Emergency Meeting
Monday August 14th, 2006, 3:30 pm
Topic: Current SFSS crisis, its effects on the Grad Health Plan and
the biology students at large.
In attendance: Keith Tierney, Daniel Duan, Ariam Jimenez, Brad Kennedy,
Theingi Aung, Jenn Sunday, Eric Davies, Simon Goring, Tim Hazard, Alex
Chubaty, Erica Jeffery, Nell Hamilton, Brendan Connors, Zaid Junea,
Eric Siljander, Cory Campbell, Tom Cowan, Erika Lake, Nicole Tunbridge,
Clea Moray, Paul Mages, Suzanne Gray, Lina Perez.
Guests: Bryan Jones (Graduate Issues Committee Representative Psychology),
Glyn Lewis (SFSS Member Services Officer), Margo Dunnet (SFSS External
Relations Officer)
1. Welcome and introductions
a. Keith Tierney welcomed all. Thank you to Bryan Jones for coming.
Joel Blok and Ben Milne could not be here. Margo Dunnet and Glyn Lewis
were invited to attended later and did so.
2. Adoption of the Agenda
a. The agenda was introduced and members were surveyed for additions
or changes; there were none.
Motioned by Suzanne Gray and seconded by Nicole Tunbridge, the Agenda
was adopted
Carried
3. A breakdown of the situation was presented by Clea Moray.
• E-mails have gone around dealing with the current SFSS events.
Staff members had been asked to stay home, and one staff member’s
employment has since been terminated (Hattie Aitken). The details have
been kept confidential due to contract agreement. There also seems to
be some issues involving the Graduate Health Plan. Officially at least
2 grievances have been filed, but that there actually may be at least
10 grievances filed against the SFSS as a whole by parties representing
the employees as a whole. In the past 10 years of the society, no such
grievances have ever been filed. The SFSS has also hired a $350/hr lawyer
who is assisting them during the event. This has the potential to become
expensive to us since his fees are paid by our SFSS fees.
• The main issue appears to be a concern about the processes by
which the Simon Fraser Student Society (SFSS) Board of Directors (BoD)
is acting. We should be concerned because we pay fees to the SFSS, which
are used to pay people to run things. The Graduate Issues Committee
(GIC) (a committee of graduate students) believes that some bylaws and
policies of the society might have been broken before and during the
current investigation. This might not have been a big problem, except
that board members appear to be reinterpreting the bylaws in a way that
takes power from the BoD (composed of 15 people who makes decision)
and gives power to a select group of individuals, who have been the
main group behind the whole crisis. There is a concern about maturity
level of the BoD, and a belief that they are not equipped to deal with
process.
• In regards to concerns about the possible breech of privacy
from the computers seized and searched at the start of the investigation,
no personal health information has been accessed, but they do have computers
with financial information. They have no access personal information
such as SIN numbers etc, unless they were employed by the SFSS. They
also had no access to information such as debit transactions, since
money paid as fees to university itself are completely separate from
those paid to the SFSS and are not in the computers seized from the
SFSS financial office. They have removed information pertaining to the
investigation, but there is no assurance that they have a proper and
knowledgeable supervisor overseeing the process.
4. Bryan Jones gives a breakdown of GIC concerns and issues.
• The GIC feels that the BoD has violated policies and agreements
during the investigation, and is concerned about the democratic process
involved. There are some who are trying to push the policy to give power
to BoD to fire those who act against the best interests of board. This
would give power to small group of individuals within the board to get
rid of those members who oppose them. This is a concern because the
current BoD are all from the same slate, and the current Graduate Issues
Officer has been left out of decisions, and is considered hostile by
the BoD.
5. Information about graduate health plan is mentioned.
• All services regarding the health plan are running.
• Nothing has been done with the computers containing information
relating to the health plan. Hattie Aitken was sent home, and the keys
to the office were changed. The only time that someone went in was to
change the fax paper. Clea believes that they are being truthful, but
that it took too long for this information to be released.
• As far as we know, people from Biology have no suffered any
stalls in services, but other departments have reported a stall in services.
