punditry.ca — uncovering DSU elections

I saw this post on the SMAC website last week, and have been searching for the time to write an analysis of it ever since. There is a lot of confusion about casa on campus lately, so I’d like to take the opportunity to dispell some of the myths and exagerations put forth in this posting from SMAC. 

Before I do this I must say that CASA isn’t perfect. CASA may not have done exactly what you wish they had done over the past few years, but that’s no reason to pull out of CASA. Working with 24 student organizations from BC to Nova Scotia isn’t easy, it involves cooperation, compromise and most of all compassion for the needs and opinions of students across Canada. Like any democratic system, there is a minority that won’t always get their way. 
Here goes… From the SMAC website: 

 

 

The Dalhousie Student Union (DSU) is currently a member in the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations (CASA). CASA is a student advocacy group which lobbies the federal government on behalf of their constituents – about 23 educational institutions. They provide “realistic policy initiatives on post-secondary education” to the federal government.

 

True. I’m not quite sure why you ended your quotes after education, as the whole last sentence is taken directly from CASA’s website.

The DSU joined CASA without any consultation with the student body.

UPDATE: The DSU joined CASA conditionally in January of 1995, until such time that a referendum could be held during the spring elections. (Council Minutes of January 22, 1995: Motion 199:94)

During the February elections of 1995 the referendum question “Do you wish to become a member of CASA, Yes or No” passed according to the CRO Report of March 20, 1995. 

A portion of your student union fees go towards a federal lobby group

Yes, $1.95/student is the going rate, working out to just over $31 000/year. 

about whom you likely know very little.They represent your interests to the government, yet they have never made an effort to educate students on their policy, issues of post-secondary education, or even their existence.

True, you may know very little about CASA, but this is not due to lack of trying on our part. In 2006 VP Education Mike Tipping ran a campus wide footprint campaign asking students to list the most significant barrier they had to pursuing a higher education. The footprints were later sent to parliament hill, however some remain stickered to my office door. Here is president elect Shannon Zimmerman talking about how the campaign infiltrated residences in 2006.

 

In 2007 Tara Gault ran the fabulous “No-Grants, No-Pants” campaign in an effort to rally students behind the renewal of $350 Million in needs based student financial aid. Here is one of many students reached by that campaign. 

 

Last year CASA’s membership decided to get rid of the annual campaigns initiative and decided to run campaigns on an as needed basis. The federal election campaign in September was one of these “as needed” campaigns.

 

Next year the DSU will give CASA and ANSSA (the Alliance of Nova Scotia Student Associations) $69,330. Where does it go?

At both CASA and ANSSA, membership fees go primarily to paying staff to run these organizations and cover overhead costs. It is important to have staff to maintain responsiveness when student representatives cannot. Just look at the decrease in campus activity from groups like SMAC and Stop-NSPIRG since the exam season has begun. 

Outwardly, CASA states its belief that “any academically qualified student with the desire to pursue post-secondary education should not face a barrier, financial or otherwise.” Yet their lobbying strategy is effectually quite different.

CASA’s lobbying strategy is one that uses strategic partnerships and building positive relationships with those who make decisions that affect us.  SMAC, on the other hand uses protests and mobilization and has actively chosen not to  communicate with decision makers they wish to influence (DSU Executive and Councillors) until emailing them with a set of motions that included asking for a formal apology. You’re right, we’ve got the wrong tactic. We should abandon all of the positive relationships that have delivered students results in the past. 

Rather than supporting overall tuition reduction,

CASA is not opposed to the idea of overal tuition reduction, it is just not something that can be pushed at the national level. Unfortunately, section 93 of the Canadian Constitution clearly outlines that the provinces are responsible for legislation in this area, not the federal government. CASA, “realistically” calls upon the federal government to make more transfer payments to the provinces so that the provinces have the resources available to reduce tuition fees if they so choose. See CASA’s policy on tuition. 

CASA supports increases in targeted grants for individual students. This fails to make university more accessible to all; particularly to low income individuals.

