The Insiders
-
Jan
17
BoG/AMS Conflicts
Posted by: Neal Yonson | January 17, 2007 | 16 Comments
We’ll get to the recaps of the “debate” soon, but I’ve been asked by a few people to comment on the relationship between AMS and BoG representatives, and I intend to do so.
I’ve heard it said that the reps on BoG can represent the AMS, because the AMS represents students, and anything in students’ best interests is necessarily in the University’s best interests. While this is logically appealing, it’s not sound.
Why? Many will blame “the University’s corporate nature.” There’s nothing the University can do about its corporate structure and Board; that’s mandated by the University Act. The real reason is the corporate structure of the AMS. Like it or not, the AMS has a corporate structure, with a Board of Directors, with all the fiduciary responsibilities of a corporate Board. Yes, there’s Directors’ insurance, lawyers, all those “real-world” things that neo-Marxists might like to pretend we don’t have to deal with. But we do.
That can lead to a conflict of interest. Usually, that’s not a problem. On tuition, development, and financial aid, it’s unlikely that there is any conflict. In fact, on things like that, I believe very strongly that the student interest is the University interest. But let’s say the AMS enters into a contract with the University (they already have hundreds), and things go wrong, and it ends up in court. When that happens, the Directors are always named. And someone who’s a Director of the AMS and of the University will be named in both lawsuits. Which, ladies and gentlemen, is a genuine, bona fide conflict.
Here’s an example. Directors have a responsibility to give full disclosure to their organization, as an outflow of their fiduciary responsibility. Let’s say AMS and UBC are negotiating a contract, and the AMS has a particularly sensitive confidential reason for entering the contract. Someone who’s a Director of the University has a responsibility to the University to disclose that information, and someone who’s an AMS Director has a responsibility to keep it secret. Again… that’s a conflict.
The problem with the argument that UBC interests = student interests = AMS interests is the last premise. In not all cases do AMS interests directly relate to student interests. Never mind the fact that it’s almost impossible to monolithically characterize student interests (hello tyranny of the majority!), but there are times when the interests of the AMS as a corporate entity must be considered as separate from those of students. Not necessarily different or opposing students, but they need to be considered separately.
So yes, in perfect happy world, AMS, student, and UBC interests are always the same thing. It makes sense in lobbying. But being a Director is about more than lobbying. And to pretend otherwise fundamentally ignores the reality of the AMS corporate structure.
Comments
16 Comments so far
This one begs a response. I fully recognize that I’m making a difficult case, but lets start with some realities: anytime you’re on two boards you’re at a potential for a conflict of interest. Local examples: our AMS President sits on the UBC Alumni Board; the AMS VP Academic sits on the UNA board; and Dennis Pavlich (VP External), Stephen Toope (President), and other UBC Board members sit on the UBC Properties Trust Board. Byron Braley (AVP Treasury) sits on the UBC IMANT board. This will also be the case for any student rep to the board- because they all sit on AMS council. One of this year’s BoG reps, Lauren Hunter, was a member of 3 University boards- the GSS, AMS, and the BoG. The GSS will likely continue to endorse candidates to the BoG, and so grad reps to the Board will continue to balance 3 fiduciary responsibilities. I don’t mean to use these examples as proof that conflict is ok, but there is a certain reality of practice at play that is useful to acknowledge.
So I acknowledge, to a certain extent, that there is a possibility for fiduciary conflicts. Importantly to me, I can’t think of any that effect student policy. The AMS is also, however, a corporate interest and runs a variety of businesses (as you mentioned). If a university contract would effect our own businesses, or if Food Services came and made a budget presentation, you could see were I might be privy to information that would put me in a conflict of interest. That’s the best example I can come up with though Tim, and from your own words: “On tuition, development, and financial aid, it’s unlikely that there is any conflict.” Those are the issues of consequence to students at BoG. I’d say our interests and opinions with regard to businesses the universities run diverge at least less often- that is we (University and students) both agree on what’s in the best interest of the university (at least more often). Again, you’re talking about a very small amount of contracts and deals that reflect this scenario. The more classic example from the university- “what if students are irresponsible and don’t accept a tuition hike even if the alternative means financial ruin;” that fiduciary argument doesn’t float my boat. It’s based on a presumption that students don’t understand the issues, and that somehow at-large students are going to have a better grasp on this than AMS reps (despite knowing that it’s gone through a committee process and had debate at council).
