UVSS AGM: huge waste
The UVic Students’ Society (UVSS) held yet another unsuccessful general meeting on Oct. 15. Quorum was not met and the special amendments concerning electoral reform could not even be discussed, much less voted on.
But quorum did exist — briefly.
Through a series of technicalities, however, it was ensured that quorum tumbled and, with it, the democracy of the students’ society.
Shamus Reid was the chairperson of the UVSS Annual General Meeting (AGM). Reid is also the chairperson of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS). Reid has been accused of attempting to disqualify quorum at the AGM on technical grounds. When that decision was overturned by the 100-plus UVSS members present, Reid proceeded to go on at length — not only boring the entire anxious assembly, but causing students to leave who had tried to pop in to voice their democratic opinions before class.
While the AGM certainly needed someone from outside of the UVSS to chair the meeting, did it really have to be someone from CFS?
The ties between the UVSS and CFS-BC are undeniable. Not only do we have our UVic representative from CFS-BC as part of our UVSS board, we also have two UVSS board members sitting on the CFS executive committee. As well, the current Aboriginal Students’ Liaison used to be the Native Students Union (NSU) representative on the UVSS board. And the connections continue on.
Obviously, it is desirable for the meeting chair to have experience with large meetings, but the CFS-BC chair has a vested interest in maintaining the power of his organization and its supporters.
The current board has a strong pro-CFS bent, with a particularly strong CFS-BC element. The current rules for appealing an election give the board itself a huge amount of power in that process — and, as we’ve already determined, our current board is very pro-CFS.
However, under the proposed new rules that were supposed to be voted on as special resolutions at the AGM, the power of the UVSS Board of Directors would have been curbed through the position of Elections Adjudicator and the Arbitration Panel. While the board would still get to vote on the Adjudicator and the Arbitration Panel selection, they would no longer have the final say on election issues.
We all know that there’s a petition going around on campus that asks students to question the UVSS’ CFS membership. The petition is organized by students who are considered to be political threats to the current board. If (and hopefully, when) these students run against the current board in the spring, it will be a tight race.
So where does that leave us? We have an organized movement that threatens the current board’s future. We have a current board with strong ties to CFS-BC. And, oh yeah, we have the CFS-BC chairperson running a general meeting where a new electoral policy that could upset the status quo should be voted on.
Sketchy, anyone?
Obviously, it’s time to look at the company we’re keeping, or the process we’re standing by and doing nothing about.
The only way to make real change is to get involved, attend painful meetings, make quorum at the AGMs and be sure that revolutionary motions pass — whether the board wants them to or not.
We do have the power. It’s about time we use it.
38 Comments
The Martlet has an open comments policy and will endeavour to promote healthy discussion. We strive to act as an agent of constructive social change and will remove racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise oppressive comments.
Leave a Comment
Mike B. Oct. 22, 2009, 3:06 a.m.
Overall, solid editorial, but I want to step away from the CFS for just one moment and look specifically at the UVSS with regards to the AGM.
I think another point that should be added to this is that the main reason for this amendment to electoral policy was based on the McCallum recommendations as a result of Mike Waters being wrongfully DQ'd in 2006. As a member of the UVSS board during the 2005-06, Shamus Reid was one of the people who voted to disqualify Waters.
So, in effect, Shamus Reid was chairing a meeting that sought to reform the electoral process because of a disqualification that he voted for himself.
If that's not a conflict of interest, I don't know what is.
Mike B. Oct. 22, 2009, 3:06 a.m.
Overall, solid editorial, but I want to step away from the CFS for just one moment and look specifically at the UVSS with regards to the AGM.
I think another point that should be added to this is that the main reason for this amendment to electoral policy was based on the McCallum recommendations as a result of Mike Waters being wrongfully DQ'd in 2006. As a member of the UVSS board during the 2005-06, Shamus Reid was one of the people who voted to disqualify Waters.
So, in effect, Shamus Reid was chairing a meeting that sought to reform the electoral process because of a disqualification that he voted for himself.
If that's not a conflict of interest, I don't know what is.
Anonymous Oct. 22, 2009, 3:09 a.m.
