REFORM $TUDENT LIFE @twentydollarfee-blog - Tumblr Blog

Posts

Thursday, March 28: BUSU advocacy team was set up at the base of Schmon Tower with language and colours which overlapped with the 'Yes' campaign's marketing for the $20 per credit Student Life fee

BUSU VPUA's report summarizes Mental Health Awareness week BUSU VPUA acknowledges the overlap of the campaigns and the confusion it caused. "There was no coordination with OUSA, BUSU or Brock University, in any form, to intentionally place the mental health campaign in that week. I work with OUSA, and their manager of communications and marketing and media relations, as to what day its going to fall on specifically, out reach [inaudible] which is was the wednesday, that all other OUSA-membership schools -- so it's purely accidental , coincidental -- if I had have realized, or put the two together, prior to it actually happening, I would have spoken to OUSA, and moved it to, perhaps, the first week of April, or earlier in March-- make our own sort of Brock Version of the campaign. Certainly we were supplied all the materials for the third week of march, earlier in March, but, [inaudible] I urge, that should something like this, just for perception, make every effort not to confuse the electorate or those who [inaudible] paying attention."

BUSU VPUA questioned on OUSA involvement in Mental Health Innovation Fund [1 of 2] Sandor Ligetfalvy questons BUSU Inc. Vice President of University Affairs Steven Nichols: "The question put forth is, How involved -- in your knowledge -- was OUSA in the developing the Mental Health Innovation Fund, which was deployed that same day?" Vince Tremblay says, "So, that would mean that you already knew that mental health is something that is available for a grant, right? Being that you were involved in OUSA, so why is it that you didn't say anything about that when it came to BUSAC, as being something thats, you know, illegal?"

BUSU VPUA questioned on OUSA involvement in Mental Health Innovation Fund [2 of 2]

Question: "The language that was employed by the BUSU advocacy team included phrases like -- not just a march -- but, quote, 'solidarity'. The question put forth will be, Solidarity with what? Moreover, language such as "get informed" which is, again, specifically electoral language used by the BUSU advocacy team. Although, it's clear that the BUSU executive may not be culpable for the coincidence, it's also clear , to me, that OUSA knew that the Mental Health Innovation fund was on [March] 26th, and arranged for it. So the question put forth .. what was the advocacy coordinator referring to when they stated on public forum 'a solidarity march'?"

BUSU President: "When I started discussing the 24 hour study space, I started discussing it with Kim Meade, as well as different members of the university, and they kind of took it from there to discuss .. with us .. how this will work. "

CRO claims, "I do not work on weekends"

BUSU Government Operations Manager explains that recall does not apply to referenda

#MINDHACKON notes

This is what we're told about #MINDHACKON :

“MindHackON was an OUSA campaign (Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance)… it was put on at the exact same time for all schools who are OUSA members who were participating - schools voted on that date. I am one of the Student Advocacy Coordinators for BUSU and I helped to plan this campaign with OUSA. “ Kerri Behling comments on FB

We're confused by this. It wasn't put on at other schools. Or all other schools don't use Twitter. But only a few people tweeted #MindHackON and all of them were BUSU folks.

Too big to fail

It would have been irresponsible to continue harshly on the tract of recall as it risked making people in athletics and the 'yes' campaign feel treated unfairly which was not the intention. On moral balance the undergrads --who did not hear about the fee or opposed it --must now simply absorb the cost of this learning experience for at least one year. Our sustained opposition has been towards the presence of "third party" campaigns that coincided with the referendum. Given that, let's be honest: Brock is stuck with the fee it will have to learn to love. Given the coordinated effort put into the achievement of the 1.9% hike -- with sociopolitical "mental health" connections extending all the way back to Queens Park -- it's doubtful any political capital can be sustained by anyone on campus who goes about intentionally cancelling the fee. One person who initially volunteered to distribute the recall backed away because he didn't want to put a "target" on him self. Blacklists aside, the maneuver of the recall, although legally justifiable, can not be adequately explained to the members of the corporation whom it would affect. The conditions of the campus "information blockade" is still endemic and triggering a recall would be practically Joker-esque to those whose conception of their union membership is entirely underdeveloped. The "body poltick" should be risen, by buoyancy of water, to a higher standard of understanding student union: not burdened and sunk by a rule so obscure that no one in the government even thinks it exists. It would be tremendously disharmonious to the public and excessively reactionary to deploy a recall petition. I am glad it formed an educational opportunity to challenge the status quo's conception of the member's constitutional right to recall (XI:5) , Simply because that button exists doesn't mean we should push it. I regret suggesting it before fully considering the impact it would have on others. Clearly, this fee is too big to fail. So, move forward. Media reforms. Union reforms. Fee reforms. Probably in that order.

