My friend Gillian has a letter in the Varsity today, about Friday's Board meeting. She tabled a motion of censure against the President, which the Board didn't even allow to be put on the agenda. Absolutely ridiculous. Read her letter. It's good.
Another article in the Varsity about Scarborough getting shafted.
Another friend, former SCSU VP Academics Jeff Rybak, has his book launch today at Bluff's Restaurant at UTSC. Here's an article on the book, What's Wrong With University (And How To Make It Work For You Anyway, and here is the Facebook group.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
And you thought the SCSU elections were crazy...
My friend Peggy is a journalism student at Sheridan College in Oakville. Recently, the Sheridan Student Union Inc. had their elections. Peggy told me something very curious about what happened when she went to vote:
She was told to write her name on her ballot.
Yes. Names. On ballots. What, followed by, the fuck, were they thinking?
This led to an investigation into the elections that brings to light some serious problems with planning and policy at SSUI. You can read all of it at Peggy's blog, Soup Is Good Food. There was a lot of confusion and in the end, it's possible that up to 500 ballots were thrown out. The article will run in the Sheridan Sun.
Hooray for democracy.
She was told to write her name on her ballot.
Yes. Names. On ballots. What, followed by, the fuck, were they thinking?
This led to an investigation into the elections that brings to light some serious problems with planning and policy at SSUI. You can read all of it at Peggy's blog, Soup Is Good Food. There was a lot of confusion and in the end, it's possible that up to 500 ballots were thrown out. The article will run in the Sheridan Sun.
Hooray for democracy.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Executives!
At last night's Board meeting, the SCSU very unceremoniously got executives for next year. Here's how:
At the beginning of the meeting, there was an item entitled "New Business - Issues Regarding Elections: Logistics and Rulings." During this item we were first directed to a section in the VP Human Resource's report where he discussed hiring for a new elections committee. On Monday the 19th the current Elections Committee informed Mike that they did not want to extend their contracts and run the re-election. So, Mike put out the advertisement and set a deadline of Wednesday 21 March, intending to announce the results at an emergency Board meeting set for that night, which was subsequently cancelled. Due to the cancellation, Mike e-mailed the Board stating that he had reviewed the applicants and there were not enough qualified candidates to form an elections team. Without an elections committee, we can't run an election.
Next, the Vice-Chair, Jemy Joseph, made a ruling on the re-election in terms of the nomination packages' availability. Elections Policy section 2.01.08 - Duties of the Chief Returning Officer states: Establish a minimum of seven (7) working days for the filling of nominations; nominations will close at least ten (10) working days before the first voting day of the election; Working days does not include Reading Week. (emphasis mine).
Now, considering that we did not have a CRO for the re-election at this time, the responsibility should have been delegated by the Board to someone else. Unfortunately, it wasn't. Nominations, according to the advertisement in the Varsity (the legal one) were to open on Thursday 15 March, and close yesterday (23 March). However, the nomination packages were not publicly available until Tuesday 20 March. While the nomination period was technically open for 7 days, the Vice-Chair ruled that without the packages being available until Tuesday, potential candidates could only file nominations for four days (20, 21, 22, 23 March). Extending the nomination period another three working days to 28 March would not be feasable, as the closing date of nominations must be at least 10 days before voting. It would push the voting day into study break, when even fewer people are on campus than on a UTSC Friday as was originally planned. Because of this, the Vice-Chair ruled the re-election illegal.
Thirdly! The Chair did some investigating into Robert's Rules of Order. At the 9 March Board Meeting, the ratification failed during the Division of the Assembly. The initial vote actually passed. After looking into Robert's Rules, Susie found that the Division of the Assembly was, in fact, illegal. While she was explaining this people were getting confused and I wanted to have a whiteboard so I could draw a flow chart. Here's basically how things went and why they were illegal:
- Vote called on motion to ratify.
- Vote passes.
- Marc Kilchling moves to recess.
- Some kerfluffle, but a recess held.
- Return from recess.
- Request for a Division of the Assembly.
- Chair denies, says it's against Robert's Rules, which state:
Because Marc made a motion to recess, a Division of the Assembly is impossible under Robert's Rules. Some people objected because there were objections to the motion to recess, however, the motion doesn't have to pass - someone just has to say it. Which they did.
