Results from last night on the referendum question asking whether UVic students wish to continue as members of the Canadian Federation of Students
No: (Winner) 3255
Yes: 1361
Voter turnout: 30.9%
The breakdown by buildings is also interesting.
No / Yes
Library
1181 / 381
Clearihue
622 / 348
SUB
474 / 264
MacLaurin
306 / 165
Social Sciences and Math
319 / 134
Engineering Lab Wing
187 / 9
Wright Centre
166 / 60
Especially of note is the high turnout for the engineering poll station. Only about 50 votes were cast in the Engineering Lab Wing in the election last month and 45 in the Engineering and Computer Science building. The Engineering Student Society was officially neutral, but its vice-president Taylor Entz campaigned on the "No" side and a blog was created called "Engineers Against the CFS."
The Commerce Student Society endorsed the "No" side with a "Gustavsen Wants Out" campaign. It's harder to tell how many commerce students voted since they didn't have a polling station in their building. The closest station would have been SSM.
The overwhelming "No" vote comes despite the presence of many paid student union executives from other universities campaigning for the CFS. The following people were seen and confirmed on our campus:
From Ontario:
- Dave Molenhuis, CFS National Chairperson
- Roxanne Dubois, CFS National Chairperson-elect
- Toby Whitfield, Ryerson Student Union president and CFS National Treasurer-elect
- Adam Awad, University of Toronto Student Union President and CFS National Deputy Chair-elect
- Hamid Osman, CFS Ontario National Executive Representative
- Sandy Hudson, CFS Ontario Chairperson
- Jeremy Salter, York Federation of Students Executive Director
- Krisna Saravanamuttu, York Federation of Students President
From BC:
- Shamus Reid, former CFS-BC Chairperson (former UVic student)
- Nimmi Takkar, CFS-BC Chairperson (Vancouver Community College)
- Zach Crispin, CFS-BC Chairperson-elect (Selkirk College)
- Tracy Ho, CFS-BC Treasurer (former UVic student)
- Michel Turcotte, Camosun College Student Society Director of Operations
- Matteus Clement, former CCSS External Executive
- Michael Glover, CCSS Student Services Coordinator (former UVic student)
- Sahra Maclean, CCSS External Executive
In addition CFS campaigners from Vancouver Island University and UBC-Okanagan were spotted but I do not have their identities confirmed.
All these off-campus campaigners, most of them drawing salaries, do not seem to have been able to sway the vote.
The campaign was a tense one as all materials of both the "Yes" and "No" sides had to be approved by the Referendum Oversight Committee, composed of two reps from the UVSS and two from the CFS with no mechanism to break the deadlock. Both sides were at times frustrated that their materials were denied approval. The "Yes" side erected unapproved signs on Ring Road while mysterious orange posters appeared supporting the "No" side. Though the orange posters seemed to have no connection to the official "No" campaign, a penalty was still issued.
The ROC also set a spending limit of $2000 per side. The CFS spent over $4000 on Martlet ads alone.
During the election last month all members of the Fuse slate were asked their position on UVic leaving the CFS, and with the exception of Jenn Bowie, a defederation advocate, gave their answers as no opinion or decline to state. A mere two weeks later, most of these newly elected Fuse directors were wearing "Yes" buttons and campaigning for the CFS. We'll never know whether the March election might have gone differently if Fuse had been honest about their affiliation.
UVic's CFS referendum results are now likely headed to court. The CFS has claimed that the UVic Student Society owes them over $100,000 from the 1990s and CFS locals aren't allowed to leave the organization until they pay outstanding debts. The UVSS denies this debt claim.
The CFS is also arguing that the referendum only applied to CFS National, not CFS-BC. This is a bizarre claim I will cover in more detail later.
I am really curious to see what happens now. You think the CFS would actually try to make themselves better liked and useful than trying to trap student societies into it.
ReplyDeleteAlso, how long can you go back and claim a debt?
I wrote on the Engineer's blog how happy I was to see this. I was a student back in 1995 when we started fighting the CFS and it made us really unpopular back then. It was always an uphill battle. Now I see this has finally happened and I'm thrilled. It took 16 years and a whole new generation of students to put in 110% to do it but it has finally happened.
ReplyDeleteCongratulations to everyone involved. You guys did an amazing job!
Statue of limitation on debt I think is 6 years.
