The UVic Students’ Society (UVSS) Board of Directors has voted down a proposal to endorse a package aimed at fundamentally reforming the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS).
The package will be considered at the CFS Annual General Meeting (AGM), taking place at the end of November. The UVSS, who will be sending four delegates to the AGM, made the decision at their Nov. 16 board meeting.
The reform package, consisting of 43 motions, was created by student union executives at McGill University, Concordia University, Kwantlen Polytechnic, the University of Calgary and the Alberta College of Art and Design. It has been offered as a possible solution to rising discontent with the CFS. Petitions for referenda on defederating from the organization have been circulated at 13 universities and colleges, including UVic.
The reform package includes motions to disclose salaries of national CFS executives and staff, institute question periods at AGMs, separate the boards of the CFS and its corporate arm, CFS-Services, limit the number of years staff can work in the organization, review the effectiveness of CFS campaigns, cease lawsuits against student unions that voted to defederate and appoint an independent judicial board to supervise all legal action.
Two final motions call for the impeachment of CFS Deputy Chairperson Noah Stewart-Ornstein and the dismissal of CFS Services Executive Director Philip Link.
At the Nov. 16 UVSS board meeting, Director-at Large Kelsey Hannan proposed the UVSS endorse all but one of the motions in the reform package.
Hannan’s motion also urged UVic’s delegates to support the reform package, describing it as a “legitimate attempt to reform the CFS.”
This would be a non-binding directive, explained Director-at-Large Nathan Warner, “but since the whole board can’t go, it’s good to tell delegates how the whole board feels about this.”
But some board members believe the package could do more harm than good.
“After reading many of the motions, I believe the reform package is not created to reform the CFS, rather to destroy it, almost like union busting,” said Director-at-Large Meghan Shannon.
Director-at-Large Brodie Metcalf, who will be one of the UVSS’ delegates to the CFS AGM, said he either has concerns or needs more information about most of the motions in the reform package.
Finance Director Edward Pullman also objected to the package, saying that the CFS national executive would be swamped with internal work if the motions passed.
“The national exec is being directed to do many things,” said Pullman. “This would effectively paralyze the exec in terms of being able to do any advocacy, any lobbying.”
Hannan’s motion was defeated.
The UVSS isn’t alone in refusing to endorse the CFS reform package.
The McGill Post Graduate Student Society (PGSS) has asked some student unions to endorse the package.
Vancouver Island University (VIU) Students’ Union chair Mikael Jensen responded, saying that VIU delegates “will debate the merits of the motions” at the AGM, and the Union won’t be taking a prior position.
Kimalee Philip, president of the Carleton Grad Students’ Association, said that “the entire document reeks of hypocrisy” and called the PGSS’ actions “malicious” and “divisive.”
One of the strongest condemnations of the package came not from a student union, but from the Canadian Association of University Teachers. The group’s executive director, James Turk, accused the PGSS of trying to “cripple” the CFS.
“Should your motions be successful, it would be a tragic loss for students across Canada,” said Turk. “We hope the membership of the CFS soundly rejects each of your destructive motions.”
Debate over the package has already created serious factions within the CFS itself. After the CFS-Quebec (CFS-Q) publically endorsed the reform package, CFS-National told the Concordia Students’ Union (CSU) to pay its CFS membership fees directly to Ottawa rather than the Quebec component. CSU president Amine Dabchy said he received a letter from the CFS national office saying CFS-Q currently “does not exist.”
National CFS chairperson Katherine Giroux-Bougard has added the package to the AGM agenda, but prefaced it with a letter explaining that some clauses in some motions have been removed since the CFS deemed them “potentially litigious.”
I personally would like to ask Kimalee Philip what exactly is hypocritical about the reform package?
Unfortunately the Carleton GSA President can say this under the guise of this article because it doesn't make reference to the motion being put forward by the Carleton GSA.
The Carleton GSA has put forward a motion that could, if the CFS chose this route, end 10 of the 13 petitions that were submitted to the CFS this year.
They've put forward a motion to amend the current bylaw that deals with a referendum on continued membership in the CFS that doubles the required number of signatures to initiate a referendum (from 10% to 20%), calls for a five year period in between failed referendums and would limit the number of referendums taking place in a given year to 2.
