punditry.ca — uncovering DSU elections

I’ll bet that this is going to be a slow night. The presidential debates have been pushed to Monday, and everyone who is anyone is living it up at the great big circle-jerk that is Student Appreciation Night. Not me though – I’m currently in the library, telling myself over and over again that wizards are probably lame anyway. I wonder if Greg is doing anything…

Anyway, I had a funny picture of the Stop NSPIRG petitioners outside the SUB that I was going to post, but I left my uplink cable at home, so…yeah.

A wise man (ie: me) once told me a story that I would like to pass on to you all before I head out for the night.

A young vegan boy with a beautiful butterfly cupped in his hand once walked up to an old man who was dining on a McDonald’s hamburger. The old man snatched the butterfly away, and ate it whole without a moment’s pause.

The little boy looked up at the old man with tears in his eyes, and the old man smiled.

“Child, you have learned a valuable lesson here today.”

The child was confused.

“But what is the lesson, sir?”

The old man tossed his styrofoam packaging over his shoulder, and leaned in close so the young boy could hear his every word.

“You are young and idealistic, but I am a jackass. No matter how hard you try to change the world I have created, you will never succeed. For every animal you don’t eat, I will eat two.”

Though understandably disturbed by having just watched an old man devour a butterfly live, the young boy recognized the wisdom in his elder’s words, and immediately began preparing for the GMAT so that he might one day enter a respectable MBA programme.

Think about it.

One last observation:

I could really go for a double quarter pounder with cheese right about now.

Previously, on the DSU Elections:

• Advance polling: online voting will be available tomorrow (Friday the 13th) from noon until midnight.  No special permission is required to vote; all 15,000 voters have access.  Of course, you won’t be able to return and edit your ballot next week when the polls open again, but your vote will count like anyone else’s.  This is a first for Dal, and is being done because medical students are off next week.

• My personal standpoint is: I beg of you, don’t vote right away unless you absolutely must.  Wait until next week.  There are still 3 full days of campaigning left, including two presidential debates.

• Hey candidates, how does it make you feel that by this time tomorrow some percentage of the votes will be collected, yet the results will be completely unavailable to anyone for 6 days?  Typically I find candidates have trouble with the 2 hours between polls closing on Thursday and the results announcement, so watching them go the 140 hours should be amusing.

• By the way, tomorrow’s (Friday’s) presidential debate in the Grawood has been moved to Monday (2pm in the Grawood, according to an update on Snow’s website).  The online debate is still good-to-go for Sunday at 2pm.

• The Studley debate was covered in-depth here, including observations from Jen Bond and an incredibly detailed and well-written summary from Lisa.

• That said, regarding one of Lisa’s points re: policies and procedures versus consulting students… I think its a bit bizarre to pick one or the other, my suspicion is that Snow meant there was no reason you couldn’t do both (though obviously I have no idea what he actually said).  Regardless, of the two campaign promises, I’d take policies and procedures.  In 9 years of election campaigns, I’ve heard the “more student consultation” promise from about 153 candidates (i.e. all of them), and it carries no weight with me.  It’s a default, obvious promise.  Knowledge of policies and procedures is a measurable trait that is actually useful.  I’ve never heard a candidate promise LESS student consultation, while I have seen many demonstrate very little existing knowledge of policy.  Granted, policy isn’t a hot’n'sexy topic for most people, but I like it.

• Good job to Mark Hobbs for his defense of a momentarily speechless opponent against utterly bizarre and provably false accusations.

• Speaking of crazy, John Hillman posted some videos of the AGM.  I recommend Video #4 in particular, the crazy butterfly guy was everything they said he was and more.

• Today’s Gazette is the election edition; I hear basketball made the cover but the elections goodness is inside.  I am looking forward to the coverage; as you know, the Gazette is a bastion of accuracy and fact-checking, unlike punditry.ca where the lies and filth drip from the walls.  For now you need to be on campus to drink from its papery goodness, but when the online edition goes up some time in April I’ll be sure to let you know.

• If you missed the Election Candidate Video Awards or Mark’s discussion of DSU AGMs, go read.

