An executive member of the U of T Graduate Students’ Union says that she is being silenced and discriminated against because she expressed her views at the Canadian Federation of Students annual general meeting in Gatineau, QC last December.
Bodia Macharia, a PhD student in French, has been a GSU exec-at-large and co-chair of the women’s caucus since May 2009. In the 2008-09 academic year, she was a GSU representative for the French course union. Along with fellow executive Anton Neschadim and GSU staff member Rose Da Costa, Macharia was a delegate at the CFS AGM. Each issued separate reports during the GSU council meeting on Jan. 28.
“It became obvious at the [AGM] that I had my own views and opinions,” Macharia said. “After that, I became a pariah.”
According to a source within the council, Macharia and Ajamu Nangwaya, the GSU’s internal commissioner, have a tense relationship with most of the executive.
Macharia said she was being coerced to vote with other GSU reps during the AGM.
“[Rose would] make me explain, over and over, why I held a viewpoint,” Macharia wrote in a memo to the executive. “When I could not be swayed, Rose would make me leave the room.”
Macharia said she was pressured against speaking with delegates from McGill and Concordia universities, who came with a package of 43 motions intending to reform CFS practices.
“Members of other unions would follow me, for example, and report to Rose [Da Costa] about the nature of the discussion and to whom I was speaking,” Macharia wrote. “Rose attempted specifically to make sure that I don’t talk to the McGill students.”
The AGM’s controversial Motion 6 sought to raise the signature requirement for starting defederation campaigns from 10 per cent to 20 per cent of their membership. It passed.
“Many felt that Motion 6 was introduced to specifically reduce transparency, reduce accountability, and cripple the fair use of democratic processes,” wrote Macharia. “I told them I’m abstaining from voting in favour [of the motion].”
The reforms proposed by Quebec universities were mostly rejected, including Motion 48, which called for disclosure of salaries and benefits of executives and staff. Da Costa successfully fought for the motion to be withdrawn. When Macharia brought up the motion at the GSU council meeting on Jan. 28, she was repeatedly asked to restate her concerns, eventually leading Da Costa to say she did not understand Macharia’s statements.
“As students, we have a right to know [how money is being spent],” Macharia said of Motion 48. “Access to information is a very important thing for me. We need to know.”
“Everything I say is being met with ‘Its confusing, its not clear,’” Macharia continued. “There was no misunderstanding at the national general meeting. Why is there a misunderstanding now? This is a tactic they’ve been using.”
Macharia recalls one instance when she believes Da Costa specifically tried to stop her from speaking with the McGill delegates. “She told me where to sit to stop me from speaking with the McGill delegation,” she said. “There was an empty seat next to two McGill delegates, and Rose pointed to another seat and told me to sit there.”
“She was infantilizing me,” Macharia continued. “I asked if I could sit at the corner because I needed to go to the washroom a couple of times. She said no.”
Da Costa said that as far as she knew Macharia did not express her views against Motion 6. Da Costa also denied allegations of discrimination against Macharia.
With files from Samya Kullab
Comments
The GSU Staff should be charged with informing the Executive on the proper course(s) of action to take, on previous decisions or positions of the union, etc. This should be a logical requirement such that the Executive can be best informed on running the complex affairs of the GSU on behalf of the 14000 Graduate students at UofT.
However, unfortunately, the reality of union politics is often that expressing one's views is received with considerable acidity and backlash. The dialogue in Executive meetings is usually highly confrontational rather than collaborative. Many very eloquent speakers use their well-honed skills to polarize members against each other when voting is required. Being a former GSU member myself, I found this particularly disturbing and disheartening. It is extremely difficult to make a decision or "move" in any direction because of numerous barriers which are placed by specific members of staff. I feel your pain Bodia, best of luck.
Feb 4, 2010 at 05:38 PM
Can someone please explain to me why an unelected staff person was a delegate for the GSU to the CFS AGM? I guess it's the Canadian Federation of Students and Lifers.
Feb 4, 2010 at 05:42 PM
I have heard there is anti-harassment complaint against Bodia Macharia, GSU executive. How has that been settled? She has allegedly cornered and threatened a Haitian student in Ryerson at the CFS general meeting for Ontario because he did not support her motion on relief to Haiti at the meeting. There seems to be a lot of controversy around the statements from Bodia. Could someone clarify this, please? I know Rose has been at the GSU for many years, but where did Bodia involvement start and why are we only hearing about this now? Is this some sort of personal vendetta? Why wasn’t Rose and other delegates/executives not interviewed as well and why aren’t we allowed to hear their perspective? Has there been any administrative follow up to this alleged discrimination, and I still don’t understand why is this student being discriminated against? As an Indian immigrant and a woman I have faced various forms of sexism and racism on campus that makes me feel for Bodia, but I am not sure why this never brought up anywhere else before and we are hearing about this from the largest gossip newspaper on campus?