Shamus Reid was also one of three board members who voted to disqualify Mike Waters, a winning chairperson candidate.
http://uvss.uvic.ca/upload/docs/meetings,%20agendas,%20minutes/minutes%202006-04-25.pdf
To say he was in a conflict of interest would be an understatement. The guy was a part of the BS which kickstarted the need to reform our appeals process. This, plus his CFS-BC connections, and you arguably couldn't have picked a worse chair.
Anonymous Oct. 22, 2009, 3:09 a.m.
Shamus Reid was also one of three board members who voted to disqualify Mike Waters, a winning chairperson candidate.
http://uvss.uvic.ca/upload/docs/meetings,%20agendas,%20minutes/minutes%202006-04-25.pdf
To say he was in a conflict of interest would be an understatement. The guy was a part of the BS which kickstarted the need to reform our appeals process. This, plus his CFS-BC connections, and you arguably couldn't have picked a worse chair.
Eric Oct. 22, 2009, 2:11 p.m.
I'm sorry, did Shamus put a gun to students' head and say leave this auditorium? Students chose to leave and the meeting lost quorum. The fact that this has been turned into a with hunt by the Martlet is pure Fox News journalism.
Eric Oct. 22, 2009, 2:11 p.m.
I'm sorry, did Shamus put a gun to students' head and say leave this auditorium? Students chose to leave and the meeting lost quorum. The fact that this has been turned into a with hunt by the Martlet is pure Fox News journalism.
Tim Oct. 22, 2009, 5:31 p.m.
Eric —
Conflict of interest is conflict of interest.
He didn't force a gun to people's heads — and, come on, that's a bit of a harsh analogy — but he certainly played his role (and played it well) in boring people to death on purpose to get them to leave.
His job was to break quorum so that reforms, that would prevent people from doing what he did in the past, would not get passed and the status quo would remain intact.
Shamus Reid is the worst kind of politician (power-hungry and corrupt) and if you were in attendance at the AGM or had any conversations with him in the past, you'd know that's true.
This editorial was bang-on. Good work, Martlet.
Tim Oct. 22, 2009, 5:31 p.m.
Eric —
Conflict of interest is conflict of interest.
He didn't force a gun to people's heads — and, come on, that's a bit of a harsh analogy — but he certainly played his role (and played it well) in boring people to death on purpose to get them to leave.
His job was to break quorum so that reforms, that would prevent people from doing what he did in the past, would not get passed and the status quo would remain intact.
Shamus Reid is the worst kind of politician (power-hungry and corrupt) and if you were in attendance at the AGM or had any conversations with him in the past, you'd know that's true.
This editorial was bang-on. Good work, Martlet.
Andrew Oct. 22, 2009, 8:26 p.m.
Of course Shamus didn't force people to leave, Eric, but the patience of students was certainly put to the limit.
After approving the Chair, the next item on the AGM agenda is approving the Agenda itself. Shamus was approved as Chair around 3:30PM. By 4:00PM the process of approving the Agenda had just begun when quorum was lost. Shamus Reid did everything he could in his role as Chair to ensure the meeting was delayed.
In short: There is no legitimate reason why it takes 30 minutes to make zero progress in the meeting unless people are ensuring this happens intentionally.
Andrew Oct. 22, 2009, 8:26 p.m.
Of course Shamus didn't force people to leave, Eric, but the patience of students was certainly put to the limit.
After approving the Chair, the next item on the AGM agenda is approving the Agenda itself. Shamus was approved as Chair around 3:30PM. By 4:00PM the process of approving the Agenda had just begun when quorum was lost. Shamus Reid did everything he could in his role as Chair to ensure the meeting was delayed.
In short: There is no legitimate reason why it takes 30 minutes to make zero progress in the meeting unless people are ensuring this happens intentionally.
M Oct. 22, 2009, 9:53 p.m.
This seems like a ridiculous conspiracy theory to me. Most of that 30 minutes after we had achieved quorum was spent determining if we actually had quorum. Yes there was confusion at that part, but saying Shamus was intentionally stalling the process if a bit far-fetched.