Yes, CASA does support the expansion of targeted grants for individual students, however the students that are targetted by these grants are low-income students, students of high financial and non-financial need – disabled students, aboriginal students, students of rural background and students who do not come from families where there is a culture of pursuing higher education. All of these groups have shown to have increased financial barriers associated with puruing post secondary education. 

 

The provision of such scholarships does not target the unacceptably high price tag of tuition but ameliorates its burden on an individual basis while accepting expensive tuition as a fact.

In essence, these scholarships seek to lower the cost of tuition for the individuals who need it the most. The unfortunate aspect of decreasing the cost of tuition is that it is very similar to a tax-cut for lower, middle and upper income individuals. We must accept the fact that there is a limited pool of resources the government is willing to dedicate to PSE, and that if money is going into the system it should go towards those who need it the most. 

Similarly, the Canadian Millennium Scholarship Fund of which CASA is supportive, exists as a form of debt relief; the underlying premise this rests on is Debt.

Not true, CMSF was a program that was administered along side the Canada Student Loan Program (CSLP) , which isn’t the same as debt relief, and CASA has strongly advocated that access to the grants should not be limited to individuals who have Canada Student Loans. 

It is also notable that the former National Director of CASA, Alex Usher (1994-1996) is in fact now the Vice President of the Educational Policy Institute (EPI). The EPI produces policy recommendations for Canadian, US, and Australian governments regarding “educational opportunity.” The EPI has produced numerous policy papers which recommend higher tuition fees - in conjunction with higher and more accessible loans – across the board as a means to securing access to post-secondary education. The Affordability of Education report produced by the EPI in 2004 states:

” Several US states operate on a high-tuition, high-aid model of funding, while Canada operates on a relatively low-cost, low-aid model. Public policy analysts argue the merits of either model, but the reality is that a high-tuition, high-aid model allows for a redistribution of funding that takes into consideration ability to pay.”

I used to make sandwiches at Wendy’s, now I work for the DSU. The DSU has  policies on academic integrity, tuition, and access and affordability of education. Does that mean that Wendy’s now supports all of these initiatives? No. Please take Intro to Philosophy – Logic and Deduction. 

Grants and loans are not the solution. Students need federal representation that seeks to lower tuition across the board and do away with student debt. CASA doesn’t take this line.

Again, section 93 of the constitution says this is the province’s responsibility. It sounds like you’ve got a problem with that document, so I suggest you look at Part V of it, which explains how difficult it is to ammend the constitution. 

 Rather it prides itself on its convivial relationship with power-holders in the federal government.

Decide for yourself. Let’s take our membership in CASA to a vote.

While John Hillman will likely give us a hilarious set of video postings later this afternoon, I will now offer you my two cents on the current climate on campus . 

Over the past few weeks I’ve struggled with a few things. At times, I caught myself thinking “Man, I don’t know who I’m more frustrated with right now, NSPIRG or Stop-NSPIRG”, because students on both sides of the issues have been proliferating campus with misinformation. The stop movement keeps saying that NSPIRG has non-student staff, like its a bad thing, without duly noting that the DSU and the women’s centre also employ non-student staff. The NSPIRG side continues to say that SMAC are a completely “unaffiliated group” , but when NSPIRG books room 306 in the SUB wednesday evening, and then SMAC advertises the event as their own, there is an undeniable affiliation (eventually, SMAC corrected the advertisement to read that NSPIRG would be providing childcare, but originally, the indication was that SMAC was providing childcare).

At other times throughout the week, I was trying to figure out who I liked more: NSPIRG or stop. NSPIRG has done a lot of great work at Dal, and I am under the impression that most students (outside of the GM membership) would support their continuation as a funded organization. Stop, on the other hand, has impressed me with their ability to mobilize students and promote political activism (of a seemingly benign political belief among youth) right here on campus. 

On top of this, I was elated to see 650 students out at our AGM prepared to discuss and vote on these issues. 

This love-hate relationship with both groups began to remind me of my love-hate relationship with Canadian politics. Which led me to my next idea, which was influenced by a chance encounter. I will tell you about it.

