Show your support for SFPIRG!

One Volunteer’s Perspective

By Victor Finberg, SFU Alumnus, SFPIRG volunteer

Summary

On Feb. 10, 2010, SFPIRG held its Annual General Meeting. The main, but not exclusive, purpose of this AGM was to pass several bylaw changes that would clarify and hopefully improve the Board election process. Unfortunately, a whole gang of people showed up with the explicit purpose, as became evident, of disrupting the meeting. The disruptions took the form of abusing the process of the meeting, and raising many spurious objections to the substantive issues of the meeting. The abuses of process were only possible because PIRG meetings use the consensus process, so most PIRG activists are unfamiliar with the details of Robert’s Rules of Order, which were in use at the AGM. The substantive objections were mostly based on a lack of knowledge of what PIRG does, or more probably, a direct hostility to what PIRG does.

The purpose of SFPIRG is to bring together students, staff, faculty and other members of the Simon Fraser University community, as well as members from the wider community, in order to organise around issues of public interest, which the Society understands to be social justice and environmental issues. When we look at the record of Canada on any one of a long list of such issues, we can see that it is a poor record. We can see that the work of PIRG is still relevant and important today. When we look at the record of the Canadian government on these issues, and we look at the political connections of the people who came to disrupt the AGM, it becomes clearly obvious just what their motivation is.

What is SFPIRG?

The purpose of SFPIRG is to bring together students, staff, faculty and other members of the Simon Fraser University community, as well as members from the wider community, in order to organise around issues of public interest, which the Society understands to be social justice and environmental issues. Specifically, the Society shall promote and conduct research on issues of public interest and concern, aid in the education of Society members and the public at large about issues of public interest, and promote and undertake appropriate citizen action. [1] SFPIRG supports groups and individuals by providing resources, training, and other opportunities for skills development. Consensus decision-making forms the basis for the work PIRG does as an organization and in its work towards a just and sustainable world. [2]

SFPIRG is a resource centre. It has a number of physical resources, such as a library and a meeting space, as well as human resources in the form of paid staff. All of these are necessary to do the work of PIRG, but the efforts of the action groups are also necessary. The action groups are composed of volunteers who work on specific projects, which include research, education, and action on a wide variety of social and environmental justice issues. The issues change from time to time, depending on the specific interests of the action group members.

What is “Social and Environmental Justice”?

“Social justice” is based on the concepts of human rights and equality. It is important to realize that human rights are a convention. The universe does not guarantee us any rights. All we can do is to agree, as a society, that we will extend certain rights to all members of our society. Detractors of the concept claim that it is not possible to agree on what those rights should be. However, there is a very important document, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the United Nations, and to which Canada is a signatory.

Some of the rights outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are as follows. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind.

There are many aspects to “environmental justice”, but the largest issue is global warming, also known as climate change, and that is all that will be considered here.

What is Canada’s record on social justice issues?

Homelessness

There are thousands of people who are slowly starving to death on the streets of Vancouver, and similar situations exist all over the country. This problem can clearly be linked to decisions by the federal government, which severely reduced the amount of low income housing being built in this country.

Afghanistan

It was obvious from the beginning that this war and occupation would destroy Canada’s international reputation. Is there still anyone who believes that any good will come of us blowing up women and children over there?

First Nations

Canada still refuses to deal fairly with the First Nations, who actually, in principle, enjoy some very good treaty rights. In practice, those rights aren’t worth much. In particular, the large majority of BC is actually unceded Native land, not that you’d actually notice.

Education cuts

The education system in this country has been under severe attack for decades. Every year, education institutions at all levels have to get by with less. The most obvious consequences are restricted access and subverted curricula.

Border harassment

The Canada Immigration Act states that potential visitors to Canada MUST be admitted, except in certain cases that generally have to do with criminal activity. However, over the past several years, a number of people have been denied entry, specifically due to their political activity. In particular, anti-war and anti-Olympics activists have been denied entry to Canada. While these types of actions by the immigration officials are clearly anti-democratic, they are also illegal under the laws of this country. However, as long as corrupt judges continue to make judgments not supported by the law, the immigration officials will continue to flaunt the law.

Rendition

In a number of cases, Canada has participated in putting people in situations where they would get tortured. Some of these people have eventually got some measure of justice, but it still keeps happening.

Proroguing Parliament

It’s not clear whether Stephen Harper will pay a penalty for this. However, similar actions by certain kings have in the past led to civil war, secession, and regicide.

On a large number of social justice issues, Canada fails the test, over and over again. It is clear that working on social justice issues is still relevant and important today.

What is Canada’s record on environmental justice issues?

There has been an enormous amount of information published on the issue of climate change in the general media in the past several years, so there is no need to spend much time rehashing that. However, there were two articles in the Feb. 15 Province that are worth noting. One of them, “Greenland ice loss driven by warming seas”, reported on new measurements of the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. If this ice all melts, or even if it only slides off the land onto the ocean, sea level will rise by seven metres. This will completely wipe out some nations, cause catastrophic damage to some of the most populous nations, and have a severe impact on any nation with a coastline. The other article, “Increase in ocean acidity worst in 65 million years”, reports on new measurements of ocean acidity caused by dissolved carbon dioxide. The increasing acidity threatens to wipe out the plankton, after which the whole plankton-based food chain will be wiped out. While global warming deniers today pretty much have to concede that global warming is happening, they still try to get away with claiming that human activity is not the primary cause. However, on a time scale of 65 million years, it surely isn’t sunspots that are the cause!

