A biased meeting
Paul Browning
As an SFU student, concerned about the sensationalism of the last three months, I decided yesterday to attend the Special General Meeting despite my view that it was clearly an invalid meeting that had not been properly called. I attended, in order to see the process unfold, and find out if there were any solid arguments for impeachment that went beyond rhetoric and inflammatory opinion. What I saw was profoundly disappointing.
When I approached the registration desk, it was apparent that my privacy rights as a student were unashamedly violated. Personal information such as my name, student number, and student status is protected by the British Columbia Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA). As an organisation that all SFU students are members of, the SFSS is allowed access to such information for legitimate Student Society business, such as determining whether an individual is entitled to vote in an election or an AGM.
On the basis of this legitimate SFSS access to such protected information, SFSS University Relations Officer Andrea Sandau requested and received a list of registered students at SFU from the university. Subsequently, she turned this information over to a group of renegade students, purporting to hold their own Special General Meeting, despite a clear statement from the SFSS’s legal counsel that such a meeting had not been properly called.
I am shocked. If my information can be handed over to a group of individuals, in clear violation of my privacy rights, who else can or will it be handed over to? Will my information, now, or in the future be sold to commercial organisations for marketing purposes? Unlike the SFSS, which has a clear privacy policy, and designated privacy officers, where is the accountability with the so-called “Students For a Democratic University” cabal? Andrea Sandau has clearly failed in her duty as a director of the SFSS to uphold the rights and protections of students. My personal information is just that — personal — not to be handed over to organisations other than the university or student society without my consent!
Once the meeting started, I witnessed a disturbing pattern of rhetoric and innuendo, with speakers making accusations against the directors named in the impeachment motions, with little or no solid evidence. The directors were accused of unjustly terminating an SFSS employee. The accusation was backed up by anecdotes of the employee’s experience and character. What about the other side of the story? It has been stated publicly by the directors that the actions of this employee could have cost the Society dearly and it would have been irresponsible not to terminate her. I realise that this is disputed by some. As a non-director, I do not know the exact and confidential details of this case. I do, however, know enough about the SFSS collective agreement to understand that there is a grievance process culminating in arbitration for disputes. Let the process run its course! It is disgusting to see this issue tried in the media and the SFU public sphere before being evaluated independently by an impartial arbitrator.
As the meeting progressed, it became clear that there was a concerted effort to ensure that the other side of the issue would not be properly heard. A pithy three-minute time limit on speeches was adopted at the start of the meeting, coupled with a 16-minute limit on debate per motion. Even this was not respected as time went by, as proponents of impeachment would move to cut off debate after only one speaker on each side of the issue.
Do those in attendance really represent the views of the SFU student body? What about the other 20,000 or so students that did not attend? Many may just not be interested in the issues but, I suspect many others stayed away because they recognised the gong show that this meeting entailed and wanted no part of it. The small group that put forward the impeachment motions and organised this invalid meeting clearly managed to create a form of mob mentality/groupthink with little attempt to look for the truth as opposed to following the crowd.
Shame on the organisers of this racket of a meeting! You clearly knew that this was an improper meeting and then sought to ensure that your narrow agenda of false information was the only perspective meaningfully presented to the attendees.