Other interesting item to note- this is the model at student unions across the country. Other student societies send their Presidents to the BoG. So why haven’t those boards cried foul? And there are ways to assess my potential conflicts in responsible ways. One step I would take is to obtain legal advice regarding best practices around what types of issues I should consider recusing myself from.
The worry I have which is greater (in my opinion) than the fiduciary worry: That at-large reps are not bound to present AMS policy, and that they can represent their own opinion as the opinion of students. This has happened in the past. I asked Omar at the beginning of the year if he considered himself a member of the AMS and he said no (hopefully he’s changed his tune by now, and I say that with every respect to Omar and the capable job he’s done). That worries me, and it serves to divide our interests. An AMS President brings policy forward that has gone through a committee process and had council debate. Imperfect yes, “tyranny of the majority” yes, but it’s better than plain old tyranny. If people disagree with the job I’m doing they can also impeach me (at least from my Presidency). No such accountability exists for at-large reps. The same problem- the connection between at-large reps and the AMS, happens at Senate. Electing a President to BoG, or a VP Academic to senate, importantly, is only one piece of the equation- but it’s a good first step.
The University likes to pretend that BoG, or the Development Permits Board and other bodies, are apolitical and perfectly rational. They surround their members with plaudits of “experienced, knowledgeable, and working in the best interest of the university.” They fail to understand that there are differing interpretations of “the university’s best interest,” and that our backgrounds and identities influence these personal perspectives. In a simple sense- a fat old old guy might have a different sense of university interest than me, and that makes the Board a political body.
I’m also not asking for a rule change, and I hope that people recognise that I have enough integrity and honesty to recognise where my interests collide. We can see how this works and consider at some future point whether or not to pursue a change to the University Act. Sending the President isn’t perfect, but I’m confident that it works in the best interests of students.
Jeff Friedrich, canidate for AMS President and seat on the BoG
This one begs a response. I fully recognize that I’m making a difficult case, but lets start with some realities: anytime you’re on two boards you’re at a potential for a conflict of interest. Local examples: our AMS President sits on the UBC Alumni Board; the AMS VP Academic sits on the UNA board; and Dennis Pavlich (VP External), Stephen Toope (President), and other UBC Board members sit on the UBC Properties Trust Board. Byron Braley (AVP Treasury) sits on the UBC IMANT board. This will also be the case for any student rep to the board- because they all sit on AMS council. One of this year’s BoG reps, Lauren Hunter, was a member of 3 University boards- the GSS, AMS, and the BoG. The GSS will likely continue to endorse candidates to the BoG, and so grad reps to the Board will continue to balance 3 fiduciary responsibilities. I don’t mean to use these examples as proof that conflict is ok, but there is a certain reality of practice at play that is useful to acknowledge.
So I acknowledge, to a certain extent, that there is a possibility for fiduciary conflicts. Importantly to me, I can’t think of any that effect student policy. The AMS is also, however, a corporate interest and runs a variety of businesses (as you mentioned). If a university contract would effect our own businesses, or if Food Services came and made a budget presentation, you could see were I might be privy to information that would put me in a conflict of interest. That’s the best example I can come up with though Tim, and from your own words: “On tuition, development, and financial aid, it’s unlikely that there is any conflict.” Those are the issues of consequence to students at BoG. I’d say our interests and opinions with regard to businesses the universities run diverge at least less often- that is we (University and students) both agree on what’s in the best interest of the university (at least more often). Again, you’re talking about a very small amount of contracts and deals that reflect this scenario. The more classic example from the university- “what if students are irresponsible and don’t accept a tuition hike even if the alternative means financial ruin;” that fiduciary argument doesn’t float my boat. It’s based on a presumption that students don’t understand the issues, and that somehow at-large students are going to have a better grasp on this than AMS reps (despite knowing that it’s gone through a committee process and had debate at council).
Other interesting item to note- this is the model at student unions across the country. Other student societies send their Presidents to the BoG. So why haven’t those boards cried foul? And there are ways to assess my potential conflicts in responsible ways. One step I would take is to obtain legal advice regarding best practices around what types of issues I should consider recusing myself from.
