punditry.ca — uncovering DSU elections

I’m sure that in Part I I came off as a real stickler for rules and order, and I am, but I do recognize that there are times when rules should be bent to accommodate certain situations. If I didn’t believe that, I would have given up on DSU Council long ago.

As I mentioned previously, I hesitate to speculate on the how and why of this particular situation because it would be just that — speculation — but regardless, I do feel comfortable saying that a rush job of reviewing these questions was not the ideal course of action.

I began this two-part post by explaining why last week’s Council meeting troubled me procedurally. I would like to expand on that by explaining what is meant to be considered by those reviewing the wording of a referendum question. My hope is that this will clarify why more time is needed than was allowed.

How to Review a Referendum Question

There are a lot of things to consider when reviewing a referendum question. For the sake of your attention span, and in the interest of getting to my point, I won’t get into all of them. Key questions to ask include: Read more…

News of Wednesday’s marathon Council meeting didn’t take long in making its way to me in Saskatoon, thanks to Twitter. For obvious reasons, I was not at the meeting, so my remarks on the course of events that took place will be necessarily brief. What follows will be presented in two posts. Part I is a DSU history lesson. Part II is a “how to” guide.

This Week in Council Chambers

In short, the procedures set out in the DSU Constitution for commencing a referendum were not followed. Specifically, the notice period required for these motions is two weeks (not days or hours – weeks, as in a fortnight) and a BONUS POINT* goes to the reader who can name the other flaw in the timing of these motions! By calling emergency meetings of both the Board of Operations and the Elections Committee, Council managed to cram a two-week process into an evening, albeit a rather long one. I will leave it to those who were in the room to elaborate on why this might have happened and move on to why what happened is troubling.

A DSU History Lesson

Cast your minds back to the year 2007, a year many, including myself, joined Facebook and none of us knew who Lady Gaga was. Read more…

I couldn’t agree more with Eric’s comment in yesterday’s post that unsuccessful candidates are often amazing people who go on to do incredible things. It’s absolutely true that the DSU’s “unsuccessful” candidates are anything but.

For Thursday’s winners, your path for the year ahead is at least somewhat clear. The rest of you may not know what you’re going to do now that the results are in, but know that you are in good company.

I’ve heard a common sentiment from these former candidates over the years: “I was sad when I lost, but in the end, I’m glad I did because I was able to [insert cool thing].” I suspect this experience has sparked something inside you that just needs to find the right fuel, be that in the DSU or elsewhere. I wish you all well as you follow in the footsteps of this pack of so-called losers.

Craig Jennex (VPI Candidate 2009)
Jennex received the University Medal for Gender & Women’s Studies when he graduated in 2010. He is currently working toward an MA in Cultural Studies at McMaster. Even more exciting than that school stuff is that Jennex plays drums for a Halifax-based band called Dance Movie whose song “Carjack My Heart” was featured on an episode of Degrassi: The Next Generation (“Purple Pills, Pt. 2″) and has since spawned a number of fan videos on YouTube.

Michael “Fendi” Kovendi (VPI Candidate 2006)
It took a while, but “Fendi” found his way to a DSU Executive office. He has been serving as the Vice President (Finance & Operations) this year.

Ann Elizabeth Beringer (VPEd Candidate 2006)
Now living and working in Edmonton, AEB is now AES, having married punditry.ca founder Mike Smit in August 2010. That’s a pretty good reason to get involved at the DSU: you might just meet your future spouse!

Tara Gault (Presidential Candidate 2008)
After a tight race with fellow 2007-08 exec Courtney Larkin, Gault now works as a researcher for the Nova Scotia Liberal Caucus and devotes countless unpaid hours to both the provincial and federal wings of the party.

John Hillman (Presidential Candidate 2008, 2011)
The year following Hillman’s first bid for DSU President, Hillman was a regular contributor to The Gazette and when the 2009 DSU Elections rolled around, he joined the ranks here at punditry.ca. He was slated to start classes at Dal Law that September, but after a lot of self-reflection, decided to follow his true passion and pursue creative writing (I’m sure this comes as no surprise to our readership). Hillman is now finishing the honours class in creative writing, applying to MFA programmes, and hopes to teach in the future.

Will Horne (BoG Candidate 2009)
Following the election, Horne remained a driving force behind sustainability initiatives at Dalhousie and elsewhere, serving as Executive Director of the DSU Sustainability Office and as a workshop coordinator for the East Coast Environmental Law Association. He is about to complete an internship at the http://www.solheimar.is/template4.asp?Sid_NR=696&E_NR=668&VS=1VS1.asp&VT=696 Solheimar Eco-village in Iceland, but we haven’t seen the last of him – he will be returning to Dalhousie in September.

Victoria Jones (VPI Candidate 2008)
After losing her bid for the VPI office to Dan Boyle, Jones remained on DSU Council as the Graduate Member at Large. She is now in her second year of law at the University of Kent in Canterbury, UK. Victoria will also be returning to Dalhousie in September to complete her MA. Let’s see if she can resist the pull of student politics.