Feb 4, 2010 at 09:24 PM
No surprise here.. the only reason Rose has a job to keep the CFS cash cow happy.
Feb 4, 2010 at 09:46 PM
From the outside looking in I really have to wonder why writers aren't allowed to write their own headlines.
What I find striking about this article is that Da Costa offers to rebuttal, no denial, or in fact no comment at all. Hardly a case of "she said, she said", more like 'she said, she made-no-comment-whatsoever-so-it-must-b-true'. Editors should realize that sometimes wit must take a back seat to the facts presented in the actual story.
Ryan makes an excellent point as well: Why are staff being paraded as 'student delegates' in all things CFS? As was dutifully pointed out, there are 14,000 graduates at UT... is the GSU so dysfunctional that they cannot find a third candidate?
As far as accusations against Bodia, those should probably be investigated, not posted anonymously on a forum. Makes those accusations semm kind of 'gossipy', wouldn't you say EJN?
Feb 5, 2010 at 10:39 AM
I don't think you need to worry about the one-sided nature of this article, Antonin. Rose will likely consult with CFS staff before she comments in one way or another. This article is so important because it is explaining a side that is usually silenced. I have attended three CFS meetings and it is apparent that within local unions there are delegates who don't get to vote against the grain because someone within their local has taken charge of the voting card. While there is obviously discrimination within the GSU one must be concerned by how systemic and widespread this is within CFS as a whole.
I actually agree that staff do have a role as delegates at CFS meetings. They must encourage newer exec members to get involved and familiarize them with the meeting process, but for staff to interfere in ways outlined in this article is shameful. The problem is that it will always be one's word against someone else's and there is nothing in place for proper investigation or resolution within an anti-oppression framework; even at CFS meetings where there is an anti-harassment officer. It takes courage for Bodia to speak out against politics within her union and I give her my congratulations and support.
Feb 5, 2010 at 11:57 AM
It's incredibly important that something like this is being reported. But why does the headline include "she said she said"? Anyone who has read this article knows that this is not the case. A headline is supposed to be a concise summary of a story!
Feb 5, 2010 at 12:01 PM
A note: the reason why CFS-friendly staff get to go to AGMs at some unions is that it's actually included in their contracts that they can do so. I don't know if this is the case for Rose Da Costa.
From my experience at the AGM, it's clear that situations like these happened to Bodia a number of times, though her circumstance was not unique. Delegates from across the country, both during and after the AGM, expressed to me that they felt staff members (both from the CFS and local unions) worked to interfere with their ability to communicate with "dissenting" delegates through manipulative tactics. I have witnessed a number of staff consistently and intentionally interrupting conversations, following delegates around in ways that felt both unnatural and invasive, and outright lying to them with regard to the "dissenting" delegates themselves or the motions they supported. These sentiments were so frequently expressed by so many different delegates (and were part of my personal experience at the AGM) that they cannot go unnoticed.
There was a strategic attempt to stifle the voices of those advocating for institutional reform, marginalize those who wished to understand their perspective (including Bodia and countless others), and a concerted effort to maintain the status quo. As a delegate from Quebec, I experienced this firsthand, though Quebec was not alone in advocating for these reforms. The experience was alienating, disheartening, and led myself (and many others) to feel not only that reforms to work toward transparency, democracy, and accountability were impossible, but that there was no place for our organization within the CFS.
By the way, this "anti-harassment" stuff at CFS meetings is a political weapon. It's a fun trick, after all -- anyone who disagrees with someone is "harassing" you. What an insult to those who face real harassment at these meetings.
I'm glad Bodia has come out with her story; she's not the only one.
Feb 5, 2010 at 12:01 PM
Yes the prevalence of anti-harassment officers is quite humorous.
If memory serves me correctly, one of the CUP reports stated that Rose Da Costa was an 'assistant' to the anti-harassment officer at the CFS's recent NGM. Was anyone there who can corroborate this fact?
I remember another documented report from the same NGM about a former YFS president using the anti-harassment bootlick to silence those who questioned why he was facing charges of 'inciting hatred' on the York campus.
If both of the above are true, it kinda makes the anti-harassment officer seem like a tool staff consistently use to silence any dissent. I hope someone much more qualified than me investigates these claims.
More to the point, do CFS SOCIALS need anti-harassment officers as well? In my time with EFUT we did events where well more than 200 students attended and we never needed one. If your social events require anti-harassment officers, you're doing something wrong.
Feb 5, 2010 at 02:10 PM
Is it just me or is UofT and all of it's campuses the most corrupt university in all of Canada?
