At last month's Student Federation of the University of Ottawa Board of administration (SFUO BOA) meeting, I was asked by Brendan Andrews to sit in as his proxy. Since I had already planned on attending the meeting as a spectator, I gladly accepted his request.
Having blogged about a
recent comment made by the SFUO's VP Communication, Paige Galette, on her personal Facebook page, I took the opportunity to ask her if she was prepared to publicly apologize to both The Fulcrum and LaRotonde for having used her position of influence in an attempt to influence the content of our independent, student-run newspapers. I also pointed out that she had made those comments on Thursday February 9, 2012. To give you a bit more context, on that very day, The Fulcrum published its second edition out of a total of three and LaRotonde had only published one out of a total of three editions during the month of February. Ms. Galette very much disagreed with the premise of my question and went as far as to suggest that it was the newspapers' staff who should apologize to the students who were, according to her, absolutely outraged that they had failed to cover Black History Month events up to that date (February 9, 2012) and in particular, the Black History Month Gala. To be clear, I'm not in any way attempting to defend neither The Fulcrum nor LaRotonde. However, I am saying that, as an elected official on the SFUO executive, one should not be using their position of influence in an attempt to dictate what the independent, student-run newspapers.
Now, as the title of this post suggests, the main reason for this post is to respond directly to remarks that the outgoing Vice-President Student Affairs, Ms. Amy Hammett made to me personally, after the meeting had concluded. My presence at yesterday's SFUO BOA meeting once again reminded me of what she had said to me. I am more than happy to address her remarks and to shed light on the behaviour of many of the board members during the February 26, 2012 SFUO BOA meeting.
But first, of course, context is important. At this time, it should be noted that journalists from both The Fulcrum and LaRotonde were present at the start of the February 26, 2012 meeting. Something occurred during the first part of the meeting that appeared to frustrate (and I'd even go as far to say enrage) many board members sitting around the table. Once question period period had concluded (after executive updates and before the beginning of consideration of new business), two journalists from LaRotonde, who were present in the gallery, made their way to the exit. Once they had exited the uOttawa Senate Chambers, the Chair was forced to bring the meeting to order as many board members seemed to be speaking amongst themselves. When the Chair asked what all the commotion was about, David Eaton responded that the two journalists from LaRotonde had distracted him as they exited the room. Many board members then began to question why the journalists from LaRotonde had left and, in particular, I recall Ms. Hammett asking aloud why the two journalists had left the meeting. Once the consideration of business continued, I recall Ms. Hammett asking me directly if I knew why the two journalists had left. Not having received my credentials as a professional psychic, I answered that I had no idea why they left and went on to suggest that she address such questions directly to the journalists themselves or that she speak with LaRotonde's editor-in-chief. Ms. Hammett then indicated that she had already in fact tweeted at LaRotonde and that she had not yet received a response. The following exchanges took place on Twitter (in the order in which they appear):
Alright, so you kind of get the idea. Along with this back on fourth on Twitter, many board members ensured to take every possible opportunity to voice their disappointment in LaRotonde throughout the meeting (in particular, I can recall Amalia Savva, Paige Galette (who referred to LaRotonde as a "tabloid" newspaper) and Adam Gilanni having made such comments along with numerous other board members going out of their way to point out LaRotonde's absence to the point of hostility). Some claimed that LaRotonde's journalists were ignoring the important motions that were being discussed. In particular, a motion dealing with
accessibility and others bringing forward various amendments to Bylaw 13 (governance of 101 Week):
For readers who may not be familiar with the procedures of the SFUO BOA, I would now like to explain the process which each motion must go through in order for it to become official policy of the SFUO. Most importantly, I would like to point out that every motion presented to the SFUO BOA must be "read" twice before passing.
1) A motion is introduced by the board member who brought it to the board
2) The board member then motivates (giving reasons as to why the board should should support the policy)
3) Question period: board members who wish to ask questions about the motion are then allowed to do so;
4) Debate: Self-explanatory
5) Vote
Therefore, the above 5 steps must occur twice before any given motion becomes official SFUO policy.
As readers will notice in the February 26, 2012 SFUO BOA meeting agenda, all 5 motions were to be read a first time. Therefore, if all 5 motions passed first reading, they would be read a second time at yesterday's SFUO BOA meeting (Motion 13.11 did not pass first reading on February 26th and was sent back to committee which is why, on
yesterday's SFUO BOA meeting agenda, it was once again at first reading stage).
Now that that has been explained to the best of my ability, I would now like to paraphrase the exchange between Ms. Hammett and I upon the conclusion of the February 26, 2012 SFUO BOA meeting:
Amy: What are your thoughts on the fact that LaRotonde's journalists left early?
Brandon: I don't understand why so many board members appeared seemed to be disturbed by this.
Amy: Well, LaRotonde's journalists didn't bother staying to cover the discussions surrounding the important motions that we dealt with.
Brandon: I'm not attempting to defend them but maybe they had to leave because they had other commitments.
Amy: I really am starting to question your ability to think critically about organizations other than the SFUO.
