CSFD funding not behind SFSS criticism
Clement Apaak, Former SFSS President and Chair of CSFDarfur
Dear Ashley Nijjer,
Contrary to your claims [“Grad health care providers tied to Apaak, CFS Darfur,” September 5, 2006], it may interest you to know that the biggest donor to Canadian Students For Darfur is the Simon Fraser Student Society (over $5,000) and not Gallivan and Associates ($1,000). If you do not believe me, ask Shawn Hunsdale. He was the external relations officer and chaired the advocacy committee where we got the bulk of our funding. You can also go to the SFSS finance office and ask Kurt, one of the staffers sent home under the so-called investigation, a sham and witch hunt disguised as an investigation.
Much like the directors you are trying to defend, you have misstated the obvious by intentionally ignoring what is clear on our website. If we wanted to conceal the support we got from G&A, why would we publish it on our site? CSFD has nothing to hide — we are not the group that has abused its power, broken the rules by which we operate, trampled on workers’ rights, lied to the people we were elected to serve, and fired a 26-year veteran of the society.
It is my impression that you may be new to this and are being used in the typical Shawnistic way, the same way he has used many others — including me — in the past few years. Not even the directors I am vehemently opposing in this matter can point to any wrong-doing regarding the way I have conducted the advocacy on Darfur. As you will come to know, I have maintained my principles, and that includes opposing my friends when I believe that they are in the wrong. For your information, until the issue came to my attention, I considered Shawn a friend. I supported Shawn and he specifically sought my endorsement in the past election.
Before you try to challenge my credibility, you should first acquaint yourself with the issue at hand. Inform yourself of the historic context of how the grad health plan came to be and how Shawn in particular has conducted himself over the past three boards that he served on. Think about the fact that 15 graduate student caucuses have passed motions of non-confidence in Shawn in particular and the Board in general. More telling is the fact that members of the “Common Sense” slate from last year, the same slate name he used this year, are now opposed to him for the mess he has created. In addition, about 35 previous Board and executive members of the society from all points of the political and ideological spectrum have expressed the same level of disgust at what he has done. Are all these students and officers of the society also getting donations from G&A?
I noticed with curiosity that you elected not to mention the many other groups that have made donations to CSFD (RHA, CFS, TSSU, SFPiRG, CUPE 3338, and many more). I also found it amusing that you elected to use “major” donors in your letter. As you may know, major is subjective depending on context. For an organisation seeking to raise one million dollars to support over 800,000 refugees in Darfur, we hardly designate $1,000 donations as major. Even so, we have institutional sponsors and supporters, nowhere on our site have we mentioned major. I can assure you that one million dollars will not sway me either way. On the basis of our designations, the SFSS is platinum, while G&A is silver. I suspect a grade-one student will know the value differences between $5,000 and $1,000 as well as between gold and silver. If the SFSS or G&A make a donation of one million dollars to Darfur, as our fundraising goal stipulates, then we will consider designating them major donors.
I am opposed to the actions of the Labour Committee because they contradict the by-laws by which officers of our society are expected to act. I am opposed because the way the issue has been handled has cost us over $15,000, and will cost us more without Board approval. I am opposed because our reputation as an open and transparent organisation has been stained. I am opposed because our private information has been compromised. I am opposed because they refused to follow the process and procedure for handling issues like the issue. I am opposed because they fired a 26-year veteran without following the proper processes. I am opposed because they refused to tell us whether or not they are in good standing.
By the way, you have contradicted Shawn and his team, or have they lied to you too? You noted in your letter that the issue was about the tender process. Well, Shawn and his team initially denied that it had anything to do with the grad health plan. He told the Metro newspaper that the health plan will outlast his Board, implying that his motivations have nothing to do with who wins the tender come the time for renewal. What I have said from the start, in my exit report — a public document, and to Shawn in person, is that only the graduate students benefitting from the plan, which they wanted, worked for, got, and will pay for, should decide what broker they want to go with and what changes should be made. My style is called the bottom-up style, letting students decide what they want and how they want it. Compare that to the top-down style of leadership that Shawn has introduced. He seems to think that he knows what students want and how they want it better than students themselves, as clearly manifested in his willingness to crash and intimidate all opposition. How else do we explain the fact that six out of 16 directors have taken action impacting a society with over 26,000 members? I hope you now understand why I will not stop agitating.
In Solidarity,
— Clement Apaak, Former SFSS President and Chair of CSFDarfur