October 1996 / Planet of the Arts 29 S.U. Review: Calling The Question(s) On Student Power ..-continued from page 24 Which way did you vote? Jonathan Lander’s response, “I voted no.” Sam Shem’s response, “I’m going to pass on this because I’m not too sure.” Jeff Antonio’s response, “I can’t remember whether | was at the meeting. | have to go now.” Thus, ending our interview. Linda Szasz states, “They weren’t voted out. We were having trouble reaching quorum at every meeting and successive attempts at trying to encourage attendance to get quorum were unsuccessful. We were getting desperate. We accepted the resigna- tions of members, several (members) were spoken to in person. There is discrepancy in whether the “resigned” members were informed prior to the event of April 8th 1996. Some executive members claim that notes were placed in mailboxes, people were contacted by phone or spoken to personally. However, when asked whether they _ were the individual who tried to inform the “members on the list” all but one executive member replied “no.” Furthermore, 6 of the 9 “resigned” executive members, who were available for contact, all claimed that they were only notified (by mailbox or the PoA article) of their “resignation” after the motion was carried. Sam states, “! don’t think | was asked to (inform, the members)..| wouldn’t know how to formally go about doing it. | wasn’t very clear about the bylaw. | was really busy (with the first year show) at the time.” Kyath Battie adds, “Notices were put out saying that we were going to consider their resignations and they were put in their mailboxes and that was at least a week before the meeting. We have a copy of it. It was also published in the Planet of the Arts in the last issue. The letter saying if your name is listed in this letter; they got a copy of it in their mailbox, we would be con- sidering your resignation at the next meeting.” It's important to note that the letter Kyath refers to is dated April 16th, a week after the “resignations” were voted on and accepted.Kyath’s claim that the content of the letter was a notice of “considering” resig- nations is arguable (refer to Linda’s letter at top of this page). To some executives and “resigned” executives, the manner in which bylaw X section 2 was enacted; lacked human considera- tions. Jonathan states “Common sense and courtesy were not observed. A process involving courtesy and common sense is what our Students’ Union (executive) meetings have been lacking all year. It has lead to the demoralization and alienation of many executive members, and result- ed in steadily declining attendance at meetings.” Fern Ignacio, the 94/95 S.U. Financial Affairs Coordinator agrees, “You're out because you missed 3 meetings, | felt that the tone of their dismissal from the executive was a bit harsh and could have been handled in a friendlier manner.” Linda responds, “I'd like to say that the onus is to the student repre- sentatives to attend meetings in order that the operations of the busi- ness can function. The onus is not on the executive body to defend the aye “It felt like a slap on the face.” —Patrick Gunn “I can't remem- ber whether I was at the meeting. I have to go now.” —Jeff Antonio resignations which were . Film/Video Patrick Gunn Graphic Desi Yvonne Vi Dee co-rep Matt Burnett Patan een cotep ody Perron Part-time Studies coed Burne Part-time Studies Goodridge in Berit Kode Students Liason Gerald Eastwood Students w. Disabiliti for vacant positions and hopetully improve pn go oectiOn will give stu Thanks, Linda Szasz, chair SU enactment of the bylaws of the con- stitution.” Philip Link, from the CFS adds, “There should be much more hostili- ty directed towards people who assume a position and then abdicate those responsibilities and just abandon their office. | think there should be much more attention paid to those peoples’ failure to fulfill those responsibili- ties and the fact that they had these bylaws, they knew what these bylaws said (and) if they didn’t, they were negligent in their duties.” The actual wording of bylaw X section 2 requires that, any member who miss three consecutive meetings or more, without a valid reason shall be deemed to have delivered their resig- nations. Philip continues, “The only decision there is for the exec- utives to make is to Sf consider whether i ( any of those absences were due to a valid reason and if so then , it wasn’t a resigna- tion and so really the discussion in my mind should not be around whether to accept the peoples’ resig- nations but whether there were due consideration given to whether there have been valid excuses or reasons given for people not attending...! would think a valid reason is because