- Appeal to the Chair's decision.
- Susie tries to explain that she didn't actually make a decision, she's just following Robert's Rules, therefore there is nothing for them to appeal.
- Certain Group of People force a vote on Appealing the Chair's decision, which passes.
- Division of the Assembly takes place, motion fails.
According to Robert's Rules, this appeal, and subsequently the Division of the Assembly, is illegal. This Certain Group of People who were dead set on having a Division of the Assembly would have had to move to suspend the rules, which requires 2/3 majority (see Robert's Rules, Article IV. Incidental Motions, Sections 21 and 22, for Appeals From The Chair and Suspension of the Rules). Susie did not make a ruling, she stated the rules. In finding this she ruled the Division of the Assembly from 9 March illegal, therefore the initial vote to ratify stands.
So after all that, really it means that a) a re-election is illegal and impractical, and b) the original report was ratified. People went on and on about these things but of course it was going nowhere, and the topic was not a Discussion Item, so Rob called for Orders of the Day and we moved on. Since that means we have Executives, Director Arjune Selvarajan, who had put the Motion to Rescind and the Renewal of a Motion on the table, withdrew them. And we merrily went on our way to the 07-08 budgets.
Of course, because people are stupid, they can't leave things be. Later, we were hearing reports from SCOSE and SCOE (Standing Committees on Students & Equity and External, respectively). A couple of people had left the room and we were in the middle of discussing a motion coming from SCOE on the $10 minimum wage campaign, when these people return. Out of nowhere, Senthooran, the VP External, starts going on about something related to Robert's Rules. I believe he was trying to get Rob's earlier insistence on calling Orders of the Day (which is non-debatable) ruled dilatory. Whatever it was, he interrupted his own committee chair with bullshit that's already been ruled on. God that pissed me off. We were in the middle of something and he just barges into the conversation with something COMPLETELY off-topic. ARGH.
In any case, for what it's worth, congratulations to Rob, Jemy, Chris, and Ahmad. Hopefully it lasts this time.
In other, happier news, I served on the SCSU Awards Committee, which reported to the Board last night, so I'd like to congratulate the winners of those awards:
President's Award - Chris Van Abbema
Vice-President's Award - Lynn Zhu
Clubs' Awards - Maple Chong (Life Science Students' Union) and Charissa Jattan (Model United Nations)
Faculty/Staff Award - Lesley Mak
Teaching Award - Dr. Stephen Reid
Aaaand I'm out. Back to work.
At the beginning of the meeting, there was an item entitled "New Business - Issues Regarding Elections: Logistics and Rulings." During this item we were first directed to a section in the VP Human Resource's report where he discussed hiring for a new elections committee. On Monday the 19th the current Elections Committee informed Mike that they did not want to extend their contracts and run the re-election. So, Mike put out the advertisement and set a deadline of Wednesday 21 March, intending to announce the results at an emergency Board meeting set for that night, which was subsequently cancelled. Due to the cancellation, Mike e-mailed the Board stating that he had reviewed the applicants and there were not enough qualified candidates to form an elections team. Without an elections committee, we can't run an election.
Next, the Vice-Chair, Jemy Joseph, made a ruling on the re-election in terms of the nomination packages' availability. Elections Policy section 2.01.08 - Duties of the Chief Returning Officer states: Establish a minimum of seven (7) working days for the filling of nominations; nominations will close at least ten (10) working days before the first voting day of the election; Working days does not include Reading Week. (emphasis mine).
Now, considering that we did not have a CRO for the re-election at this time, the responsibility should have been delegated by the Board to someone else. Unfortunately, it wasn't. Nominations, according to the advertisement in the Varsity (the legal one) were to open on Thursday 15 March, and close yesterday (23 March). However, the nomination packages were not publicly available until Tuesday 20 March. While the nomination period was technically open for 7 days, the Vice-Chair ruled that without the packages being available until Tuesday, potential candidates could only file nominations for four days (20, 21, 22, 23 March). Extending the nomination period another three working days to 28 March would not be feasable, as the closing date of nominations must be at least 10 days before voting. It would push the voting day into study break, when even fewer people are on campus than on a UTSC Friday as was originally planned. Because of this, the Vice-Chair ruled the re-election illegal.
