manifestants diminuait depuis les dernières années. »

Une semaine plus tard...



Mayank Bhatnagar Graphic Reflections.org

 C'est une situation qui, encore une fois, met en question la transparence et la responsabilité de la Fédération Canadienne des Étudiant(e)s (FCÉÉ). Entre les 26 et 28 octobre 2010 dernier, l'Université de Régina a eu un référendum portant sur son adhésion au sein de la FCÉÉ. Les bureaux de scrutin ont fermé vers environ 21h le jeudi 28 octobre 2010.
Nous sommes maintenant le vendredi 5 novembre 2010. Les résultats n'ont encore pas été annoncés et les étudiantes et les étudiants de l'Université de Régina attendent toujours impatiemment. Il m'a été dit, par une source très impliquée dans le référendum, qu'il y a avait des questions concernant l'éligibilité de plusieurs étudiants et qu'ils devaient vérifier l'éligibilité de ces derniers avant d'annoncer les résultats. Le mercredi 3 novembre le Comité de surveillance du référendum avait en main cette liste et attendait pour les deux autres membres du comité du côté de la FCÉÉ, soit Lucy Watson et Ben Lewis, de revenir à Régina pour effectuer le compte.

Pourquoi ce manque d'organisation de la part du FCÉÉ. Ce n'est pourtant pas la première fois que cette dernière entreprend un référendum et cela ne sera pas le dernier non plus...

UPDATE - WTF: URSU referendum results

Alright, so there still hasn't been any results released as of 3:00 pm Monday afternoon, November 1st 2010. Furthermore, I checked the URSU Referendum Oversight Committee's website this morning and I was still able to access it. Well, between now and then, the site has been disabled.

Key words added to the URSU's Twitter message: AT THE EARLIEST. This definitely brings up many questions. Let's hope for some answers.

UPDATE: An article published by Leader-Post which explains the situation

UPDATE: For the benefit of the reader, here's a picture of the the ROC's website page; It seems to go off and on the air sporadically.

Did Dave Molenhuis mislead the Standing Committee of Finance?

When Dave Molenhuis appeared before the Commons Standing Committee of Finance on October 20th 2010 as part of the Government's pre-budget consultations, he was asked this question by Bloc Quebecois MP Daniel Paillé:

Mr. Chair, my question is for the Canadian Federation of Students. First of all, I would like to know why your Association only has four universities and one CEGEP from Quebec, and no French-speaking association, whether it be from Université du Québec, Université de Montréal, HEC, École Polytechnique de Montréal or CEGEPs.

Molenhuis promptly (and strategically) played the independence card:

I thank the member for the question.Very briefly, it's part of the founding principle of the student movement in Canada to respect the right of students in Quebec to self-organize. There are student unions that have been formed in the province that we certainly work in partnership with. It was only a recent development actually that students in Quebec had expressed an interest in joining the national student movement. We still do work with La Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec as well as the CEGEP organization, La Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec.

Really? "It was only a recent development actually that students in Quebec had expressed an interest in joining the national student movement."

That's odd? I was sure that, at one point not too long ago, there was a wing of the Canadian Federation of Students in Québec. Ohhhh! Right! I guess Mr. Molenhuis wouldn't want to bring up this little hiccup with its former CFS-Q. Furthermore, I would assume that it would be slightly embarrassing to have to admit that a number of institutions, including three from the province of Quebec, are involved in lawsuits with the CFS.