Sunday, July 27, 2008


Read the Motion here.

Members of the executive

Dean Haldenby - President - Yes
Roxanne Dubois - VP Finance - Yes
Danika Brisson - VP Student Affairs - Yes
Seamus Wolfe - VP University Affairs - Yes
Joël Larose - VP Social - Yes
Julie Séguin - VP Communications - Yes

Members of the board

Cameron Montgomery - Arts - Yes
Antonio Carito (Proxy) - Arts - Yes
Melanie Book (Proxy) - Arts - Yes
Michael Cheevers - Arts - Yes
Ryan Kennery - Arts - No
Michael Brown - Common Law - Yes
Jason Benovoy (Proxy) - Civil Law - Yes
Jonathan Weber - Engineering - Yes
Mélissa Borduas (Proxy) - Health Sciences - Yes
Kyle Ryc (Proxy) - Health Sciences - Yes
Laura Rachotte - Health Sciences - Yes
Joel Dupuis - Management - Yes
Khadija Kanji - Management - Yes
Mark Dornan - Science - No
Richard Mah (Proxy) - Science - No
Joel Fair (Proxy) - Science - Abstains
Jacques Trottier - Social Sciences - Yes
Mike Fancie - Social Sciences - Yes "for giving students a right to speak"
Ted Horton - Social Sciences - Yes
Samuel Breau (Proxy) - Social Sciences - Yes
Faris Lehn - Social Sciences - Yes
Amy Kishek - Social Sciences - Yes
Becky Wallace (Proxy) - Medicine - Yes

You do the math.


Anonymous said...

You missed my vote.

Jacques - Yes.

Thank you

Richard Mah said...

Wow Wasim. Fail.

1. My name is Richard Mah.
2. My proxy's name is Adam Ray
3. Johnathan Webber does not equal either of us.

Wassim said...

Richard. My apologies.

Thanks for the correction.

Wassim said...

Added Jacques! Sorry, it was hectic in there.

Anonymous said...

So none of the three science reps voted yes. What's the story behind that?

Anonymous said...

What a sad, sad day.

mel wood said...

Well I'll be darned. I'm kind of bummed I'm going to miss this campaign now. Aside from the yes/no debate, this is exactly the kind of start to the year the SFUO needs to make a solid effort on the issue of voter turnout.

Virginie said...

Why sad? I think this is a fantastic opportunity for students, those against and those in favor, to get involved about something they care about (and there is no shortage of people who care about either side of this issue.)
Why is it sad that we're involving more than the 29 people who regularly sit around this table?
Personally, I'm happy that the SFUO has become a place where students can get involved in issues they care about. Isn't that what it was supposed to be about all along?

Anonymous said...

On Science students voting no:
A certain Dominic Aebi swaying their opinion, perhaps?

Anonymous said...

anonymous--Domenic Aebi has been a leader in the Science Faculty for a number of years, so if he influenced the science reps' opinions in any way, I'm sure he was an informed and measured contributor to this debate. I'm just curious if the SSA took a united stance. Did the science reps speak at all during the meeting?

Anonymous said...

Aebi is also a well known opponent of CFS and of "hippies."
I have a hard time seeing him as impartial.

Anonymous said...

So proponents of CFS and "hippies" themselves (okay, let's just call them "liberals" for diplomacy's sake) or their supporters are far more impartial, in your opinion? There are two sides to this debate, remember. A number of people are disquieted by the radical stances the SFUO execs and their BFFs (each other) have taken in the last year. If Aebi's cautious stance is in response to that, I'm largely in support, personally.
You'd rather he be an idealogically vacant sponge? I'd rather we have opinionated individuals on both sides of the debate.

Philippe said...

Maureen does raise a good point: it is worth noting that outside Ryan Kennery, only Science reps didn't vote Yes. Some people expected, at least, maybe more opposition from Arts, or Engineering.

I have been a science student for five years and I would say the SSA stands out compared to student associations in the other "first-entry" faculties (Management, Engineering, Arts, Social Sciences and Health Sciences) from their lack of involvement in the "political" aspects of the SFUO. The SSA has always seemed to me more like a high-school type student council, which is not a bad thing I guess for people who prefer their association to focus on social events. Some other things to note:

- While most SFUO executives from the last few years were Arts and Social Science students, there was an engineer president (Phil Laliberté) as well as many presidential candidates from that faculty (Winstone, McNamara, etc.). Outside Geoff Parent, the number of science students running for the SFUO was quite small. This is quite in contrast with the fact that individual students in Science often boast the highest participation rate in SFUO elections.