Thirdly! The Chair did some investigating into Robert's Rules of Order. At the 9 March Board Meeting, the ratification failed during the Division of the Assembly. The initial vote actually passed. After looking into Robert's Rules, Susie found that the Division of the Assembly was, in fact, illegal. While she was explaining this people were getting confused and I wanted to have a whiteboard so I could draw a flow chart. Here's basically how things went and why they were illegal:
- Vote called on motion to ratify.
- Vote passes.
- Marc Kilchling moves to recess.
- Some kerfluffle, but a recess held.
- Return from recess.
- Request for a Division of the Assembly.
- Chair denies, says it's against Robert's Rules, which state:
A Division of the Assembly may be called for, without obtaining the floor, at any time after the question has been put, even after the vote has been announced and another has the floor, provided the vote was taken viva voce, or by show of hands, and it is called for before another motion has been made.(Emphasis mine)
Because Marc made a motion to recess, a Division of the Assembly is impossible under Robert's Rules. Some people objected because there were objections to the motion to recess, however, the motion doesn't have to pass - someone just has to say it. Which they did.
- Appeal to the Chair's decision.
- Susie tries to explain that she didn't actually make a decision, she's just following Robert's Rules, therefore there is nothing for them to appeal.
- Certain Group of People force a vote on Appealing the Chair's decision, which passes.
- Division of the Assembly takes place, motion fails.
According to Robert's Rules, this appeal, and subsequently the Division of the Assembly, is illegal. This Certain Group of People who were dead set on having a Division of the Assembly would have had to move to suspend the rules, which requires 2/3 majority (see Robert's Rules, Article IV. Incidental Motions, Sections 21 and 22, for Appeals From The Chair and Suspension of the Rules). Susie did not make a ruling, she stated the rules. In finding this she ruled the Division of the Assembly from 9 March illegal, therefore the initial vote to ratify stands.
So after all that, really it means that a) a re-election is illegal and impractical, and b) the original report was ratified. People went on and on about these things but of course it was going nowhere, and the topic was not a Discussion Item, so Rob called for Orders of the Day and we moved on. Since that means we have Executives, Director Arjune Selvarajan, who had put the Motion to Rescind and the Renewal of a Motion on the table, withdrew them. And we merrily went on our way to the 07-08 budgets.
Of course, because people are stupid, they can't leave things be. Later, we were hearing reports from SCOSE and SCOE (Standing Committees on Students & Equity and External, respectively). A couple of people had left the room and we were in the middle of discussing a motion coming from SCOE on the $10 minimum wage campaign, when these people return. Out of nowhere, Senthooran, the VP External, starts going on about something related to Robert's Rules. I believe he was trying to get Rob's earlier insistence on calling Orders of the Day (which is non-debatable) ruled dilatory. Whatever it was, he interrupted his own committee chair with bullshit that's already been ruled on. God that pissed me off. We were in the middle of something and he just barges into the conversation with something COMPLETELY off-topic. ARGH.
In any case, for what it's worth, congratulations to Rob, Jemy, Chris, and Ahmad. Hopefully it lasts this time.
In other, happier news, I served on the SCSU Awards Committee, which reported to the Board last night, so I'd like to congratulate the winners of those awards:
President's Award - Chris Van Abbema
Vice-President's Award - Lynn Zhu
Clubs' Awards - Maple Chong (Life Science Students' Union) and Charissa Jattan (Model United Nations)
Faculty/Staff Award - Lesley Mak
Teaching Award - Dr. Stephen Reid
Aaaand I'm out. Back to work.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
I don't even know where to start with this one.
The first thing I wanted to see this morning was definitely NOT the dead model gallery (view at your own risk, may be triggering) from the latest episode of America's Next Top Model. Alas, they came up.
I've never been a 'fashion' person. I've only ever watched this show when my housemates are watching it and I happen to be around. I don't see the appeal of watching stick-thin woman-shaped coathangers parading around a catwalk, I don't see how anonymous individuals with vacant stares are supposed to make me want to buy things, and I've never understood the need to be in 'style' or 'trendy.' I have a couple of friends who actively follow this stuff, but I've never seen the appeal. It's just not something I'm interested in, and I hate the way the industry treats women. That has nothing on this.