I came home last night, and there was a hippy asleep on my couch. No surprise, its happened before, it will likely happen again – that’s the blessing of having generous roomies, you see; always meeting new people. So, I ignored him, made some kraft dinner, read punditry.ca, and went to bed. 

I wake up this morning, and I can hear my housemates having a spirited debate with Granola Gus. He’s arguing that Obama hasn’t actually changed anything in America, and is essentially running the third term of the Bush administration. After last night’ s debate, I don’t want to leave my room end enter another political debate, but I do anyways. We get talking and I discover that he’s an American who (surprise, surprise…)  just finished working on the Nader4President campaign. For those of you who aren’t aware, Ralph Nader started the PIRG movement. So I enlighten this individual (who may or may not be my new roommate?) about our current situation on campus, and he offers this suggestion. 

“Man, like, um… why do those right wing idiots always have to rain on our parade? [insert short interlude about decriminilizing marijuana and mandatory minimums] Why don’t they just start up their own right wing activist think tank at Dal and fund it the same way? You guys could have some sweet debates with them.” 

So I ran with this in my head for a while. Dalhousie is diverse, and so are all of our socieities who represent students from a variety of social, cultural, and political backgrounds.  Personally, my political views are more closely in line with those of NSPIRG, but I think between us have a disagreement on tact and the value of compromise. I do recognize the concerns of those who disagree with their political views, and I sympathize with them. 

So, I’m not about to  start a campaign to initiate the Dalhousie chapter of the Fraser Institute. But, it strikes me as odd for the stop movement to be adamant at snuffing out their idealogical opponents funding, rather than choosing to campaign for funding for their own action-based think tank that caters to their own political preferences. So I pose a question to the stop movement. Why not create your own PIRG?  Why not create a group that can be the official opposition and critics of the policy stances of NSPIRG (and vice-versa)?

The past three weeks have been horrible for the disrespect that can and has existed between many members of different ideological factions on campus. On the contrary, they have been exceptional for the triumph of a politically concious campus. I was stoked to hear that we hit fire code last night, that students were interested in getting engaged.

I self-identify as a progressive, but to be honest I’m bored of being on a campus where the majority of social and political events we host are for lefties. I don’t feel that encourages a politics of dissent, and can at times encourage conformity. Good ideas only show themselves as good ideas because they are challenged. It certainly doesn’t promote respect for people of differing viewpoints – I know because when I tried to talk about this last night I got hissed at, as did several others. 

I don’t throw this idea out there as a suggestion, but rather as a question for debate.

I am going to attempt live-blogging the meeting tonight.

11:30 – Motion Fails 215-237. Posse out.

11:26 – The ballots are being counted.

10:37 – Building hours will be extended long enough for us to finish voting and hear the results. The line to vote is still very long. I’d say there might be over 100 people waiting to vote.

10:25 – Still voting. I’m now getting reports that we have to leave the room before 11:00 (the meeting was extended until 10:45), but I suspect an attempt will be made so that we can stay later.

9:30 – My friend John Hurley has kindly let me use his laptop for the past three hours. The battery is going to die in 13 minutes. If somebody in the McInnes Room would like to let me blog from their computer, I would appreciate it (Don’t get out of your seat during the vote; just leave a comment). Otherwise, I’m going to have to type on my iPod Touch, which is fine with me, but will slow down my productivity greatly.

9:28 – We will have to present our DalCards to receive a ballot.

9:25 – Chair has asked Dan Boyle, Daniel Pink, Alia Saied and Jane Kirby to act as scrutineers.

9:23 – It is freakin’ close. Shannon Zimmerman has moved for a ballot vote (Chair asked that if someone was going to do it, do it now to pre-empt his hand-count). Mark Coffin has requested a role call vote, but Zimmerman wants the ballot vote to preserve some anonymity. Everyone has been asked to find a seat. (According to the Chair, “A seat is not the ground.”)

9:20 – Okay. This might make it a little clearer: We can make Council collaborate with NSPIRG. We probably can’t make NSPIRG collaborate with Council. So, if NSPIRG doesn’t want to collaborate, Council can go ahead with initiating a referendum so long as an effort is made to collaborate first.