Also if I remember correctly students only started leaving once there were people putting motions through to move up the electoral reforms.
This editorial was quite poorly written. Example: Reid proceeded to go on at length — not only boring the entire anxious assembly, What exactly was Reid going on at length at? Am I the only once confused by this writing.
One final thought: I found the comment about the connections between the UVSS and the CFS a bit of a stretch. Don't all school that are members of the CFS have board members on the CFS-BC executive. How else would we have our voices heard? And someone the Native Students Union person used to be the Aboriginal rep......seems like you are pulling at straws ed:)
M Oct. 22, 2009, 9:53 p.m.
This seems like a ridiculous conspiracy theory to me. Most of that 30 minutes after we had achieved quorum was spent determining if we actually had quorum. Yes there was confusion at that part, but saying Shamus was intentionally stalling the process if a bit far-fetched.
Also if I remember correctly students only started leaving once there were people putting motions through to move up the electoral reforms.
This editorial was quite poorly written. Example: Reid proceeded to go on at length — not only boring the entire anxious assembly, What exactly was Reid going on at length at? Am I the only once confused by this writing.
One final thought: I found the comment about the connections between the UVSS and the CFS a bit of a stretch. Don't all school that are members of the CFS have board members on the CFS-BC executive. How else would we have our voices heard? And someone the Native Students Union person used to be the Aboriginal rep......seems like you are pulling at straws ed:)
Andrew Oct. 22, 2009, 11:10 p.m.
He rambled on for 15 minutes about the various procedures that could be used at the meeting. This was on the handout made available to everyone as they entered the meeting. I have attended previous meetings in which Shamus did not feel the need to do this.
Shamus is a former UVSS Finance Director who later when on to become the CFS BC Chairperson after he graduated. All CFS schools have a CFS representative that attends meetings on behalf of the UVSS. They are not considered board members of the CFS-BC executive however.
Andrew Oct. 22, 2009, 11:10 p.m.
He rambled on for 15 minutes about the various procedures that could be used at the meeting. This was on the handout made available to everyone as they entered the meeting. I have attended previous meetings in which Shamus did not feel the need to do this.
Shamus is a former UVSS Finance Director who later when on to become the CFS BC Chairperson after he graduated. All CFS schools have a CFS representative that attends meetings on behalf of the UVSS. They are not considered board members of the CFS-BC executive however.
José Barrios Oct. 22, 2009, 11:21 p.m.
M,
Were the multiple delays intentional or not? We'll never know. But here is what we do know for a FACT:
• There was an electoral reform brought to the AGM to fix our electoral system.
• They were based on the recommendations of a retired law professor.
• She recommended the board not be a part of the appeals process since the board unfairly disqualified the opposition chair candidate.
• The voting members of the board that disqualified Mike Waters were 3.
• One of those voting members was SHAMUS REID.
Shamus voted to disqualify the opposition -> A retired law professor says we need to reform the system because the opposition candidate was disqualified unfairly -> Shamus chairs the meeting to pass the reform -> Shamus takes his time and quorum is lost and the reform doesn't happen.
We'll never know if he intended to break quorum or not, what we do know is that he was at a clear and factual conflict of interest.
José Barrios Oct. 22, 2009, 11:21 p.m.
M,
Were the multiple delays intentional or not? We'll never know. But here is what we do know for a FACT:
• There was an electoral reform brought to the AGM to fix our electoral system.
• They were based on the recommendations of a retired law professor.
• She recommended the board not be a part of the appeals process since the board unfairly disqualified the opposition chair candidate.
• The voting members of the board that disqualified Mike Waters were 3.
• One of those voting members was SHAMUS REID.
Shamus voted to disqualify the opposition -> A retired law professor says we need to reform the system because the opposition candidate was disqualified unfairly -> Shamus chairs the meeting to pass the reform -> Shamus takes his time and quorum is lost and the reform doesn't happen.
We'll never know if he intended to break quorum or not, what we do know is that he was at a clear and factual conflict of interest.
John Oct. 23, 2009, 12:33 a.m.