• Student Appreciation Night is Friday night.  I’ll be sure to save column inches for that.

• Not much action on the candidate blogs.  Will Horne conceded my point from last night, and then I stopped reading. I kid, of course: I read with interest his thoughts on NSPIRG.  Re: DSU vs NSPIRG, fyi there have been relationship problems there for as long as I’ve been on campus.  Every few years things come to a head.  Obviously I agree this is not the way it should be, but just want to make you aware this is not a recent development.

• Re: “As a student I’ll say this: what I want is peace on the issue…and a glaringly obvious opt-out period.”  I don’t want to turn this into a page discussing the usefulness of NSPIRG, but I see inherent conflict in that statement.  NSPIRG has vigorously opposed the opt-out from day one.  In my day at least, every few years they would try to get out of it, typically by just not offering an opt-out period and seeing if anyone would notice.  If you pursue an improved opt-out process, you will not get peace.  
  Actually, I once tried to opt out.  I was doing an internship out of town, and emailed to ask how to do it.  They said I couldn’t.  Not being accustomed to taking “no” for an answer, I persisted.  They emailed me some heinous attachment that was very difficult to open and told me to fill out the form.  I did.  They said they wouldn’t send me money but I could come in person once I was back in town to pick it up.  I did.  They told me they couldn’t give me my money right then, but that I should come back.  I did.  The person who could help me wasn’t there.  I never did get my $2.  Remind me to send them an invoice.

• Per his blog, Eric Snow added items specific to graduate students to his platform.  This is remarkable on two levels: a) a candidate listened to students and updated their platform? Surprisingly, this is rare.  b) a candidate made grad-related issues part of their platform?  Normally that distinction is reserved for the graduate senator.  As a grad student I should be doing more to call candidates out on this issue, and I’m about to start.  If any other candidates have positions or thoughts on grad students, I’d recommend following Eric’s lead and sharing them, soon.

• 139 new comments, and more page views than yesterday (6500 from 900 unique visitors).

The Annual General Meeting has been a heated topic of discussion on this board for the last day and a half. I’m going to put off posting on the elections race for now and explain to you why I believe the Annual General Meeting, as it is currently laid out in our constitution, to be largely undemocratic. I would also like to give credit to SMUSA’s VP External (who may read this) for allowing me to bounce this idea off of him, and I know I’ve incorporated some of his ideas into my argument.

 

—
Student associations are a unique beast in the not-for-profit world. In non-student not-for-profit organizations (and a few student associations), an AGM is used for the following purposes:

• Electing an executive (or officers) and a board (or council) 
• Hearing reports from the Executive (essentially, informing the membership)
• Carrying out specific duties as specified in the organizations constitution through motions that are presented at an AGM 

The DSU (like most student organizations) elects their executive by online voting (formerly by paper ballot), and we make no specific mention in our constitution as to what authority the membership at an AGM has. The current interpretation is that the membership present at an AGM has the authority to make motions binding this year’s executive and council only.

Right now anyone can get any motions on the agenda with sufficient notice. With the assumption that the AGM membership can overule council and executive, these motions can be quite significant ones that drastically affect the way our union runs.  

What’s wrong with this is the fact that in a student population of 16 500, we know we cannot accomodate all of our members should they wish to attend our AGM.  We know that the capacity of our largest room is less than the number of individuals who participate in our annual elections. 

Some might put forth the “decisions are made by those who show up”  argument.  But, we also know that no matter what date and time we choose for an AGM,  we will be restricting access of certain individuals from attending or staying for the entire meeting. In addition to this, we know that groups on both sides of many motions made concerted efforts to stack supporters specifically to argue their side. The ability to mobilize is not the same as the ability to form a majority in a true democracy. 

We have already recognized these facts as a union by running our elections online an not at the AGM, and council recognizes it by sending important questions like the Health Plan Referendum and society levies through a referendum that is equally accessible to all through an online ballot. 