Gregory Debogorski (BoG Candidate 2007, Presidential Candidate 2008, 2009)
Regardless of what you might think of his philosophy, Debogorski’s tenacity is nothing short of admirable. He promised to run in an election every year he was at Dalhousie, and following his first loss, he remained true to his word. I only wish we’d seen more of him between elections.

Eric Snow (Presidential Candidate 2009)
Since a hard-fought campaign, Snow has remained one of the most stalwart members of the DSU I have ever encountered. For many years now I’ve operated on the assumption that he simply does not sleep.

If you know what anyone else is up to, feel free to let us know in the comments.

Thanks to Messrs. Smit, Snow, and Hillman for their assistance.

Welcome to the third annual Election Candidate Video Awards!

If you’re wondering what you can do to win a coveted ECVA, the best advice I can give you is to make a candidate video that contains something impressive or something annoying (though I will say the latter tends to get more attention ’round these parts).

As always, additional awards can be given out by you, our faithful readers, in the comments.

Most Estrogen in an Ensemble Cast: Jamie Arron
Last year, Neil Bailey, who incidentally is one of the only men in Arron’s video, received the award for Most Testosterone in an Ensemble Cast. Arron appears to have taken the opposite approach. Let’s see if he fares any better than Bailey.

Weirdest Cameo: Mark Hobbs for his role in Jamie Arron’s video
Despite his better qualities, does it not strike anyone else as odd that a candidate would feature a testimonial from the only executive that faced recall in recent memory?
Runner-Up: Evan Price for a photo of himself with former Presidential candidate Jason Pelley (though I know there is a connection with Price’s hop farm).

Best Cameo: Eric Snow for his performance in John Hillman’s video
Man, for a guy who is not running as a candidate, Snow is everywhere. Thus, I propose that from now on he wear a punditry.ca t-shirt at all public appearances.

Sidenote: That makes for appearances by not one, not two, but three failed presidential candidates and one former president (not counting Saulnier in his own video). This is unprecedented.

Best Shout-Out: John Hillman for reference to erstwhile candidate Gregory Debogorski whose antics will be very much missed this election season.

Additional Sidenote: If this counts as a Debogorski cameo, that makes appearances by four failed Presidential candidates.

Best Jen Bond-inspired Hand-Talking: Chris Saulnier
If you’re going to hand-talk, at least have a graphic designer put the Halifax cityscape between your hands.

Most Humorous: Kayla Kurin
I’ve enjoyed Kayla’s performance in The DSU Office this year, so I’m glad to see she brought some of that humour to her candidate video.

Best Location: Andrew Mecke
The Shirreff Hall Library, where I spent a good deal of time editing my undergraduate Honours thesis, is one of the best rooms on campus. I will not get into how unsettling it is for me to see a male President of Shirreff Hall, where I was on both the last all-female and first co-ed Residence Councils.

Worst Sound: Andrew Mecke
PROTIP: The microphone was invented in 1876. You can now get microphones in a variety of sizes, including ones that clip to the user’s lapel. There are also microphones that connect to your video camera. Some computers even have built-in microphones. *Sigh*
Runner-Up: Chris Connors for his failed attempt at dubbing over his voice in spots where I assume he was inaudible. E for effort.

Most Glaring Omission: Karl Dempsey whose Nova Scotia apparently does not include Cape Breton where there is, in fact, a university whose students are as affected by Premier Dexter’s policies as you Mainlanders.

Weirdest Music Supervision: Sebastian Fiszman
You’ve undoubtedly heard the piece of music in Fiszman’s video (“O Fortuna” from Carl Orff’s Carmina Burana) before. It’s often featured in movie trailers, television commercials, and the like. Generally, it used to terrify listeners. For example, back in 2009, Republicans used “O Fortuna” in an ad about convicted terrorists potentially being released from Guantanamo straight into American suburbs.
Runner-Up: Margaret Scrimgeour
I like going to Reflections as much as (if not more than) the next person, but there’s a time and place for techno. P.S. I didn’t read any of the text in your video because none of the other videos required me to hit ‘pause’ and it would have made for an uneven playing field if I’d done it for you.

My friend and fellow pundit, Jen Bond, and I met in 2002 when we both arrived at Dalhousie as undergraduate students. That year, we had three of our five classes together, as well as a seminar. Though we travelled in different social circles, we both found our way to Council Chambers at the Dalhousie Student Union. Jen would go on to become Vice President (Education) of the DSU while I became a permanent fixture on Council. After completing Pre-Schulich Law School together, Jen and I have, for the most part, retired from student politics, but maintain a keen observer status.

Until now, this has been the truth.

In fact, Ms. Bond and I met much earlier on that world wide network known as “the Internet”. We got to chatting about the usual things that interested high school students at the dawn of the millenium. One night, after a spirited discussion of race relations as portrayed in Bring It On and fuelled by far too many cans of Jolt Cola (this was in the days before Red Bull; we got by on what we had), we devised our plan, and in the summer of 2002, we met covertly in the great state of Maine.

That is when we built Mike Tipping.

It was a summer that tested both our friendship and our commitment to the project, but by the end of August, our dream became a reality.

