Those bored by the somewhat somnolent state of student politics at U of T should take a look at a pitched political battle that has polarized the student body at British Columbia’s Simon Fraser University (SFU).
The conflict, which began as a purported murky conspiracy and has ballooned into a mud-slinging debacle of finger-pointing and denial, will reach its climax this Wednesday in two simultaneous student meetings, each of which declares the other illegitimate.
At issue is whether or not to impeach seven board members of the Simon Fraser Student Society (SFSS), the university’s student government, linked to a controversial firing this summer. The so-called “G7” includes SFSS president Shawn Hunsdale, and four other top executive members of the board.
Students for a Democratic University-named after a student advocacy group at SFU from the late 60s-is the force behind the impeachment campaign. Spokesperson Bryan Jones said the campaign to impeach the board members was prompted by “fundamental flaws in their process, and a fundamental disregard for process and for transparency” that have damaged confidence in SFU’s student government and cost thousands of dollars in legal fees.
According to Hunsdale, however, these allegations against him and the other board members were spread “for the political benefit of those making them, and not out of genuine concern or the presence of any evidence whatsoever to support the claims.”
The dispute began on July 26, when members of the G7 suddenly locked seven CUPE staffers out of their offices, putting them on a week’s paid leave while investigating them for unspecified wrongdoing. The staff’s computers were removed by members of the G7. SDU fears that confidential student information on these computers was accessed by unauthorized parties.
One of the staffers, 26-year veteran Hattie Aitken, was called in after two days and grilled by Hunsdale and an SFSS lawyer, then fired. What was said at the questioning has been kept confidential, as has the reason for the firing. However, G7 members suggested Aitken (whom they identified only as the fired employee) had sabotaged the bidding process for the school’s graduate student health plan, to favor then-current provider Gallivan & Associates for renewal.
The G7 have expressed support for the health plan offered by the National Student Health Network, run by the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS), which is being considered along with Gallivan’ & Associates’ plan.
Jones alleged that Aitken was the victim of a “witch hunt” to justify employee firings, planned beforehand by the board. He also dismissed the accusations against her as “ridiculous.” Following her lawyer’s advice, Aitken has stayed silent on the issue, pending arbitration.
In order to have the university’s student forum, an advisory body, call a campus-wide Special General Meeting to hold an impeachment vote, SDU needed a petition signed by at least five per cent of the student body. On Sept. 27, after nearly twice that number signed SDU’s petition, the student forum convened a meeting and voted to hold the SGM on Oct. 25, this Wednesday. For the impeachment vote to proceed, the SGM will need 500 students present.
A few days after the SGM was called, SFSS announced it will hold its Annual General Meeting on the same date and time as the SGM. SDU and forum members have called this an attempt to confuse students and ensure that the SGM does not get 500 attendees. SDU volunteers are working to channel students toward their meeting, while SFSS have said that the SGM would have no legitimate authority.
SFSS board members say that the Sept. 27 student forum meeting failed to reach its quorum of 16 members, and at any rate was cancelled in advance by SFSS member Glyn Lewis, one of the G7, to save catering and staffing costs. If the Oct. 27 meeting was invalid, goes the reasoning, so is Wednesday’s SGM.
However, SDU responds that Lewis did not have the authority to cancel the meeting, and further that 16 forum members did attend the meeting, and only 15 were needed anyway. SDU has retained a lawyer and is preparing for a legal challenge by the G7 should their impeachment vote pass. However, depending on the outcome of the “battle of the meetings,” SDU’s long-sought impeachment vote may be over before it even starts.
