Do you find yourself suddenly interested in the AMS? What good timing, because the AMS Elections Administrator has an announcement to make…
AMS Elections Nominations Now Open!
Are you interested in playing an integral role in the administration of UBC’s highest-governing student body? The AMS is currently accepting nominations for various positions on Council. The nomination period is from November 30th, 2009, until January 8th, 2009 at 3pm.
The AMS represents over 47,000 UBC students as well as students at affiliated colleges. It operates student services, student owned businesses, resource groups, and clubs. In addition to offering services to students, the AMS is an advocate of students’ issues and ensures the needs of students are presented to the University administration and the federal, provincial, and municipal governments.
Executive Positions
President – Coordinates the executive team, guides the direction of the AMS according to the will of AMS Council, which represents the student body.
VP Academic & University Affairs – Liaises and builds partnerships with the University on various projects and initiatives, lobbies the University for students’ priorities.
VP Administration – Oversees the operation of the existing Student Union Building (SUB), as well as the development of a new SUB.
VP External – Advocate and lobbyist for student concerns and issues to external governing bodies (such as tuition fee levels, the U-Pass and Translink, and student financial assistant)
VP Finance – Oversees the operation of AMS businesses (including SUB businesses, conferences, and catering) and spearheads the AMS’ annual budget.
Compensation for all executive positions is $25,000, based on a 40 hour work week.
Non-voting member of Council that advocates for the interests of international students exclusively.
Student Legal Fund Society – Board of Directors
Supports litigation, advocacy, and lobbying for improved education and access to education at UBC, and other matters of law that set broad precedent and are of concern to UBC students. 6 members-at-large are elected onto the Board of Directors.
The Board is responsible for the management, administration and control of the property, revenue, business and affairs of the University. Two student representatives on the Board are elected by students. It is the responsibility of the Board to monitor the fiscal vitality of the University, and to determine that all possible areas of revenue enhancement are pursued.
The Senate is the campus’ highest governing body on academic matters (including degrees, courses, and faculties.) It is responsible for the conferring of degrees, the guidelines of co-operative programs in faculties, student recruitment, and much more. Five student members-at-large are elected by students.
Nomination forms for all positions are to be picked up at the AMS Administrative Office, SUB 238A. They are also available for download on the elections web site (http://www2.ams.ubc.ca/index.php/student_government/subplate/category/ams_elections/). Completed forms must be returned in person to SUB 238A, except in the case of Board of Governors and Senate nomination forms, which should be dropped off at the Student Information Services desks in the main concourse of Brock Hall.
Ubyssey Publications Society Board of Directors
In addition, nominations are also now open for the Ubyssey Board of Directors. More info – http://ubyssey.ca/?p=14703
We therefore call upon the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to investigate the widespread violation and disregard for international law in Canada, and further to employ all and every means available to pressure the governments of Canada and its provinces into compliance with the Covenant.
A spirited emergency AMS council meeting took place tonight to react to Blake Frederick’s human rights complaint to the UN. Because of the large turnout, the meeting took place in the Hebb Theatre and went for approximately three hours.
At its most populated, there were 175-200 students present, with a large number of students-at-large. As was outlined in a letter earlier today, Blake and Tim did not show up. The other three executives (Tom Dvorak, Johannes Rebane and Crystal Hon) did attend. Many students-at-large did voice their opinions during the meeting. A small contingent either defended/supported Blake and Tim’s actions, or condemned AMS Council for going ahead with this. A much larger number of students voiced their displeasure, for various reasons, with the actions of Blake and Tim.
All three motions of the motions on the agenda passed unanimously (the first motion was amended minorly during the meeting). AMS council has withdrawn the UN complaint, and asked for the resignations of President Blake Frederick and Vice President External Affairs Tim Chu.
After that business was over, Tom Dvorak and Johannes Rebane got up and addressed the fact that they both signed off on the contract with Pivot Legal Society. Tom and Johannes both apologized and took full responsibility for the lack of due diligence displayed in signing the document, and were also questioned by the audience about it.
After a number of questions, Mona Maghsoodi (GSS councillor and Former GSS President) then moved a motion to ask Tom and Johannes to resign. Much of the discussion focused on the fact that whereas Blake and Tim willfully deceived council, Tom and Johannes made an error in judgment and the fact that councillors consulted with constituents about Blake and Tim, but there has not be any time to consult constituents about Tom and Johannes. This motion was tabled until the first AMS meeting in January.
Petitions to recall Blake and Tim were also completed, putting the recall process in motion. In addition to the regularly scheduled council meeting on Wednesday, December 2, (agenda here) a special council meeting was also called for Monday, December 7, to deal with the recall.
If you want all the gory details, you can check out the live blogs:
And finally, a little history of of the last recall attempt that took place in the AMS.