someone was laid up in a hospital, that sort of thing.” By. Was due consideration given? Gerald Eastwood, the “resigned” Students with Disabilities Liaison responds, “They should have at least asked why | wasn’t coming. The reason why | couldn't attend meet- ings was because | had a full course ‘load and at the same time | had dia- betic neuropathy which is a nerve disorder in both my legs... | was becoming more and more down that it became impossible to go to meet- ings... (In addition), my sister passed away last year. There should have been some forum for us to express why we were absent. They didn’t bother...they should have made an extra effort, its’ a courtesy, but I’m not going to blame them.” The S.U. executives were obligat- ed to determine whether there were “valid reasons” in enforcing bylaw X section 2. Some of the “resigned” execu- tives didn’t care about the resigna- tions, others were very hurt and angry about how it was executed. Human considerations calls for notice to be served to individuals, especially in enforcing “resignations”. It took this reporter, one day to contact 6 out of the 9 “resigned” executives. 4 ae Mi ‘as MONS mre) bal AE Parr eter ws ee 717) \\eds THERE ARE POLITICIANS, AND THEN, THERE ARE REAL PEOPLE Meeting call to order? Adoption of the agenda? Any amendments to the agenda? Adoption of the minutes to the last meeting?? First order of the agenda?? I’d like to make a motion?? Would you like to motivate??? I’d like to make an amendment to the motion??? I’d like to make an amendment to the amend- ment??? I'd like to make an amendment to the amendment to the amend- Sure. THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ARE DIRECTED TOWARDS THE 96/97 S.U. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: (1) Is your interest in being a S.U. executive motivated by student interests or self-interests? (2) Do you feel, because you were elected or acclaimed, that you have been given the right to make decisions without first consulting the students you represent? (3) Are you interested in pursuing an active dialogue with the student body? (4) Will you support prominent advertising on when and where S.U. executive meetings are held and invite the student body to place items on the agenda? (5) What's your definition of a democratic process? (6) Will you choose common sense and courtesy or will you quote from the constitutional bylaws ? (7) What's more important to you, CFS or ECIAD? (8) It’s crucial that the chairperson be unscrupulously neutral and remain unbiased in order for meetings to run fairly and democratically. With that in mind, would you want someone who is strongly affiliated with the CFS to be the S.U. executive committee chairperson? (9) Do you feel that the CFS membership fees should be hidden from the student body on the S.U. annual budget? (10) Do you feel you deserve an honorarium even though you came into office as a volunteer? (11) What will be the process for distributing funds to individual student projects? (12) Will you enforce bylaw X section 2 without giving notice? (13) Will you have a good memory when a PoA reporter asks hard questions? (14) Are you a politician or a real person? “We're artists, not lawyers!” screams First Year student Josh Aronovitch at the 5.U. annual general meeting, held on September 27th. After 3 hours of free donuts and debate, Josh’s statement receives enthusiastic applause and cheers of agreement from the weary student body. With a constitutional amendment passed and a financial budget approved; the stage is set for the new S.U. executive committee. Good luck! This reporter doesn’t pretend to have all the answers. The interpretation of “democratic process” obviously differs from person to person, as seen in last year’s S.U. executive committee. There will be difficult decisions for the new executives to make and much to learn. Everyone makes decisions in accordance to their beliefs. But in making decisions, one must also acknowledge that they've rejected other possible choices. in investigating for this article, I’ve certainly learned a lot and made some decisions. So, no fence sitting, okay? LIST OF INTERVIEWEES (Interviews ranged between 5 minutes and 4 hours) Alice Clark, Berit Kjoede, Brooke Allen, Carmen Morrow, Catherine Gardner, Connie Currie (ECIAD’s Financial Accountant), Fern Ignacio, Gerald Eastwood, Grace Salez, Harald Gravelsins, Jeff Antonio, Jonathan Lander, Karen Myskiw, Kyath Battie, Linda S$zasz, Matt Burnett, Michael Gardiner (CFS), Michele Lane (Langara S.U.), Nicola Sampson, Pam Killin, Patrick Gunn, Philip Link (CFS), Rena Del Pieve Gobbi, Sam Shem, Sophie Hackett, Tagny Duff (ECIAD alumna), Yvonne Vuu. This list is incomplete as some