There's clearly a bit of confusion here about the structure of the CFS, CFS-BC, CFS-S... Who is a director of what, what does it mean to be a member. I'll try and explain the general structure for you.
There are general meetings of each level, provincial and national, twice a year. Each local selects their delegates, but these people are just like the individual students at your SGM. They are one of many. The day to day operations and the bulk of the power rests with national and provincial executives. The provincial executive is made up of one representative from each local and several other people elected at the general meetings, such as treasurer, chairperson and representatives of other caucuses. The national executive is made up of one representative from each province, and several from the national caucuses.
Of course, there is one member local that does not have a representative on the BC executive. Ask your reps!
I can't vouch for how accurate or current they are, but you should be able to get a general gist of things from the incomplete document archive at http://www.sfu.ca/~tgregory/cfs/. No one else will ever tell you how this works, and god help you if you want to actually see the rules yourself. Have fun reading! Make it a game. See if you can spot where the checks and balances aren't, then test your friends. You can compete for stacks of No Means No postcards, because, hey, everyone has lots of people they need to inform by post that they are uninterested in sexual congress.
John Oct. 23, 2009, 12:33 a.m.
There's clearly a bit of confusion here about the structure of the CFS, CFS-BC, CFS-S... Who is a director of what, what does it mean to be a member. I'll try and explain the general structure for you.
There are general meetings of each level, provincial and national, twice a year. Each local selects their delegates, but these people are just like the individual students at your SGM. They are one of many. The day to day operations and the bulk of the power rests with national and provincial executives. The provincial executive is made up of one representative from each local and several other people elected at the general meetings, such as treasurer, chairperson and representatives of other caucuses. The national executive is made up of one representative from each province, and several from the national caucuses.
Of course, there is one member local that does not have a representative on the BC executive. Ask your reps!
I can't vouch for how accurate or current they are, but you should be able to get a general gist of things from the incomplete document archive at http://www.sfu.ca/~tgregory/cfs/. No one else will ever tell you how this works, and god help you if you want to actually see the rules yourself. Have fun reading! Make it a game. See if you can spot where the checks and balances aren't, then test your friends. You can compete for stacks of No Means No postcards, because, hey, everyone has lots of people they need to inform by post that they are uninterested in sexual congress.
A Oct. 23, 2009, 2:05 a.m.
Tracy Ho, Christine Comrie, and Rajpreet Sall are all executives at the BC-CFS level. They are also memebers of our current board.
A Oct. 23, 2009, 2:05 a.m.
Tracy Ho, Christine Comrie, and Rajpreet Sall are all executives at the BC-CFS level. They are also memebers of our current board.
Erica Oct. 24, 2009, 12:33 p.m.
Tracy, Comrie and Rajpreet are part of the BC-CFS executive. So what?
Everyone on the board is doing a great job except for the bang! and the bold people (white conservatives). They are just amateurs trying to play politics. Im glad team FAST (dope left) has been there to kick their ass into gear. Go FAST go!
Erica Oct. 24, 2009, 12:33 p.m.
Tracy, Comrie and Rajpreet are part of the BC-CFS executive. So what?
Everyone on the board is doing a great job except for the bang! and the bold people (white conservatives). They are just amateurs trying to play politics. Im glad team FAST (dope left) has been there to kick their ass into gear. Go FAST go!
James Coccola Oct. 24, 2009, 3:21 p.m.
Erica,
If there is something that I have done that you disagree with then you are free to email me with your concerns.
jcoccola@uvic.ca
James Coccola Oct. 24, 2009, 3:21 p.m.
Erica,
If there is something that I have done that you disagree with then you are free to email me with your concerns.
jcoccola@uvic.ca
Barack Oct. 24, 2009, 11:48 p.m.
So Nadim, Rajpreet and Meghan Shannon are
white conservatives?It's odd that you'd play that card considering FAST elected only white candidates.
Barack Oct. 24, 2009, 11:48 p.m.
So Nadim, Rajpreet and Meghan Shannon are
white conservatives?It's odd that you'd play that card considering FAST elected only white candidates.
Richard Oct. 25, 2009, 3:50 p.m.
