The Harder Line: A tale of two meetings
Derrick Harder
On September 27, a meeting of Forum voted unanimously to hold a Special General Meeting on October 25, 2006 at 2:30 p.m., to consider the same motions endorsed by over 2,400 students earlier this semester. A meeting of Forum, properly constituted and quorate, as this meeting was, has the right to call a Special General Meeting, which will be held this week. This SGM can only take place with the specified quorum of 500. Proper notice has been served in accordance with both our own bylaws and the provincial Societies Act.
Two days later, on September 29, the Board of Directors voted to hold the Annual General Meeting, which, by the bylaws, must be held each year between September 15 and October 31, on October 25, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. The Board was fully aware that Forum had scheduled a meeting for the same date and time, but decided to ignore this, in which I can only conclude is a deliberate and malicious attempt to obfuscate and confuse. This opinion is supported by the fact that no planning had been done for this date in advance. For reference, last year’s Board set the date of the AGM in July, and had space booked and logistics planned many weeks in advance. This AGM has failed to meet the notice requirement as set out in the bylaws of 21 days’ notice in The Peak. The Board had not even passed the audited financial statements when this date was set, and they are currently scrambling to get the groundwork done that should have been sewn up by September.
An important aspect of the AGM is its secondary quorum. Should the AGM fail to meet the specified quorum of 500, business may proceed with a secondary quorum of only 20 members. All required items, such as adoption of the audited financial statements, adoption of the treasurer’s report, and appointment of the auditors for the next fiscal year can be considered and passed by only 20 people. The last three AGMs have featured a number of items of new business, for which 500 people were required. This year, however, the Board has declined to forward any items of new business to the AGM. Every item on the 2006 AGM agenda can be considered by the secondary quorum of 20; we do not need 500 people at this meeting.
A tidbit from Political Science 100 to keep in mind at all times is the creation of legitimacy. Glyn Lewis has told all of SFU in an e-mail this week that the AGM is the only legitimate meeting this Wednesday. He may believe that, and that is his prerogative, but he is not the arbiter of legitimacy on this campus: we are. Through a strict reading of the bylaws, the SGM is the only legitimate meeting this week due to the Board’s failure to serve adequate notice. The great thing about Forum, undoubtedly the most broadly representative and accountable body of the SFSS, is that it can act without the Board’s approval under the bylaws. Forum has the right to put questions to referendum and it has the right to call an SGM, regardless of whether the Board wants it or not. No matter what Lewis might say, the Board does not have the right to decide which actions of Forum are valid or invalid.
Iain W. Reeve raised a point last week [“SFSS, SDU live in their own little world”]: does any of this matter? Yes, if you believe in the right of any citizens to engage critically with their society without fear of reprisal or demonisation. It’s a matter of principle: either we believe in democracy at every level or we don’t. Either we’re engaged or we’re disengaged, and I don’t see that as a matter of degrees. When students have engaged critically with their student society this year, they have been met with vindictive personal attacks. If you are undecided about the fitness of this Board to hold office, consider whether they are acting from an ethical position or are merely using our student fees for political self-preservation at all costs. Just this week, an order came from the executive to remove all meeting minutes from the SFSS’ website, contrary to policy. Any organisation that believes in decreasing access to information about its activities is fundamentally anti-democratic. Lucas Schuller is right: there are unquestionably bigger issues to deal with, but if we don’t clean up our own backyard first, we lose any moral high ground from which to act as advocates for students. This Wednesday, we have an historic opportunity to put this Board out of its misery and get back on track.