The Translink Commission released a decision on how to implement the YVR Add Fare a couple of hours ago.
Translink had originally applied to the Commission to introduce a $2.50 levy, to be collected each time a passenger were transporting between the Bridgeport and Templeton stations. The Commission, citing the “awkwardness” of the two-way fare, and that the fare did not adequately target air travelers alone, approved a new scheme which includes fare exemptions for non-cash fare media and creates a single $5.00 fee to leave the airport.
One such non-cash fare media is the U-Pass. Others include FareCard, FareSavers, and other non-cash fare media at any station or other point of sale.
Mark Latham, who initiated and personally financed the first two Voter Funded Media (VFM) contests at UBC in 2007 and 2008, is back, cementing his place as the patron saint of UBC independent media. Yesterday he unveiled a second VFM contest to be run around the same time as the AMS elections time, with an extra $2,000 of his own money thrown into the pot.
There are a lot of differences between the new contest and the currently existing one. We caught up with Mark Latham yesterday and discussed the new contest and some of the ways it differs from the existing contest.
No Entry Fee – This is meant to help more people get on board. The $150 entry fee in the regular contest might be enough to scare off some competitors who are unsure of whether they’d like to fully commit to the competition or are unsure of how well they’ll do. Ideally, a budding media outlet will be able to enter the continuous VFM and earn some funding which can go towards the entry fee for the bigger competition. If not, they are able to give it a shot without putting themselves in the hole.
Voting Structure Voting in the one-time contest means you get only one vote. While some may weigh their decision on the culmination of coverage throughout the whole contest period, it’s also possible that it reflects a person’s feelings only at that particular point in time.
With continuous VFM, you can vote as often as you like, with the caveat that the new votes replace your previous ones. At the same time, voting repeatedly is encouraged, because the older the vote is, the less weight it is given. By voting regularly, your recorded opinion of the VFM candidates is up-to-date, and counts fully. With that said, voting every half an hour is probably counter-productive. Mark envisions that the ideal voting frequency would be about once a week.
Voting is also open to anyone, anywhere, which is meant to acknowledge that people not within the sphere of having voting privileges in AMS elections may also take an interest in what is happening at UBC and the coverage provided by the VFM entrants (for all the UBC admin out there, please vote for us). It’s not meant so that you can simply get as many people as possible on facebook to vote for you.
Why the new VFM? Apparently impressionable young university students are a good way to test drive new ideas (who’da thunk?) While the new continuous VFM works on the same basic premise as the one-time VFM, that media is rewarded based on voters’ preferences, as evidenced in the voting discussion above the mechanics of the continuous VFM are completely new. There needs to be a trial of these new ideas.
While politics is the most obvious example of where people vote en masse, Mark’s work with VFM is not the only place it might be applicable. In fact, the whole idea around VFM arose out of a different area altogether: corporations. The big idea has to do with finding new, better ways to keep investors informed and for shareholders to be better educated when making proxy voting decisions with their shares. Mark even sits on the SEC Investor Advisory Committee, as a representative for individual investors (as opposed to large institutional ones. In short: the AMS is a little place where he can test his ideas and see them at work, though he has much, much bigger ideas in mind.
One of the things continuous VFM aims to address is having media that are active all the time. This is something we wholeheartedly support. One needs only look back one month to be able to count on one hand the number of active media sources on campus. The #amsUNfail brought a number of dormant blogs back to life, but in the absence of such an event, it’s likely they would have remained that way until the VFM contest started once again.
A heartfelt thanks to Mark for setting up this new contest, and to all readers, please vote for us! While we blog because we are genuinely interested in what’s going on at UBC, a little extra spending money certainly helps.
Council just released the follow up legal opinion from Davis LLP, clarifying what is and is not allowed regarding the impeachment of student executives.
Agenda changes as a result:
Removal of impeachment motion.
Inclusion of motions to censure.
Opportunity for Blake and Tim to take floor.
Discussion of other executives who signed off on contacts and cheques.
We had hoped to provide you with a point/counterpoint on the burning issue of the day: the impending removal of AMS President and VP External from office.
Unfortunately, we only received one submission. If anyone wants to write a piece arguing against the resolution above, please email it to me (contact on sidebar).
Hillson Tse
4th Year, Political Science and Economics
For AMS Council to not remove the President and VP External from office would undermine the principles of accountability and trust that are critical to any form of democracy while also setting a very dangerous precedent for future years. At the very core of the issue is whether or not submitting a legal complaint on behalf of AMS Council without Council approval constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty and disregard for due process. A lot of the arguments by those that oppose removal from office have focused on the merits of the UN complaint, AMS tuition fee policy and the keeping of campaign promises made by Blake and Tim. While such points have brought about lively debate from both sides, they fail to address the core issue of democratic integrity and act to muddle the debate.
So why must Blake and Tim be removed from their positions? I’ll quickly list off the reasons before going into more depth: purposeful deceit of Council, premeditated circumnavigation of Council procedures, a lack of remorse and continued attempts to whitewash their actions.