Feb 5, 2010 at 02:59 PM
We can verify that Rose has acted as an "Anti-harassment officer" at both the 2009 CFS-Ontario Skills Development Symposium and the August 2009 CFS-Ontario AGM, as our delegates faced several harassment claims (which happened to disturb our participation in Closing Plenary on one occasion).
Feb 6, 2010 at 03:18 AM
Bodia's situation is all too common. Union activists are using "democracy" as a tool to get their interests to become priorities for all.It is an insult to union members to demand bloc votes. Our members votes are a sacred trust. There is no strategy that can justify members Suspicions about causes and conspiracies are for now irrelevant, but one thing is certain: those who do not want union members to have a free vote, and who do not want questions asked about the use of union finances are on the way out, and I am confident that Bodia Macharia represents the future and enduring face of activism.
Elbert
Feb 6, 2010 at 09:34 AM
The CFS is a militant organization whose usefulness is dubious.
Before moving to Toronto for University, I attended Niagara College and as President of the SAC there, I did not support a return to membership in the CFS.
Though militancy can be a useful tactic in situations of oppression, in the realm of student politics, it has no place. In fact, the militancy being described there above is actually oppressive and counter intuitive to the notion of the CFS's existence.
Perhaps U of T should remove itself from membership. Moreover, perhaps people should start defending those with individual view points. They are the real leaders in society; those who support the group think like a mentally deficient clique member are not leaders. Or at least they shouldn't be.
Feb 6, 2010 at 04:43 PM
Welcome to the "democratic framework" of the CFS.
Believe what we tell you too, or you'll be excluded from the discussion.
Feb 7, 2010 at 02:32 PM
I'm responding to UWSA's comment about the impact of harassment complaints during closing plenary. The role of the anti-harassment officer is to ensure that both parties can continue to participate in the meeting. It is a serious offense that your participation was disturbed during closing plenary. That's arguably the most important part of the meeting! It's interesting what CFS considers to be harassment and that it can infringe on your democratic participation.
Feb 8, 2010 at 07:06 PM
I wasn't there in December, but only heard of it secondhand from Bodia, who was upset by what happened - but I can relate to the experience I have had with GSU, for what it's worth.
First let me say that there are many good people in GSU who do an amazing job and important work, but there are also a few people in it as well who are difficult to work with.
I do not argue that Rose does not do good job at GSU in whatever administrative job she does there, but in my experience she assumes a position that goes far beyond administration - and in fact assumes an almost dictatorial role in the GSU - and in my experience also, she was always difficult to work with and I can well imagine these scenes with Bodia - and others - taking place.
I also think that her role as CFS rep and her role as staffperson create unnecessary and divisive conflicts, such as that which Bodia experienced.
I had a very brief association with GSU politically last year, when I was running for a seat on the U of T governing council, and attended a number of meetings with GSU folks, and in that time had a great deal of difficulty with Rose - the precise details of which are not worth getting into here.
The essence of the problem was lack of adequate communication and lack of respect for others' points of view. I could see there was a lot of sectarian factional behind-the-scenes politics going on, that Rose was deeply involved in, despite her role as staffperson, and dediced (very wisely) to drop out of any and all involvement with GSU right then and there.
I decided to run for GC for idealistic reasons - to bring some much needed reforms to GC, which has been corrupted by large corporations and is anti-democratic - but in the process discovered that GSU also was not as democratic it ought to be, and thus decided it was not worth allying with, despite the good people in it and the important work it has done on various fronts.
Even though there are some very fine people in the GSU I respect a lot, I have never regretted that decision. I don't have time to waste on such stuff. I've been doing social justice work for 20 years and know when to quit a group that is going nowhere. Life is too short.
Bodia is a good person, a lady from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a mother of two young kids, and a French instructor and PhD candidate at U of T. She is a major activist for social justice in the Congo, which has suffered terribly from colonialism and exploitation. She is president of the local chapter of Friends of the Congo. She decided to join the GSU and become involved in it to be the voice of the voiceless in the Congo. And she also told me, last year, that she want more transparent policies that concern graduate student parents and racialized graduates students, and to advance social justice for women and for oppressed people in Africa and around the world. I was impressed with all this and joined Friend of the Congo, to support these goals of hers. So I know her interest and involvement in student politics is genuine. That’s why it is sad to hear that she became a victim of internal politics in this union.
When things like this happen social justice activists often become discouraged and even cynical and it hurts them terribly. I hope that she will find the ability to forget about this and move onto work more worthy of her abilities.
As for the GSU Executive, I hope that it becomes more open to divergent points of view, more transparent and more democratic. It is hard to fight for social justice and students' rights unless you are working on a sound foundation which is respectful of others whom you are working with, even if you don't agree with them.