9:18 – Chair’s interpretation is that this wording of this motion requires Council to collaborate with NSPIRG when drafting an appropriate question. At the same time, it requires Council to draft wording of a referendum question…Does that make sense to everyone?

9:16 – Debate is over. Now we get to vote!

9:14 – VPFO has raised a point of order regarding whether the current wording is within the spirit of the original motion because it requires collaboration between NSPIRG and DSU Council. His concern is that nothing may happen if NSPIRG does not agree with the wording of the referendum. Only one minute of debate left…

9:09 – Speaker took a couple of points of information about NSPIRG elections. When Ben Wedge raised one, she refused to take his question. (I suspect his question was going to be in regard to her comment that any Dal student can run for a position on the NSPIRG Board. A Dal student who has opted out of the NSPIRG fee, as I’ve been told, is not eligible to run for a Board position.)

9:05 – Speaker is saying that Stop NSPIRG is not a Conservative Party conspiracy. He feels we should put this to a referendum.

9:02 – Steinberg objects to the speaker’s reference to “leaders of NSPIRG” as they are a non-hierarchical body. Chair is trying to explain when a point of personal privilege should be used; it is not meant to clear up technicalities. Only use it if somebody impugns your honour.

8:59 – A member of the crowd has taken issue with some of the speaker’s comments. She objects to the term “Dr. Cluster Bomb”, but if the individual the speaker is referring to refers to himself by that name, it’s not out of order. The person raising the point of personal privilege did not speak into the microphone, so I missed a lot of what she said.

8:56 – Motion passed.

8:54 – Subsequent speaker has called to question. That passed. Now we’re voting on the amendment.

8:52 – Debogorski tried to call the question earlier out of turn. Now he’s at the mic and making comments. Robert’s Rules fun fact: If you are going to call to question, you can’t speak to the motion first.

8:50 – Here’s the wording of the amendment as it appears on the big screen:

BIRT the NSPIRG Board and DSU Council collaborate to word a referendum question to reaffirm the mandate of NSPIRG and its levy over motion 166:90 to take place in the 2009-10 academic year.

BIFRT the NSPIRG Board and DSU Council collaborate to resolve issues raised at this meeting.

8:46 – Colin, a “moderate” supporter of Stop NSPIRG (moderate in that he has engaged in dialogue with NSPIRG members), supports the motion/amendment (as long as NSPIRG really does want to make changes to their operations) and raises Stop NSPIRG’s three main problems with NSPIRG: (1) opt-out procedure, (2) accountability of working groups, and (3) NSPIRG falling in line with their original referendum question.

8:45 – NSPIRG is willing to improve advertising and accessibility of their opt-out policy. They welcome students bringing concerns forward.

8:44 – Steinberg has also raised what I feel is a very valid point: NSPIRG and the DSU have mechanisms in place if students have complaints which have not been used.

8:43 – Steinberg is raising the point that this meeting is not the proper forum for deciding the fate of NSPIRG. NSPIRG supports going to a referendum.

8:41 – Chair finds the referendum stuff is the essence of the motion. While it may push the limits, he finds the amendment to be permissible.

8:40 – Boyle explains that we shouldn’t cripple the society before everyone has had a chance to have their say in a referendum.

8:35 – NSPIRG Board Member Jean Steinberg is moving an amendment seconded by VPI Daniel Boyle.

Move to strike all whereas clauses because they are inflamatory. Also moving to strike the BIRT and first BIFRT. I’ll give you all the proposed new wording of the referendum-related clause as soon as it’s available.

8:33 – VP of Dalhousie Culture of Autism Awareness Society is speaking about NSPIRG’s support for their society. This, he says, suggests NSPIRG is not the extreme leftist group its opponents say it is. But where in the motion does it say that they are?

8:31 – Motion passes. Debate will end at 9:16, if not before.

8:28 – Eric Snow has corrected a spelling error in the motion (NSPIG amended to read NSPIRG; I believe I typed it correctly below) and he moves to limit debate on this motion to 45 minutes.

8:27 – Chair says cheering is good, but you’ll be kicked out for heckling.