Get used to this kind of political interference from the CFS. It's not the first time and it won't be the last.
If they already have this kind of stranglehold on the UVic SU then you're in trouble. Even if the students who began the petition decide to run for office next year, you can be guarranteed that the CFS will find puppets and use lots of money to have them elected.
Richard Oct. 25, 2009, 3:50 p.m.
Get used to this kind of political interference from the CFS. It's not the first time and it won't be the last.
If they already have this kind of stranglehold on the UVic SU then you're in trouble. Even if the students who began the petition decide to run for office next year, you can be guarranteed that the CFS will find puppets and use lots of money to have them elected.
JKB Oct. 25, 2009, 11:58 p.m.
Erica
Your comments are ridiculous at best. I understand that most of the student body at UVic are more left leaning than not, but to call the BOLD slate( Kelsey Hannan and Nathan Warner)
White Conservativesperfectly demonstrates the kind of divisive actions the UVSS needs to move away from. Secondly neither of them are particularlyConservative. Last of all it is time that we stopped attacking each slate, and their political leanings, and started working together to make the board function as a cohesive unit so that change can come, and the UVSS can be improved.JKB Oct. 25, 2009, 11:58 p.m.
Erica
Your comments are ridiculous at best. I understand that most of the student body at UVic are more left leaning than not, but to call the BOLD slate( Kelsey Hannan and Nathan Warner)
White Conservativesperfectly demonstrates the kind of divisive actions the UVSS needs to move away from. Secondly neither of them are particularlyConservative. Last of all it is time that we stopped attacking each slate, and their political leanings, and started working together to make the board function as a cohesive unit so that change can come, and the UVSS can be improved.Kelsey Oct. 26, 2009, 6:09 a.m.
Erica trust me in saying that I'm not a Conservative! In fact I voted BC Green last election.
Following with what James wrote above, if you any concerns about what I've done on the board then please feel free to forward any concerns you have to Khannan@uvic.ca
Kelsey Oct. 26, 2009, 6:09 a.m.
Erica trust me in saying that I'm not a Conservative! In fact I voted BC Green last election.
Following with what James wrote above, if you any concerns about what I've done on the board then please feel free to forward any concerns you have to Khannan@uvic.ca
Claire Oct. 26, 2009, 2:35 p.m.
Just a couple points-
There is absolutely nothing weird that people from the UVSS are active in CFS-BC- that's the way it has to be for UVic to have a voice there. In fact we should be proud as a Student Union that so many of our student reps have been elected on a provincial level by other student Union.
Secondly- I wasn't at the AGM, but it sounds like regular AGM procedure to me. If Shamus hadn't explained the procedures then people would have complained that the meeting was inaccessible and a lot of people would have made bad amendments or not known how to get what they wanted to get done in a procedurally correct way causing even more frustration (Ive seen it happen).
And third- there was nothing revolutionary at all about those amendments! The UVSS has been trying to pass similar electoral amendments for years, but its notoriously difficult to get the average student interested in policy amendments. It usually takes something like the military issue to get people out and to stay long enough to make a decision, and even then everyone leaves before important policy can be passed. The point is the average student doesn't really care about policy, because from their point of view the elections seem fine- and in the last couple years there hasn't been any serious electoral fraud at all. Think what you want about the people on the board this year, but almost everyone agrees whether FAST, BANG or BOLD they were elected fairly.
Claire Oct. 26, 2009, 2:35 p.m.
Just a couple points-
There is absolutely nothing weird that people from the UVSS are active in CFS-BC- that's the way it has to be for UVic to have a voice there. In fact we should be proud as a Student Union that so many of our student reps have been elected on a provincial level by other student Union.
Secondly- I wasn't at the AGM, but it sounds like regular AGM procedure to me. If Shamus hadn't explained the procedures then people would have complained that the meeting was inaccessible and a lot of people would have made bad amendments or not known how to get what they wanted to get done in a procedurally correct way causing even more frustration (Ive seen it happen).