interviewees requested anonymity. HOW INTERVIEWS WERE CONDUCTED (1) Interviews were transcribed by note-taking and tape recorder. (2) _Comments transcribed by hand were read back to interviewees to ensure accuracy of quotes. (3) Interviews with key individuals ranged from 2 to 4 hours with some subsequent questions. (4) Requests from interviewees to read quotes being used in the article, before going to press, was granted. Mi WW SVN Which way did you vote? Jonathan Lande’ response, “1 voted no.” ‘Sam Sher’s response, “tm going to pass on this because Fm not too Jeff Antonio's response, “can't ‘remember whether ! was atthe ‘meeting. Ihave to go now.” Thus, ending out interview. Unda Szasz states, “They weren't voted out. We were having trouble aching quorum at every meeting and successive attempts at tying to encourage attendance to get quorum Were unsuccessful We were getting desperate. We accepted the resigns tions of member, several (members) Were spoken to in person ‘There is discrepancy in whether the “esigned” members were = Ez Teh inte our enactment ofthe bylaws ofthe con- stitution” Philp Link rom the CFS adds, ‘There should be much more hostii- ty directed towards people who sume a position and then abdicate those responsibilities and just Was due consideration given? Gerald Eastwood, the “esgned” Students with Disabilities Uason informed prior to abandon ther responds, "They shoud have teat the event of April 47 il office. | think asked why I wasn’t coming. The Mie Me felt Mike acslop Selina ney edrae gO tite Tit ieee eee were placed in —Patrick Gurr rose peopies’ bet neuropathy which s a nerve ‘mailboxes, people Were contacted by ‘Phone or spoken to personaly However, when asked whether they ‘were the individual who tied to inform, the “members on theft all but one ‘executive member Feplied “no.” Furthermore, 6 of the 9 “resigned” executive members, vino were available for contact, al claimed {that they were only notified (by ‘mailbox or the POA article) oftheir “resignation” ater the motion was carried Sam states, “don't think | was asked to Goform the member) ‘wouldn't know how to formally go About doing it. wasnt very clear bout the bylaw. I was really busy (ith the fist year show) atthe time.” Kyath Battie adds, “Notices were put out saying that we were going to consider their resignations and they were put in their maiboxes and that was atleast a week before the meeting. We have a copy of it twat aso published in the Planet ofthe Ats inthe last sue. The leter saying if your name is sted in this letter, they gota copy of it in ther mailbox, we would be con: ‘dating your resignation at the next meeting” ts important to note thatthe leterKyath refers to is dated Apri Toth, a week aftr the “resignations” ‘were voted on and accepted. Kyath’s {lai that the content of the leer ‘was a notice of “considering” resig- nations is arguable (eer to Linda eter a top ofthis page). “To some executives and “resigned” executives, the manner in which bylaw X section 2 was ‘enacted; lacked human consider tions Jonathan states “Common sense and courtesy were not observed. A process vowing courtesy and ‘Common sense is what our Students’ Union (executive) meetings have ‘been lacking all yer. It has lead to the demoralzation and alenation of many executive members, and resit- ‘edn steadily declining attendance at ‘mectngs." Fern Ignacio, the 94/95 5.U, Financial Affairs Coordinator agrees, "You're out because you missed 3 meetings, felt that the tone of their ‘dismissal rom the executive was @ bit hash and could have been. handled in 3 fener manner” Unda responds, "lke to say ‘thatthe onus i tothe student repre sentatives to attend meetings in ‘order thatthe operations ofthe bus: ‘ess can function, The onus isnot on the executive body to defend the “I can't remem- ber whether I was at the meeting. I have to go now.” —Jeff Antonio failure to fulfil disorder in both my legs. was thote responsibil. becoming more and more down that ties and the fact. it became imposibie to go to mee that they had ings. (ln adlion), my ster passed these bylaws, away last year. There should have they knew what been some forum for us to express these bylaws said why we were absent. They didn't (and) they bother. they should have made an extra effort tsa courtesy, but fm ‘ot going to blame them.” i, they were negligent in thee duties” The actual wording of bya X section 2 equies that, ary member who mis three consecutive ‘meetings or more, without a valid teason shall be ‘deemed to have elvered thet resig- Philip continues, “The only deciion there efor the exec- Ltves to make ito Paes any of those absences were due toa valid reason, and iso then it wasn't a resgna- tion and so really