Their rationale for this is that it would be anti-democratic to have all of these referendums taking place at once because it would not allow the Federation the time to effectively campaign in these referendums.
It's unfortunate that this motion has been developed. It will ultimately lead to the demise of the CFS. It's clear that they don't want any debate to take place and this is the way that they are trying to silence its critics.
This proposed change is completely anti-democratic.
Who's the hypocrite now?
Not true.
This proposed motion would not be retroactive, it also wouldnt be hypocritical, the motion is tabled to begin a discussion on how referendums should start, i can bet you that motion will be heavily amended.
Stop being so hyperbolic.
Dear Anon,
I'm sorry you feel that I'm exaggerating, but I'm not. I'm speculating on the possible outcomes of this scenario.
I agree with you that the this motion can't and shouldn't be applied retroactively, however was does retroactive mean in this case? Conceivably, an arguement could be made for two scenarios. The first is that all of the petitions that have been submited should be following the current guidelines of the referendum process - which is likely to happen. On the other hand, the National Executive have yet to acknowledge receipt of any of the petitions - which is in line with the current bylaws since they have 90 days to do so, so I have no probelm with that. However, if these petitions haven't been acknowledge can one change the rules of the game and then acknowledge them? If they haven't been acknowledged as being received to they exist in the current framework of the system?
It is unclear and I am very uncertain as to how this will unfold, but this is a possible outcome and not an exaggeration.
If you honestly believe that the motion being presented is intended to spark debate on how the referendum should start, then why include the other amendments? Why have a five year limitation between referendums and why limit the process to only 2 referendums a year?
If anything this motion should be defeated.
This motion is a serious attack on the democratic rights of all of the members of the Federation.
Amanda, what demonstrates that Kimalee Philip and James Turk hate students?
Anon, get your head out of your ass. The motion, regardless of intent, is nothing but anti democratic, and destructive. 20% is nearing a quarter of the student body, and what one member school is doing should have no impact on the actions of another member school. If every member of the CFS wants to leave, they should all have the right to do that. Freedom of association and dissociation.
Here is a link to the reform package: http://pgss.mcgill.ca/EAC/CFSreformPackage_14October2009.pdf I encourage students to make their own decision about each individual motion.
An amendment to the motion during the meeting to direct the delegation to protect debate on the reform package failed by a tie vote--there was a substantial amount of division in the room regarding the reform package.
In response to the criticisms of the reform package, I must question the rhetoric of those arguing these are "destructive" reforms. Surely all the reforms can't be bad! For example, here is a link showing Noah Stewart-Ornstein, Deputy Chair of CFS-National, ripping down posters in a Concordia University election: http://www.thelinknewspaper.ca/articles/1039
My question to those against the reform package is this: How is it 'destructive' to remove shady individuals from the top of our student leadership structure? Why should we be complacent with people who betray the trust of students?
“After reading many of the motions, I believe the reform package is not created to reform the CFS, rather to destroy it, almost like union busting,”
From the description in the article I can't see how any of the reforms destroy the CFS. If anything these would make the CFS more relevant and accountable to its members.
Then again, Meghan Shannon doesn't seem to be a fan of accountability so I guess her position makes sense.
Goddamn, I'm so happy I'm out of this fucking school in April.
The UVSS is pathetic. Enjoy your CFS while it lasts.
Amanda, I was at the meeting. Meghan said that she supported some of the motions in the reform package that promoted "financial accountability/transparency of the cfs" (her words).
Plus... Amanda... She didnt support the ballot vote when it came up for ypy... I thought she would but she didn't.
"from the description in the article" -amanda. Foster described how many out of the 43 motions included in the cfs reform package? 9
Read the reform package.
Oh and kelsey (i'm assuming this is the kelsey hannan director at large)... You betrayed my trust when you made an off handed comment saying "women just argue". I voted for you and this is how you represent me on the board? I may not be a woman... but even i found this in extremely bad form.
D, I'd like it if you provided some context because I definitely didn't say such a thing. And I take the allegation quite seriously too.