Student unions should not only be about acquiring power - if they are, then they are no different than those in the Administration who exercise Realpolitik - rather, student unions should be about empowering students to speak in their own voice about matters of importance to all students - just as Bodia was doing when she was censored and marginalized. There is strength in diversity, when people respect one another. But when it turns into power plays and people get marginalized and excluded, it turns ugly and the Left is not better than the Right it opposes. Just look at Orwell's Animal Farm for a good allegory to illustrate this.
The GSU should not be run like a dictatorship – student unions need to be places where students can freely express themselves, democratically, without fear of censorship, marginalization, harassment or pressure tactics. I think the GSU and UTSU and CFS get too caught up in divisive internal politics and become far too heavy-handed, far too ideologically driven, and they risk their credibility in the process.
Earnest students who seek social justice for all, and who wish an open and democratic process are purged because they don't suit those who are in power who run these unions - but the student unions should be for the students, not for the power and financial benefit of a few union leaders. All this having been said, I am not sympathetic to those who would abolish the CFS or who utterly reject UTSU or GSU for joining it. I believe in democratic reforms to elected bodies, not purge-tactics.
I think Bodia was trying to bring a voice of honesty and to speak for needed reforms in the GSU and she was excluded for her efforts. At the same time, I see similar exclusion tactic exercised by GC and those who have bought the university, and am glad the GSU and UTSU oppose them - but these two student unions must learn how to respect their own members and not turn the student unions into dictatorships.
Feb 9, 2010 at 02:54 PM
I am writing to express my heart-felt support for Bodia. What she is doing by speaking out takes a great deal of courage and strength of character. Her situation is further complicated because even while she makes a constructive criticism of CFS, (which is desperately needed), she has received little to no support from the Graduate Students Union.
Let me start by stating that Bodia is a mature student with two sons. She is also enrolled in an intensive Ph.D program. She balances her academic and family responsibilities daily, and yet manages to make time for activism. She has worked on women’s issues, particularly the mass rape and mining in the Congo in relation to Canada amongst other concerns. She has published a couple of articles and has done some advocacy work around these areas. She has brought a wealth of experience, a great deal of dynamism and a progressive perspective to the GSU and for that she must be commended. Moreover, the GSU- and that includes its staff, needs to support Bodia not only on account of her tremendous contribution of time and experience to the Union, but also because of her unique situation (and I realize this last bit perhaps comes across as patronizing, but it is not meant to be. I merely want to point out that for the most part, student politics tends to be dominated by a certain kind of student, and that it is important to realize that someone in say Bodias situation is no doubt making an extra effort to juggle multiple priorities). Moreover, a honorarium (what is it, 200 dollars) hardly strikes me as a primary reason why anyone would get involved with the GSU, least of all Bodia who seemingly has a lot on her plate already. Besides, the GSU (and indeed CFS for that matter) purports to be a democratic, member-driven organization operating within an anti-oppression framework, why then are they so openly marginalizing a (duely elected) member of their own executive?
Maybe because its convenient to preserve the status quo rather than take a stand. Its a well-known fact that CFS attempts to lodge its cronies at various student unions to keep a handle on things at various locals. Rose from the GSU no doubt falls within this bracket. I was present at the NGM last November and can safely say that Bodia’s version of events are accurate , in so far as Rose actively attempted to regulate every interaction and every vote of her delegation. The CFS asks members of its provincial executive to submit reports about their local’s activity at every meeting of the provincial executive. The report is a standardized form. Tellingly, one of the questions asked is if locals have any vacant staff positions in need of filling. It doesn’t require a stretch of the imagination to guess that CFS attempts to fill these spots quite unabashedly with unqualified candidates, who will wheel and deal for CFS at the local. Sure, no one “has” to fill it out; but its pretty obvious CFS feels it needs to know this information, or else it wouldn’t be included. Sounds like conspiracy theory, think again (that standardized report should be easy enough to get a hold of)!
I notice as well that unfortunate business of the harassment complaint against Bodia came up in the previous comments. To put this bluntly: the harassment policy is (and has long been) a political weapon to silence dissenters and squash unpopular opinions. If someone brings a genuine complaint, well, good luck (because its highly unlikely the matter will be settled in your favour). The anti-harassement officer exists to smooth things over for CFS and shut down any embarrassing or controversial situation that might call things into question (how and why CFS operates as it does). I have no idea how they appoint that anti-harassment officer because at least my local was never consulted. Its telling that the anti-harassment officers are more often than not highly vested in CFS as it currently operates, which means that their “neutrality” is a joke. There seems to be no process to determine if a complaint is genuine or vexacious (which is standard in other complaints procedures). Apparently in Bodia’s case, the officer didn’t investigate the situation. By the way, Bodia was talking to the Haitian student and trying to make her case. Big deal, people lobby one another all the time at those things. The fact that people feel that they need to engage in such lobbying even after having been in meetings from 9AM to 9 PM where presumably these very same issues are talked about, is another matter altogether. I can’t even say with certainty it was at the social because closing plenary was fed a one-sided story aimed to play to our sympathies. There needs to be fairness in the process. Bodia should have had a chance to give her side of the story. Instead, she was shut down, informed she was no longer permitted to speak with the delegate for the remainder of the conference and that was that, case closed! I’ve never seen such a blatently broken process.