the discussion in ‘my mind should not be around whether to accept the peoples’ resig. rations but whether there were due ‘consideration given to whether there have been valid excuses of reasons ‘given for people not attending... ‘Would think avai reason is because Someone was lid up ina hospital, that sort of thing.” ‘The S.U. executives were obligat- ed to determine whether there were “valid reatone in enforcing bylaw X section 2. Some ofthe “esgned” execu tives did't care about the resigns tions, others were very hurt and angry about how i was executed Human considerations calls for notice to be served to individuals, especially in enforcing “resignations” Ie took this reporter, one day to contact 6 ut ofthe 9 “resigned” executives, October 1996 / Planet of the Arts 29 S.U. Review: Calling The Question(s) On Student Power THERE ARE POLITICIANS, AND THEN, THERE ARE REAL PEOPLE “Meeting call to order? Adoption of the agenda? Any amendments to the ‘agenda? Adoption ofthe minutes tothe lost meeting?? First order ofthe agenda”? 1a ike to mote @ motion?? Would you ike to motivate??? I'd keto make on ‘omendment to the mation??? ie to make an amendment tothe amend. tment??? ke to moke an amendment tothe amendment to the amend tment??2?? Table the mation?222? Poin of information??? Pont of order?2227? (CALL THE QUESTION, WiLL YA2227277 Sure, THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ARE DIRECTED TOWARDS THE 96/97 S.U. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: (1) Is your interest in being a SU. executive motivated by student interests or slbinerests? @ Do you feel, because you were elected or acclaimed, that you have been, given the right to make decisions without fist consuting the students, you represent? (@) Are you interested in pursuing an active dialogue with the student body? @)_Wityou support prominent advertising on when and where SU. executive meetings ae held and invite the student body to place tems fon the agenda? (8) What's your definition of a democratic process? (© Wil you choose common sense and courtesy of wil ou quote from the constitutional bylaws ? What's more important to you, CFS or ECIAD? (@) Ws crucial thatthe chairperson be unscrupulously neutral and remain tunbased in order for meetings to run fay and democratically. With that in mind, would you want someone who i strongly affilated with the CFS to be the §.U. executive committee chairperson? (@) Do you feel that the CFS membership fees should be hidden from the student body on the SU. annual budget? (10) Do you feel you deserve an honorarium even though you came into office as a volunteer? 11) What will be the proces for distributing funds to individual student projects? (12) Wil you enforce bylaw X section 2 without giving notice? (13) Will you have a good memory when a PoA reporter asks hard questions? (14) Are you a politician ora real person? “We're ats, not lawyers!” screams Fist Yeor student Josh Aronouitch ot the 5. annual general meeting, held on September 27th ‘ter 3 hours of re donuts and debate, Josh's statement receives enthusiastic ‘applouse and cheers of agreement frm the weory student body. With constutional amendment passed and financiol budget opproved: the ‘stage s se for the new SU. executive commie. Good luck! This reporter doesn't pretend to have oll the answers. The interpretation of democratic proces obviously lifer trom person fo person, as Sen in lst years SU. executive committee. There wil be difeult decisions forthe new executes © ‘make and much to lean. Everyone makes decisions in accordance to ther bebe [tin making decisions, one must alo acknowledge that theyve rejected other possible choices. in investigating for this artic, I've certainly leomed alt and ‘made some decisions. 50, no fence sting, okay? LIST OF INTERVIEWEES (interviews ranged between 5 minutes and 4 hours) ‘Ace Car, Brit Kjoede, Brooke Alen, Carmen Moet, Catherine Gardner, Connie Curie (EIAD's Financial Accountant), Fer Ignacio, Gerald Eastwood, Gace Saez, Harald Graven, ef Anton, Jonathan Lander, Karen Myst, Ryath Bate, Unda Sra, Matt Bumett, Michael Gardiner (CF), Michele Lane (angara 5), Nicola Sampson, Pam Kiln, Patick Gunn, Philip Link (CFS), Rena Del Prev Gobbi, Samm Shem, Sophie Hackett, Tagny Duff (CIAD alumna), Wonne Wu, Tis list is incomplete as sme interviewees equested anonymity HOW INTERVIEWS WERE CONDUCTED (2) Interviews were transcribed by note-taking and tape corer (2). Comments transcribed by hand were read back to interviewees to ensure accuracy of quotes. (3) Interviews wth Key individuals ranged from 2 to 4 hours with some subsequent questions (4). Requests rom iterewees to read quotes being sed inthe ate, before going to press, was granted.