ReplyDeleteThe CFS should have no case. Your provincial legislation keeps you guys protected quite well from the CFS fee increases.
Congratulations UVSS!
Booyah!
ReplyDeleteGreat work everyone!
Thanks for your coverage, David - especially at this busy time of year.
Good show!
**Statute of limitations
ReplyDeleteLearned that from watching Seinfeld
Only three FUSE directors actually campaigned for the Yes side. Part of the success of the referendum was that FUSE directors stayed out. Had there actually been UVic students on the Yes side, the results would have been very different. You might want to keep in mind, David, that spreading lies about fellow directors won't get you very far in your new position.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous 4:25
ReplyDeleteWow, even after getting your ass handed to you with the results of the referendum, you still have the balls to complain and argue with David and the 3000+ students (or 70% of our campus) that agree with him/us. You can't honestly say that "only three FUSE directors actually campaigned for the Yes side" - that's like saying the CFS is welcome on the UVIC Campus - both statements are straight up BS. Following your misconstrued logic, had FUSE directors campaigned, I doubt that the results "would have been very different"...the CFS has shown us time and time again that they can waste thousands of our students dollars on campaign material and flying professional campaigners in from other campuses, but remember, yet they still can't win a referendum democratically.
Take my advice and crawl back into your hole, or at the very least back into your imaginary world where you believe the CFS to be a democratic and useful organization. Move on and let the 70% of our campus celebrate.
Yup the statute of limitations is indeed 6 years, but it can be revived if there is an acknowledgment of the obligation to pay. If I had to speculate that is probably why CFS is saying that in 2004 the Director of Finance acknowledged the debt and agreed that CFS could apply current dues to the debt, because that could arguably keep the limitation period alive.
ReplyDeletePretty greasy stuff. Typical CFS.
Awesome! Thanks so much to everyone on the No side who campaigned despite being unpaid and probably very busy with their end-of-semester work. We're out!!!
ReplyDeleteI'm gleefully waiting to see what sort of idiotic, nasty quips Alex Kerner has in response to this post.
ReplyDeleteI can't believe the CFS managed to piss of the entire Faculty of Engineering to the point where we lined up before the poll opened in ELW to vote. And as David says we very rarely come out and vote in anything let alone line up before polls open.
ReplyDeleteGood job everyone that came out and helped get rid of the CFS.
@4:25
ReplyDeleteYou're right, in that only three FUSE directors campaigned, but maybe because the others were not pro-CFS. Most others were on the fence leaning one way or another. In fact, maybe some would never would have campaigned for the "Yes" side because they actually disagree or have deep issues with the CFS. But god forbid good progressive people might disagree with the CFS...they must be confused...
Of course, David, Kelsey and Jose's failed attempted to force them to say yes or no helped put them off of campaigning one way or another. Several Fuse directors would have campaigned for the "No" side if people like David weren't so belligerent and paranoid leading up to the referendum. But the whole entire CFS issue and referendum is coloured by polarization and a lack of dialogue. So I agree that David should be careful, it might make it easier for the incoming board to deal with the inevitable CFS lawsuits.
Thumbs up!!!!!
ReplyDeleteSince someone is waiting for my "idiotic, nasty quip" I will give my feelings.
ReplyDeleteI am saddened and disappointed. I am not uncritical of CFS, I have had many arguments over the years about process and politics inside the organization. That said, I have always believed that it is better to be organized in an imperfect organization than to be outside or even worse aligned to an organization like CASA whose basic role is to undermine a united student movement.
I continue to believe that the vast majority of the accusations the NO side made were hyperbolic at best and dishonest at worse. That said, I am not surprised by the result. Two years of trashing an organization and throwing as much shit at it and hoping something will stick was a successful strategy for those who led the NO side. I find that unfortunate. I find it the lowering of the political discourse to falsehoods and mudslinging won the day. Whatever criticisms you may level against the YES side, their campaign was overwhelmingly positive, trying to get UVic folks to think about what is possible if students work together, united, under one banner. You can dispute whether the Federation is in fact effective, but it is much easier to tear down and lower our horizons than try to build a genuinely united and progressive movement.
Now I would argue that most folks who really led this campaign are driven by non-progressive politics, who actually prefer a divided students' movement, whose ideological bent finds the Federation an annoyance to the broader policy goals that Liberal and Conservative governments across the country wish to implement. I know others who genuinely see themselves as progressive also voted no. For the latter group I want you to look at this post from the previous discussion on this blog:
"Anonymous said...