6. Arrival of Margo Dunnet and Glyn Lewis from the SFSS BoD.
• Glyn Lewis is the SFSS Member Services Officer, and Margo Dunnet
is the SFSS External Relations Officer. Both were elected into the SFSS
BoD. They have come at the request of the caucus to answer questions
pertaining to the events occurring at the SFSS.
• It was asked how many graduate students sit in the BoD. Margo
Dunnet answers that yes there are 3 graduate students on the BoD: Melody
Li (Education Faculty Representative), Ben Milne (At-Large Representative
(Grad)), and Joel Blok (Graduate Issues Officer). (There is some debate
as to whether or not Melody Li is a graduate student).
• It was asked what the official statement from the SFSS is about
the current events. Margo Dunnet says that they don’t have a copy
of the official response by Shawn Hunsdale (President of the SFSS),
but that it was sent to everyone by e-mail. There was debate on whether
or not the letter sent out by Shawn Hunsdale was approved by the BoD
since it was an “official response”. We find out that it
wasn’t approved by the BoD. However, as part of his role, the
president is the official spoke person for the SFSS. The president himself
didn’t write the letter. It was written in consultation with the
lawyer by the staff liaison, Shawn Hunsdale, and Wei Lee (SFSS Internal
Relations Officer). The lawyer made sure it was appropriate before it
was sent out.
• Members wanted to know about the personal information that has
been accessed and copied during the seizing of the computers. We were
assured that the grad students still have access to their health plan,
and that the rumor that the information pertaining to the health plan
has been accessed is not true. The only time that the office was accessed
was to change the paper in the fax machine. The only computers accessed
were those in the financial offices, and those were backed up. The fact
that they were accessed was made public at a BoD meeting. No SIN numbers
were taken. None of the information about the health plan was in the
finance office computers, and that only people dealing directly with
the finance are allowed in the finance office. No members of finance
had access to anything pertaining to the health plan since anything
dealing with the grad student health plan is in Hattie Aitken’s
computer. The computers in the finance office and Hattie Aitken’s
computer contain two different information systems.
• No one knew if personal information of members of the society
were in the computers from the finance office, or whom we could ask,
but that they will try to find out. Bryan Jones mentioned that if we
had any concerns as to what was viewed, who viewed the files, when they
were taken, why they were taken etc, we can request this information
from Wei Lee (iro@sfss.ca).
• Members had questions regarding the lawyer that was hired, such
as when was he hired, etc. Glyn Lewis answered that every step taken
has been in consultation with the lawyer and that he’s not allowed
to disclose details such as the date the lawyer was hired. Someone mentioned
that at the August 9th meeting, Shawn Hunsdale said that the lawyer
was brought in within 2 weeks prior to the events that took place July
27th, 2006, when the seven staff members were sent home. Said lawyer
represents neither the SFSS or the BoD, but was hired as a consultant
and is being paid from SFSS funds. Don Crane is the lawyer available
to the SFSS, but he is not involved with the employee issue. Therefore,
the SFSS got another lawyer. Don Crane is available to students to give
and explain legal advice. Walter Rilkoff from Lawson Lundell is the
new labour layer. This brought up the issue that there appears to be
3 lawyers involved, one that we pay for from our fees, one involved
in the labour dispute, and another lawyer that was also hired. Margo
Dunnet and Glyn Lewis reply that there were two consults from the same
firm. The second lawyer was brought in while Walter Rilkoff was on vacation.
Mr. Rilkoff doesn’t represent the SFSS.
• The BoD has been consulting with the lawyer from the start,
and also prior to everything that has happened. The society sought advice
from the lawyer since the beginning in an effort to diligently cover
everything. Every step so far has been taken in consultation with the
lawyer. Mr. Rilkoff was brought in to say here is what has to happen,
and to provide assurance.
• Members wanted to know if all BoD members were present at every
consultation. They mentioned that the labour committee met by themselves.
