Tue 26 Feb 2008
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 “
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.
Jeff,
I want to thank you for your illuminating piece on the CKMS referendum.
I recall that in 2006 you engaged in a debate in defense of the opt-out WEEF fee on http://hailtotheweef.blogspot.com. While I disagreed with your position on that issue then (and my position hasn’t changed), I welcome the contribution you have made to the school on the CKMS fee issue.
Here is yet another example of contemptible behaviour by pro-CKMS-fee advocates: http://community.livejournal.com/uwaterloo/513635.html
(One poster in particular, “hatredheals”, has apparently deleted his own posts to remove (some) evidence of his insulting demeanour, intrasigent clinging to untenable positions, and complete refusal to debate in good faith.)
Thanks again.
Emperorbokassa,
There is nothing wrong with people disagreeing on issues and debating them in a civilized manner. In fact I encourage it. I don’t think the pro-CKMS contingent did that.
I followed all of the discussions on Livejournal and saw all of hatredheals’s posts before they were removed. I decided I did not want to engage those forums for what I deemed to be rabid sensationalist and misinformation. I had also noticed they had commented on Imprint online, but comments have been removed from the site.
I’ve been debating fee issues for years and as you know I’m not “anti-fee” (though people tried to paint me that way during the campaign). One of the most absurd personal attacks was that I was against freedom of speech. People who know me would likely agree when I say that I’m more committed to civil liberties than most people.
Throughout the campaign people were arguing issues my campaign never even brought up. Misconceptions of our arguments were propagated and we tried out best to inform people, but it is hard to hit every medium.
Thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts and I am always willing to engage in debate.
-Jeff
So, what was the outcome?
James,
From the Feds website:
CKMS Fee Referendum
Question: “Do you support the removal of the $5.50 per term fee for CKMS, the campus community radio station at the University of Waterloo, effective the Fall term of 2008?”
No – 1081
Yes – 2280
Declined – 47
Turnout – 12.8%
Quorum for this Referendum was 1863 on the winning side, and thus, the results are binding.
My committee was successful with the largest margin and turnout of the Executive and Referenda races.
-Jeff
I only deleted the posts that were part of a thread where emperorbokassa was trying to provoke an argument over semantics. If you look at the rest of the comments, you’ll see I left plenty of posts. I’ve also replied to emperorbokassa in other threads.
“insulting demeanour”: I said that emperorbokassa was trolling. If saying that was out of line, I apologize.
“intransigent clinging to untenable positions”: I don’t share EB’s opinions. He thinks I’m wrong and I think he’s wrong. Sometime’s, that’s life. If the discussion isn’t going anywhere, you agree to disagree and move on. EB was unable to do that.
“complete refusal to debate in good faith”: I don’t know where this is coming from, especially given EB’s tendency for making personal attacks.
I can get annoyed when people make personal attacks, argue over semantics, go off topic, confuse or misrepresent the issues and facts (as I see them), or go out of their way to be provocative in order to anger people and create conflict. I percieved these things going on. As a result, I conducted myself with less grace than I am capable of.
While I see emperorbokassa’s behaviour as worse than my own, I will not use his behaviour to excuse my own. I appologize to anyone who felt that the exchange was disruptive.
To Jeff: While I strongly disagree with your opinions and views, I respect and applaud you for standing up for them with as much class as you have done.
Hatredheals,
Thank you for dropping by. As I mentioned, I am not a member of Livejournal so I won’t be responding there, but I can address a few things.
I know I made statements in forums (and records exist), but before the forums my arguments were presented without mentioning her. During the questioning in the first forum I responded to a statement saying she was hostile in communications with the Feds Board, which I sourced a specific letter. So no I was not ignoring it, but it does say “my original posts”, so it’s a truthful statement. The main concerns people raised were from the document discussed next.
In terms of the document, I had consulted four past CKMS board members (one being the author) and a past staff member on the accuracy of the material and there exists a box of the primary sources for the report. I am extremely sure of its truth and I remind you that the truth is not defamatory. It was not on a whim I released it, it was very considered. I had never planned to post it originally at all.
In terms of the shareholders withdrawing money, it was to address the tenure comment (your use of my quote was out of context) and really means that shareholders have the power to control the corporation’s capital and assets (they own them). There is also the implication of withdrawing money, as in dissolving the corporation and liquidating the assets.
The fact we have a food bank used by many people proves there are students in dire financial and food need. I don’t see how it is classist to say that. I believe the sole use of their other analogy of one beer would have been a far superior choice and avoided the issue I believe exists (explained accurately by Emperorbokassa on Livejournal).
