Thursday, October 26, 2006

SGM: The Aftermath

It has been one day since the widely praised Special General Meeting of the Simon Fraser Student Society has taken place and people continue to voice what they have to say (I have even read comments from various other Universities) on their various blogs and online journals:
So I did a little more recollection of thoughts and what not. Yesterday was definitely a jumble of information. I was thinking mostly of all of the issues that were brought up yesterday. I wanted to comment Paul for his standing up as a counterpoint in believing what he believed in however biased or whatever it was and I must say the random interjections as well as the main goal to inhibit the soul reason we were there was getting to be a bit annoying. I'm glad that everyone stayed in line.

Glyn Lewis mentioned that we were uninformed as he attempted to introduce his motion to elongate the amount of speaking time he was allowed. He claimed that in doing so we were taking away the democratic rights that we assigned to him in his election. I for one have no remorse for the loss of Glyn. He was given a reset of time for his 3 minutes to defend himself within the SGM itself and all he did rather than try to save his ass and explain to us what happened (which he was originally motioning to do I might add) he turned his back to Madam Chair and irrationally told us that we were wrong. Mr. Glyn Lewis, there was a reason why we didn't allow you to speak your 10 minutes. For the two months you had to explain what had happened it was always the same, defending what you did and telling us that we were wrong.

These people seem to forget that we, Simon Fraser students, are not little naïve kids that can be pushed around, who don't know what they're doing, the ignorant ones in all shapes and forms. No, we are the Intellectual Elite! We are individuals who each have a voice that will be heard.

Spock had the right idea, "The good of the many outweigh the good of the few." Those 'few', the 'G7', clearly didn't see past their own benefit to the needs of the many and when putting that in a place for debate what does one expect, You start over. The SFSS is an operating system of students and those in question were a virus slowly eating away at our resources and 'data'. The best course of action in this situation is purge the virus, reformat, start over.

Alas if that were so easy. As far as the current news goes, all affairs with the SFSS are supposed to go through the two remaining, Andrea Sandau and Joel Blok, whom are the two remaining undisputed executive officers of the society. However yet again it is reasonable to say that the Group of Seven will do just the opposite rearranging the internals of the Society to exclude the two of them being that they deemed that the SGM illegal and thus holds no merit. I find that funny in a sence. Those same people who claim an unlawful assembly attended the assembly. To quote another blog, "They were there, they participated.” This in turn overrules the claim of an illegal meeting as the people who claim it to be attended the meeting. THAT IS UNDISPUTABLE.

The issue that I have to say was the more catalyzing of agents to the wonderful success of this meeting has got to be the snivel tactics that they used to try to gain support. Booking on the same day - Mistake. Attempting to use 'magical' powers to deem an SGM invalid - Mistake. Calling a collective body determining your fate 'Narrow-Minded' - Mistake. Clear blatant attempts to break the quorum - Mistake. I might have been a little more supportive if they came with blankets and hot chocolate ... NOT.

As more and more information comes out after the fact it gets more and more clear. Take for instance the letter sent to Andrea about Shawn's status as a student. There is something eating away at the basis of our society, rules broken and every possible loophole found. When they were elected they wanted to make a difference, the same difference that the original SFSS wanted, how far on a tangent they went...

The question is now, "What next?" The G7 have ceased communication with other on-campus groups and they are seeking legal action. Why is it that they are trying to hard to ruin a good thing - the first quorum in 10 years and the changing of our bylaws as well. Why cut out two directors of the society - who gives them the power to do so? Why not just run again and see if the body that rid them will take them back - in there they will find their answer to their 'witch hunt'. Clearly the issues have lead them to be selfish and definitely not thinking of the society. With every passing day they continue to question the motion of their impeachment when the reason stands with them - in their actions and their actions will always speak louder than their words. They claimed a fight for democracy, well democracy ruled and in so seemed to have failed with them.