Dec. 7, 2004: The Executive fired the General Manager.
Dec. 10, 2004: Council held an emergency meeting to discuss the firing, and notice was presented of motions asking for the recall of the whole Executive at a meeting to be held the following week.
Dec. 17, 2004: At the second meeting Council reversed the firing of the General Manager and passed a motion asking the President to resign. It then adjourned till after Christmas.
Jan. 5, 2005: Council met again; the President said she had decided not to resign. The motion to recall her was defeated, and the motions for recalling the rest of the Executive were essentially withdrawn. Council then passed a motion to censure the Executive.
So it started as recall, ended as censure. This way it’s going the other way around.
Geoff Costeloe, vice-chair of the UBC Vancouver Senate with a very good piece on idealists and realists.
Radical Beer with some historical context, and the right way of dealing with bad ideas. Also, asking us in an unfortunately-worded manner to “please lay off the staff”.
Update: Tonight’s Emergency Council Meeting has been moved to Hebb Theater to accommodate the anticipated levels of student interest. The start time is still 5pm.
A letter to Council written by Tim and Blake was released earlier today regarding the special council meeting tonight at 5pm. In the letter, they state they will not be present at their own recall hearing, despite Blake promising this media and the Ubyssey that he will answer all questions then, and that he was looking forward to the debate.
They speculate that any recall vote of the Council would illegal. What Blake is referring to is a discovery made last year about a conflict between the Society Act (a law that governs the AMS), and the AMS Bylaws. In short, the current understanding is that AMS Council cannot remove Blake’s rights as a director of the society, but they can remove his powers as President. After such removal of powers, Blake would have no more powers beyond that of a regular council member until a new executive comes into power, or a referendum removes him as a director.
Further, they write that two other executives, Tom Dvorak and Johannes Rebane deserve to be impeached if they are as well, for signing a contract with Pivot.
Below is their letter.
Open Letter to Council regarding Saturday AMS Council Meeting
We are aware that Council has called a meeting on Saturday to consider whether or not to ask for our resignations. Unfortunately, neither of us will be able to attend this meeting due to prior commitments. This point was made clear to Councillors when they initially decided to call the meeting for Saturday. The two staff members who we directed to work on the complaint will also be unable to attend. We will, however, be able to address Council at our regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, December 2nd at 6:00 p.m. There have been many allegations flying around and many questions such as: “Why the UN?”; “What effect will such a complaint actually have?”; and “What democratic process did you follow to file the complaint?” We strongly believe that Council should withhold any discussion of disciplinary action before we are able to clarify the facts around this issue and clearly explain the motives behind the complaint.
We believe that students should be extremely concerned that some members of Council have indicated they will attempt to illegally impeach Executive members who are democratically elected by the UBC student body. Given the fractured opinions of students on this issue, we encourage those Councillors who wish to impeach us from our elected positions to initiate the proper formal and legal process by conducting a referendum.
We also find it curious that we have been targeted exclusively on this issue by some Council members. It is important to note that we raised the topic of the UN complaint several times at our Executive Committee meetings and that VP Finance, Tom Dvorak and VP Academic and University Affairs, Johannes Rebane signed the contract with Pivot Legal Society to go forward with the complaint. We believe that if any call is made for our resignations, they must be coupled with a call for the resignations of Tom Dvorak and Johannes Rebane.
We both appreciate the seriousness of the current situation and will be prepared on Wednesday to give a full account of the facts.
Signed,
Blake Frederick
President
Alma Mater Society of UBC Vancouver
and
Tim Chu
VP External
Alma Mater Society of UBC Vancouver
The following is a coedited post with files from both Neal and Alex.
The Timeline
This issue was first brought up by Blake and Tim. The first mention of this appears shortly after they took office in the March 13, 2009 Executive Committee minutes, in which there is a one sentence mention:
13. UN international covenant
The AMS will pursue a legal battle with the Province on the basis that the recent Education funding cuts are against the UN charter.
Notice that what is mentioned is not a complaint to the UN. They are contemplating a lawsuit against the province. In an interview yesterday, Blake said this must have been a typo.
The second mention is in the April 16, 2009 Executive Committee minutes, in which it also warrants only one line:
UN complaint with Pivot; may wait till Adrienne gets back.
This issue then appears to go underground/dormant until it came time to make the big announcement. Blake acknowledges it was not discussed at any other committees. The External Policy Committee did not see any part of it, reportedly because Blake and Tim felt it was within their mandates to push it forward. The Communications Planning Group was described as a relatively inactive group which is why it was not brought to them, despite the fact that Blake as chair is responsible for that inactivity. Council did not receive any notice because it was felt the minutes, all two sentences of them, were enough. As far as Blake is concerned, it had been passed in executive committee (though other executives state there was never a resolution) and that was enough to pursue it. It’s certainly worth noting that the complaint was signed by Blake on November 18; a council meeting took place that evening where Blake was given the floor to give an executive report. UBC Insiders was in the room that evening, and the topic of a human rights complaint to the UN was not addressed. We shouldn’t have to point it out, but we will to be safe: this is a gross manipulation of the system.