I hope this presents the more information you asked for on Livejournal.
(To Jeff)
Ah. So you weren’t saying that the poster was classist, you were saying that a sandwich was an unfortunate measure. Perhaps they didn’t use a beer because of the diverse values surrounding alcohol?
Whatever the case, I don’t personally see how one can attribute malice to that poster – especially since students could refund the fee.
I’d also like to add that a corporate model does not always work when it comes to non profit organizations based on the arts. Social capital is more complex than that. We aren’t shareholders and part owners; We benefit from the existence of the organization, and we help support it. Ownership isn’t as useful a concept here.
I’m sure the corporate way of seeing the world works for the work you do, but here it simply doesn’t apply.
I’m going to address hatredheals’s post in the current uwaterloo thread (http://community.livejournal.com/uwaterloo/515664.html)
I’m sure. It was addressed to Jeff, but I enjoy discussions with you ~so much~…
“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.”
Jeff, out of curiosity, which procedure is that?
Eric,
Ah, perhaps a poor choice of words. “Convention” is what I meant. There is no Feds “procedure” on drafting a referendum question, as I’m sure you know. It comes down to the President to determine whether to accept a wording.
I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on wording, as I believe you have more experience with such items and Robert’s Rules being Speaker of MathSoc and chairing some of CKMS’s general meetings. As a reference, pages 99-100 of Robert’s Rules discusses wording.
In terms of the “remove” vs. “retain” debate, certainly you’d agree there wasn’t any purposeful bias in wording by Councillor Andrey in bringing forward this motion. I saw nothing wrong with the wording during Council, and it seems to follow precedent wording with the previous WPIRG referendum.
-Jeff
I disliked the WPIRG question and I disliked the wording of this question. It’s not a question of parliamentary procedure; the rules let you ask whatever question you want. One prior instance does not a convention make.
The idea that if I support something I should vote NO is absurd, because in the minds of most people, the question boils down to: “CKMS? Yes or No?” (Protesting that it was a referendum on the fee and not the organization is just playing semantic games. Anyone who thinks CKMS can survive this result is fooling themselves.)
I would be willing to wager money that at least one person voted the wrong way, either for or against, simply because of the wording. Bluntly put, this means you (i.e., Council) did it wrong.
What would your alternative question be? (this post is premised on your alternative being something along the lines of “Should undergraduate students continue to pay a $5.50 per term refundable fee to CKMS, Radio Waterloo”).
If individuals didn’t pay enough attention to the question to answer it appropriately, they had equal chance to screw up any question asked. Council, therefore, should act as a check to make sure the most honest question is asked. It is my opinion that they did.
While I understand how you want to paint this discussion, it is wrong to assume that an individual cannot be pro-CKMS and anti-opt out fees. You might disagree with them (I might disagree with them) but they can logically be both. The question, then, should be about a fee being on the statement. To make it about supporting CKMS would be dishonest.
Also, while procedure allows you to ask whatever question you want, the authors of the question should try to best explain what is happening. Students in this case were rightful asked if they want to remove something, the fee. Which, I would argue is tantamount to the removal of our collective financial support for CKMS. This is different from individual support for the organization. On this point, alternative questions that have been suggested to make the affirmative continued support don’t actually fully describe what the student body is being asked to decide (if would be describing something like a confidence votes).
Yes, it makes no sense for the affirmative to be for the status-quo (for CKMS).
- Those who are calling for the referendum shouldn’t be asking for what they don’t want — that would be dishonest.
- Change should be in the affirmative, since without the referendum the status-quo is upheld anyway.
- As someone else noted, if quorum is not met, the fee stays. CKMS and WPIRG should be grateful, rather than whining, for the questions to be phrased the way they are. It is their privelege that, should quorum not be met, they get to keep their fee.
“One prior instance does not a convention make.”
One prior instance? Show me any referendum in FedS history where the status-quo coincided with the affirmative. You don’t even have one single prior instance in your favour, from what I can see.
CKMS is run by students for students, so it’s inappropriate to consistently personify the service saying “they should be grateful”, “it is their privelege”, and so on.
My experience indicates that CKMS is actually run by community members. Selene has admitted that due to co-op, several student Board members are often not present (Note: Feds does teleconferencing for it’s co-op Board members). Of the three regularly attending Board executive members, all are community members.
In reality, due to the influence of staff members, CKMS is not run by UW students at all.