This shouldn’t degenerate into one racialized person verses another situation. Bodia, Rose and the Haitian brother are racialized people. Funny how CFS which was long all white, all middle-class, pits racialized people against each other. This is a systemic issue within CFS. It speaks to the cliqueism, cronyism, and corruption within that organization; the opaque way in which it operates; the controlling nature of its meetings which have made it impossible to have meaningful dialogue (unless its to tear down someone else). Its frankly stifling and the CFS version of the student movement is veining, as dissatisfaction with CFS grows and the Fed does not bother to address it. In spite of that, I will express reserved support for CFS, but the way in which the CFS operates and the ways in which exclusion (be it unexamined white privilege, class privilege or ableism) is systemic as well as silencing of unpopular views, is so ingrained in the culture of the organization, is honestly to the detriment of all. I encourage GSU to stand by their delegate and do the right thing, rather than taking the easy way out.
Feb 10, 2010 at 08:53 PM
Okay, I'm tired of the direction of the comments, and I have nothing to lose by vocalizing the truth, so here it goes..
My name is Sara Suliman, I am the external commissioner of the Graduate Students' Union, and the provincial representative of Local 19 of the Canadian Federation of Students..
If anybody has any procedural questions or any inquiries about the CFS, I'm more than happy to talk about them. I attended many Federation meetings and worked for the past 3 years to both communicate the campaigns of the federation to our members and our members concerns through the provincial and national assemblies of the Federation, so we can have the support of our sisters and brothers across the province and the nation at large, which by the way is a thankless exhausting job that often faces demoralizing remarks such us this article, but it did not deter me away from committing to work on student issues and wider social justice campaigns.
The federation is a movement of students. It's a fluid and dynamic movement shaped by the diverse input of half a million members, and to assume that the manipulation by a few members can override that overwhelming number is 1- unrealistic, and 2- simply false. It's a collection of humans, and humans are imperfect entities, hence, there is always room for improvement, and it is our collective responsibility to ensure that it is moving in the right direction, so it best represents our members - and there are amazing democratic processes that can be followed so those improvement can happen, I'm sure the same cannot be said about all other "representative" student organizations.
I attended many meetings where disagreements within and across local delegations occurred in a respectful manner, and we arrive at the end of the day with a consensus through long thoughtful discussions with the input of many constituencies that have many opportunities to meet and socialize (respectfully) throughout the meeting to communicate on different motions/decision. This article is an anomaly as it completely disrespects the process by which these resolutions take place, and is unfortunately a poor reflection on the varsity who did not even validate any of the statements made here.
I will not respond to any of the allegations made in this article by defaming the person who perpetrated them in the first place, because I think that's a cowardly way of deflecting attention from the issue at hand here, which is a baseless and inaccurate attack. It somehow conveniently surfaced after the member in question was accused of harassing another individual 2 months after the fact -what a convenient coincidence!.
I have had the privilege of working with Rose myself for the past 3 years, and I owe her tremendously for the knowledge and skills I gained through the process. She is a hard working, resourceful person who approaches an exhausting spectrum of issues affecting students with integrity and commitment. She assists all of us in navigating CFS meetings and providing context, so we can inform our decisions at plenary. She is a valuable person to have at the GSU and its committees, and I think our 14,000 members owe her quite a bit!
I had to share votes with Rose many times, and never have I felt coerced into making one decision or another. She always goes above and beyond her duties to ensure that we internally communicate with one another, so we can establish a consensus before we use that voting card. Anton is also a valuable member of the executive who takes his responsibilities seriously, and had shared the voting card as a delegate member to the same meeting without having to report any pressure or harassment by other delegates.
The last NGM was a key punctuation point in the student movement, and it deserves a separate avenue to contextualize the larger issues within the movement. But, as far as internal issues are concerned, there are internal mechanisms to deal with them, unfortunately, members chose to bypass them and resort to cheap defamation of character through media outlets.
If people would like to address the issue publicly, I'm more than happy to field my perspective, as long as all the parties are given the same opportunity. This article was not written with the proper consultation process and I stand behind my words when I say that it makes plenty false accusations.
Sincerely, Sara
Feb 11, 2010 at 10:13 PM
Does it really take the CFS a week to find a parrot to mime their repetitive drivel? No wonder the fees only go up, this is last weeks news.