If we (the collective membership present at the next AGM) were truly concerned about upholding real democratic principles we would ammend the constitution (already on the agenda, don’t shit your pants Mat) and rectify the current travesty of democracy that exists under the AGM section. Doing this would leave the AGM as an opportunity for the membership present to: 

• Hear the reports of the executive; 
• Ask questions of the executive; and
• Be able to vote on clearly defined types of motions none of which have the capacity to seriously affect the operations of our union. 

I’m not saying that the membership should not have the ability to vote on important issues. I’m saying that they should, but I don’t feel that the polarized groups that show up at an AGM are the ones that should be entrusted with that power alone. Truly important questions should be included in an online referenda slate and the opportunity to vote in them should be disgustingly accessible. 

I do, however, have one question about how such a new system would work. Who would determine what questions go to referendum. My inclination is that the AGM membership would have the specific power to put any referendum question on the annual election ballot. The DSU council and board would also retain this ability.

• Today the excitement of the election took a back seat to the DSU Annual General Meeting. It was covered in depth here, before and during. Jen promoted it, then live-blogged it, Lisa twittered it, readers commented on it, and punditry.ca broke.  I won’t do a recap, but I highly recommend Jen’s liveblogging and the ensuing 97 comments.

• Kudos to Mat Brechtel, chair of Council and therefore chair of the AGM.  Managing debate and trying to maintain some amount of decorum in a highly-charged atmosphere is no small task.  Maybe for April 1 they can get you one of those classroom performance systems for vote recording.  I read on Lisa’s twitter that the “chair enters Council Chambers to thunderous applause from Council”, and that applause was well deserved.

• Apparently there was vandalism in the SUB during/after the AGM, along the lines of the DSU being fascist (unconfirmed reports).  The expectation of an organization that it take instruction from people who hate it and everything about it is something I suspect is unique to student associations.  Most people who hate a given organization just want said organization to leave them alone.  (e.g., people who hate the federal government want to be left alone to collect guns and hate black people).

• William Horne made an interesting point on his blog, saying “could be just the particular turnout last night, but it seems to me that Dalhousie students are far more polarized that I had previously realized”.  I reflected on that, then decided I disagreed.  Polarized in the context of politics means opposite ends of the political spectrum.  I’ll grant that the anti-war, anti-corporation, etc. viewpoints are near enough the polar end of the traditional “left-wing” side of politics.  But the right-wing-as-used-today view was not well-represented in that room.  If that room had elected a federal government, the Liberal party would look right-wing.  And I don’t know what Student Appreciation Nights are like these days, but even a small fraction of the ones in my day would convince you moral/family values aren’t at the top of the agenda of campus student leaders.  If anything, the polarity of DSU policies has shifted to the left in recent years.  Take a look at campaign material from 2005 and tell me how many times you use the word “sustainbility”. 
    The other use of polarized is to take opposite sides on an issue: pro-peanuts, anti-peanuts.  Taking for example an anti-war motion, those who opposed it at the AGM aren’t saying “war is awesome”.  They are saying, for example, “war sucks, but it’s pretty far out of our mandate as a student union”.
    I also think it probably WAS the particular turnout; the “people who came to the AGM in support of a particular agenda (be it *for* or *against* the motions)” demographic are a terrible sample set of Dal students.  It’s hard to be polarized when you don’t care.
    Though I disagreed in the end, Horne asked a good question that inspired thought, and I appreciate that.

• One interesting indirect outcome of the AGM is a petition aimed at taking away NSPIRG’s funding, promoted on a new website, www.stopnspirg.org.

• Debogorski was levied two fines tonight, for asserting/implying that people were Nazis.  One was out loud during the AGM, and the other was on punditry.ca after he was removed from the SUB by the police.

• Ok, that’s it for the AGM.

• You might have missed it in the AGM excitement, but candidate posters are available online, though the conversation seems to have boiled down to AmIHotOrNot.

• Sexton debate coverage is not up to Lisa’s level, but I do want to follow-up on last night’s wrap-up.  I congratulated Simms on finding answers to a question he hadn’t been able to answer at the Carleton debate, and said I suspected Evans & Blake could do the same.  The results are in: Evans nailed it, Simms was shaky but got the gist of it, and Glenn Blake didn’t know much more but still wanted to learn.  Two out of three ain’t bad, and Blake will have another shot at demonstrating this willingness to learn at the Thursday debate  (SUB, noon).

