Jeffrey Aho

Levi has mentioned more than once in the past few weeks that he thinks I’m becoming more and more conservative of late. I didn’t think I have been but it is hard to be objective when judging yourself. A year or two ago I took the Political Compass test and I got a 6.5 on the Economic axis and -4.0 on the Social axis. Today I decided to retake the test to see what has changed. This time I was 5.0 on the Economic axis and -3.9 on the Social axis.

Comparing these tests I’ve become less right on the Economic axis and essentially remained the same on the Social Axis. Since the Political Compass is a two axis measurement, to convert it to the simplified Left/Right scale it seems best to rotate the axis 45 degrees clockwise and project the data point onto the new horizontal axis. This leaves just right of center (random side thought: While centre is most likely the proper Canadian spelling, it doesn’t feel right using it for a location. Centre feel right when I use it for a facility, but I feel the need differentiate them through spelling. Maybe it has to do with the fact that programming languages use American spellings), but very much a centrist.

It appears that I’ve actually moved a little left since the previous test which if I equal the left/right to liberal/conservative respectively, as is often done, I’ve become more liberal making Levi wrong (I just had to point that out). I don’t feel like pulling out a textbook to remember how to find the perpendicular distance of a point from a line so I’m really just eyeballing the vector projection. Either way, I’m moving more to the left again, which I’ll attribute to the substantial reading in economics and political economy I’ve done over this last year. I’ve become a little more pragmatic about government intervention.

Political Compass has a great little app that you can take the test on and plot you against your friends scores. Here is mine:

As you can see, I tend to have friends on the socially libertarian side (Chris and Kevin being the only authoritarians). On a Left/Right scale there would be 34 on the Left and 6 on the Right with Andrew Falcao being most Left and Kevin Royal being most Right (of course we all know from The Next Great Prime Minister that Kevin is an extremist who the poor, minorities, and women won’t vote for). It is pretty evenly distributed on the Left and my friends on the Right hug the center.

As a ending note I will be heading up to TBay after exams. I’ll be taking off the term so I’ll likely just play which city I’m in by ear, but I’ll likely be in TBay for at least a month, part of which will be me house siting for my parents when they go to California and their “puppy” (he looks full grown to me) Baxter (a black lab) needs taking care of. Now that I got Atlas Shrugged off my desk (I DO NOT recommend it) I can do some varied reading now so I expect to do that alot over the next 6 months.

Random Wikipedia Article: LaVeyan Satanism

Currently Listening to: Heat Of The Moment - Asia

Still continuing with my policy of not registering for or posting on LJ, I do see a post by the CKMS Board Treasurer Selene MacLeod (Atmydiscretion?), AKA Synaesthetik (MySpace) and a new discussion spawning from it. Since she makes defamatory claims that the ‘Yes’ Committee and I broke referendum rules, I will respond to her comment here. After all, civil discussion is the proper response instead of threatening legal action.

In terms of her ability to express her opinions, she (as well as all non-student CKMS members) has always had the right to talk to the ‘No’ Committee chairs to provide arguments, opinions, or rebuttals. I will use an analogy of the House of Commons. This was a student referendum issue deciding a topic pertaining to student funding. It would be akin to a US Ambassador walking into the House and yelling out their opinions on the Canadian budget. Yes, this student decision will impact the radio station, just as many decisions our government affects the US. The US has the ability to send us their opinions but they have no right to interfere in the process. CKMS interfered in the process by inhibiting information flow to shareholders, using staff members to prepare an advertising campaign (which used CKMS funds), and by intervening legally. (BTW, is paid CKMS staff participating in information sessions the best use of their time and CKMS’s money?)

Furthermore, three CKMS volunteers (one being a CKMS Board member) were the ‘No’ Committee Co-Chairs. If the board member (who participated in one of the forums) doesn’t have an intimate knowledge of the corporation (which for the record, I believe he does), then that would be a serious concern. In reality, the ‘No’ Committee had access to CKMS Board information and other resources provided to them that were not provided to the Yes committee, despite being requested and promised (i.e. number of student volunteers requested January 23rd, promised January 24th, that was never provided but later was released by the ‘No’ Committee). They had the information advantage all along.

She states that she “felt the adjudication during the committee was biased toward the Yes committee, and that the adjudicator was not an impartial judge.” That is quite a defamatory claim about the Referendum Committee and its Chair. Knowing all the councillors on the committee, I am confident that they worked in an impartial manner. I will also note that there is a separate Referendum Appeals Committee that does not have councillors that any decision can be appealed to.

To address the first defamatory comment, the one claiming that I violated referendum procedures by having a Facebook group soliciting members of ‘Yes’ Committee, I will state that I believe there were no rules violated (given my experience on the Referendum Committee last year). Soliciting members of the committee, which the ‘No’ Committee did as well, is not a violation of procedures as it is not campaigning. The group never discussed the campaign, only informing people of the date of committee formation. I will also note that if you review the Referendum Committee’s decisions, they were never fined for having their Facebook group, even the “I support CKMS” group that they turned into their main campaign group (which I believe is it in violation of referendum rules since it was created outside the campaigning period). As always, someone (even non-students) could have (and may have) filed a complaint.