And third- there was nothing revolutionary at all about those amendments! The UVSS has been trying to pass similar electoral amendments for years, but its notoriously difficult to get the average student interested in policy amendments. It usually takes something like the military issue to get people out and to stay long enough to make a decision, and even then everyone leaves before important policy can be passed. The point is the average student doesn't really care about policy, because from their point of view the elections seem fine- and in the last couple years there hasn't been any serious electoral fraud at all. Think what you want about the people on the board this year, but almost everyone agrees whether FAST, BANG or BOLD they were elected fairly.
Sean Oct. 27, 2009, 6:53 a.m.
Re: Point One- It is not the fact that board members have involvement in the CFS that anyone has a problem with. It is the fact that Shamus Reid, when he was a student at UVic, had direct involvement in the events that lead to the motions that were on the agenda. This raises questions about whether he had a conflict of interest as the Chair of the meeting.
Re: Second point- I notice a common theme of people giving their opinion of the AGM's events without having attended. Do you not think that if the Martlet has published two opinion pieces indicating the conduct of the chair was unusual, that maybe this wasn't
regular AGM procedure? You can explain the functions available to attendees in well under five minutes. The fact that Shamus Reid dragged this out to 15 minutes should indicate some deliberate attempt to delay the meeting.Re: Third point- The only reason the past two elections have free of any serious electoral fraud is because the UVSS finally started hiring an unbiased and impartial CEO such as Conrad Vanderkamp.
The structural flaws for appealing the decision of the CEO are still in place. They only haven't become an issue because he has not had to make any controversial disqualifications these past two years.
Sean Oct. 27, 2009, 6:53 a.m.
Re: Point One- It is not the fact that board members have involvement in the CFS that anyone has a problem with. It is the fact that Shamus Reid, when he was a student at UVic, had direct involvement in the events that lead to the motions that were on the agenda. This raises questions about whether he had a conflict of interest as the Chair of the meeting.
Re: Second point- I notice a common theme of people giving their opinion of the AGM's events without having attended. Do you not think that if the Martlet has published two opinion pieces indicating the conduct of the chair was unusual, that maybe this wasn't
regular AGM procedure? You can explain the functions available to attendees in well under five minutes. The fact that Shamus Reid dragged this out to 15 minutes should indicate some deliberate attempt to delay the meeting.Re: Third point- The only reason the past two elections have free of any serious electoral fraud is because the UVSS finally started hiring an unbiased and impartial CEO such as Conrad Vanderkamp.
The structural flaws for appealing the decision of the CEO are still in place. They only haven't become an issue because he has not had to make any controversial disqualifications these past two years.
Albert Oct. 28, 2009, 11:33 a.m.
There have been serious electrical issues the past two years, Marne and the people in power have just gotten better at keeping them covered up. Think about the ballot counter reading out Team Fast names instead of the people who were actually voted for. I know there was a recount, but that doesn't mean things didn't happen that we don't know about.
Second, last year I saw the UVSS resource coordinators painting banners for Team Fast in the basement of the SUB!! I didn't see them extend the same offer to members of BANG or BOLD.
Third, read some of the crazy crap that Conrad Vanderkamp has written into the Martlet in the past. He seems to measure he success by how closely the results of the recount matched the results of the original count, which means he has a motive to ensure the results don't change after the original count. Something he should care about.
These are only the things we know about. Thank about all the stuff we don't know about, which it is safe to assume is A LOT!!!
Albert Oct. 28, 2009, 11:33 a.m.
There have been serious electrical issues the past two years, Marne and the people in power have just gotten better at keeping them covered up. Think about the ballot counter reading out Team Fast names instead of the people who were actually voted for. I know there was a recount, but that doesn't mean things didn't happen that we don't know about.
Second, last year I saw the UVSS resource coordinators painting banners for Team Fast in the basement of the SUB!! I didn't see them extend the same offer to members of BANG or BOLD.
Third, read some of the crazy crap that Conrad Vanderkamp has written into the Martlet in the past. He seems to measure he success by how closely the results of the recount matched the results of the original count, which means he has a motive to ensure the results don't change after the original count. Something he should care about.
These are only the things we know about. Thank about all the stuff we don't know about, which it is safe to assume is A LOT!!!