The worry I have which is greater (in my opinion) than the fiduciary worry: That at-large reps are not bound to present AMS policy, and that they can represent their own opinion as the opinion of students. This has happened in the past. I asked Omar at the beginning of the year if he considered himself a member of the AMS and he said no (hopefully he’s changed his tune by now, and I say that with every respect to Omar and the capable job he’s done). That worries me, and it serves to divide our interests. An AMS President brings policy forward that has gone through a committee process and had council debate. Imperfect yes, “tyranny of the majority” yes, but it’s better than plain old tyranny. If people disagree with the job I’m doing they can also impeach me (at least from my Presidency). No such accountability exists for at-large reps. The same problem- the connection between at-large reps and the AMS, happens at Senate. Electing a President to BoG, or a VP Academic to senate, importantly, is only one piece of the equation- but it’s a good first step.
The University likes to pretend that BoG, or the Development Permits Board and other bodies, are apolitical and perfectly rational. They surround their members with plaudits of “experienced, knowledgeable, and working in the best interest of the university.” They fail to understand that there are differing interpretations of “the university’s best interest,” and that our backgrounds and identities influence these personal perspectives. In a simple sense- a fat old old guy might have a different sense of university interest than me, and that makes the Board a political body.
I’m also not asking for a rule change, and I hope that people recognise that I have enough integrity and honesty to recognise where my interests collide. We can see how this works and consider at some future point whether or not to pursue a change to the University Act. Sending the President isn’t perfect, but I’m confident that it works in the best interests of students.
Jeff Friedrich, canidate for AMS President and seat on the BoG
Hey Jeff,
Yes, it practically begged a response; thanks!
1) We largely agree. The distinction doesn’t really apply to anything related to policy/lobbying… on those, there’s functionally no conflict.
2) Don’t minimize the quantity or importance of those things that go before Board that don’t fit into the above box, though. The amount of time I spent on issues that have fewer than, say, two degrees of relevance to students is pretty small.
There is the larger question, which you raised and I failed to, of whether the BoG rep ought to be a mouthpiece for the AMS. My feeling is not, and this might be a more productive disagreement (rather than quasi-legal mumbo-jumbo). I tend to disagree, for three reasons.
– There’s never a guarantee that the policy actually represents “the student view” to the extent a student opinion exists. There’s no guarantee of a committee; could be ad hob at COuncil.
– Sometimes AMS policy sucks. Yes, I know that’s just my judgment. But when AMS execs (Pres and VPX) sent a letter “accepting” the tuition increase on behalf of Council and students (their words) I cringed, and was glad that I was there to actually make the point that needed to be made.
– Third, the AMS already has opportunities to involve, through appointments and their direct link to the President (through VP Students.)
Finally, a corollary to your argument is that UBC-O ought to have their President (or equivalent) on the BoG as well. Which would mean that either UBC-O either needs to add a student seat, or they get no direct voice on BoG.
Hey Jeff,
Yes, it practically begged a response; thanks!
1) We largely agree. The distinction doesn’t really apply to anything related to policy/lobbying… on those, there’s functionally no conflict.
2) Don’t minimize the quantity or importance of those things that go before Board that don’t fit into the above box, though. The amount of time I spent on issues that have fewer than, say, two degrees of relevance to students is pretty small.
There is the larger question, which you raised and I failed to, of whether the BoG rep ought to be a mouthpiece for the AMS. My feeling is not, and this might be a more productive disagreement (rather than quasi-legal mumbo-jumbo). I tend to disagree, for three reasons.
– There’s never a guarantee that the policy actually represents “the student view” to the extent a student opinion exists. There’s no guarantee of a committee; could be ad hob at COuncil.
– Sometimes AMS policy sucks. Yes, I know that’s just my judgment. But when AMS execs (Pres and VPX) sent a letter “accepting” the tuition increase on behalf of Council and students (their words) I cringed, and was glad that I was there to actually make the point that needed to be made.
– Third, the AMS already has opportunities to involve, through appointments and their direct link to the President (through VP Students.)