You're opening remark is on-the-money: "I'm tired of the direction of the comments". Suck it up, the other 15 posters all side with Bodia's cause. It's called democracy and I think you need a refresher course. Ironically, almost whenever a discussion of this nature is held in any kind of open forum, the overwhelming majority of students are anti-CFS, and most have horror stories to go with it. Stop lying to the people.
You didn't "communicate the campaigns of the federation to our members", in fact Rose couldn't be bothered to distribute the CFS agenda amongst even the executive, if not the council. Neither the council nor the executive was aware of what was in store, and I bet Anton wasn't either. In a democratic organization, the council would be advised and polled and the delegates would simply vote the council's will at the AGM. That's how representative democracy works. Stop lying to the people.
You whine about "demoralizing remarks"? You know what else is demoralizing? Being surveilled, harassed, and intimidated by CFS goons like Rose Da Costa and Hamid Osman. As someone else pointed out, the use of anti-harassment officers, such as Rose Da Costa herself on several occasions, makes a mockery of the entire concept and de-legitimizes REAL incidents of harassment. In these incidents, the CFS and its staff are almost always the aggressors. Stop lying to the people.
Calling the CFS a "movement of students" is absolutely laughable. A third of our GSU delegation weren't even students. We're tired of staff perennially drawing material benefit by voting for whatever suits their continued employment. Stop lying to the people.
Nothing about this years AGM "best represents our members". Prohibiting nearly all media coverage serves no ones interests except those of the CFS powerbrokers, who have proven themselves extremely reluctant to share any information with their own executives, let alone the average student. You acknowledge there are 'half a million' members so guess what: the more coverage exists, the better informed they are. It's always suspicious when an organization attempts to control all the information coming in and out, and we see this clearly with the staff administered GSU listserve and the fact that you don't even publish the council members names anywhere. Everything has to flow through staff all the time... Just what the hell are you so scared of? Lastly, our members are hardly 'better served' by doubling the number of student votes needed to 20%, when we originally joined CFS Inc. with only 5%. The fact that all of these measures were implemented through a vote which is unconstitutional under the CFS' own bylaws proves it: IT'S NOT DEMOCRACY. Stop lying to the people.
As far as The Varsity 'validating' statements, perhaps their job would be considerably easier if they could actually attend and report on the entire NGM and other meetings of the CFS? Oh wait, Rose voted against that. Furthermore, and by your own admission you "will not be responding to any of the allegations made in the article." So, in reality, none of this is a failure of The Varsity, its entirely a case of you stonewalling them. And you admit to it in these forums, so stop lying to the people.
As far as this recurrent allegation of Bodia harassing another student, I think we all agree that should be thoroughly investigated. But the simple reality is that Bodia's criticisms go all the way back to November, well before the alleged incident you are referring to. In fact, Bodia was to make her view known at the first meeting following the AGM, but you and Rose (acting as chair this time) removed it from the agenda. Stop lying to the people.
We don't "owe" Rose anything past the $50,000 a year we pay her, plus benefits, plus the bill for her 'professional development' (read: free education), plus the extensive vacation time we already provide for her. Stop lying to the people.
Sorry Sara, but you are a puppet and we see through you. Why don't you take a page from Sandy's playbook and graduate to the CFS trough already, you've worn out your welcome.
PS. Great job on the editing, Rose.
Feb 12, 2010 at 07:37 PM
French Fry, there is no need to be rude. Sara is just telling her side of it, what she thinks, just as Bodia did. The point of my objection is that Bodia has a right to state her point of view without being shut down or shamed or marginalized. If the same thing is done to Sara it is just as bad. I think those in student politics need to learn civility and respect for one another. Years from now, after all this is long gone, all you have is your sense of decency and your humanity. If you compromise it now, for power or politics - whatever side you're on - you'll regret it later. That is why I protest the machine party politics of the Left - for dehumanizing people - as well as the cruel machinery of the Right. From what I can see they are not much different if they are willing to sacrifice people for their ideological goals. The lesson here is kindness to others and civility and basic human decency. If we can't manage that how are we any different from the Harpers of the world?
Feb 13, 2010 at 07:20 AM
Wow, French Fry..
I didn't want to respond to the allegations because I think personalizing the conflict masks the larger criticisms of the issues.. And frankly, I validate your viewpoint in that there are two sides to each story, but only one was presented here, bypassing all internal mechanisms of conflict resolution..
I would still be more than happy to do this publicly, or even to meet with you, unfortunately, all I know about you is someone who wants to challenge the CFS and that they use a nickname of "French Fry"..
You made a few critical points, which I think deserve a forum to be addressed, if all viewpoints are allowed to be presented respectfully..
And no, Rose did not help or edit any of my comments, neither did I get the directive from anyone to do this.. It was my own judgment, which may or may not be the optimal course of action, so if there's anyone to blame, I'm ready to face that, as I have said nothing but what I truly perceive as the truth..
