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.

William Shartner's version of 'O Canada'

In honour of this Victoria Day long weekend, here's William Shartner's personalized version of 'O Canada'! Damn, you cannot help but love this guy! Enjoy!

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?

Wishing the UVSS the best of luck... in court?

Students from the University of Victoria Students' Society (UVSS) are set to vote in a referendum on continued membership in the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) from March 29th to March 31st 2011. Check out some of these posters being pumped out from the "NO" campaign:

In contrast, check out the attempt by the "YES" side to convince UVSS students that the CFS is a democratic organization... In short, FAIL!

Don't be fooled: Canadian Federation of Students ain't democratic!

Oh, I almost forgot to mention that the "YES" campaign spent approximately $4300 on pro-CFS ads in the UVic's student newspaper The Martlet. On the other hand, the UVSS approved $750 (nearly 6 times less than the "YES" campaign spent solely on the above mentioned newspaper ads). Lastly, The Peak, the independent student newspaper of Simon Fraser University, has published the following opinion piece, written by three "former CFS insiders who have chosen to speak out, years after their involvement", outlining why the CFS is "broken and can't be fixed". 

The CFS is Broken and Can't Be Fixed ©The Peak 2011
©THE PEAK 2011 - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED - PLEASE VISIT http://www.the-peak.ca/images/peak/pdf/peak_issue_1117.pdf FOR ENTIRE NEWSPAPERS

Réunion du C.A. de la FÉUO - SFUO BOA meeting

IMPORTANT UPDATE: Breaking News: Today's SFUO Board of Administration meeting will take place at Portable 106, 150 University between MPT & LMX at 1pm.

Yupp, it's that time of month... NO! Not THAT time of month! I'm referring to the SFUO BOA meeting which will be taking place tomorrow afternoon, Sunday March 20th 2011, 1:00pm in Tabaret Hall (TBT) 083. Below is the preliminary agenda:

L'agenda pour la réunion du Conseil d'administration de la FÉUO - dimanche 20 mars 2011 - Sunday March 20 2...

Hot topic of the day: Federated body levies. Expect a heated debate about whether or not the SFUO should raise the amount of levies payed to their "besties" back to fiscal year 2009 levels (which would potentially see an increase in the Fed body levies by at least $83 682):

Fiscal year 2009 Federated body levies  = $294 646
Fiscal year 2010 Federated body levies  = $211 964
Total decrease of Federated body levies = $  82 682
Source: SFUO Financial Statement - April 2010

In case you forget the exact wording of the motion, follow this link.
On another terribly annoying note, earlier this week, I sent yet another email to our beloved V.P. finance Sarah Jayne King regarding the fact that she has yet to post the SFUO budget online. Well, she can expect to hear me ask her the exact same question I've asked her at at least 6 previous BOA meetings (one of those being the very meeting when she presented the budget to the board back in July 2010; Pathetic? Goddamn right!): WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?

Do I expect a straight answer from SJK? Are you kidding?

SFUO: Where's the evidence

Damn, time is flying. I felt compelled to write the following letter and submit it to The Fulcrum. I was lucky enough to have it published in this weeks edition (P.S. Sex insert is EXCELLENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!):

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

SFUO: Where’s the evidence?


DEAR MEMBERS OF the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa (SFUO) executive,

I would like to address the aftermath of the sit-in that took place in the SFUO office on Monday, March 7, 2011.

First of all, I would just like to point out how foolish we have been made to look on national television. While being interviewed both by Radio-Canada, our vp communications, Paige Galette, made an over-the-top claim that some SFUO employees were being held hostage by the protestors. It’s a good thing that, at one point in that clip, the reporter made it very clear that anyone who was still inside the SFUO office were there willingly.