• I’ve tried to keep this locked up, but the rage is just too much.  I have a weakness: I cannot read text without spotting most spelling and grammar errors.  This makes my thrice-daily rounds of candidate websites extraordinarily painful.  Forget knowing how to spell, and a typo is a typo, but when did we stop teaching people how to use a spell checker?  If you can’t spell and you don’t have a web browser that spell checks as you type, get one.  Surely you all have noticed this as well:

Edgar Burns: “I Belive they would be well attended … If u have any others then please feel free to email…”
Rob LeForte escapes my wrath, but he also has been writing less than the other candidates.

Shannon Zimmerman: “This is more then just better communication” is fairly prominent, but not bad.
Eric Snow: “encouraged to see so many Sexton students ask very thought prevoking question”, but generally not bad or at least quickly corrected.
Gregory Debogorski: … I don’t need to present evidence here, right?

Hobbs: “maitenance”, “simple terms that is”, “debate on the much contentious issue”, “Studly debate”
Craig Jennex escapes my wrath, plus gets bonus points for spelling “camaraderie” correctly.

• Most candidates have Facebook groups to which they’ve invited all and sundry.  I wrote a little script, as I am prone to do, and it tells me how many members are in each group:

 

Gregory Debogorski	0
Eric Snow	190
Shannon Zimmerman	243
Edgar Burns	140
Rob LeForte	274
Mark Hobbs	164
Craig Jennex	149
Kris Osmond	171
Janet Conrad	100
Adam Harris	96
Will Horne	102
Fred Perron-Welch	85
Vikram Rai	47
Glenn Blake	0
Meredith Evans	49
Shane Simms	65
Referendum Propaganda	79

• punditry.ca served an astounding 6,000 pages to 550 unique visitors today.

• Yesterday I was impressed with 53 comments; the total as of midnight-ish was 240 comments.

6:30:  I arrive at the second floor of the SUB.  I haven’t seen this many students since the War in Iraq motion of ’03.  It’s going to take a long time to get all of these people verified as Dal students.

6:50:  I’m in, but not after getting stuck in the middle of a scuffle btwn. Dal Security and a guy who  “works for NSPIRG” (his words, not mine).

7:00:  I’m sitting in the back with the bad kids.  Next to VP I Candidate Craig Jennex and CRO Sarah Amyotte.  I also made a new friend, Greg A. (not Deborgorski).  He is fascinated by the craziness of tonight.

7:14:  Mat Brechtel starts the meeting.  I hope he stretched well beforehand.

7:20:  Motion to amend the agenda to add a motion re: letting in the non-Dal students who are staging a sit-in outside to be inside.

7:29:  Motion fails.  I can’t remember the number for and against.  I recorded my vote for.  I say we should talk about it.

7:30:  Motion by the VP Finance to strike the contract motion and the CASA motion from the agenda.

7:36:  Challenge to the chair!  Note:  We haven’t even accepted the agenda yet.  Mat is currently explaining what this means.  Better you than me, friend.

7:42:  Tara Gault is here!

7:43:  I am absolutely lost on this.  I have no idea what’s going on anymore.  I am going to run out and get a paper copy of the Constitution.  I can’t scroll through my electronic copy fast enough.

7:47:  The offices are locked.  I don’t have a paper copy as a result.  In other news, the cops are here.  There’s a girl here who isn’t a Dal student who won’t leave.  Apparently she works for the Gazette (according to the guy who was just yelling at the cop).  Greg A. continues to be fascinated.

7:51:  We’re voting on the challenge to the chair.   It just passed, that means that the aforementioned motions will be struck from the agenda.

8:01: We’re moving on a vote to the second challenge to the chair.  If you vote yes, the girl from the Gazette gets to stay.  If you vote no, she goes.  Very clear, Mat (I really hope someone is buying him several beers after this).

8:03: Someone just proposed the cops be ejected.  Greg Deborgorski just likened this meeting to Nazism.  He apologized.  Mat Brechtel ignored the cop outburst.

8:03:  Motion to challenge the chair fails.