In an interview yesterday, Blake was asked why he pursued this. His response touched mostly on the fact that the AMS had a desperate need to advocate on behalf of students in any possible way to address the costs of post-secondary education which were “escalating out of control.” On most questions, he deferred to the meeting on Saturday, saying he was looking forward to the opportunity to address councillors, respond to their concerns, and explain more about the complaint itself.
Blake said he looked forward to the chance to have a civil discussion about councillors’ concerns. Justin McElroy of the Ubyssey pressed him on why not have a civil discussion about the councillors’ concerns before holding a press conference? It was an executive decision to push ahead with this because of its importance to students. He mentions this despite the fact that this has been on his table for 7 months—before the BC General Election, and before to any cuts by the current Minister of Advanced Education—certainly enough time to run the idea by AMS council. When asked if he feared he’d lose his job, he deferred to the fact that he was wearing his “AMS president” hat and shouldn’t comment on his personal feelings
As for the money, $3,000 was paid to Pivot Legal Society as a retainer. Nobody has been able to say how much money it will ultimately cost the AMS once the actual hours that were spent working on the complaint are added up. This year’s AMS budget had a line item for $25,000 for legal fees. It is not inconceivable that the cost could be higher than that. The AMS does not know how much it will cost, nor do they even know when Pivot will tell them how much they owe.
Because the budget was approved, it is true that Council or the Executive Committee can spend this money but would have needed to have as a bare minimum an actual resolution associated with it. In the two mentions of this that were found in Executive Committee minutes, neither has a resolution associated with it. It is unclear, then, which two of Crystal, Tom and Johannes signed off on the cheque as the sole signatories of this nature for the AMS.
Once Pivot was on board, it seems they took over the project. Although the AMS held the press conference this morning, the Ubyssey was not invited. When the Ubyssey asked why, the original response from Tim Chu was that the Ubyssey “didn’t do press releases,” followed by the real reason, that Pivot was completely in charge of communications and the Ubyssey is not one of the media sources they notify. For something which should have a massively important communications strategy for the AMS, Pivot had total control over how it was framed (with them in the centre of the frame).
Press conference that occured earlier November 26, 2009. Photograph by: Ian Lindsay, Vancouver Sun.
The AMS already has their own legal counsel they attend to for legal affairs. Reportedly Pivot is involved in lieu of the in house counsel because they had a more positive viewpoint of this complaint than the AMS’s counsel. And they were cheaper. Although Blake claims the idea came from him and Tim, the possibility that Pivot approached the AMS is plausible.
Yesterday and Tomorrow
All in all, yesterday was a busy day for a lot of people. Upon hearing the news, Matthew Naylor circulated a petition to councillors in order to call a special council meeting. This required 10 signatures; 13 were obtained. A council meeting has been called for Saturday at 5pm in Council Chambers (SUB 206). The Agenda is here.
At the same time, he called a meeting for interested persons to discuss what was happening. Most senior members of AMS Council attended this meeting to share knowledge and talk about what to do next.
While some people present reportedly expressed concerns about having an “offline” meeting of council, there was wide support for holding an official meeting. It was widely agreed that Blake fucked up big time, and this wasn’t simply an isolated incident, but a culmination of Blake behaving badly.
The path forward at this point is somewhat clear. These are the motions coming forward at Saturday’s meeting:
“BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council retract the complaint to the UN against the BC and Canadian governments, and direct the AMS Communications Department to issue a press release stating that this was not the will of the Society, and that, as the President overstepped his bounds in taking this action, this should not be construed as an action of the Society.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Council prohibit the expenditure of any further AMS resources of any nature on this action.”
“BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council request that President Blake Frederick resign from Council.”
“BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council request that Vice President External Affairs Tim Chu resign from Council.”
It seems very likely at this point that all of these will pass. It also seems Blake has zero intention of resigning. In that case, council would be seeking impeachment (referred to as “Recall” in the bylaws). As per bylaws council would provide at least 7 days notice that such a motion was coming. After 7 days, another special meeting of council could be convened, with motions to impeach Blake and Tim. The vote for impeachment specifies that the motion must be “passed by a Two-thirds (2/3) majority of the votes cast, including abstentions and blanks,” in essence meaning there is no such thing as an abstention. Abstention = NO. This is unusual in that normal council votes do not count abstentions.
There’s also a possibility of conflict with the Society Act, wherein impeachment might have to be done at a general meeting instead of a council meeting. This would make impeachment almost completely infeasible legally, but politically still very possible (by, for instance, removing all powers of the President to those of any other councillor, and telling him to leave).
