We hate to say we told you so… wait, no, we’re actually getting a kick out of it. We told you so. Last fall, the Varsity pragmatically stated (Editorial, CFS: Can’t find support, Oct. 31) that it might not be such a great idea to join the Canadian Federation of Students—that there were too many questions about the referendum process and the organization itself, not to mention a general lack of interest on the part of most students, to make a useful decision on the matter.
Yet, here we are, the issue has come back to bite everybody in the ass, particularly the Students’ Academic Council, the Association of Part-time Undergraduate Students, the Scarborough Campus Students’ Union and possibly the administration.
Student societies, such as SAC, APUS and SCSU, depend on the university to collect their fees for them in trust. Because of this, any decision to increase the fees collected by a student society must be approved by the Governing Council (the executive decision making body at U of T). Usually the motion to raise fees is presented to the GC by Student Affairs, whose job it is to make sure that student societies conduct their affairs in accordance with their constitutions and university policies.
Ordinarily this isn’t a problem—SAC, APUS, or SCSU makes a decision, Student Affairs presents it to the various levels of the Governing Council, and the motion is either passed or it isn’t. But in the case of the CFS referenda, Student Affairs is not so sure that the process was exactly constitutional or fair.
Jim Delaney of Student Affairs, in a letter yesterday to representatives of SAC, APUS, and SCSU, stated: “There may have been an unbalanced playing field in favour of a ‘yes’ vote in the referenda.” He also expressed concerns that the referenda may have been unfair in other areas, and may have violated the by-laws and procedures of the student societies concerned.
Without Student Affairs’ seal of approval, it’s unlikely that another member of the Governing Council would be able to present a motion to raise incidental fees and have it pass—which will make it difficult for SAC, APUS, or SCSU to pay their membership dues to the CFS.
But, because the results of the fall referenda came out in favour of joining, from the CFS’ perspective, SAC, APUS, and SCSU owe them around half a million in membership dues, even if U of T won’t collect it for them. This is a very sticky situation for both the student governments and the administration itself. It could even lead to a lawsuit and years of messy litigation, such as at Western or Acadia—which is exactly why we said it might not be such a great idea to join in the first place. But, then, we hate to say we told you so.
Supporters of the CFS should take Delaney’s letter seriously—it outlines the deep flaws in the referendum process. It should be clear to all that SAC and other student governments failed to live up to their responsibility to run last November’s referenda fairly and transparently, and that the ludicrous system of Joint Referendum Committees is prone to result in a biased vote. Either U of T should abandon its CFS bid, or a new referendum should be run along fair and democratic lines, with a supervisory body like in student elections—a fair, disinterested party able to make non-partisan decisions.
Now, unfortunately, all we can do is wait and see what the CFS will do about all this—but get your umbrellas out folks, that sound your heard in the distance was the shit hitting the fan.