I spent nearly half-an-hour looking for that picture of Veronica Harrison in a bikini, only to be slightly disappointed. Damn sun flares...
She may be a turd for supporting the useless CFS and a bunch of other stuff she sucks at, but I'd still hit it. Not like she's into saying 'No' anyways.
April 1, 2011 3:55 AM"
For all you progressives out there who genuinely believed leaving the Federation would advance things, I want you to look at that quote and see what reactionary sentiments lie behind much of this NO campaign. Removing the Federation on campus will not make those types of comments go away, but rather will make them stronger. There will be no No Means No campaign next year, instead these types of jokes about date rape will be unchallenged. There will be no strong stances against tuition fee increases, maybe an occasional objection, but the slippery slope to silence as deregulation is pushed will certainly gain momentum. The defeat of the Federation in this referendum is no victory for progressive politics, in the same way that the decertification of even the most corrupt union is no victory for workers. This is the price we will have to pay for the short-sided and self-indulgent motivations that some progressives had when voting NO this week.
Maybe I sounded short in my posts, but that is only because I see through the false assurances that the NO side believes in students' rights and lower tuitions. I see through the falsehoods or half-truths. The vote today weakens students across the country, it makes our efforts to shape public policy that much more difficult. Sure the federation had its shortcomings, but undermining the organization will do no one any good except those who will cheer on as tuition fees skyrocket and government funding recedes.
Many of us will continue to fight for our better side, for justice and rights and accessible education. You may have won this day but forces of progress only retreat. They do not go away.
Anon @ 8:48 pm.
ReplyDeleteWhile I can appreciate the perceived value in seeing pre-packaged CFS campaigns on campus, I take issue with your suggestion that
There will be no No Means No campaign next year, instead these types of jokes about date rape will be unchallenged.
Jokes about rape, period, are never okay, but your suggestion that an absence of CFS on campus will create a culture of support for these comments is completely baseless (and, to be honest, offensive). Your comment not only discredits the excellent work of organizations on campus (particularly AVP), but it also suggests that individuals in the UVic community are incapable of decrying jokes about rape unless they're told so by the CFS. I disagree.
It strikes me that your comment regarding the rape joke could be better worded as a) a response to the original poster, and b) an encouragement that the UVSS (and students at UVic in general) continue their support of advocacy programs such as the examples you've provided. (I personally would prefer "Yes means yes" programming, but surely we can recognize that there is a range of approaches to these topics and the CFS model is only one way to encourage a safer and more respectful campus.)
Those of us who voted NO are not against lowering tuition and stopping date rape. Stop trying to say we are. We feel that the CFS may have the right idea on a lot of things, but they are NOT successful and are NOT transparent. There are too many issues with the CFS to continue supporting it. UVic has taken the first step; we hope others will follow. Maybe once the CFS realizes that they way the CFS is structured is NOT appealing or democratic, then the CFS will actually make some changes.
ReplyDeleteThe CFS has refused to listen to students in the past. Maybe the victory at UVic can be a wake-up call for them.
Well I didn't say all of you are against lowering tuition fees and of course i am sure the vast majority of no supporters like the women's centre at uvic are opposed to date rape. All I am saying is that the defeat of CFS advances no progressive goal and actually gives confidence to all those people who actually do support tuition fee increases or who as the above mentioned anonymous poster demonstrated make light of date rape.
ReplyDeleteSecond, CFS has been quite effective in winning many tuition fee freezes in almost every province across the country at some point. Sometimes reductions, sometimes caps on increases. They have played vital roles in student loan reform and the construction of grant programs. Have they always been successful, no, but considering the relative social weight of students the amount of successes is actually impressive.
I would actually contend that there is nothing wrong structurally with the Federation. The problems that do exist are cultural if anything. The delegation process of democratically elected students' unions selecting meeting participants is sound and the meeting structures are not as stifling as many allude to. Sure it feels like that when you are carrying a minority opinion, but that is sometimes the product of a democracy, losing votes (a pill I have to swallow today).
So the only thing I have to say to yourself Em, as someone claiming to be a progressive voice on the NO campaign, is that I don't think UVic students leaving the Federation will advance any of the goals that you probably believe in and in fact they expose students when the tide of social policy is going against us. Whether or not such a referendum result is a wake up call to solving what I would describe as cultural problems in the organization is debatable. But in the mean time students everywhere are a little bit weaker to challenge attacks that will surely be coming.