Finally, a corollary to your argument is that UBC-O ought to have their President (or equivalent) on the BoG as well. Which would mean that either UBC-O either needs to add a student seat, or they get no direct voice on BoG.
“Why? Many will blame “the University’s corporate nature.” There’s nothing the University can do about its corporate structure and Board; that’s mandated by the University Act. The real reason is the corporate structure of the AMS. Like it or not, the AMS has a corporate structure, with a Board of Directors, with all the fiduciary responsibilities of a corporate Board. Yes, there’s Directors’ insurance, lawyers, all those “real-world” things that neo-Marxists might like to pretend we don’t have to deal with. But we do.”
Sorry – you can delete the earlier post. I just don’t know how to use blogs very well.
Tim, when students complain about “the university’s corporate nature” – which I hope is just a poor summation and not the final word on all progressive student protest that concerns the commercialization of university campuses in BC – it doesn’t make them necessarily neo-Marxists any more than your densely-written blog should not be simply written off as a merely a playpen for policy wonks and incumbent bureaucrats. (There’s actually relevant information to prospective voters buried all over this thing.)
Of course UBC has a corporate structure. Most all of us know that. We know they’re not sitting around in a circle holding hands and using mood rings to determine university policy. Obviously there’s a heirarchy and a Toope and a bunch of old people trying to keep the two whippersnappers from the AMS from rocking the boat. That’s not the issue.
When people get upset with “the University’s corporate nature” thay’re not talking about the University Act and the rules and regulations therein. They’re simply complaining that the trend towards commercializing/commodifying/corporatizing (you pick) the educational practises and policies at this institution is cheapening the most important part: the learning that is supposed to be taking place and the provision of equal opportunities to do so. In the case of UBC, the corporation is letting us down on so many important issues that are happening right now. That’s what people are getting upset about.
It’s incredibly alienating and frustrating to read commentary by two incumbent student executives that offers up the routine bureaucratic obstacles (“…Directors’ insurance, lawyers, all those “real-world” things…) as something that the rest of us “neo-Marxists” don’t get.
Tim, the real bureaucratic obstacles are those faced by students who don’t have the means or time to cultivate the kind of social network needed to actually win AMS office because their student loan is late or their bursary has been reassessed. Or they just aren’t that fucking interested in what the AMS is doing when their “real life” isn’t just popping into policy meetings and striking committees while livejournaling but an afterschool job in night security, christmas retail, or gathering beer mugs.
Of course there’s a health plan, of course there’s a U-Pass (if you build it, they will come) but other than that, has anything the AMS has done been noticed beyond the elite second floor of the SUB since the SPAN debacle? If all AMS Executives are going to do is keep the car in drive (the Keys-Keystone dynasty) then it’s easy to understand why everyone’s lost interest and Maxwell Maxwell’s acid trip-turned-presidential run actually looks like a good way to say RIP to letting the AMS feel so damn “legitimate.” I mean, of course people are going to vote for Friedrich. But that’s only because the alternative (losing the UPass, losing the Health Plan) is so dire that we’ll wink at Maxwell Maxwell but end up patting Friedrich on the ass. Right into that reclining Presidential chair.
“Why? Many will blame “the University’s corporate nature.” There’s nothing the University can do about its corporate structure and Board; that’s mandated by the University Act. The real reason is the corporate structure of the AMS. Like it or not, the AMS has a corporate structure, with a Board of Directors, with all the fiduciary responsibilities of a corporate Board. Yes, there’s Directors’ insurance, lawyers, all those “real-world” things that neo-Marxists might like to pretend we don’t have to deal with. But we do.”
Sorry – you can delete the earlier post. I just don’t know how to use blogs very well.
Tim, when students complain about “the university’s corporate nature” – which I hope is just a poor summation and not the final word on all progressive student protest that concerns the commercialization of university campuses in BC – it doesn’t make them necessarily neo-Marxists any more than your densely-written blog should not be simply written off as a merely a playpen for policy wonks and incumbent bureaucrats. (There’s actually relevant information to prospective voters buried all over this thing.)
Of course UBC has a corporate structure. Most all of us know that. We know they’re not sitting around in a circle holding hands and using mood rings to determine university policy. Obviously there’s a heirarchy and a Toope and a bunch of old people trying to keep the two whippersnappers from the AMS from rocking the boat. That’s not the issue.