posted by Mathew Pagalilauan at 11:13 PM 1 comments

Radical Campus

"Today, SFU is anything but a radical campus. There was an aura of determination, commitment, and passion on the faces of the attendees that is seldom — if ever — seen these days. The early days of SFU saw a wave of participatory democracy from students and faculty who shared a common desire to influence the direction of this university." - Glyn Lewis, Un-Radical Campus - The Peak
To say the least I'm proud. I'm not proud to say that we had to come down the path as to strip seven people of their 'life's work' (if one could call it that) but rather I'm proud to see a student union - the members of the SFSS voice their opinions. I'm proud that the meeting wasn't just about the so called witch hunt that is kept being referred to; impeaching the 7 members but more importantly for the first time in 10 years we managed to meet a quorum AND amended two bylaws of our union. That is something to be proud of, clearly out of the norm - Radical. To extrapolate on that, how could one say we aren't radical? One of the more radical moves happened recently, two months ago, the opening of satellite campus - 'SFU Surrey' which already educates about 10% of the collective student body.

The original SFSS was created with the respect that members of the student body, Undergrad and Graduate, so that there was someone to stand up for the little guys whether the unjust termination of a TA, better services, or the rights students deserve to have. We did today what we did ten years ago, what we did 40 years ago. We gathered as students, as a society, to utilize our democracy. We gathered to support what we believe in, a calling for change.

SGM:
Quorum was the main sub issue today. When I first got there there were only 220 people. Eight minutes later there were 741 people. The 'G7' kept trying to argue that we were just a bunch of people set out on a witch hunt. I honestly can't say we were or weren't. I can however say I wasn't. The fact it if the only time we make quorum is to impeach those in question in the ten years that they serve office then clearly they aren't doing their job thus logically implying them the boot. Also for one person who didn't feel us in order to stand up and say, "What we were doing was wrong" and "We are just 'Narrow Minded People feeding off the impeachment of people' " had no place in a meeting like today. The way it worked was the two men that kept coming up to the con microphone - Paul and the other one didn't help the directors in question's cause. The one guy who was whistling in the mic in my opinion sealed their fate.

I must add however I was disappointed to see the impeachment of Erica Halpern. I have no opinion on why or why not she should have been impeached however I am a bit confused as why she was on the impeachment protocol. As a person that I have associated with before the allegations seemed out of place however I voted in accordance to my opinion, that is the democratic process.

The 'Democratic Process' came up a lot during the meeting. The 'G7' kept assuming that the fact they were elected into a leading position means they hold absolute power toward the society. Their Democracy was what one would call an oligarchy. Democracies rule by the people and shall always retain the 'power to the people'. As well the motions to hear more about the debate. In all honesty this meeting wasn't about the debate. We had 2 months to hear sides. We also had a certain group of seven using a legal council at $340 / h of society money which I'm sure made many peoples minds right then and there.

So the vote count:


Director's name Position In favour Against Abstain
Shawn Hunsdale President 724 6 13
Margo Dunnet External Relations Officer 613 14 61
Wei Li Internal Relations Officer 573 20 45
Glyn Lewis Member Services Officer 607 22 3
Vanessa Kelly Treasurer 597 10 30
Marion Pollock At-Large Representative 492 20 57
Erica Halpern At-Large Representative 382 60 155

And Some Final Words:
  • Shawn Hunsdale was apparently unable to produce his SFU ID card, and so the registration desk was unable to verify his student status.
  • I laughed at the motion of "Roll Call"
  • Next time SFU blankets!!! And maybe a porto-potty.

Some other Citing Info / Blogs:

I would like to shout out thanks to all of the people that came to the SGM. Hopefully that wont be the last meeting you attend. Hopefully we can attain a quorum at each successive AGM that we will have now to make it so these people didn't get impeached as 'martyrs' for their cause. Also I would like to say that Titus you did an awesome job and I never want to hear another quote from Roberts Rules of Order. Furthermore I am amazed at the lengths that certain students will go to delay the process called to that order. I would have however liked to hear a little more debate rather than pulling the question.

So Mr. Glyn Lewis, did you see that one coming or was the thought and idea just way to radical.

posted by Mathew Pagalilauan at 8:30 PM 1 comments