8:26 – Speaker, who Chair has still not cut off, says the phrase “Leftist extremists are still extremists” is libel. Also, we’re getting the NSPIRG staff members at a bargain given their poverty-line salaries.

8:24 – Eric Snow raises point of order as speaker has exhausted his 4 minutes. Chair will be timing people from this point forward.

8:21 – Speaker is raising inaccuracies, which he says are contained in the motion, by reading from the Stop NSPIRG website.

8:19 – Speaker takes issue with use of “NSPIRG members” in reference to the motions at the last meeting. VPEd raises Point of Information, “Isn’t it so that all Dalhousie students who have not opted out of the NSPIRG levy are members of NSPIRG?”

8:18 – We’re back. Those waiting are now in the McInnes Room and another room has been opened for anyone who arrives later.

8:11 – Chair has been notified there are 8 people outside who can vote. He has recessed the meeting until we find a way to let those people in the room or somehow allow them to vote.

8:09 – Angela Day says she has received two phone calls from Dal students outside the room who are concerned because they cannot vote. Chair says ideally, we’ll have people step out. Sounds like we’re going to do our best to open up another room to have people vote in.

8:01 – It’s “New Business” time. Portions of the NSPIRG motion have been ruled out of order. Dan Pink is presenting amendments (seconder is Logan Philp):

Whereas the conduct of NSPIRG at recent events such as the job fairs held at Career Services in the Student Union Building over the last year has been excessively disruptive;

And whereas NSPIRG has not adequately communicated the opt out period for students to come in person to collect the $4.00 student levy that is rightfully theirs if they wish to opt out of NSPIRG membership;

And whereas memebrs of NSPIRG have submitted additions to the agenda of the General Meeting of the Union on March 11, 2009, that called for the Union to act irresponsibly by failing to meet its contractual obligations;

BIRT NSPIRG shall be served ninety (90) days written notice to vacate the SUB given to them in writingo by the VPFO. This notice shall be delivered within forty-eight (48) hours of the conclusion of the AGM.

BIFRT that the administrative payroll service that the DSU currently provides to NSPIRG be terminated as of May 1, 2009.

BIFRT that Council accept this motion as a proposal for a referendum to determine whether the membership supports or does not support DAL-PIRG or NSPIRG, as it is now known, continuing to receive a student levy thereby confirming or rescinding Motion 166:90 PIRG referendum dated March 4, 1990.

7:58 – The point of putting members in another room has been raised. The Chair can’t see into other rooms. But another person has raised the walky-talky in Room 224 option.

7:57 – Debogorski asks, why the executive didn’t look into the fire code problem previously (“What happens if 2000 students show up?”). They did. This was the largest room available.

7:55 – We’ve hit fire code capacity! And there are Dalhousie students who are outside the room and wanting to come in and exercise their votes. Chair is asking for King’s students if they would be willing to allow a voting member to replace them in the room.

7:53 – One of the short-haired guys from before has asked Kris to explain the ticket system for the Death Cab For Cutie contest. Rogers distributed the majority of the tickets, mainly to Rogers customers who voted for Dalhousie.

7:51 – Butterfly guy (remember him?) is at the mic. He is concerned with the representation of minorities (racial and sexual orientation). “Why didn’t we have anything to address inclusion in our campus program for the whole year?” Osmond answers the question by pointing out that we have over 200 societies that address inclusiveness on campus. On a personal note, the gentleman claimed there are no events for gays and lesbians. That made me upset. DalOUT has events almost every week during the school year.

7:42 – I neglected to mention that as people were entering, SMAC was passing out a hand-out called “know the rules…robert’s rules!” One side lists the points which can be raised and whether they interrupt the speaker, require a second, are debatable, are amendable, or need to be voted upon. The reverse reads as follows:

Anticpation of tonight’s DSU AGM has been building for three long weeks. Tensions are high and a lot is at stake but it is important to situate this one evening in the context of a much broader, longer struggle. Tonight is not the most important night. Tonight doesn’t determine the future because tonight is not the end. SMAC stands for the democratic participation of students in their university; we will continue to fight for that no matter the results of this meeting.