I'm assuming this is in relation to the YPY discussion? I think what you may be referring to, and please correct me if this is not the comment, but I said that after taking a Women Studies class I came to appreciate the major arguments and disagreements that exist within feminism. You may have misheard me thinking that I said "women just argue", but I was definitely speaking in a positive manner to how diverse feminism is as a social movement. For example, there are well documented feminist disagreements regarding the significance of pornography: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feministviewson_pornography
I raised that point to emphasize how women also have greatly competing views on the morality of abortion--and as such, the promotion of free discussion to explore these differing views is a valid objective for our society which should result in equal funding to both pro-choice and pro-life clubs.
As someone with the intersectional background of a white male, you can take my interpretation for what it's worth, but I certainly didn't feel my comments were sexist in any way.
Also, please note that a Martlet reporter did take an audio recording of the meeting, so you are free to request to review his tape if you think that I'm not giving you a straight answer.
I am quite disappointed with how Meghan Shannon has seemed to flip-flop on the accountability and transparency she talked about so much during the last election. More flip-flopping going on there than in an IHOP.
She will not be receiving my vote next time, and I am sure others feel the same.
Thank God UVSS board members stay busy with things like the CFS and YPY. Imagine the damage they would do if they had more time on their hands.
Meghan proposed a ballot vote and was accused of being not accountable and un-transparent. She then listened to our concerns and voted against the ballot vote during the last meeting. She is able to address the concerns of members and respond accordingly. However, now sheldon criticizes meghan for being flip-flopping like ihop.
I'm glad you don't change your mind sheldon. "A wise man changes his mind, a fool never will." Quote posted by andrew allen in the ypy article.
Actually H, Sheldon is not alone. I, too, will not be voting for Meghan Shannon (I doubt she will run next year). She lost my vote when she requested a secret ballot a couple months ago. That is a big no-no in my books, and I am certain a lot of students feel the same way. Also, to make it clear, I support the CFS and I will campaign for it when the time comes. Still, I am absolutely baffled how she calls a democratic VOTE made by students "union busting". In my opinion as a 4th year sociology student, she either has NO CLUE how democracy and unions work or she doesn't have the spine to stand for the democratic values she falsely said she would represent. Shame on you BANG.
What kind of student organization suggests that we send our top advocates to lobby politicians on our behalf and pay them only the minimum wage?! Is that really going to draw in the best leadership in the country?
This document proposes ripping up collective agreements and it's not about debate or reform; a few of the motions may be reform-minded but the spirit is destructive and honestly, slightly moronic.
Why is it hypocritical? OK consider that it calls for allowing individual members to opt out of their CFS fee, while NONE of the submitting student unions like PGSS allow their members to do this. Why should an MA student in History at McGill be able to opt out of CFS but not PGSS?!
It's also unprofessional to deal with personnel matters at a national congress. You don't hire and fire staff by a vote of 85 students' unions, especially when they are unionized staff who would have extremely strong legal recourse under the collective agreement!
BANG assumes no responsibility for the actions of Meghan Shannon...she has pretty much defected to FAST after making it clear she doesn't care much for accountability or democratic principles.
To all of you that are ragging on Meghan Shannon for her lack of accountability and responsibility for some of the decisions that she made, maybe look in the mirror because I notice that none of you put your full name.... To all of you doing this, you are being more unaccountable for your opinions than she was.
Lauren: She didn't call the democratic vote by students' union busting. I spoke with her the other day and she supports several of the motions in the package but not the package as a whole. She also said that she supports the vote going to a referendum for students' to have the ability to decide the ultimate outcome of their involvement with the cfs. In addition, TDAWG how do we know she won't run again with BANG? Also, who are you to make the assumption that she isn't running? If you are from the BANG slate (as it seems with your statement that she won't run with that slate next year) and using a name such as "TDAWG" then obviously you do not support accountability either. In addition, we shouldn't vote for any of the members of BANG because they supported the ballot votes and they also voted against kelsey hannan's motion (to send delegates with the pre-disposition of supporting the reform package).
@H
Just a small clairification. Leah Staples put forward the ballot vote and everyone she ran with supported it while several members of BANG voted against it. Most members of BANG were in favour of the CFS motion and although Shannon voted against it she did so with legitmite reasons.
H, it would have been great if she pointed out which motions she supported and why and which motions she didn't support and why. Just like Dylan Hardie did (the independent guy). Until now I fail to see the logical conclusion to her argument that the reform package is aimed at busting the CFS.