When I saw the pictures, immediately I felt sick. The women are splayed in painfully awkward positions, made up with blood and bruises, and in some of them the poses and arrangement of their clothing suggests sexual assault. Each seems to portray a different kind of death in a different location. The expressions on their faces are hauntingly familiar - probably because even when they're supposed to be alive in pictures, to me, models always seem to stare vacantly. I'm amazed I even finished looking at all of them. I don't even want to imagine how someone who has been a victim or a family member of a victim of murder, assault, or even accidental death, might feel after seeing these images. Couple the violence with the inherent nature of the industry to sexualise everything, you can see how this becomes even more problematic. Violence and death are being made sexy. I shouldn't have to explain why this is bad, bad, bad.
Don't get me wrong. By no means am I surprised at the show and the fashion industry in general dehumanising women, I'm just appalled and disgusted that they would stoop this low.
See also: WIMN's Voices and Feministe.us.
I've never been a 'fashion' person. I've only ever watched this show when my housemates are watching it and I happen to be around. I don't see the appeal of watching stick-thin woman-shaped coathangers parading around a catwalk, I don't see how anonymous individuals with vacant stares are supposed to make me want to buy things, and I've never understood the need to be in 'style' or 'trendy.' I have a couple of friends who actively follow this stuff, but I've never seen the appeal. It's just not something I'm interested in, and I hate the way the industry treats women. That has nothing on this.
When I saw the pictures, immediately I felt sick. The women are splayed in painfully awkward positions, made up with blood and bruises, and in some of them the poses and arrangement of their clothing suggests sexual assault. Each seems to portray a different kind of death in a different location. The expressions on their faces are hauntingly familiar - probably because even when they're supposed to be alive in pictures, to me, models always seem to stare vacantly. I'm amazed I even finished looking at all of them. I don't even want to imagine how someone who has been a victim or a family member of a victim of murder, assault, or even accidental death, might feel after seeing these images. Couple the violence with the inherent nature of the industry to sexualise everything, you can see how this becomes even more problematic. Violence and death are being made sexy. I shouldn't have to explain why this is bad, bad, bad.
Don't get me wrong. By no means am I surprised at the show and the fashion industry in general dehumanising women, I'm just appalled and disgusted that they would stoop this low.
See also: WIMN's Voices and Feministe.us.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
i'm alive, don't worry
Hey everyone. I know I've been quiet for the past week or so. That's because there's this little thing called school in my life I've been attending to. Yeah. That thing. So today, a couple of links, before I dive into writing my research paper:
Report from the CFS Task Force on the Needs of Muslim Students (PDF) - As much as I dislike the CFS, I was involved in this initiative in the summer and the fall, and organised the hearing on Scarborough Campus. I felt it was meaningful and worthwhile initiative and I remember being happy with how our hearing went. Hopefully some good comes out of this report.
SCSU in limbo and Editorial: Vote to make the racket stop - Both from the Varsity. Coverage of the decision to hold a new election on April 9 - which is Easter Monday, UTSC "Friday" (a day to make up for the school being closed on Good Friday), and the day before study break. Let's count the number of problems with this.
Agenda for the March 23 SCSU Board of Directors meeting (PDF) - Looks like some interesting motions on the table! I'll have more on this after the meeting actually happens.
What's Wrong With University (And How To Make It Work For You Anyway), by Jeff Rybak: Facebook group, Facebook event invite and publisher's page with a link to the summary. Jeff was SCSU VP Academics for two years and has been really really involved in governance and academics at UTSC. His book launch is March 29 at Bluff's Restaurant in the UTSC Student Centre, so come on by and check it out.
Also, I updated the entry about the letter from the former SCSU executives with some corrections from Jeff.
I'm stepping back from really being involved with the elections drama. As I mentioned, I have a lot of academic commitments at the moment, and there's also some personal life stuff to deal with. So, I'll have more updates about the elections after Friday's board meeting, other than that, just wait it out until April!
Report from the CFS Task Force on the Needs of Muslim Students (PDF) - As much as I dislike the CFS, I was involved in this initiative in the summer and the fall, and organised the hearing on Scarborough Campus. I felt it was meaningful and worthwhile initiative and I remember being happy with how our hearing went. Hopefully some good comes out of this report.