I hope we can find at least enough respect for one another to address this maturely.. and you know how to find me.. But if you prefer to rant using a nickname, then that's how you've decided to address the issue, and I respect your choice..
Paul, thanks for the comment, Sara
Feb 13, 2010 at 03:45 PM
Holy cow, this thread is still going?
Sara, I don't quite understand... This webpage is a "forum" which is "public" and allows for 'everyones viewpoint to be presented' in their own words, so why aren't you, or Rose, or Anton responding?
I made several comments a while back and I'd like an answer. Reading the subsequent posts here is a list of questions I'd like answered:
1) Why are unelected staff being sent as student delegates to the CFS NGM? Why couldn't the GSU send an actual student in her place?
2) Pursuant to the Canada Corporations Act, all information (including employment contracts) about the GSU is available to its executives/directors. Will you release staff salaries and contracts to such a person, or will your employment contracts continue to be in violation of federal law?
3) Is it true that Bodia's report was originally scheduled to be delivered in December? Who removed the reporting process from the December agendas?
4) Who did Bodia allegedly harass? Since this was at a CFS social, what position does this person hold within the CFS hierarchy? What was the nature of the harassment? Who was the anti-harassment officer present at the CFS social in question?
5) How many times in the past year has Rose acted as either the anti-harassment officer, or as an assistant to one. Did she act in either of these capacities at the NGM?
6) You offered "French Fry" a public meeting to address these issues. Is that offer open to me? Do you agree to hold it in a neutral place with campus media and a member of the university's Community Safety Office present? Since you were not present at the AGM, this public meeting would have to include Rose and Anton.
I think everyone would prefer if you just answered the questions here, where they were initially brought up, instead of moving it offline. Nonetheless, if a face-to-face meeting is the only way, I am happy to oblige, but you have to bring the doughnuts! :)
A+
Feb 13, 2010 at 05:31 PM
Hey Antonin,
How are you doing? Sure, I'll give a response where I can to the questions you proposed:
1) Rose was not sent as a "student delegate" as she wasn't necessarily posing as a "student" while hiding her true "staff" identity. She was sent as a delegate as it is part of her job description as the resource coordinator of the local. There was a vote by the executive to send her as well alongside the other two students. The offer was still open for other students to go as well, but only 2 exec members were available to attend the entire meeting. I wasn't available myself, or I would've been there otherwise.
2) A line item in the GSU budget is released every AGM (which we hold at the end of November) to account for salaries, and the information is public. I believe a copy was also available at the Newspaper, and I can double confirm that for you. The information is available for any member of the GSU, should they want to see it as well. It is accessible to the members of the corporation, hence, there is no violation of the corporate act.
3) There was supposed to be a written report with input from all the attendees at the AGM to be presented at the December meeting. And that was not ready by the time of the December council meeting. It was apparent -which is not a secret anymore- that the delegates did not share a common perspective on how to report. We had an internal decision to postpone it, so that all the three delegates can compile a written report and give it to the council (which was not ready by the December meeting), so that happened by the January meeting.
4) I can't speak to this item publicly because of potential legal repercussions that I wish not be part of. I do not want to violate Bodia's privacy or the other person's privacy publicly if I don't receive a directive from both to do so. The other member was a student delegate from another local, but that's all the info I will be sharing here. There are internal conflict resolution mechanisms to deal with the issue, and I don't think it's appropriate to air this here, especially in respect of Bodia and the rest of the GSU directors who are still in the process of discussing this. The anti-harassment officer was NOT Rose, I'm assuming that's what you want to validate. It was a newly appointed person to the position, and frankly, I can't remember her name, but can find out if you really want to know.
5) Rose has been the anti-harassment officer at multiple provincial meetings, but was not working in that capacity at the NGM or the OGM in January. There are clear guidelines on how the officer operates during the meeting, they do not "judge" to resolve the situation, but offer an opportunity for both parties to decide how to proceed and their final report is only reflective of what the two parties want to share. Bodia's name or affiliation were never mentioned in that report, it was only the sentiments of the other member.
6)I wholeheartedly support you in that if a meeting should take place, it should be public and safe, with clear guidelines on permitting viewpoints to be addressed respectfully. However, as you mentioned, since I was not at the NGM, I can't speak to specifics of the events that took place there, which is why I haven't challenged Bodia's claims except when it came to challenging Rose's behavior. I have gone to numerous meetings with Rose, and I would not believe for a second that she coerced or blackmailed anyone the way it was portrayed in this article, and that's merely a character judgment from my association with Rose. I was not there at the meeting, so I clearly can't comment on the events, nor do I deserve the right to do so. I was there at the subsequent provincial meeting, but as I mentioned there are internal processes that are ongoing to address the harassment case, so I don't think it's fair to air them here, especially that the article was pertaining to the NGM in November, not the OGM in January.