reform not recall - cant punish athletes

Democratic due-process and the right to be informed is an important fight but it does not need to come at the cost of denying next year’s athletes with the benefits of their efforts. This justification does come with some over-charge, and certainly reforms are required, but, given the binary choice, we are now willing to accept this fee, as is, for this year, as we work towards progressive reforms for the future. Please continue to contact your BUSAC reps regarding what you observed over this referendum period— and if you’re interested become a “Student At Large” on the appropriate committees. Explanation here: https://www.facebook.com/twentydollarfee/posts/155773737922688

Update: Also, we were wrong about recall

Confluence of Factors View as Google Doc PDF

#brock #brock university #busu #badgers #brockbadgers #st catharines #niagara #mental health #student life #referendum #green ribbon

Intent of Coincidence ?

As the campaign progressed last week, a series of coincidences transpired which we now can say, with certainty, are connected.

BUSU Vice President University Affairs Steven Nichols says to me, "Please make sure that you do not paint our mental health campaign as being scheduled intentionally for that week. Its was a decision from OUSA."

We now know that on Sept. 27, the Ontario Undergraduate Students' Alliance (OUSA), announced the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities' (MTCU) "Mental Health Innovation Fund" (MHIF) The deadline for proposals for the MHIF was October 12, 2012. When the fund's projects were announced on March 26, 2013, it included a quote from OUSA, and specified Brock University as a partner.

The announcement on March 26 via the Toronto Star stated "the province announced projects designed to: ... create an online website to offer expertise to students in the Niagara area, to be led by Brock University and Niagara College, at $360,240 over three years."

The backgrounder specifies this as "Niagara Postsecondary Holistic Wellness Initiative": A website with a basis "upon an Aboriginal understanding of wellness, which views mental health from a holistic perspective."

Therefore we recognize and clarify that there is no obvious over-lap between the MTCU MHIF project at Brock U/ Niagara College and the promised psych services of the 'Student Life' fee, while it is still unclear at present if there are other coffers which Brock University will share in as part of the $27 million over three years.

However this does clarify that OUSA, the MTCU and Brock University admin (and therefore BUSU) were all coordinating.

Certain aspects of the 'Yes' campaign are echoes of the MTCU's materials, including the "1 in 5 have mental health problems" statistic. We also note that "holistic wellness" was the argumentation for why the fee was an omnibus to fund various university departments.

The hidden hand on campus was well aware of what was coming down the funding pipe.

It grabbed hold of, and started milking, the "mental health" cash cow.

We now know that the OUSA created #mindhackon : an otherwise-unexplained poster campaign with a callous and unfortunate hashtag. OUSA's #mindhackon campaign had tables around campus and invited students to fill out a "mental health awareness" survey.

Their poster -- with colours that exactly matched the Yes campaign and including the BUSU and Brock logos-- was next to the table mentioned a pending "mental health awareness" resource website -- prior to the March 26 announcement of Brock U / Niagara College's collaborative effort.

Their third-party campaign was given so much leeway that they were granted permission to chalk a 40-foot "#mindhackon" on the sidewalk between Cairns and Chown on the Thursday of the voting period.

The presence of #mindhackON was disorienting, confusing, and harmful.

"Students would like to thank the government for this significant investment to improving the integration of Ontario's postsecondary mental health services", the Ontario Government's March 26 MHIF press release quotes Rylan Kinnon, OUSA Executive Director, as saying.

We do not thank you, Ryan Kinnon, for (however unintentionally) interfering in Brock University student politics. We find it deeply concerning that an organization that claims to speak for undergraduates could be so callous as to deploy the term "Mind Hack" on campus without so much as providing a FAQ page to explain the intent. Without any explanation, the unconscious message to undergraduates is: you are being manipulated.

