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.