In the event that Blake and/or Tim are impeached, it would be up to council to appoint interim executives from itself to fill those positions, and then hold by-elections for someone to hold office for a very short period, then hold regular elections again.
In the event that there isn’t an impeachment (ordinarily I would expect a large number of abstentions in a vote like this, which are now NO votes), what happens next? Does Council suspend all parts of code and policy giving him authority to act or sign things? Put in place a policy that any further action taken by the President involving legal, external, or PR functions, without the explicit prior approval of Council or an appropriate committee, constitutes a letter of resignation?
Jesse Ferreras, an alumni news writer for the Ubyssey, after thinking he was cured, once again contracting a case of AMS-itis.
Trisha Taneja, a fourth year political science and microbiology major and writer for the ethics of international engagement and serivce-learning project on the practical effects of such a move.
Taylor Loren, second year artsie, UBC twittebrity and fan of the federal Liberals, on her personal path to education.
Hansard, from when the Simon Fraser Student Society attempted the same thing four years ago. It caught Bill Siskay’s attention. More details on this attempt forthcoming.
I would like to formally apologize for certain content contained within the original version of my 3rd quarterly report. I originally chose to include comments about executive dynamics within the report in an attempt to shed light on the causes of recent events. I now realize that an official quarterly record is not the appropriate venue in which to raise these issues.
Further, I would like to specifically apologize for a reference made within the original document. The intention of drawing on an historical example (Wikipedia further apologies for lack of citation) was to support a shared executive responsibility for the current state of affairs. However, if such a reference has at all caused negative feelings or implications outside of that intent, I take full personal responsibility for those feelings and sincerely regret any such outcome. Such a sensitive reference should not have been included.
What appeared in his original quarterly was a dissertation on dysfunctional executive dynamics and the reasons for that. It detailed how executives were more concerned about making sure their personal point of view was put forward, rather than coming to a consensus as an executive. Communication is poor. It was also disconcerting to hear that executive committee meetings were rarely, if ever, happening. Note that Tom is careful not to retract what he had to say, just to concede that the quarterly was not the appropriate venue.
Of course, what the second paragraph of the letter refers to is that Tom took it to a whole new level, referencing the “banality of evil”, in which it is postulated that great evil can be done not by psychotic or evil individuals, but by regular people who accept that what they are doing is considered normal and acceptable. This was put forth as a theory for how things got the way they did within the AMS. Tom acknowledged that it was “fairly drastic” to compare the executives to war criminals, but then… did it anyways. On a side note, we are extremely proud to proclaim UBC Insiders: Not war criminals, since 2007.
To all this we say: meh.
The AMS is at its best when it looks outside itself at issues rather than internal political BS. The navel-gazing that normally goes on, however, is a huge turn-off. With tonight’s council agenda focused on the slate debate, a proposal for a non-voting disability seat, and probably some discussion of this quarterly, it’s pretty clear which types of issues they are absorbing themselves with. My level of interest is at a near-low.
Executive dynamics are, I’m sure, a perennial problem. Hey look! UBC Insiders even had a post about it just last year. But why care? It’s a complete waste of energy investing any energy in this issue. This is one problem that is 100% guaranteed to work itself out, and quite soon: elections are just around the corner.
Today we offer you a point/counterpoint on an upcoming resolution before AMS Council. We offered Tim Chu, present AMS VP External, to argue for and Matthew Naylor, past AMS VP External and current Arts Councillor, to argue against the resolution: “AMS Council should have non-voting equity seats”. This is Matt’s response, for Tim’s, visit here.
Every word over the 750 word-count we told them to stay under has been greyed for fairness. Enjoy.
At the November 18th meeting of AMS Council, on the table will be a motion to create a non-voting seat for students with disabilities. While this is a well intentioned motion, it is not the right one in terms of furthering the interests of students with disabilities. I urge Council to defeat this amendment.
Today we offer you a point/counterpoint on an upcoming resolution before AMS Council. We offered Tim Chu, present AMS VP External, to argue for and Matthew Naylor, past AMS VP External and current Arts Councillor, to argue against the resolution: “AMS Council should have non-voting equity seats”. This is Tim’s response, for Matt’s, visit here.
Every word over the 750 word-count we told them to stay under has been greyed for fairness. Enjoy.
AMS Council needs a seat for students with disabilities
AMS Council is the highest elected decision making body of the AMS. AMS Council is intended to be the organization that represents UBC students from all walks of life. However, in reality, the composition of AMS Council is not very representative of the student population. There is a long list of equity-seeking groups that are grossly under-represented on AMS Council. This list includes racialized students (students of colour), female students, and openly queer students. This list also includes students with disabilities.