AK: Explain, quoting news articles, journal articles, and the CASA webite, or any other source you like excepting the CFS or random blogs, how CASA works to undermine the student movement.
ReplyDeleteThen explain how it is the case that the CFS is necessary for the women's rights movement, and how the women's rights movement ever did something without the CFS? For example, the UVic Anti-Violence Project (not CFS associated) runs a campaign; "Only Yes means Yes," which works on similar lines to the CFS. Is that campaign now going to be non-functional (as well as the rest of the womens rights movement?)
Both sides had half-truths and omissions from no sides "Corporation" statement (true, but registered as a non-profit corporation by virtue of their tie to CFS services), to Yes sides "4$/semester" which neglected to mention another 4$/semester by virtue of being in CFS-BC, which was tied directly to our presence in CFS (since until this moment, provincial and federal had always been inextricably linked). So to say that "their [yes side] campaign was overwhelmingly positive" is simply false, and to try to imply that the fault is entirely no sides for any negativity in this campaign is frankly, something that I think an intelligent person such as yourself is better than.
As for your comments about progressives and non/progressives, I don't think you could possibly believe that the people that voted no did so because they want social movements to end, or because they want tuition fees to rise, or because of a vague unspecified "ideological" problem (show me the ideology that votes for higher tuition fees) --- no, you're not that stupid --- no one could be. It's simply not conceivable, and conceivability is a criterion for possibility. You're smart enough to know that the reason those NO votes came in was because the NO voters firmly believe that the things the CFS stands for are good (after all, who would disagree with accessable tuition and social campaigns?) but that they can be better pursued through other means.
That raises the really good question about whether these things (cheap tuition, social campaigns) can be better pursued through other means. And when looking at how flawed the CFS is (the constant legal battles, bad press, and energy wasted in trying to keep students in who don't want to be there) it seems resplendently clear that a superior means than the CFS should be easily attainable. Which is why we voted NO.
Also, "Second, CFS has been quite effective in winning many tuition fee freezes in almost every province across the country at some point."
ReplyDeleteSo basically, what you're trying to say is that correlation is causation?
Well this will end up being a long response to Mike so lets start with this comment:
ReplyDelete"I don't think you could possibly believe that the people that voted no did so because they want social movements to end, or because they want tuition fees to rise, or because of a vague unspecified "ideological" problem (show me the ideology that votes for higher tuition fees) --- no, you're not that stupid --- no one could be"
I may be stupid but clearly you cannot read when I stated this in my above post: "I didn't say all of you are against lowering tuition fees". I am sure you are right when you say a lot of people support social movements but that said I have doubts how many of the no supporters have really been part of any real social movement. I am sure many no supporters support the goals of the federation but voted no for the variety of reasons you mentioned, but I would also point out that several of the leadership of the No campaign had affiliations with the Provincial Liberal Party, which instituted tuition fee deregulation when first elected and even since regulation continues to increase fees, not to mention be one of the few governments that has no provincial grant system. Maybe Jose and company don't openly advocate for tuition fee increases (which would be suicide in campus politics) but please forgive me for questioning the sincerity when one chooses to support the government party that is largely responsible for deteriorating accessibility to our Post Secondary Education institutions.
In terms of CASA you can actually read Edward Greenspon's (former editor-in-chief of the Globe and Mail) Double Vision where he actually documents how CASA was set up by Liberal Party clubs starting at Western Ontario and then expanding in response to the Federation's successful mobilization against Income Contingent Loan Schemes, which had been a major element of the then federal government's huge cuts to social transfer payments to the provinces. It was a partially successful attempt to create an alternative student organization to weaken an organization that had just won a significant victory. Since then CASA was a big advocate of the Millennium Scholarship Program which many provinces didn't even give out to students and continued to lobby for its extension instead of the current National system of grants. You can see how the Federation took one position on this (http://www.cfs-fcee.ca/html/english/campaigns/millennium.php) and CASA unfortunately has taken down its policy paper on it but this video of presentations to government committees may give some insight (http://wn.com/Canada_Millennium_Scholarship_Foundation)
OK quickly about the anti-violence campaigns. I am not doubting the women's centre campaign potential, but if anything the No Means No campaign has been one of the most successful campaigns of the organization in terms of raising awareness about date rape. Sure other campaigns can play a similar role but I do have some doubts about the women's centre's ability in terms of resources to do this successfully. As the quote I had up earlier, when members of your own campaign (or maybe supporters) are making light of date rape there has to be a lot of education to go and my point is that the defeat of the Federation will only give confidence to these voices.
