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.