We must remain strong and unified. SMAC’s position will gain legitiacy only if we present a collective, rational voice. There is nothing to be gained from engaging in the inflammatory tactics of those opposed to our ideals. Let’s stay cool, calm, and collective! We have already achieved so much!

Some pointers for the evening:

• Stay solid. We’re here to support each other. No one should feel singled out or attacked as an individual; let’s work to make sure this doesn’t happen.
• Don’t forget; we have every right to be here participating. Our best strategy is to remain calm and logical in the face of disorder.d
• Do speak “in order”. You must state your motion with no preamble. Otherwise the chair can rule it “out of order” and it can be dropped.
• Do call a Point of Information if you don’t know what’s going on, even if it interrupts the speaker. Chances are you’re not the only one who is lost.
• Likewise for Points of Order, it’s important to engage the process so that it cannot be used unfairly against us.
• Remember; if a ballot vote is called just write your vote; no punctuation, no comments as these can be ruled invalid. Ex: yes (valid) yes! (invalid) yes. (invalid)

Motions! A motion is a formal proposal for action made at a meeting which is up for discussion and vote. However, a proposed motion does not have to stay on the table as is. If you want to edit the motion you can move to amend it and provide alternate wording. This has to be seconded, will be debated and then voted on. Everyone will then vote on the amended motion if the amendment passes. If it doesn’t everyone will vote on the initial motion. If you think the motion is asking too much you can motion to divide and separate it into two or more motions, each of whic will be debated and voted on separately. If a motion requires more thought and discussion than can be provided at the meeting you can motion to table it to a later date. This can include motioning to refer it to a specific committee.

7:31 – VPSL Osmond says he will complete is report within 10 minutes. Let’s time him, shall we?

7:30 – Mark says the people on both sides of the issues we’re discussing tonight are all “really great people” with “kind hearts”.

7:28 – Thanks, Craig. On my way back, I tried to get a report on the number of people in the room. The closest thing I got was 400-500. We’re basically at capacity. There are some King’s students in the room.

7:27 – Lisa is coming back. It’s been fun everyone, thanks.

7:25 – Apparently he used all his good clip art in the first few slides.

7:24 – Mark Coffin is still going.

7:23 – Lisa is going to pee. Craig Jennex is taking over for…however long it takes her to pee.

7:18 – Guy [correction: new guy; similar haircut] is back again, asking why ANSSA’s fee was raised and why it did not go through a referendum (because it comes out of our operating budget; it isn’t a levy).

7:15 – Coffin’s ANSSA report is getting laughs. I’m glad to many people are here and listening to the Executive reports. It should be like this every year.

7:13 – Guy is back at the microphone with a point of information. He wants to know fees we pay to CASA and ANSSA.

7:09 – VPEducation Coffin has some lovely visuals in his report presentation. For example, the words “TUITION FREEZE” on a photo of a glacier; a woman in a grad gown and cap looking at an oversized piggy-bank.

7:08 – Some guy has approached the microphone, which is not on. This is not question time.

7:01 – Wow. Golding said the word Pepsi, and nobody ‘boo’ed.

7:00 – “Thank you all for showing up to hear my report this evening.” -VPFO Golding

6:59 – Chair does not want to have to remove anybody, but has advised us of his discretion to do so.

6:58 – Chair feels the “Challenge of the Chair” was severely misused at Part 1 of the meeting. Challenge of the Chair is not meant to achieve that which cannot be achieved democratically.

6:56 – I have a report that “Save NSPIRG” pins have been distributed. I haven’t seen one yet.

6:53 – Chair Brechtel is asking us to take our seats. He reports we are approaching capacity.

6:51 – Not surprisingly, things are late getting started. Students are still filing in.

6:16 – After explaining my “position” on allowing King’s students into the meeting (as I’ve explained, I don’t really care one way or the other, I just want the Judicial Board to have accurate information), I show my DalCard to the Night Manager and proceed to the table for those with surnames beginning “A-Ch”. My name is crossed off the list with a pink highlighter and the staff-person hands me my “voting card”.

5:45 – About 40 people are waiting on the 2nd floor landing.