SCSU in limbo and Editorial: Vote to make the racket stop - Both from the Varsity. Coverage of the decision to hold a new election on April 9 - which is Easter Monday, UTSC "Friday" (a day to make up for the school being closed on Good Friday), and the day before study break. Let's count the number of problems with this.
Agenda for the March 23 SCSU Board of Directors meeting (PDF) - Looks like some interesting motions on the table! I'll have more on this after the meeting actually happens.
What's Wrong With University (And How To Make It Work For You Anyway), by Jeff Rybak: Facebook group, Facebook event invite and publisher's page with a link to the summary. Jeff was SCSU VP Academics for two years and has been really really involved in governance and academics at UTSC. His book launch is March 29 at Bluff's Restaurant in the UTSC Student Centre, so come on by and check it out.
Also, I updated the entry about the letter from the former SCSU executives with some corrections from Jeff.
I'm stepping back from really being involved with the elections drama. As I mentioned, I have a lot of academic commitments at the moment, and there's also some personal life stuff to deal with. So, I'll have more updates about the elections after Friday's board meeting, other than that, just wait it out until April!
Thursday, March 15, 2007
letter from former executives
I had to scan this in two parts since it was on legal size paper. Here is the letter (with some of the signatures) and here are the names of the former execs endorsing the letter. Because some of the writing is illegible, and one name is cut off, I'll rewrite them here:
Lendyl D'Souza, VP Human Resources 04-05, President 05-06
Jeff Rybak, VP Academics 04-06
Paul Hunter, VP Campus Life 04-05, VP Human Resources 05-06
Mathieu Dagonas, VP External 04-05
Preet Virdi, VP Academics/Acting President 03-04
Jon Agg, Clubs Officer 03-04, VP Students & Equity 04-05
Wansey Poon, VP Human Resources 05-06
Chris Van Abbema, VP Operations 05-06
Brad Meisner, Communications Officer 01-02
Vinitha Gengatharan, President ?
ETA, 21 March: Jeff has informed me that Omer Sheikh, former VP Campus Life, and Dan Bandurka, President 02-03 and 03-04, also signed on to this late.
Lendyl D'Souza, VP Human Resources 04-05, President 05-06
Jeff Rybak, VP Academics 04-06
Paul Hunter, VP Campus Life 04-05, VP Human Resources 05-06
Mathieu Dagonas, VP External 04-05
Preet Virdi, VP Academics/Acting President 03-04
Jon Agg, Clubs Officer 03-04, VP Students & Equity 04-05
Wansey Poon, VP Human Resources 05-06
Chris Van Abbema, VP Operations 05-06
Brad Meisner, Communications Officer 01-02
Vinitha Gengatharan, President ?
ETA, 21 March: Jeff has informed me that Omer Sheikh, former VP Campus Life, and Dan Bandurka, President 02-03 and 03-04, also signed on to this late.
at least we made a decision.
The SCSU Board Meeting lasted until about 1:30 AM but somehow a decision was made.
This was after a presentation by the Chair on options and pros and cons, and the presentation of a letter from former SCSU Executives. The vote to hold another election was done by secret ballot (a motion that passed 6-5-5), and itself passed 9 in favour, 8 against.
VP Human Resources Lou Michael Tacorda tabled a motion to rescind, arguing that the motion to call the question that led to the passing of this motion. Some debate and then the motion to rescind. Daniel Greanya (ex-officio College Council and VP Academics candidate) tried to call the question again and Chair Susie Vavrusa ruled it dilatory, which was appealed, the appeal failed, and the speakers could go ahead. The votes on the motion to rescind were 8-7-2, but it failed because it required 2/3 majority.
Ex-officio Marc Kilchling tabled the following motion:
Which passed with the following friendly amendment from VP Academics and candidate for President Rob Wulkan:
Because April 9 is a) the last day of classes, b) "UTSC Friday," a day to make up for classes missed during the university's closure on Good Friday, c) Easter Monday; there was a lot of worry about turnout and an accurate representation. This was seen as a reasonable compromise.
If only the meeting itself was that simple. It started at 8 PM and like I said, ran until around 1:30. The usual people talking in circles and asking questions over and over again.