When people get upset with “the University’s corporate nature” thay’re not talking about the University Act and the rules and regulations therein. They’re simply complaining that the trend towards commercializing/commodifying/corporatizing (you pick) the educational practises and policies at this institution is cheapening the most important part: the learning that is supposed to be taking place and the provision of equal opportunities to do so. In the case of UBC, the corporation is letting us down on so many important issues that are happening right now. That’s what people are getting upset about.
It’s incredibly alienating and frustrating to read commentary by two incumbent student executives that offers up the routine bureaucratic obstacles (“…Directors’ insurance, lawyers, all those “real-world” things…) as something that the rest of us “neo-Marxists” don’t get.
Tim, the real bureaucratic obstacles are those faced by students who don’t have the means or time to cultivate the kind of social network needed to actually win AMS office because their student loan is late or their bursary has been reassessed. Or they just aren’t that fucking interested in what the AMS is doing when their “real life” isn’t just popping into policy meetings and striking committees while livejournaling but an afterschool job in night security, christmas retail, or gathering beer mugs.
Of course there’s a health plan, of course there’s a U-Pass (if you build it, they will come) but other than that, has anything the AMS has done been noticed beyond the elite second floor of the SUB since the SPAN debacle? If all AMS Executives are going to do is keep the car in drive (the Keys-Keystone dynasty) then it’s easy to understand why everyone’s lost interest and Maxwell Maxwell’s acid trip-turned-presidential run actually looks like a good way to say RIP to letting the AMS feel so damn “legitimate.” I mean, of course people are going to vote for Friedrich. But that’s only because the alternative (losing the UPass, losing the Health Plan) is so dire that we’ll wink at Maxwell Maxwell but end up patting Friedrich on the ass. Right into that reclining Presidential chair.
Anon:
1) I’ve deleted your earlier post.
2) For the record, I’m not incumbent. I hold no office whatsoever. Not germane to your point, but nevertheless…
3) Your second-to-last paragraph is a very interesting one, with which I’ll engage at a future date. Although again, for the record, I made it through my first degree by working my way throughout it and taking time off school, and my second by working through it, as well as loans/bursaries. I, believe it or not, really strongly identify with these hurdles.
But I sense that the theme of the post touched a nerve. Perhaps my language was a bit harsh. I also don’t mean to dismiss the “corporate” critique, and I used the term in summary (which you fairly described as poor.)
And, to be honest, I don’t object to your characterization of this as a “playpen for policy wonks.” Cuz I’m kinda wonky, and I’m kinda enjoying playing in this little corner of sand.
I wasn’t intending to paint the “progressive student protest” nor engage with the entire critique; this was meant more narrowly than you appear to have taken it. There are significant issues relating to commercialization, corporate involvement, etc., that I certainly don’t mean to dismiss.
That having been said, there is also a clear philosophical distinction that will probably be abundantly clear. To borrow your metaphor, I happen to think that driving the car straight forward is still better than driving it off a cliff.
Anon:
1) I’ve deleted your earlier post.
2) For the record, I’m not incumbent. I hold no office whatsoever. Not germane to your point, but nevertheless…
3) Your second-to-last paragraph is a very interesting one, with which I’ll engage at a future date. Although again, for the record, I made it through my first degree by working my way throughout it and taking time off school, and my second by working through it, as well as loans/bursaries. I, believe it or not, really strongly identify with these hurdles.
But I sense that the theme of the post touched a nerve. Perhaps my language was a bit harsh. I also don’t mean to dismiss the “corporate” critique, and I used the term in summary (which you fairly described as poor.)
And, to be honest, I don’t object to your characterization of this as a “playpen for policy wonks.” Cuz I’m kinda wonky, and I’m kinda enjoying playing in this little corner of sand.
I wasn’t intending to paint the “progressive student protest” nor engage with the entire critique; this was meant more narrowly than you appear to have taken it. There are significant issues relating to commercialization, corporate involvement, etc., that I certainly don’t mean to dismiss.
That having been said, there is also a clear philosophical distinction that will probably be abundantly clear. To borrow your metaphor, I happen to think that driving the car straight forward is still better than driving it off a cliff.