Furthermore, it is my understanding that some SFUO employees have been disciplined for having participated in or for having “encouraged” this protest. This is extremely troublesome. In one case, an employee’s termination letter has been posted to uOLeaks.com and the following accusations were cited to justify such a dismissal: “…as a result of your participation in the blockade and vandalism of the SFUO offices… your services will no longer be required by 1848”. Alright, well for one thing, participating in a legal protest is not criminal. But, the accusation of vandalism is much more damning and, if proven, would definitely be grounds for this dismissal.

What is absolutely astonishing with this whole situation is that, as far as I know (and I stand to be respectfully corrected), there exists no evidence that Mr. Witwer (the terminated SFUO employee) ever vandalized anything. If no evidence has been provided, then there exist absolutely no grounds to punish him for having participated in a legal protest.

I look forward to having this evidence, if it does in fact exist, provided to the student media. Students deserve to know and the SFUO has a duty to explain the reasons why these decisions are being made. If the evidence does not exist, then I would expect that Mr. Witwer (contract or no contract) and other SFUO employees, who have been penalized for their participation in a legal protest, would be immediately reinstated and that a formal, public apology be issued as soon as possible by the SFUO.

Brandon Clim
Fourth-year political science student

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

What I find to be terribly unfortunate with this whole situation is the following: there exists a culture of fear that the SFUO has instated in its own employees (talk about a safe space, eh?!). Knowing many people who are, in way or another, employed by the SFUO, I was quite shocked to hear them tell me that, despite their support for the protest that took place yesterday (Tuesday March 15th 2011), they would not/could not be seen anywhere near the premises. They told me they relied on the income from that job and could not afford the chance of being fired or suspended.

How ridiculous does this sound to you? Is it fair that SFUO employees are so concerned about losing their jobs that they refrain from participating in a peaceful, legal demonstration against the regime for which employs them? Is that a safe space? Look, this problem hasn't just popped up out of nowhere... Remember this article published in La Rotonde back in November 2010.

I may be dreaming in colours to think that I might get an answer... Phoque, a guy can't even call certain members of the SFUO executive without getting their voicemails day in and day out never mind actually getting a formal, written response regarding the (thus far) baseless accusations of vadalism.

I look forward to any sort of response and will gladly post anything that put forth if and when something does come out of this.

Frustré? Soyez-y demain! / Frustrated? Be there tomorrow!

Cette manifestation aura lieu devant le bureau de la FÉUO dans le Centre universitaire (UCU)! Soyez-y!

*****

This protest will be taking place in front of the SFUO office in the University Centre (UCU)! Be there!

 

More video footage from special meeting of the SFUO BOA

VIEWER DISCRETION IS STRONGLY ADVISED: THIS VIDEO CONTAINS COURSE LANGUAGE AND MAY NOT BE SUITABLE FOR ALL VIEWERS!

This is how the SFUO Board of administration thinks about students who actually care about student politics. It is absolutely shameful! Every single board member who supported the banning of concerned students/student media from the meeting should first, apologize and then swiftly resign!

It is "safe" to say that outside of the university bubble, there is no such thing as a "safe space". Some people may get the shock of their lives once they figure this out! Hiding behind the cloak of a "safe space" is absolutely ridiculous, especially when the student media are denied access. Some of the most disturbing cases that go before Canadian courts even allow for the media's presence (albeit in some very particular instances, the journalists cannot have their BlackBerry or laptops on their person when entering the courtroom).

The Supreme Court of Canada's policy pertaining to the media can be found here

The Ontario courts' policy can be found here.

Arguing that it was accessible because there was a guy rolling around on a squeaky office chair holding a video camera to board members' faces when they spoke is also a sham. Having watched this sad excuse for a livefeed, I can attest to the extremely poor sound quality which persisted throughout the proceedings. Most of the time, people could not hear because of the background noise, technical glitches and, at times, complete blackouts. This is absolutely unacceptable as the meeting proceedings were not made accessible to students as explicitly outlined in the motion.

Of course, as usual, any and all comments are welcomed and encouraged.