It’s an undisputed fact that Blake and Tim had been planning to deceive Council about the UN complaint from the very beginning. As Tim himself eloquently stated, the reason it was never brought to Council was because, “there are certain people at AMS Council who wouldn’t approve of filing the complaint”, which indicates both a guilty mind and act. This alone is sufficient cause for removal from office. AMS Council is not a one or two man show. We elected a President and VP External; not a dictator and propaganda minister. While the two hold their own political beliefs and goals, they have absolutely no right to hold their views above those of the 30+ elected Council. There is bound to be disagreement in Council as there is no homogenous student body or voice. That is all the more reason why decisions and policy has to be reached through deliberation and mutual consensus, not by unilateral action. Once again, the merits of the UN complaint do not come into play but rather Blake and Tim’s lack of respect for democracy and procedure. By keeping Council in the dark, they have not only breached democratic principles but have also lost the confidence of Council. How can the 30+ members of Council continue to trust Blake and Tim and look to them for leadership when this betrayal has reveal just how much Blake and Tim respect their opinions?
Throughout this entire event, there has also been a serious lack of actual concern and remorse by Blake and Tim. Pictures of Blake and Tim put them at a NDP convention after party while Council was deliberating their resignation. I have no objection to them being involved politically, although one would think that since the convention ended at 5:00 pm, they would find their resignation hearing to be a tad more important than an after party. Let us also not forget the mass email which was sent to first and second year students using official AMS letterhead which presented a one sided personal account of what had occurred. For lack of a better word, that email was quite simply propaganda. All that culminates in a disturbing sense that Blake and Tim have either not realized the severity of their actions or have chosen to continue spreading misinformation in order to impede their removal from office.
Council must take into account this betrayal of their trust and also future liabilities on whether or not to remove Blake and Tim from office. If this blatant act of deceit and betrayal does not merit removal, then what would? Let us not forget about the upcoming 2010 Olympics which are taking place in Vancouver and more importantly at UBC. Failure to remove Blake and Tim puts the AMS at risk for further stunts undertaken without Council approval. If we thought that the UN complaint was embarrassing enough, imagine what could happen when the entire world has its eyes on UBC. Enough is enough. Blake and Tim have lost all credibility with students and Council. This has not been their first gaffe but one in a series of many. They are no longer fit to continue in their positions and the only solution is their removal from office.
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.
For those of you new to UBC and UBC Insiders, Dr. Darren Peets has already written the authoritative piece deconstructing the poor planning behind the underground bus loop. Darren would undoubtedly be proud to think that he may have literally analyzed the project to its death.
Before the big news broke yesterday, UBC Insiders had been looking further into the technical design of the underground bus loop. In the interest being topical, and also of not having all this research going to waste, here’s an interesting data study that was conducted on the bus loop’s capacity showing that the whole thing would have been absolute chaos every single day.
Carson Lam, a science student at UBC, developed an absolutely awesome website called TransitDB, which takes all of Translink’s data and presents it in new and much more useful ways of looking at it. But for data nerds, the biggest asset of having a database is that you can mine it for information. Data is a science student’s best friend.
Earlier today, Blake Frederick outlined the situation: 3 weeks ago UBC starting thinking of a contingency plan if loop wasn’t going forward, due to concerns over Translink’s funding drying up. Translink was supposed to commit $10M to the project. Blake: “If Translink’s funding doesn’t come through, they have no other source of funding and they will have to cancel the underground bus loop.” Translink’s ten year plan does not include this funding. Blake has now reached the conclusion that the project will be getting the axe.
Blake also passed on information from Tim Chu’s meeting with Translink representatives this week. Apparently Translink does not yet have the technology available for the proposed bus loop, and also do not have the staff available to devote to the project, presumably because of the transportation planning going into the Olympics.
Ken Hardie, spokesperson for Translink said only that “Translink is not in a position to fund expansion,” adding that what exactly falls within the definition of expansion is a discussion to be had between Translink and the University.
Nancy Knight, AVP Campus & Community Planning, said that while the Mayors Council funding package announced earlier this week does not appear to contain the necessary funding to go ahead with the project, UBC is still waiting to hear this officially from Translink. She indicated that UBC is still committed to the project, but that it has always been a partnership with Translink, and in a partnership, if one partner is unable to meet its obligations the project falls apart. In the event that Translink pulls out of the project, the tunnel will not be built but that in all likelihood the road would (half of which is already built).
When asked about all of the utilities that were moved last year, she said those would have needed to be moved anyways in order to properly service the new buildings going in there (currently only the New SUB and the Alumni Centre, and possibly some student residences.) Even if the project is cancelled, the university still does not look fondly on the current location for two reasons: a promise made to the UEL that the bus loop would only be temporary, and the designation of the land it currently sits on as the “Gage South” neighbourhood, slated for market housing. As to what that means, while Campus and Community Planning will be looking to develop the future transportation plan with all of campus (we can all hope that actually happens; it certainly didn’t with the underground bus loop), a rather large, easily accessible and relatively central location would have to be found if a new bus loop were to be built. In the land use plans laid out in the current version of the campus plan, that certainly isn’t there (and this is why we should all listen to Darren Peets when he says planning is a total crapshoot).
Although no one has yet confirmed the exact fate of the underground bus loop, it’s a safe bet that the project’s dead.
Update: October 27, 4:56pm
Nancy Knight has issued an open letter regarding the status and future of the Underground Bus Loop, which can be found here. Details are still vague, and confirmation regarding this cancellation is still pending discussion with TransLink.
Update 2: October 28
Nancy Knight has released an amended version of her open letter in which it has been confirmed that Translink will not be able to contribute its share towards the underground bus loop.
The Province tabled a bill yesterday to expand the powers of the Board of Governors, in response to asks from the University Neighbourhoods Association and the Board. It represents a stark change in the authority of the Board, giving it municipal powers such as the ability to regulate, prohibit and fine those in contravention.