Tim said: “We largely agree. The distinction doesn’t really apply to anything related to policy/lobbying… on those, there’s functionally no conflict.”
And that’s the important part Tim.
Tim said: “There is the larger question, which you raised and I failed to, of whether the BoG rep ought to be a mouthpiece for the AMS. My feeling is not, and this might be a more productive disagreement (rather than quasi-legal mumbo-jumbo). I tend to disagree, for three reasons.”
I don’t understand this one Tim. Your contention ends up being that at-large students are going to be more representative of students interests than the AMS. Sure the AMS has made poor policy, all government or democratic processes are guilty of this at times. But if you told me that my options are to choose between one student to represent my interests, or to go with someone representing a policy that had gone through committee and council debate, I’d take my chances with the latter.
Are we so despondent with the idea of a student society that we can’t trust them to represent student voice? If things are that hopeless than this “struggle for relevancy” seems pretty hopeless.
Tim said: “We largely agree. The distinction doesn’t really apply to anything related to policy/lobbying… on those, there’s functionally no conflict.”
And that’s the important part Tim.
Tim said: “There is the larger question, which you raised and I failed to, of whether the BoG rep ought to be a mouthpiece for the AMS. My feeling is not, and this might be a more productive disagreement (rather than quasi-legal mumbo-jumbo). I tend to disagree, for three reasons.”
I don’t understand this one Tim. Your contention ends up being that at-large students are going to be more representative of students interests than the AMS. Sure the AMS has made poor policy, all government or democratic processes are guilty of this at times. But if you told me that my options are to choose between one student to represent my interests, or to go with someone representing a policy that had gone through committee and council debate, I’d take my chances with the latter.
Are we so despondent with the idea of a student society that we can’t trust them to represent student voice? If things are that hopeless than this “struggle for relevancy” seems pretty hopeless.
If the AMS President should sit on Board, would I not logically conclude that the UBCSU-O President should sit on Board and the GSS President should sit on Board, eliminating this race entirely and making the student Board reps roughly as elected and accountable as TransLink directors? Is there a distinction I’m missing here somewhere?
If the AMS President should sit on Board, would I not logically conclude that the UBCSU-O President should sit on Board and the GSS President should sit on Board, eliminating this race entirely and making the student Board reps roughly as elected and accountable as TransLink directors? Is there a distinction I’m missing here somewhere?
I’m not contending that students at large are going to be more representative than the AMS; I’m contending that the AMS isn’t always more representative than students at large.
I’ll add another point here… sometimes it’s useful to have good arguments coming from the AMS *and* from students at large. Especially if, say, the AMS has a particularly unpopular policy in a certain area, having a non-AMS rep can work around that.
Moreover, assuming qualified candidates, to me the best argument against having the President on BoG is simply that it’s one more person to make the argument. It’s one more perspective, it’s one more person with face time with the President, it’s one different person with whom to connect.
I’m not contending that students at large are going to be more representative than the AMS; I’m contending that the AMS isn’t always more representative than students at large.
I’ll add another point here… sometimes it’s useful to have good arguments coming from the AMS *and* from students at large. Especially if, say, the AMS has a particularly unpopular policy in a certain area, having a non-AMS rep can work around that.
Moreover, assuming qualified candidates, to me the best argument against having the President on BoG is simply that it’s one more person to make the argument. It’s one more perspective, it’s one more person with face time with the President, it’s one different person with whom to connect.
the University Act prevents democracy at our university. It is legislation, not natural law. the province and Legislature should be met with a unified group of students, faculty, staff, and all others who wish to de-commercialize UBC, make UBC public and democratic. lobbying efforts should, and have in the past, extend beyond mere provincial-executive and federal-executive policy. in facts budgets themselves, a center target of lobby efforts, are legislative items themselves. why do we allow ourselves to be enamored with law and power?
the University Act prevents democracy at our university. It is legislation, not natural law. the province and Legislature should be met with a unified group of students, faculty, staff, and all others who wish to de-commercialize UBC, make UBC public and democratic. lobbying efforts should, and have in the past, extend beyond mere provincial-executive and federal-executive policy. in facts budgets themselves, a center target of lobby efforts, are legislative items themselves. why do we allow ourselves to be enamored with law and power?