8:03:  This must be what it’s like to go to York.

8:05:  New motion to add a motion to the agenda.  Motion about quorum at the meetings.  BIRT:  If the meeting is adjourned, council will hold a subsequent General meeting to discuss the other issues within 3 weeks.  To be clear, this is a motion to simply add this motion to the agenda.

8:09:  Motion passes.  There are now 5 cops here.  Greg A. says “The jails in Dartmouth must be unguarded.”

8:10:  Motion to add the newest motion that we just passed to the top of the agenda after business of the executive.

8:11:  Motion passes.

8:12:  Motion to add a motion.  Daniel Pink moves that NSPIRG makes an official apology by April 1 for being general jerks , they should stop funding their non-student staff and they should vacate the SUB (Daniel is much more eloquent than I).

8:12:  The Gazette girl and Greg Debogorski have just been removed from the room by the police.

8:15:  A NSPIRG member just rose on a point of personal privilege (that wasn’t).  NSPIRG doesn’t organize Lockheed Martin protests, they just have a “working group” that facilitates “critical thinking.”

8:17:  Discussions re: whether or not to put Dan Pink’s motion on the agenda.  Point well taken that this is a motion that greatly affects students and thus should have been moved 2 weeks ago.

8:18:  I’m not going to lie.  I feel really bad for Mat Brechtel.

8:18:  Greg A. says that this is like “chocolate cake on a Sunday morning.”  I agree.

8:22:  I just had an outburst.  One of the NSPIRG people just said that the NSPIRG levy was between students and NSPIRG and had “nothing to do with the DSU.”  I yelled “What?!  Are you out of your mind?!”  It takes quite a lot for me to yell out of turn (ask my grade 3 teacher).  These people are cray cray.

8:24:  We are voting on whether or not to add the Dan Pink motion to the agenda.  I’m not a mathmagician (typo, it’s staying), but this motion is getting on the agenda.

8:28:  Oh, I forgot about the 2/3 part.  Mat is recounting.

8:28:  Sarah Amyotte just levied her first fine against Debo for the Nazism comment.

8:31:  Motion to add the Dan Pink motion to the agenda fails.  VP FO Mat Golding moves for a ballot vote.

8:34:  Challenge to the chair re: allowing the ballot vote.  His challenge starts with “I want to tell you a story…”  It’s a parable about a butterfly…I can’t re-phrase it.

8:36:  We’re moving to a vote as to whether or not we should have a ballot vote.

8:43:  We’re having a ballot vote.  There was a lot of confusion as to how we would go about that.  I went and got logoed paper for us to vote on.  There is a rep from each side (we’re taking their word for it) who will work as scrutineers.  This is officially a gong show.

8:47:  I would like to be in the mind of one of these people…how do you be so contrary about everything?  It’s painful, really.

8:49:  Mat is very patiently trying to make this ballot vote happen.  I kind of felt badly for suggesting to Mat how we might do it.

9:09:  We are having a ballot vote now on whether or not to add the Dan Pink motion onto the agenda.  Mat is currently explaining everything to us.  This needs a 2/3 majority to pass.

9:17:  Just to be clear, we haven’t even accepted the agenda yet.

9:20:  We’re now voting on whether to extend the meeting until the building closes.  We’re kinda sorta close to the 3 hour mark.

9:24:  The meeting has now been extended to 10:45.

9:26:  Shout out to John Hurley for bringing Starbuck sustenance.   Also a shout out to Murray for coming down to join in on the action…liveblogging brings all the boys to the yard.

9:36:  Mat is speaking.  Everyone listen.

9:36:  I think I just had a conniption fit in my mind.  There were 8 more ballots counted than handed out.  This made a difference to the 2/3 majority.  We get to have a ballot vote again.  I’m not joking at all.

9:38:  Fred Perron-Welch “Point of Information:  How did you guys fuck this up?”  Mat says we are very close to the end of decorum.  I think we passed that point a long time ago.

9:42:  Just a reminder.  We haven’t actually passed the agenda yet.

<<9:45: punditry.ca goes down>>

10:11: Punditry.ca just crashed. I have continued on a Word document and will post it later.