ReplyDeleteAnd the last of my points (and sorry if i missed all your much enlightening comments) sure I am drawing inferences about correlation and causation, but thankfully this is not a criminal trial and I don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt but I think on a balance of probabilities I could argue that the Federations work has won things we wouldn't have gotten otherwise. The Ontario Liberals for example, in opposition in the early 2000s, only put tuition fee freeze into their platform after a series of consultations and meetings and prodding by the Federation and member locals. Similarly in all the other provinces the Federation had intense lobbying campaigns that produced these gains. You can say the same about the grant program and the international student off-campus work program. Now sure there may have been other contributing factors. I am sure electoral considerations played a role in governments making policy decisions. I am sure their own sentiments played a role. But it takes an organized and concerted effort by a group like the Federation to turn all those sentiments into concrete policy IMO.
Look you may feel there are alternative means to achieving these goals. I have doubts about that, and I wouldn't be surprise that whatever folks try to do in the coming years will replicate an OUSA experience in Ontario.
@ AK
ReplyDeleteYour first post:
-By definition the No side was going to be a more negative campaign. It's pretty much impossible to criticise the CFS in a positive manner.
-Which falsehoods and mudslinging are you referring to? There are a lot of legitimate criticisms of the CFS that can be backed up by evidence.
-You talk about falsehoods and mudslinging, then turn around and start labelling the No side as being driven by non-progressive politics among other unsubstantiated claims. We don't want to see an end of lobbying for these causes, we merely feel it can be done more efficiently and effectively through other means.
-One anonymously commenting idiot does not represent an entire side of the campaign.
-There has been no "No means no" campaign on campus for a several years now. You have not seen the posters up, nor any events associated with it. As with anything, it is the students of UVic that will decide which causes are addressed next year. You do not need the CFS to campaign against date rape.
Your second post:
- correlation != causation. There are a number of political forces that lead to tuition freezes and other policy changes. Yet, the CFS likes to often take credit when something goes right.
-I completely disagree with what you say about the structure of the CFS. It needs change and reform, yet does not have a structure condusive to achieving this.
Delegates at meetings should not be intimidated and shadowed because they hold critical views.
Your third post:
-I am only aware of one of the leaders of the 'No' side campaign as being associated with the BC Liberal party. That's it.
FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!
ReplyDeleteEd, haven't you graduated yet?
ReplyDeleteThis whole dialogue about being progressive is confusing to me. What does it mean to be a progressive, can you be a right wing progressive? It is too much of a black & white binary distinction for me. I like to think good governance shouldn't be entrapped by distinctions like progressive and non-progressive.
ReplyDeleteI've had enough pussyfooting around true facts, on the Vote NO event page I had Alex pinned against the wall with awesome truthiness :)
ReplyDeleteHi Alex, I hope we can skip introductions since we've already talked.
Here's what you said in regards to someone making a rather obnoxious joke about Veronica in a bikini (as if he represents the ENTIRE NO population... really Alex?);
"Removing the Federation on campus will not make those types of comments go away, but rather will make them stronger. There will be no No Means No campaign next year, instead these types of jokes about date rape will be unchallenged. "
You do realize that we can and likely WILL remain a part of their campaigns! We can still opt in for posters and campaign material, which BY THE WAY ALEX, we still had to pay for on top of our membership fees!
I'm honestly wondering why you consistently deny yourself the chance to view the CFS as a big money-grab.
I'm all for capitalism and blood diamonds. But while I'm still a student, fuck that, there's no way I'll sit nice and quiet while they exploit me.
You refute his comment about sexual harassment by using the word "pussyfooting"? Classy.
ReplyDeleteI know, right? Cat-related phrases are completely lacking in class. Let's all focus on any phrase that sounds like it could have any possible wording overlap with anything else and ignore the real issues!
ReplyDeleteMr. Marius Miklea,
ReplyDeleteYou make a lot of a sense and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
I have to say that as someone who was initially sitting on the fence about defed from the CFS (having never been a member of the UVSS board, or going to any CFS meetings etc.), the comments from people like AK REALLY helped me make up my mind.