Canada is by no means taking a progressive leadership role on the issue of global warming. Instead, Canada failed to meet its Kyoto targets, obstructed at Bali (2007), obstructed at Copenhagen (2009), and continues to develop the Tar Sands. The global warming problem, which actually threatens our species with extinction, should scare the living daylights out of any rational person. And yet, most Canadians, and certainly the decision-makers, seem intent on a course of species suicide.

It is clear that working on environmental justice issues is still relevant today, and more important than ever.

Disruptions at the AGM

On Feb. 10, 2010, SFPIRG held its Annual General Meeting. The main, but not exclusive, purpose of this AGM was to pass several bylaw changes that would clarify and hopefully improve the Board election process. Whether those changes are actually improvements is, of course, open to debate.

Only one hour was allocated for the business of the meeting. This was wildly unrealistic, given the amount of business of substance. On the other hand, such General Meetings are held only infrequently, and actually achieving quorum is a well-known problem. Holding a series of meetings would have been appropriate, but practically impossible. However, the situation was not improved when a whole gang of people showed up with the explicit purpose, as became evident, of disrupting the meeting. The disruptions took the form of abusing the process of the meeting, and raising many spurious objections to the substantive issues of the meeting.

Abuse of meeting process

Points of order

There aren’t really any new tricks in disrupting meetings; it’s all been seen before. The most common trick is for a member to rise on a “point of order”. This interrupts the course of the debate, and even if it is quickly determined that the point is invalid, a certain amount of time is wasted each time this happens. Points of order take precedence over other issues, which is why this trick is used. However, they are only valid if they point out that the rules of the meeting are not being adhered to.

At least one member kept rising on “points of order”. One of the instances was valid. In this instance, the chair attempted to call the vote on a motion without first calling for discussion. All of the other points of order were invalid, generally objecting to matters other than the process of the meeting.

It would have been entirely appropriate for the chair to immediately rule this member out of order. However, PIRG normally uses a consensus process, where the positions of all members are taken into account and incorporated into the decision-making process. Since the chair at the AGM was generally attempting to accommodate the objections, the disruptions became more severe than they need have been.

Point of personal privilege

A “point of personal privilege” also must be dealt with immediately. Because of this, it is only valid under narrow conditions, and should generally only be used when a member’s personal reputation has been attacked. However, it is often used to disrupt a meeting.

Late in the meeting, the person who had been repeatedly rising on “points of order” called “point of personal privilege”. However, the point actually raised had nothing to do with personal privilege.

Challenging the chair

The meeting started with two people serving as joint chair. At some point, a member claimed that one of the two chairpersons was biased. In attempting to accommodate this member, that chair stepped aside in favour of the other one. Later, the same member claimed that the second chair was biased. Both of these claims should have been ruled out of order. Under Robert’s Rules, a member may challenge a specific ruling of the chair, but not their general attitude. In particular, when the chair is trying to move the meeting forward, someone who is trying to disrupt the meeting will obviously consider the chair to be biased, but that does not take precedence over the business of the meeting. Ultimately, the entire meeting will either support the chair or the challenge on the specific ruling.

Amendment presentation format

The proposed Bylaw changes were presented with additions underlined and deletions struck through. One member objected to this format. However, this is a completely standard format for presenting such documents. For example, all of the contract negotiations between the Teaching Support Staff Union and Simon Fraser University use this format.

Spurious objections to substantive issues

Staff wages

The first question that was asked was why the majority of PIRG’s yearly budget was spent on staff wages. Actually, it was phrased more like a demand to spend less on staff wages.

It needs to be pointed out that this question or demand was rather inappropriate at this point in the fiscal cycle. There is a budgeting process at the beginning of a fiscal year, when it is decided how the year’s revenue should be spent. As long as the budget is adhered to, there is no justification for changing it at a later time in the year. When the financial statements are presented at the end of the year, the main purpose is for the membership to verify that the budget has been adhered to. So in principle, the answer to the question could simply have been to point out that the staff wages were approved in the budget.

However, the question was treated respectfully, although perhaps not in sufficient detail. Here, I am going to provide a fair bit of detail.

PIRG is a resource centre for social and environmental justice activists. The activists come in with a desire to work on a particular project. Often, they have no experience in running such a project. The human resources at PIRG (the staff) provide that experience. Thus the action groups can immediately function at a rather advanced level, which is to say, they can actually accomplish things. Without the staff, the action groups would mostly flounder around and get nowhere. So there is an obvious reason why someone hostile to the work of PIRG would want to get rid of the staff.

To be specific, action group members ask staff the following questions on a regular basis. How do we make a poster? How do we poster? How do we make a banner? How do we book a room? How do we promote an event? What community resources are available? How do we access a particular community resource? How do we plan a workshop? And so on and so forth.