I am sure Meghan is a great person, but I won't be voting for her simply because her lack of political consistency and accountability. It is really hard for me to follow what she is about and what her values are when her vote is so erratic and fluctuates in every of the 3-4 meetings I've been at.
For the record, it's not exactly NOT public knowledge that Meghan Shannon is not going to be on the BANG slate. Not only is she not welcome there, but a lot of people already know that she is already being considered by the FASTies to run for them.
G & H:
How am I any more "unaccountable" than you two initial-hugging spin doctors? You guys are the ones hiding behind your first (or last) initials. And, please, how do you know my real name isn't TDawg? Maybe my mother and father hated me. Maybe I was an ugly baby and they thought I'd get picked on, so they gave me a "tough" name. I'm certainly more gangster than you two... er, y'all two.
...represent.
I think that about covers it... straight out of the 250?
My apologies, I shouldn't be attacking G, it was in fact Abby Lodge that was on the crusade for online commenting accountability.
To: KS
First of all, even at their massively inflated salaries, the CFS draws nowhere near the "best leadership in the country". The group as a whole is notoriously ineffective. All they seem to do is release massive omnibus policy packages that bog down any sort of opportunity for progress in a surrounding sea of stupidly unrealistic demands.
They spend the rest of their time bumbling around with their thumbs up their asses litigating the shit out of anybody who points out how useless they are.
Oh, and making as much money from students as they can both through ridiculous fees (which, by the way, get incorporated into the overall calculation of the cost of education so "surprise surprise" their actually contributing to student debt), and a completely shady corporate branch. Just look at all the accusations of money being funneled between the two (supposedly independent) affiliates. Yet somehow the reform package is unreasonable for asking that the two financial statements be separated?
Secondly, the PGSS is following Quebec Law regarding the "Act respecting the accreditation and financing of students' associations".
Individual members have active rights and an active voice in their student unions. Individual members of the CFS are just walking dollar signs with no capacity for dissent or (non-monetary) contribution to the organization.
In any case, most universities offer opt-out options for fee levy groups on campus, which are (like the CFS) decided by referendum. Particularly as the CFS sticks its nose into a variety of partisan social issues, students should be allowed to opt-out if they feel mis-represented or under-represented.
Also, while its extremely difficult to be a student and not ever use any of the services offered by your student union, it's fairly simple to avoid taking advantage of CFS services if you decide to opt-out. They can continue to do their thing and make no headway in Ottawa; it's not like you'll be accidentally "benefiting" from their lobbying efforts...in fact you might actually avoid getting sued.
Oh yeah, and you don't get the ugly Agenda. Go to Staples.
Lauren: Meeting 1:meghan introduced a ballot vote. Meeting 2: In response tot he outcry of students she voted in favour of a roll call vote. meeting 3: she voted against the ballot vote. She also, up until the last meeting had not taken a stance on the cfs position.
I can logical follow her reasoning. I also only see one flip. No flop.
But i've deduced that i am smarter than you.
TDAWG: I have on good authority that she was offered a director at large position with bang. In addition, she still sits on the electoral committee whichy means that she cannot run in next years election. Also, i think your "gangster" comment is in bad form.
Also At the last meeting i saw that james, rajpreet and remi voted against kelsey's motion regarding the cfs. Actually, the only people that voted in favour of it were nathan, kelsey and dylan.
The first time the ballot vote came up weeks ago BANG members voted in favour of it. At the last meeting those same members did vote against it.
Obviously I should pick a better letter to go by...
I was the first G in this thread, just to keep things clear.
To my understanding most members of BANG spoke in favour of the motion. The motion actually only "urged" delegates to consider supporting it and was not actually an endorsement as this article says.
Tdawg: I respect your gangster name even if G doesn't
G: You've deduced that you’re smarter than someone because of a post on this forum? Well done.
During the motion of Meech Lake Accord, Pierre Trudeau made a famous quote and he said: "[T]he federation was set to last a thousand years. Alas, only one eventuality hadn't been foreseen: that one day the government of Canada would fall into the hands of a weakling. It has now happened." I think if we look at the current CFS report card, we can apply the same quote and conclude that CFS is useless.
The Martlet also reserves the right to use comments in the newspaper.