That last line is the one that really caught my attention. Near the end of our short exchange, she said she looked forward to reading my criticism of the perceived issue on my blog. Upon completion, I will personally post a link to this post on Ms. Hammett's Facebook page to ensure that she knows that I didn't forget about her!
In fact, I strongly encourage Ms. Hammett to forward me her response and I commit to publishing it as a standalone post.
First of all, I would like to say that I did not share the feelings of hostility that many board members appeared to have towards the early departure of LaRotonde's journalists. The assumptions that they appeared to be making as to the journalists' motivations were completely unfair and, in my opinion, unfounded. These board members were not in any position to know whether or not, for example, the journalists were ill or had if they had other obligations (such as homework, family, etc.).
Secondly, The Fulcrum and LaRotonde are independent from the SFUO. This means that their respective journalists are accountable to each newspapers' editor-in-chief, their respective teams of journalists and, most importantly, their readership. Thus, the SFUO executive has absolutely no say in what our student newspapers write about and rightly so.
Thirdly, as I have already pointed out, all 5 motions presented during the February 26, 2012 SFUO BOA meeting were at first reading. This means that they were to be discussed again, as they were, during yesterday's board meeting (March 18, 2012). Both The Fulcrum and LaRotonde journalists were present throughout yesterday's meeting thus covering the discussions surrounding those motions. Accordingly, students will be will have the opportunity to read about yesterday's meeting today in LaRotonde and on Thursday in The Fulcrum.
Lastly, and this isn't the first time I've said this, the SFUO executive has a responsibility to inform its membership that such meetings occur and that they are open to anybody who wish to attend. On February 26, 2012, the gallery consisted of one journalist from The Fulcrum and one or two other students. At yesterday's SFUO BOA meeting, other than myself, there were two journalists from LaRotonde and one journalist from The Fulcrum in the gallery. That in itself appears to be telling.
Accordingly, I strongly reject Ms. Hammett's suggestion that I somehow lack the ability to think critically simply because I refused to participate in the collective bashing of LaRotonde undertaken by board members throughout the February 26, 2012 SFUO BOA meeting. Read on...
So, why aren't students attending SFUO BOA meetings you ask? Take a look at the online calendar found on the SFUO website:
Sunday March 18, 2012: empty. Yesterday the SFUO BOA met at Roger-Guindon Campus for its second last meeting of the 2011-2012 mandate. It should be noted that the online calendar had been utilized initially to advertise the monthly BOA meetings (i.e.: months of January 2012, December 2011, November 2011, October 2011, September 2011). Kudos! If you happen to figure out where the
SFUO BOA web page is, you WILL find this list of meeting dates:
Fair is fair: the meeting dates appear on the website. However, as I previously mentioned, yesterday's meeting took place at the Roger-Guindon Campus. Let's just say that someone did happen to notice that there was a meeting taking place yesterday. If that person also somehow knew that SFUO BOA meetings usually take place in the uOttawa Senate Chambers (Tabaret Hall, Room 083), that person still would have been out of luck. The tools that the SFUO should be using in order to inform its membership about such meeting are not and have rarely ever been used to publicize SFUO BOA meetings: The SFUO's Twitter account (
@SFUO_FEUO) has been inactive since Friday March 16, 2012 (as of 11:30 am on March 19, 2012). The SFUO's Facebook page has also been inactive since Friday March 16, 2012 (again, as of 11:30 am on March 19, 2012). And finally, let us not forget the
Ohhlala app which has been adopted by the SFUO as yet another way to connect with its membership. And again, this tool has not been utilized either.
Now, don't get me wrong, I completely agree that our student-run newspapers have a duty to inform uOttawa students about campus news and events. However, before elected members of the highest decision-making body of the SFUO start complaining about our independent, student-run newspapers, maybe they should have been questioning the current Vice-President Communications, Ms. Paige Galette, as to why the communication tools at her disposal have rarely been utilized to inform students about motions being introduced and debated during board meetings. But no, this year's board has not, in my opinion, asked the tough questions and HAS lacked the capacity to think critically about the organization that it purports to oversee. I say this having attended every board meeting with the exception of the January 15, 2012 meeting. Rarely has a board member ever questioned what such and such a motion may entail in terms of financial cost. Rarely has a board member asked about the U-Pass negotiations. And, while not hesitating to denounce the uOttawa administration for a lack of transparency, rarely has a board member ever asked that SFUO BOA documents and/or SFUO executive meeting minutes be made available online in order to ensure that board members/executive members can be held accountable to their members and are as transparent as possible. I can only hope that the incoming board members will take a hard look at the opportunity that they have been given by their peers and will take their role as board members seriously.
I will conclude by once again strongly encouraging the outgoing Vice-President Student Affairs, Ms. Amy Hammett to forward me, in due time, a response to this post. I have gladly taken the time to answer her charge and would very much like to know what she thinks about what I have written in this post. And, as always, your comments are always welcome and encouraged!
+Students+Solidarity+Network+Press+Conference+-+May+25,+2012.jpg)