In addition to interacting with action groups, PIRG staff interact with the general public. When new visitors come in, they often get a tour of the PIRG resources, which are both physical (books, computers, etc.) and non-physical. Obviously, this requires a knowledgeable person to actually be present at the time. It should also be obvious that the office wouldn’t even be open for interested people to walk in if there were no staff. And it should further be obvious that that requires the organization to pay someone to be there.

In addition to all their other duties, the PIRG staff members frequently run workshops that benefit the entire SFU community. Common workshop topics are consensus, media design, anti-racism, and so forth.

And then there are all the administrative tasks that are necessary to keep PIRG running. Who does these tasks? Drum roll … the staff!

Validity of PIRG board

At several points during the meeting, a member claimed that the whole process was invalid, because the board members had not been properly elected. In fact, a careful reading of the Bylaws shows that this is a spurious claim. It is important to note that legal clauses need to be interpreted narrowly. In the past, PIRG has generally not held elections. Primarily due to the fact that board members get no pay but have to do a lot of work, the only people who stand for the positions are dedicated to working on social or environmental justice issues, and the positions get filled by acclamation. Certainly, someone who is hostile to the principles of social and environmental justice would prefer to see the board filled with people who are hostile to these principles, but that does not mean that PIRG needs to accommodate those people.

Unaudited financial statements

The SFPIRG financial statements, presented at the AGM, were prepared by an accountant, not an auditor, and are not an audit. The statements advise the reader that “these statements may not be appropriate for their purposes”. One member claimed that the statements were therefore entirely useless.

There is really only one difference between audited and unaudited financial statements. In an audit, a significant fraction of the financial records are tested to find errors and fraud. Of course, this costs a lot of money, and it is not required for all organizations.

The accountant’s cautionary statement merely means that they performed the calculations in good faith with the data they were given, assuming that the data were correct.

The SFPIRG membership may, of course, demand that their finances be audited. Such a course of action would be indicated if there were any evidence that there was some financial impropriety going on, or if the cost of the audit was small.

Selection committee

One of the proposed Bylaw changes is that there be a candidate selection committee. Among its other duties, this committee would have the power to veto candidates prior to board elections. Some of the people at the AGM did not like this proposal.

It needs to be admitted that such a committee could be severely abused. However, the absence of such a committee could also be severely abused. If anybody is allowed to run for board positions, then joke candidates will run, and candidates hostile to the mission of PIRG will run, and they will generally lie about their intentions, and they will stand a good chance of being elected, because the student body as a whole will not be properly informed as to the true nature of the candidates.

It may be instructive to here remind people of what David Emerson did in the 2006 federal election. He pretended to be a Liberal, and to have the values of the Liberal Party. He lied to his party supporters, and he lied to the electorate. He tricked all of them. After he was elected, he revealed himself to actually be a Conservative. And due to the election rules, no redress is available. This was the most egregious act of contempt for democracy that this country has ever witnessed. However, it was not an isolated incident. These sorts of things happen on an ongoing basis. They are one of the many reasons why PIRG exists.

So how can the values of PIRG, as stated in the Constitution and Bylaws, best be preserved? Should there be a committee that ensures that board candidates stand for social and environmental justice? This committee might be abused. Should there be no such restriction? That process will be abused. This question needs to be resolved.

Summary of AGM disruptions

Over the course of the meeting, it became clear that there was a specific group of people who kept raising spurious objections. Based on other indicators, such as the known records of some of these people, it was clear that this group of people had come to the AGM with the specific purpose of disrupting the meeting and causing harm to the Society. While that is certainly their right, it would be irrational for these people to imagine that the meeting was obliged to allow them to persist with the disruptions.

One purpose of Robert’s Rules of Order is to prevent abuse of power by the chair. However, the main purpose of these rules is to expedite the business of a meeting. PIRG meetings generally use consensus, which means that all positions need to be taken into account. People who come to such meetings with the intention of disrupting the meeting can cause a great deal of damage. If we had had a chair experienced in Robert’s Rules at our AGM, all of the disruptions would have been quickly suppressed.

Who are these people?

On the surface, it may seem that the “concerns” that were raised at the AGM were being raised by “average” students who want to see PIRG run better. But these were not “average” students. They are very specific people. They have very specific political agendas. Some of them came to the meeting flaunting the Conservative Party logo. Some of them proudly display their face time with Brian Mulroney or Stephen Harper pictures on their websites. There is no real secret here.

We also know what the record of the Conservative Party is. Whether it be various abuses of power in Parliament or elsewhere, the Conservative Party has engaged in some of the most anti-democratic practices this country has ever seen. From a foreign war without justification to a war on the Canadian people, the list of human rights violations they have engaged in goes on and on. Their environmental record is also abysmal.

So we have a political party (which currently forms the government) that has a clear record of being anti-human rights and anti-environment. We have an organization that has a clear record of working for social and environmental justice. We have a group of people with strong connections to that political party that comes to a meeting of that organization to raise a whole bunch of spurious objections to the substance of the meeting and frivolous objections to the process of the meeting. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what this is really about.

Notes

1 Constitution & Bylaws of SFPIRG, Article 2.2