Upon receiving our tweet regarding the motion to leave CASA this evening, CASA has sent a letter, with supporting documentation, to various UBC media regarding the constitutionality of such a motion.

CASA claims the AMS has two unmet obligations: that 30 days notice be given to CASA prior to leaving, and that one full membership-year be passed prior to leaving. Insiders was the first notice given to CASA regarding this motion, and one full membership-year has yet to expire.

CASA concludes the earlier the AMS could leave CASA is upon the end of the membership-year: April 1st, 2010, and as a result, under a new executive committee.

The letter convincingly demonstrates that the AMS was aware of this obligation, having exercised full member privileges up to and including March 2009.

Further, the letter claims that the AMS has been negligent to respond to questions from CASA, who still seeks clarification around their concerns, and the steps that the organization could take to address them.

This editor remains convinced that new blood need to be entered into the decision, as it has become clear the main players are too invested in personal politics, and are having that cloud any reasonable assessment.

This is a difficult issue to access from the outside, as the information both media and council have received has been largely hearsay. CASA does not yet proactively disclose minutes of meetings. Upon requests for minutes, CASA has promised draft copies to Insiders, but to no avail yet.

Further, this editor is not convinced that AMS VP External Tim Chu has provided due diligence in this affair. It appears from my limited perspective that he has been avoiding CASA staff, preferring to not speak to them or respond to their questions, and instead holding ‘public’ meetings with students, personally invited by himself, complete with dubious claims about CASA spending. This is demonstrated by both CASA’s claims about the lack of contact between him and CASA staff, as well as his attitude at the public meeting where CASA was present. Chu remained silent throughout. Given the other gaffs of his term, council should be most skeptical of what comes from his office tonight.

In other news, the University Act provisions in Bill 13 just passed committee amendment phase in the legislature without revision, with exclusive focus on the parking lawsuit.


12 Comments so far

  1. Alex Lougheed on October 21, 2009 3:32 pm
  2. Matthew Naylor on October 21, 2009 4:10 pm

    Alex, this is patently irresponsible to post without following up. CASA is basically lying.

  3. Alex Lougheed on October 21, 2009 4:29 pm

    The goal was to get it out prior to council. I would normally follow-up to get a more balance approach prior to posting, but given the timeline, I instead posted and messaged key players about the post so they can comment.

    It’s an opportunity for the public and council to hear the CASA side, as they will hear the AMS side tonight.

    Also, we’re always receptive to guest posts on anything. Think what I posted is bullcrap? We’ll throw up your thoughts (after a quality check).

  4. Matthew Naylor on October 21, 2009 4:46 pm

    This is the type of CTV style media that destroys national discourse, and as a media source, you have a responsibility to the general society that you cover. It is not responsible to report an intimidation letter as news, particularly when they are either erroneously or maliciously misinterpreting our motion. We are within our rights, and have followed BOTH of their constitutions (the legal and illegal ones).

  5. F. Hydrant on October 21, 2009 7:26 pm

    “illegal”? Really? I recall it being done in accordance with their governing documents and applicable law. The AMS didn’t vote in support of it come ratification time, but that doesn’t make it illegal.

  6. Matthew Naylor on October 21, 2009 7:56 pm

    The rejection by Industry Canada is what is being referred to.

  7. TLG on October 21, 2009 9:31 pm

    Matt, that’s not an “intimidation letter.” It contains no threats, implied, explicit, or otherwise. Just because someone may be intimidated doesn’t mean that was the intent. All it does is lay out a series of positions; what’s wrong with that?

    Also, there was nothing “irresponsible” about Alex’s post; it was simply opinion and fact, easy to differentiate, and he properly qualified his limited knowledge.

  8. AMS Council: October 21, 2009 : UBC Insiders on October 22, 2009 2:07 am

    […] today, the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations sent out a letter claiming that the motion was out of order because they did not comply with CASA’s membership […]

  9. Matthew Naylor on October 22, 2009 7:33 am

    Perhaps I’ve become a little defensive towards the media after what has been an unkind and, in my personal opinion, unfair fall at the AMS, so I may have come off a little harsh, but my characterization of the post as irresponsible comes from what I believe is a responsibility of the media to not just buy into press releases and hastily worded letters. A desire to get the scoop out has won out over the duty of a magistrate in a trial by public opinion to allow the accused the right to face their accuser, and say, when they accuse us of doing something contrary to our obligations, ‘we’re not actually doing that – this is what we’re doing’. CTV style journalism has trumped the pains of a five minute phone call to …. oh, wait, nevermind.

  10. Spencer on October 22, 2009 12:58 pm

    Irony FTW?

    Either that or somebody was just impersonating Matt in one of the most amazing comments I’ve had the pleasure of reading on this blog.

  11. Commodore Cuddles on October 27, 2009 2:05 pm

    This almost makes me want to bring the DA back.


  12. UBC Insiders | AMS Council: October 21, 2009 on June 16, 2010 9:43 pm

    […] today, the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations sent out a letter claiming that the motion was out of order because they did not comply with CASA’s membership […]

Name (required)

Email (required)


Speak your mind

Spam prevention powered by Akismet