To ensure no connection among the three of us was suspected upon our arrival at Dalhousie, we applied to live in different residences. I moved into Shirreff Hall, while Jen lived in Eliza Richie, and the Tipping-bot in Howe Hall where he learned the social graces of the average undergrad and developed a tolerance for alcohol. To further our ruse, Tipping was presented as an American while Jen and I made sure to have audible “getting to know each other” conversations at parties and around the Council table (i.e. “Oh, you went to Sydney Academy? Do you know fellow SA graduate X?”)

We enrolled the Tipping-bot in our Political Science class where Dr. Robert Boardman unknowingly aided us in developing the bot’s knowledge of Canadian government. Jen oversaw the development of Tipping’s skills as an orator by involving him in debating. During our time in Maine, I performed a comprehensive survey of what the typical American teenager was wearing those days. Hence, I looked after the bot’s wardrobe, which was to consist of inoffensive, occasionaly namebrand t-shirts, just slightly oversized denim jeans (in order to appear comfortable and approachable, but not unkempt nor like a hipster), and your standard running shoe.

As for Tipping’s political aspirations, as well as our own, we started small with each of us taking a position on our respective residence councils. In order to get the bot some “hippie street cred”, he founded a grassroots organization called Halifax Action. These activist roots were necessary to counterbalance his conservative haircut, especially when faced with a shaggier opponent like Pelley.

After my colleague was made the benefactor of alphabetical election ballots, Jen and I became aware of a fundamental flaw in our plan. Our would-be candidate’s surname was far too close to the bottom of the alphabet. That year, under the name “Elections Review Task Force”, we spearheaded a major re-write of the election rules of the DSU Constitution. With the assistance of our confidant, Ezra Edelstein, and our unwitting fellow committee member and future campaign opponent, the alphabetically-advantaged Ms. Beringer, we ensured that candidate names would from that point forward appear in random order when presented to voters. This proved effective, as our bot successfully won two elections against opponents whose surnames would have otherwise given them an advantage.

Finding himself unchallenged by his human competition, Tipping, with the assistance of Ezra, took it upon himself to build a political adversary. What we neglected to do as guardians of the bot was show him that episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation where Data’s Moriarty figures out how to leave the Holodeck. Had we done that, perhaps he might have reeled it in a bit when programing Deb-bot’s antiestablishment protocols.

Throughout his time in Halifax, the Tipping-bot spoke often of Maine and his fondness for the place where he was born. So, when the time felt right, we let our creation return home. We miss him dearly.

It’s time again for me to arbitrarily distribute “awards” to candidates based on the content of their candidate videos in a little piece I call the 2010 Election Candidate Video Awards (ECVAs).

In past years, the Elections Committee recorded a video under the direction of each candidate. This year, the committee left candidates to their own devices, and those without the necessary devices or know-how will apparently have to go without. (So much for a level playing field, eh, EC?) So, the videos have been trickling in over the past couple of days, and I’m tired of waiting for new ones, so without further adieu, the ECVAs go to…

Best Use of an ABBA Song Title: Gregory Debogorski for “Take A Chance On Me”

After three campaigns, if we change our minds, he’s the first in line.

Most Testosterone in an Ensemble Cast: Neil Bailey

With his four-member cast (and by that I mean both that there are four people in the video and it’s a sausage fest), Bailey does a good job perpetuating the stereotype that not a single female can be found on Sexton. This one would have gone to Whitfield if not for the girl walking in front of the SUB and the two girls in the Quad, who I suspect had no idea what was being filmed.

Best Music: Rob LeForte

Seriously, who doesn’t get little pangs of nostalgia when they hear “Bittersweet Symphony”. This award, too, could have gone to Whitfield for using a Spoon track, but I couldn’t really hear it or what he was saying.

Best Homage to School Picture Day: Evan Price for that shot with the bookshelves behind him, especially when combined with the necktie.

Best Concrete Idea: Glenn Blake for “Give the Diversity Committee a budget”. As former chair of said committee, I can confirm that this would be much appreciated. Glenn also wins the award for “Most Improved Location Scout” following last year’s recording in a bathroom stall.

Best Backward Walking: Ben Wedge

Be careful, Ben. I recently received an e-mail from Occupational Health and Safety highlighting the workplace hazard that is walking backwards. I know that seems like a joke, but I actually did receive such an e-mail.

Most Colloquial: Carley Nicholson for her list of “things” relating to “stuff”.

Most Annoying Cameo and Worst Sound: The wind in the Studley Quad

You would think that in the age of YouTube, people would realize that those on-camera mics are no good if you are in the wind or more than three feet from the camera. Nicholson, by some miracle, managed to find a relatively calm day for her shoot in the Quad, but those days are few and far between.

PROTIP: I know what the Quad looks like, and I know what the wind sounds like. I want to hear your ideas. If that means sitting quietly indoors, so be it. Some great videos have been shot at indoor locations (see last year’s ECVA-recipient, Shane Simms – I’d post a link, but I can’t seem to find last year’s videos). Ideal locations include, but are not limited to: the library, or one of the multitudinous empty classrooms on campus.

As always, I welcome further ECVA submissions in the comments.

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.