I will not comment on the document mentioned for legal reasons, but I do appreciate Selene confirming that the CKMS Board knows that I was not the author. I will note that my sources are not limited to that document and I consulted numerous past Board members and staff including ones within the last 3 years. It continues to be my assertion that all information my committee provided is truthful and the facts were not misrepresented.

I found out about the motion for the referendum at the same time CKMS supporters did. I had the same time (and substantially less resources) to prepare my campaign as the ‘No’ side. The referendum was called and was run in a fair way (except, of course, all the violations by the ‘No’ Committee). As per her last comments about me not being at CKMS Board meetings, I’ve never claimed to have attended them. Selene has not been at all the Students’ Council and Referendum Committee meetings in the last year, yet she criticizes their decisions. I am able to my make my claims in the same way; by talking to sources and reading documents.

I think fees for students should always be debated and the organizations that receive them should be held accountable if they aren’t transparent or are poorly managed. I like Imprint and believe they are run transparently and are managed well. Athletics falls under the Student Services Advisory Committee in which funding is reviewed constantly. You don’t think Plant Operations and Employees have reviews and are held accountable if they screw up? This came down to students deciding if they wanted the fee. They resoundingly supported its removal.

I never claimed that campus radio is a bad thing, and I agree that it could fit within the Feds mission statement. CKMS, on the other hand, does not.

EDIT:

Selene has continue to post on LJ and I have more to add now (and will continue to add).

On February 14th I had communication with her that explained the referendum process. It seems this went in one ear and out the next. I stated: “While Feds does not administer the fee, they are the sole representative of students and the only body that the Board of Governors listens to on this matter. While what you state is technically true, in practice it is Feds that yields influence over levying student fees by long standing agreement with the University.” Her “paranoid” “theories” (her words) are just that: paranoid.

Selene has posted a comment that has patently false information (which was even ruled on and explained why it is false in Referendum Decision 5 - Has she even read the decisions she criticizes?). She says the $230 fee (There exists no $230 fee but a range from $163.56 to $241.87) is non-refundable, which is a lie. The Health and Dental plan are refundable (online opt-out) and the non-refundable part is the bus pass. These have all been approved by referendums. I will continue to refute her misrepresentation of the facts. Students put a value on CKMS. It was $0.00.

The Board of Governors will pass this fee removal at their April meeting.

It has been very enlightening reviewing the general meeting minutes of the past few years. The September 2005 meeting minutes discuss how Heather intervened (saying it “sucked”) and stopped a legitimate vote under CKMS’s bylaws (which is noted in the next minutes that their lawyer said was perfectly legal). Too bad it took 7 weeks to get what I requested from CKMS or I would have been able to present more facts to students of CKMS’s ongoing (and still present) issues. Well, I received most of what I requested. CKMS has yet to produce an up-to-date copy of their bylaws. A change occurred at the March 2007 AGM and yet they only have produced a copy from March 2006. So coming up to their March 2008 AGM where new directors will be voted in, shareholders don’t even know the process by which they use to vote.

This is a transparency and accountability issue NOW, occurring under Selene’s time on the CKMS Board. It will be interesting if shareholders hold her accountable for losing 90% of the station’s revenue while she was Treasurer.

Over the past few weeks I was heavily involved in the CKMS referendum as the ‘Yes’ Committee Chair and tried to keep my comments as representing the committee. I would now like to express my personal opinions.

I did not bring forward this motion to Council and found out about it the same time everyone else did. During the debate I provided only one argument to hold the referendum that was not challenged. I said “I cannot see anything that is negative about bringing up this
issue, because it is a way of promoting what everyone here has said they want.”

I decided to become Chair of the ‘Yes’ Committee because of my knowledge of the procedures due to sitting on the Referendum Committee last year and the Bylaws, Policies, and Procedures Committee for two years. I took on an important role in the democratic process.

From the start I was faced with unfair campaigning. Before committees were even formed (the day after council), CKMS was running ads telling people to vote No. They also ran insulting ads with a character meant to be a dimwitted student mocking the referendum question itself. The question was worded the way it was (which I had no part in drafting) due to procedure that dictates that change is in the affirmative and the negative is for the status quo. There was no conspiracy or purposeful bias. The claims of such are just absurd.

The reason that outside corporations can’t campaign is because it creates an unfair advantage. Nevertheless, CKMS used its paid staff and capital to advertise, campaign actively through interviews, through free concerts (including one they named their Birthday celebration despite them having claimed an activity for that in the Fall) and handing out flyers (with false information). CKMS had every right to meet with the ‘No’ Committee and provide them with information, arguments, rebuttals. CKMS had a voice through the ‘No’ Committee, the proper channel.  No campaign rules said that CKMS couldn’t provide them information. As well, one of the CKMS Board members was a Co-chair of the ‘No’ Committee so they had a direct voice. The process would have been fair, but CKMS and the ‘No’ side made it unfair. After all, this was an undergraduate student referendum. They are the ones with rights here, not external organizations. On top of all this unfairness is the fact that the majority of my posters were illegally removed or defaced (apparently speech is only free if you agree with it).