2. Dominic Aebi's famous letter concerning the Lower Tuition campaign was actually one of the rare times a SSA executive spoke out about any political issue on campus. Consider the controversial activism course: while people like Maureen and I were very vocal on (different sides) of this issue, the SSA remained largely silent.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that the position of the science reps is quite representative of what I've seen on the SSA in the last few years. (Whether it is representative of the students in science is a separate thing only a referendum could tell.) The "critical involvement" demonstrated by many Arts students (who are interested in the SFUO/CFS political aspects despite being critical of certain decisions of these organizations which they wish to change) is something that I haven't seen that much in Science.

Philippe said...

Interestingly, the SFUO members who were trying to bring the issue of CFS to a general meeting (back in 2002-2003, I think, as mentioned in the report) were mostly from Arts. Also, people from SAFA and the CSA (communications) were part of an "activist slate" that lost the election to the Suni brothers et al. in 2002.

The fact that people from the Faculty of Arts are still being the "watchdogs" of the SFUO as its political leaning changed is an interesting coincidence. Again I want to stress "critical involvement" is something totally different (and I will dare say, more constructive) than "disengagement".

Richard Mah said...

@Maureen: The Science reps did speak at the meeting. Considering that a) my proxy asked questions about the motion, b) Joel Fair's proxy asked questions and c) my proxy and I were implicated in the great "agenda-gate" as Wassim prefers to call it.

@anonymous: For the record: Dominic Aebi is an engineering student now. My proxy and I are both free thinking individuals who arrived at the conclusion that the CFS was not something we thought our students would want to be a part of.

Oh! Phillipe, how could I forget you! You'll be happy to know that there are a whole crop of shiny new science students ready to thrust themselves upon the SFUO stage. Clearly nobody in their right mind would elect somebody from first or second year. I mean, as much as people say they might if they were good, they just wouldn't. Be patient. The time for south side is coming.

Matt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matt Alteen said...


I believe you have a very misguided impression of what the SSA's role is. It is an organization designed to assist students academically, inform them of services on campus, and yes, throw the occasional pub night. We're lucky to have a very close relationship with the Faculty and that gives us a lot of influence for our students (i.e. the renovations of Marion Common Room this summer).

What the SSA does not historically do is take a stance on political issues "on behalf" of science students. Unlike the Feds, we don't use our organization to advance our own political agendas. The MMP debate stands out in my mind; mabye the Fed supports it, but that doesn't mean every one of their constituents does. As a result, the students on campus who support the current system feel either left out or shunned by their student government.

It's one thing to promote universal issues, like Earth Day and promoting accessibility on campus - but we have lots of Tories, Liberals, NDPers and Bloc Québecois supporters here in Science, and they don't always agree. To take a stance on an issue that one of these groups supports when the others don't is not inclusive. So, the SSA just doesn't do it.

And Anonymous: Just because Dominic Aebi doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean he's not impartial.

Anonymous said...

Lack of unified political affiliation is no excuse for maintaining a weak role on campus. Science is a 3000-strong faculty, last time I checked--imagine what respect science students would command if their association were seen to take unified stands on campus issues! And major events happen on campus that are decidedly apolitical or lightly political, and why does the SSA shy away? Simply because it always has? Take the recent Code of Conduct campaign. I would have hoped that the "politics" involved in defending student rights would not frighten the SSA into turning a blind eye. But so it was... and Philippe brings up a good point with the activism course--you can't get more of an in-house issue than that, and yet, there was no SSA movement to support/admonish it. Unfortunately the SSA's "historical role" as social guides is viewed across campus as indifference.

I see both sides of the coin (honestly!) but you shouldn't be so quick to strike down Phillipe's opinion as misguided.

Philippe said...

Matt: I don't think we disagree here. I wasn't trying to judge the SSA in my comment. (I'm done as a student here and it's not my role to be involved in that.) What I was saying (and which you kind of confirmed) is that it was not in the SSA culture in the last few years to do the kind of advocacy campaigns the SFUO and the CFS do... I was just pointing out that this difference of philosophy might be related to the no votes.

Richard: I was trying to give a perspective of the last few years, but be sure I'm happy to hear from you that the trend is changing. As a science student who got involved in a variety on things on campus, I can only appreciate that diversity of backgrounds is an asset to any student organization. More science (and law, and medicine) students taking interest in the campus-wide organizing is great.

lora said...

My last name is spelled Rashotte.

Elizabeth Chelsea said...

LoL@ aebi being neutral and informed

sorry maureen, you have to use the term "hippies" because after seamus, matthew, frank, danika, dean, and pam got elected, aebi and his brilliant counterparts got shirts with the canadian flag on them and "Fucking hippies" printed across them.

like that makes much sense as a message, but anyways. I'd do more investigative journalism before giving someone the benefit of the doubt, as far as a moderate and informed speaker goes...