10:13: 116 to 56. 67% The motion passes. Now someone is complaining about how close it was. Apparently this doesn’t work out mathematically. Mat has ruled the motion passes.

10:15: Motion to move the business of the executive to the end of the agenda. It has been seconded. Mark Coffin says that the business of the executive is actually very relevant to the new business at hand.

10:17: There was a friendly amendment to just move the motion about having another general meeting w/in the next three weeks to deal with unresolved issues. Passes unanimously.

10:18: Motion to APPROVE THE AGENDA!!!!!!!

10:19: It passes!!! We now have to debate the motion about whether or not we should have a meeting three weeks hence re: unresolved issues.

10:19: Courtney just asked whether or not this motion violates the constitution. It doesn’t. However, because of the wording of the by-laws, coupled with the wording of the motion, we must have the meeting on April 1^st and only April 1^st. Trust me on this one, I couldn’t make it up if I tried.

10:20: I am sitting in the midst of a Mat Brechtel fan club. He is very pretty, apparently.

10:24: Motion passes. We are having a new meeting on April 1^st. We now move onto business of the executive.

10:26: Courtney has started her report.

10:27: Greg A. “Serving students since 1966, eh?” John Hurley “Oh, I thought that’s when the meeting started.” Zing!

10:35: We’re back up and live!

10:38:  Dan just started his report.  There’s a powerpoint presentation.  Someone just cackled rudely when Dan mentioned he wanted to help societies transition into the next year.

10:40:  Why is this writing so small?  I really shouldn’t be the one trusted with the interwebs.

10:45: The meeting is ending…now.  Dan is speeding up so that he might finish before the deadline.  Impressive.

10:45:  Annnd, we’re done.  Thanks to all of you for sticking with me through all of this (two crashes, I’m impressed).  A special shout out to Greg A. for putting up with my snarky comments for the entirety of the meeting, and to John and Murray for providing some much needed mid-AGM hilarity.  See you all on April 1st (of course I’ll be there, it’s not like I have a degree to finish or anything…)

I have been to exactly two DSU AGMs that could have been called “exciting”.  The first was in my very first year at Dal, when NSPIRG, or something similar, put a motion on the agenda re: the Union taking an active stance against the war in Iraq.  There were about 250 people there, and I can safely say it was that meeting that got me started in on DSU politics.

The second was the year I ran for VP Education.  The AGM was early that year, or elections were late, I don’t remember…regardless, it wasn’t during elections.  It was the first time any of us got a taste of then-future (now past) VP Internal Phil Duguay.  Phil is possibly the best example I have of how the “crazy left field” candidate can a) actually win sometimes and b) turn out to do a good job.   At the time, though, I thought he was a lunatic at the mic.

I take the reader on this trip down memory lane because tonight at 6:30 in SUB Room 303  (I think I’m wrong on this…it’s on the third floor) could most certainly be the third exciting AGM I attend.  NSPIRG found the start button on the computer in their totally student funded workspace in the SUB and drafted these motion gems.   Correction:  I have been inundated with comments telling me that apparently these motions aren’t from NSPIRG or their affiliates.  I can admit when I’m wrong, and I apologize to those groups that did in fact draft these motions (who, curiously, didn’t identify themselves…but okay, I can respect waiting for “the big reveal”). The one thing that did confuse me, though, was that one person who claimed said they had a hand in drafting a motion also identified as a “staff member of the Med School.”  If that’s true, I have a huge, huge problem with it.

I’m going to try and put them “after the jump”…it might not work, I can barely turn on my blender…

I won’t do a complete play by play of my thoughts on these motions (you can wait until tonight to hear that) but suffice it to say, everyone should take a look at them.  The “contract motion” is especially damning.  Absence of corporate contracts and partnerships on campus would bring pretty much every professional programme to its knees.  I’m also not *quite* sure who we’re supposed to get to feed the thousands of students in residence.  I just don’t think there’s a local organization that could provide the sheer volume of service without jacking up the cost significantly, which would in turn be passed on to students.  Feel free to prove me wrong on that one…

Read more…