This calls the authenticity of this entire scenario into question. Where does the marketing end and the actual mental health services start?

The Right to Recall: Article XI Subsection 5 is clear as day

Functionaries of BUSU Inc. do not recognize a right to require a recall referendum. They argue, "a recall referendum refers to a recall of an executive, or a student at large member of the board only, then specific referendums to recall members from each faculty." They are likely basing this interpretation on Bylaw 675, Subsection 41. "Pursuant to Article XII of the Constitution, Officers of the Corporation and or student-at-large members of the Board of Director are subject to recall by a petition signed by 2% of the FTE." Article XII is "Recall and resignation" and the language within it deals exclusively with individuals, not referenda. So, we can grant as true that bylaw 675.41 and Article XII does have a certain specificity about recalling representatives (people), however but it also does not preclude a recall after referendum, and why would it, since Subsection 5 of Article XI states clearly: "A successful recall petition that is presented to the Speaker shall result in a Recall Referendum." If recall referendum does not refer to referendums-- then why would it be IN Article XI "Referena"? There is an inference being drawn based on 675.41 and Article XII which we can not validate with our own analysis. Article XI.5 stands on its own because it is not specifically modified by any other part of the constitution. "A successful recall petition that is presented to the Speaker shall result in a Recall Referendum." Period. If a SAL or exec is subject to recall, why shouldn't a $1.5m/year fee which was pushed through under unfair circumstances? Recall referendum exists because it is the a natural and appropriate protection against referendums that had been gamed. If the students really do want this fee then it will pass at referendum again, now that all the facts are out in the open.

TOTAL RECALL

I'm looking now at the BUSU Inc. constitution which says in Article XI: Referenda: Subsection 5. "A successful recall petition that is presented to the Speaker shall result in a Recall Referendum." Wait...That's it!?!?!?! So What is a "successful recall petition?" 2% of full time enrolled undergraduates or about 350 people who simply say "recall".

The 'yes' campaign got 54% after a variety of circumstances which were inconsistent with fairness and student interest. Bylaw 675 and the constitution state that recall referendum require 55% to pass, and that new decision is only valid if 10% vote. A recall is a simple and elegant solution to what was a highly contentious campaign. Here's the petition.

Was this referendum in compliance with 5.2 of MTCU Operating Funds Distribution Manual?

This document is section 5.2 from the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities "Operating Funds Distribution Manual" which specifies the law of the land regarding compulsory non-tuition ancillary fees. There's a couple of passages here which stick out to us and we will provide further analysis of over the next couple of days. Our initial reading of it shows violations of the provincial law. This would supersede the referendum results. The consequence for not complying with this law that "the institution's operating grant will be reduced by an amount which corresponds to the revenue raised by the fee or the fee increase."

Plan to Reform the fee

How to reform the fee: 1. Undergraduates petition for a referendum, or initiate a referendum via BUSAC, to repeal this fee: The referendum would be in October or November. 2. Undergraduates petition for referendum, or initiate a referendum via BUSAC, to replace the fee. This referendum would be in November, February or March. For example, we think $5 or $7 per credit for athletics (free games, Zone, sports team funding, etc) is worth discussing and possibly worth funding. We'd love to see a real legislative discussion emerge out of how to solve the actual problem that this "mental health" fee was covering: athletics funding. As we said during the campaign, we have no problem with finding funding solutions as long as the undergraduates are treated as fully-informed partners. Meanwhile it is still unacceptable for OSAP/loan students to fund "mental health" out of their own debt so that entire provision must be removed, but not at the cost of viable sports club funding. Let us know what you think. Contact us at on Facebook or [email protected] to help coordinate for next year.

The petition aginst unfairness in the "student life" referendum

This petition has begun to circulate.

But we don't have much time to hang around or interrupt people in their day. So, you are encouraged to download (and, if you like, edit the statement), print, and circulate it to Brock undergraduates. Our version of the petition is a non-binding statement which, if you do print and circulate, is due before the BUSAC on Tuesday April 9. Let BUSAC know your views by joining this petition process

AND email your BUSAC reps on the appropriate committees

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

REFORM $TUDENT LIFE