ReplyDeleteTo AK: if people who reason and argue like you are the kind that believe in the value of an organization like the CFS, then I most certainly do NOT want to be a part of it as a student.
Being a member of the CFS is not the end-all be-all of student existence and advocacy. A big qualm of yours seems to be that campaigns such as "NO means NO" will no longer be present on campus, and that perhaps students won't engage as much with these types of issues. Well, the CFS is "supposed" to be a student organization, so what makes you think that students who DON'T belong to this organization won't be able to engage and advocate as effectively with or without the CFS? You seem to deny the agency and ability of students outside of the CFS, and I find that really disappointing. Although I don't agree with everything done and said by the NO side, it is a movement run for and by students... and guess what? It was successful.
Also, I really don't understand why you seem to be pinning the disagreement between the "yes" and "no" side as "progressive" vs. "non-progressive". Many of the people that I know on both sides believe many of the same things, the difference is how they wish to achieve them. I happen to agree with many of the end goals of the CFS, however, it has been their means that I take issue with. I really believe that those of us who ended up voting no were not unjustly mislead by those advocating for defederation.
Please do not consider yourself the guru of student movements.
Also, I have spoken to many people on both sides and what I have gathered is that the CFS is an inclusive and accommodating organization as long as you don't disagree with any of their main objectives. I know many students who have felt harassed by the CFS at the AGM and otherwise. I feel like the true mark of an organization that is undemocratic in nature, is one that tries to intimidate it's members for having dissenting opinions. I don't want an organization that is supposed to represent me and my opinions to make me feel uncomfortable for holding different views.
Lastly, I really believe that with the help of other universities like UBC and SFU, we can create another forum that represents the the interests of students.
Good luck to us all, and AK, have a little more faith in your fellow students.
@ Anonymous 10:36
ReplyDeleteI never graduate! There is too much important work to do. Deficits to make, people to disqualify.... I won't be able to get away with half this shit when I am out of school anyways.
All "student" lobby groups are cash grabs. CFS is not the only group whose execs get a large salary. CASA as far as I know is no exception. And though there is nothing wrong with making 50K doing a real job, should it really be that much considering most of the execs for these organizations also have a job at their local student unions as well? think about that, a STUDENT potentially can earn over 80,000 dollars during their studies...
ReplyDeleteI just want to say a big thank you to everyone who put in all the time and effort in the no campaign. It was a big battle to fight and those yes people were vicious. I was harassed by them EVERYWHERE on campus. Hopefully this all gets straightened out soon enough as I'm sure you're all worn out from this. The student body really does appreciate all your effort! Bravo!
ReplyDeleteAK the organization itself is CORRUPT. Staffers from student unions run the show. Read the UVSS Uncovered blog post about an article called "The CFS is Broken and can't be fixed"
ReplyDeleteI really do hope that this vote, which officially severs the CFS from every major university in Western Canada, will serve as a wake up call that the elected Executives of the Federation need to start taking back control of the organization away from its long term staff.
This loss must be very painful to many people who believe in the federation. The CFS can come back, but it needs a serious shake up of staff and organizational culture to succeed.
- Fire all of the long term staff. Seriously.. pay them with severence and start taking back control again. Publicize this fact to critical student unions.
- Immediately cease all lawsuits with every member.
- Immediately begin consultations with student unions to meet issues of concerns.
- Isolate the right wingers by giving in to every demand that is fair and which decentralizes the power to the organization.
I'm highly skeptical any of the above will ever happen, but after this loss, it should be a wake up call to the CFS that something seriously needs to change. Suing student unions is a good 'short term' strategy, but is GOING TO, and at UVic, HAS FUCKED your chances of ever getting a yes vote from our campus.
AK you really need to read the article "the CFS is broken and can't be fixed."
ReplyDeleteI know that it hurts to many pro-CFS people at UVic who poured their hearts into this organization that students voted NO... but please use this sign as an opportunity to seriously look inward and press for internal reform of the federation.
This type of change can only happen if a majority of member locals get serious about taking on this task and elect Executives to the organization that won't just listen to the demands of federation and student union staff.
Immediately terminate Lucy Watson, Philip Link and all of the other long time staffers running the organization. Cease all the lawsuits and begin a long and hard process of well publicized change and good faith reconciliation with critical locals like ACAD, Regina and Kwantlen.