I hope that helps, Sara
Feb 14, 2010 at 11:31 AM
Hey Sara,
Firstly, thanks for answering! I commend your level of accountability and transparency. I wish we could expect the same from our undergraduate union. Kudos!
1) The organization is called the "Canadian Federation of STUDENTS". The chant is "STUDENTS united, will never be defeated". Regardless of the provisions existing in staff CBA's, any normal person considers this misrepresentation. Perhaps next year, you should make the spot open to ANY graduate student, or at least any council member, pursuant to the CFS's claims of democratically representing STUDENTS. Sending staff is a clear mischaracterization of the NGM and its role in the STUDENT movement.
2) I'm not referring to audit statements which are mandated not only by law but also by the GC's audit committee. I am reffering to the Canada Corporations Act which states:
"94. The directors of a company may administer the affairs of the company in all things, and make or cause to be made for the company, any description of contract that the company may, by law, enter into;"
Section 94 then goes into specific details regarding employment, stating that directors are entitled to:
"(d) the appointment, functions, duties and removal of all agents, officers and servants of the company, the security, if any, to be given by them to the company and their remuneration;"
And lastly, section 94 of the Act gives carte blanche for directors to request just about any record of the union:
"(f) the conduct in all other particulars of the affairs of the company not otherwise provided for in this Part."
It seems pretty clear what the Act mandates. Therefore, if your employment contracts state that salary and benefit information is private, they are grossly overuled by federal law. If the GSU continues to conceal the employment contracts of its employees, or any other information, not only will the union be legally liable, but you, Sara, may also be personally liable (again, pursuant to the Act). That should cause some alarm bells to start ringing.
3) Ok, but remember that all of this "is not a secret anymore" because of Bodia's actions, and nothing that you or Rose did. In fact, in the eyes of many, you two have obstructed this process. It is disengenius for you to now try to take credit for other peoples bravery.
4) My goal was simply to ascertain that Rose Da Costa is intimately familiar with the use of anti-harrassment policies, so thank you for confirming it. I would really like to know the name of the anti-harassment officer in question and I graciously accept your offer to obtain it.
5) What are Rose's professional certifications in terms of anti-harrassment and conflict resolution? Also, your statement is contradictory: on the one hand the AHO "offers an opportunity for both parties to ... proceed" and "their final report is reflective of what the two parties want to share" but on the other hand, "Bodia's name or affiliation were never mentioned in that report." I guess my question is: were the claims ever duly investigated and was Bodia given an opportunity to respond? Will this report be disclosed at our forthcoming meeting?
6) Awesome, and again, kudos to you for displaying an extraordinary level of transparency! I will contact the Community Safety Office and we can adhere to whatever guidelines they suggest. Is there a day of the week that works well for you and Rose? How do you feel about having the meeting in one of the Sussex Clubhouse's meeting rooms? They are clean and open and the building houses the Univeristy's anti-harassment officers, making it convenient and neutral for all parties.
Thanks for replying! A+
Feb 15, 2010 at 12:30 PM
Hey Antonin,
I will answer to points that require a new response, and that I haven't already exhausted in my previous responses:
1- It may be a long debate, I personally think there is value in having experienced staff present at these meetings, and I can go on in details about why I think so. At the end of the day, the decision is not top-down (CFS imposing rules on locals), but it's up to the local to decide who to send (grassroots).
2- As I mentioned, my understanding is that this information is available to members of the corporation if they want to find out. And there is a clear bargaining process between the management of the GSU and the union representing the unionized staff (CUPE1281).
3- I'm not taking credit for anything, and hope I haven't given that impression at all. It is fully within Bodia's right to take action and deal with the consequences that follow. I already said this, but there was never an intention to obstruct the process, I simply thought there were internal mechanisms to resolve this -which were ongoing- before this article found its voice on the varsity.
4- I can email you the name of the person. I also think I need to be respectful of her privacy, as she was merely performing her duties.
5- As far as I know, the other member wanted a statement to be shared and Bodia didn't- but I'd rather stay out of this, and if you have more questions please communicate with Bodia directly. Like I said, the process involves the anti-harassment officer approaching both parties -which did happen- so they decide how to proceed.
6- My conditions for a public discussion like I mentioned would necessitate all parties be present to field their perspectives in a respectful manner- but I also can't speak to any specific events that took place at the NGM, as I wasn't there. I can only speak for myself when I say I'm willing to participate should a forum exist, but you would have to contact the other parties and assess their comfort level with participating as well- I have no right to impose that on the other members if they do not feel comfortable. The last thing I want is for this to seem like I was unleashing my one-sided perspective and overriding contrary views to challenge what I was saying, as that would defeat the whole point.
Thanks Antonin
Feb 16, 2010 at 09:19 AM
Post a Comment