The meeting even started late because Susie had to spend a lot of time clarifying the situation with Vlad Glebov and Shaila Kibria. On Friday there was confusion and they signed ex-officio forms when Jen Hassum (UTSU Chairperson) and Murphy Brown (APUS President) had already signed them at the beginning of the year. And at the beginning of the meeting tonight, speaking rights were only extended to members of the corporation. Anyone else (including the former execs) had to have speaking rights extended individually.
Overall, I think these motions are kinda crazy. And if they don't get the turnout and/or they don't get ratified, then... yeah. I don't even want to know. Probably a motion to renew, which would give us a chance to look at the original report again. But we'll see. At the moment I'm just glad that something happened.
There were a ton of students there, at least at the beginning. We had to bar people from entering the room because it reached its capacity of 60 people. And I think in general people behaved better, though there was still a lot of crosstalk and interruptions. Approving the agenda took forever because EVERYONE wanted their motions on, from ratifying to re-election to making people declare conflict of interest. The letter from the former execs (which I'll scan and post after I've slept) took forever because people kept interrupting with points of personal privilege because they felt they were being attacked, when the way the word 'failure' was used didn't necessarily mean that.
I know there will be students angry about this, and others who will be happy. I already know of at least one or two who feel like their votes in the previous election are being made worthless. There will be an article in the Varsity tomorrow, for sure.
But now I am starting to feel incoherent so I shall be off to bed.
BIRT that the SCSU hold a re-election with the following timeline: Deadline for nominations - March 23; Campaigning until April 8; voting on April 9.
This was after a presentation by the Chair on options and pros and cons, and the presentation of a letter from former SCSU Executives. The vote to hold another election was done by secret ballot (a motion that passed 6-5-5), and itself passed 9 in favour, 8 against.
VP Human Resources Lou Michael Tacorda tabled a motion to rescind, arguing that the motion to call the question that led to the passing of this motion. Some debate and then the motion to rescind. Daniel Greanya (ex-officio College Council and VP Academics candidate) tried to call the question again and Chair Susie Vavrusa ruled it dilatory, which was appealed, the appeal failed, and the speakers could go ahead. The votes on the motion to rescind were 8-7-2, but it failed because it required 2/3 majority.
Ex-officio Marc Kilchling tabled the following motion:
BIRT if quorum for the third spring election is less than 5% of the eligible electors that the results be deemed invalid.
Which passed with the following friendly amendment from VP Academics and candidate for President Rob Wulkan:
BIFRT unless 9% or greater voter turnout is met, the term of office shall be a half term, ending on the day following the initial date that the motion to ratify is considered, or at the point of ratification, whichever comes first.
Because April 9 is a) the last day of classes, b) "UTSC Friday," a day to make up for classes missed during the university's closure on Good Friday, c) Easter Monday; there was a lot of worry about turnout and an accurate representation. This was seen as a reasonable compromise.
If only the meeting itself was that simple. It started at 8 PM and like I said, ran until around 1:30. The usual people talking in circles and asking questions over and over again.
The meeting even started late because Susie had to spend a lot of time clarifying the situation with Vlad Glebov and Shaila Kibria. On Friday there was confusion and they signed ex-officio forms when Jen Hassum (UTSU Chairperson) and Murphy Brown (APUS President) had already signed them at the beginning of the year. And at the beginning of the meeting tonight, speaking rights were only extended to members of the corporation. Anyone else (including the former execs) had to have speaking rights extended individually.
Overall, I think these motions are kinda crazy. And if they don't get the turnout and/or they don't get ratified, then... yeah. I don't even want to know. Probably a motion to renew, which would give us a chance to look at the original report again. But we'll see. At the moment I'm just glad that something happened.
There were a ton of students there, at least at the beginning. We had to bar people from entering the room because it reached its capacity of 60 people. And I think in general people behaved better, though there was still a lot of crosstalk and interruptions. Approving the agenda took forever because EVERYONE wanted their motions on, from ratifying to re-election to making people declare conflict of interest. The letter from the former execs (which I'll scan and post after I've slept) took forever because people kept interrupting with points of personal privilege because they felt they were being attacked, when the way the word 'failure' was used didn't necessarily mean that.
I know there will be students angry about this, and others who will be happy. I already know of at least one or two who feel like their votes in the previous election are being made worthless. There will be an article in the Varsity tomorrow, for sure.
But now I am starting to feel incoherent so I shall be off to bed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