It's only going to get worse after UVic if things don't change. The CFS basically holds no major University in Western Canada as a member anymore. There is no time left to enact change.. it must start now.
Well that's another losing campaign.
ReplyDeleteBut its okay because these fights give me something to do since I am a 30 yr old who won't grow out of student politics and enter the real world.
i think it needs to be stated that the "no means no" campaign is problematic- as it emphasising the need for someone to say no in order to call something sexual harassment. its an outdated campaign that was valuable in the nineties, but which needs to sorely be revamped if it is going to work towards addressing violence against women in an effective way. putting the emphasis on individual women to say "no" is an example of individualism that masks the social context/conditions/structures in which such violence takes place. it individualises the blame, and too often women are blamed for getting raped. its fucking bull shit and if the CFS wants to actually engage members in working towards social justice in a meaningful way, it should absolutely revamp a campaign that is over ten years old. narrow individualistic approaches to structural violence only serve to make violence the fault of individual women.
ReplyDeleteand the AVP is a separate entity from the women's center. just to be clear. you should check out their materials for ideas about how to revamp the "no means no" campaign as they are engaged in meaningful work that addresses women's lived realities, not blaming them for being raped.
Just pointing out that Joel Duff, one of the people who literally everyone had a problem with, was kicked to the curb months ago. Slowly, long term staffers ARE being pushed aside. I don't think much of CFS will be left by the time they reform themselves, but here's to hoping. They will always however, remain a power in Ontario. The big schools here are deeply entrenched in CFS, except for the six OUSA schools. Hhowever, because OUSA costs too much, small time unions will never sign on board with them.
ReplyDelete"Ed Pullman said...
ReplyDelete@ Anonymous 10:36
I never graduate! There is too much important work to do. Deficits to make, people to disqualify.... I won't be able to get away with half this shit when I am out of school anyways.
April 2, 2011 9:44 PM "
Okay, seriously. I may not have been a fast supporter, but I did vote for Edward Pullman. Twice. Eddie was an extremely hardworking director on the board for many years and has the respect of a lot of people. He is very active in the community and is personally responsible for many people becoming engaged in the uvss & uvsp. Eddie did not create the deficit. The deficit has been on a steady build for almost a decade, rumored to have begun when Marne Jensen was Finance director way back in the 90's. I may not have ever ran with Eddie, and he may not have approved of my slate choice, but damned be if i don't respect him. Grow up. He IS graduating, be happy for him. and be thankful he contributed so much of his time to bring about positive change on our board of directors.
**You don't have to ideologically agree with everything Ed says or does, but all of you should recognize and appreciate how big of a commitment of time and energy the UVSS is, how hard it is to even GET elected, and look at the sacrifice he made to his personal life in staying that many extra terms for all of you.**
if you guys are truly worried about the deficit, how about working in a positive way (like showing up for committee meetings like special events, or finance (to understand WHERE it actually derives from)) and come up with effective new ways to generate revenue to get us out of this shitty situation? Pointing fingers and making fun of people (who frankly don't deserve it) is not going to make that number shrink.
srsly.
Anon - April 1, 2011 @ 7:31 pm said:
ReplyDelete"But god forbid good progressive people might disagree with the CFS...they must be confused..."
No doubt. I can name five pretty damn progressive people off the top of my head who are anti-CFS — Lauren Petersen, Tim Ell, Karina Sangha, Brennan Welch and Andrew Allen — and all of them have/had been actively involved in the de-federation campaign at some point during their time at UVic.
None of the people on that list are "confused"; in fact they're quite smart. I was disgusted to see obviously "progressive" people slandered for opposing a clearly regressive institution. Not cool!
Hell ya Uvic :-) Kick em in the ass and send them flyin' to the freakin moon. 'The more schools leaving the CFS the better our schools will be and jerks like the CFS cronies who fly out on the student dime will soon have to look for jobs in the real world.... the same world that the rest of us live in.
ReplyDeleteHere in Ontario there is a major shakeup going down with the big dog CFS people making major moves.
ReplyDeleteWe all know Duff ran our an dis now with the OFL
Hammond from RSU has taken a year leave of absence from there to work for the "union ".
Chris McNeil was terminated by the CESAR board of directors who made his position a thing of the past.
Salter has left YFS and is moving into Duffs old gig.
Whitfield is off the CFS in Ottawa.
The story is that guys are running and hiding because of some big stuff going down there. Stay tuned, this may be just the beginning ...