They went out of their way to make my information collection harder. When I requested budget information, instead of numbers, a useless pie chart was sent. It is both quicker and more transparent to copy the numbers and send them to me. When a budget for Feds was requested by the ‘No’ Committee Chair, I sent it 9 minutes later. CKMS went out of their way to keep information from me to present to students. I requested documents (to this date I have not received copies of them, 6 weeks later), went to CKMS to talk to the Station Manager who asked me to make an appointment, which was reasonable so I did. My appointment was cancelled twice (first was double booking, and second her story changed for canceling from personal issues to the snow day), yet I rebooked again, canceling my an appointment to accommodate the other parties. When the meeting finally came I, a shareholder, was treated with contempt and the atmosphere was hostile. I was trying to get information to disseminate to 99% of their shareholders and for fallacious reasons I was denied copies of the documents.

Despite all this, the referendum went forward. The result was a landslide win for the ‘Yes’ side, (2280 Yes vs. 1081 No), over 2:1 margin. It had the highest turnout of the Exec and Referenda votes and beat my own estimates on how many people would come out. I expected 400 less voters due to the acclamations of President and VP Admin-Finance, usually the positions that bring out the voters.

Now I shall air my grievances. As you know, the ‘No’ side was disqualified due to seven different Referendum Committee decisions directed at them (while the ‘Yes’ side had none). They hired a lawyer to help them appeal it. There was no respect for the rules that are meant to allow an even playing field. The GSA Pres has some endgame analysis that I think everyone should read.

One misconception that keeps coming up is this so called “Feds Radio”. I’ve followed the Facebook/Livejournal/Myspace/random blog diatribes and many are filled with fallacious arguments and juvenile rhetoric. Take this MySpace page, making the Feds Radio claim. I never brought up such a concept in the campaign and as a Feds Board and Council member I’ve never participated in any discussions about it. It doesn’t exist! Looking on I’ll note that students contribute 90% of funding while community members contribute only 2%. Then we get to the tenure claim. A radio station does not have tenure. Shareholders have every right to withdraw their funding. The second most offensive (to me) poster was the one that said something like Referendum, Best Birthday Present Ever! It’s insulting to think that you shouldn’t be held accountable because you’ve been around a while. The most offensive claim was the sandwich one, where we have students who can’t afford to buy food and make use of our Food Bank. Disgusting.

Of course there were the claims of smearing Heather Majaury’s name. My original posts did no such things, and only after I felt the need to make transparent a source document drafted by a past Board Member was she ever mentioned (Note: I removed it to comply with the legal threat sent to me. Threatening to sue a student who is just presenting information provided to him is so classy…). I had never met her before this campaign. Now I have and I have experience to make a judgment. In my opinion, despite being a shareholder trying to get information, I was treated hostilely and with contempt by her. She made many false statements (e.g. providing a falsely deflated budget number to The Record), and in my opinion acted unprofessionally when dealing with a shareholder. When she makes comments like “I personally feel it was a hijacking by the student government” to The Record it shows her total contempt for the democratic process and for the great majority of students who agreed with the ‘Yes’ side. My judgment is that I now have no respect for her.

Now CKMS has posted information on their home page which I shall disect. First the statement “not one single concrete concern or suggestion was communicated to CKMS from the Federations of Students”. This is a lie, as the Feds Board has sent CKMS many letters with concerns, and example concern being in a letter to the CKMS’s Board on January 13, 2006, where the Federation of Students Board of Directors declared:

“In the opinion of the Federation of Students Board, the CKMS’s General Meetings were unacceptable. They were poorly planned, executed and more than controversial, they were tense and unwelcoming. In the opinion of the Federation of Students Board, a violation of UW’s policy #33 specifically related to a poisoned environment [has occurred].”

More than one letter has been sent and several issues have been identified in them. CKMS has been plagued by issues for (anecdotally by past Board Members) over a decade. Didn’t their 2006 AGM, where they didn’t elect their Board members, not clue them in that people have concerns? I’ve addressed above the issue of external organization prohibition and the fictitious Feds Radio.

If you want a good laugh you can read this absurd article written by the Editor of Now Media. I love the part where my side is compared to political extremists overthrowing governments.

Finally there are several personal statements that were not shared by my committee, but since this is my blog I get to state my opinions. I believe that the current incarnation of CKMS is corrupt. I believe a group of people have been exploiting students by stealing their money to fund their own personal hobbies. The abused spouse needs to leave the abuser even if they say they will stop and make it better. As the Phoenix, sometimes something old but damaged has to go up in flames to be created new and better.