Someone wanted to know if there were instances where the entire BoD
didn’t attend these in camera meetings, if this occurred only
at the August 9th meeting of if there were additional meetings. They
answered that these meetings started before August 9th. Joel Blok didn’t
start until the week after. They also didn’t know why he did not
attend other meetings since they send their regrets to someone else.
Joel Blok has stated that in the 2 weeks that the investigation went
one, there was no attempt to inform him what was happening or why he
was excluded from the meetings. We find out that everything was done
in camera and that Joel Blok hadn’t signed the disclosure agreement.
They did mention that Ben Milne was present for some meetings and that
Melody Li joined the SFSS later.
• It was mentioned that this is the first time a disclosure agreement
had to be signed in the history of the society and members wanted to
know who instigated it. Margo Dunnet and Glyn Lewis had no idea that
it was the first time and they don’t know who started it. They
mentioned that it was part of their orientation package and that they
had to sign it when they took office.
• It was asked whether personal information was in the computers
in taken from the finance office and how this affects graduate students,
and whether we would have delays with the health plan in the long run.
Margo Dunnet apologized for any delays in service. She goes on to say
that the grad health plan is working fine. It was approved for this
year and won’t be renegotiated in this term of office. There are
no problems reported and all services are available.
• Members wanted to know when will this all come out. They both
say that legal proceedings are still going on and we have to wait until
it’s over to release any information, and that they don’t
know how long it will last. They still have to enter negotiations with
the union to see where it will end up.
• They were asked what they would have done differently now that
they know what will happen. Margo Dunnet said that she would have purchased
ad space in last Peak to put out a statement. Glyn Lewis said he would
have had better communication with the membership. They feel that everything
was done in conjunction with a lawyer, and that they have done everything
by the book and the collective agreement. They can’t disclose
why the staff was sent home or anything, but they both feel it could
have been done better.
• Members asked about the grievances that have been filed against
the SFSS. They mention that they are being dealt with and that they
are not on the team that deals with them. They mention that the grievances
will be disputed, and that they don’t have the records.
• Someone mentioned that it seems that expensive criminal charges
are being laid, but Margo and Glyn can’t speak about that.
• Keith Tierney thanked them for coming and they left.
7. Bryan Jones brought up other points not mentioned.
• There are other issues that have come up but were not discussed,
such as a number of various concerns, coincidences, and questions about
certain details and motives. You can find more about online at www.sfssdemocracynow.ca
and www.studentunion.ca.
• The specific grievances can’t be discussed due to the
collective agreement, but the fact that they’ve been filed means
that they have to do with breaking the collective agreement.
• The computers taken from the financial office were searched
for anything related to “Gallivan and Associates”(the company
that provided the grad health plan). The BoD said that they won’t
touch the health plan, however it looks like there is a lot more going
on (for more details see the websites www.sfssdemocracynow.ca and www.studentunion.ca).
• Bryan Jones was thanked for coming before he left.
8. Caucus discusses the issue based on what they heard today form the
various representatives.
• Members mention that we are concerned not so much about why
the person (Hattie Aitken) was fired, or that the BoD consulted with
a layer, but that the process that was followed was flawed, that the
BoD didn’t speak about what was going on, and that the grads were
left out. Overall, we feel that the BoD handled the situation poorly.
• There is no precedence to an event like this in the history
of the society. Maybe all the problems are because they have not dealt
with it before. However, accidentally violating bylaws and policies
or doing so because they thought it was the best thing to do is different
from interpreting the bylaws to say that they weren’t violated,
and that Wei Lee had the right to do the things that he did when the
bylaws strongly imply that it is not allowed. Clea Moray has a list
of the bylaws that were involved.
• Someone mentioned that it is unlikely that we will know the
outcome over Hattie Aitken’s termination of employment, since
it appears that it will involve a settlement agreement that involves
confidentiality. The people that were sent home last month were also
told that they can’t speak about what happened by the BoD. This
is considered satisfactory, but we still feel that the BoD was rude
and used poor judgment in handling the Miss Aitken’s termination,
and made the situation much worse than it might have been. The staff
believes that there was a violation of the collective agreement, however
if a union believes that the agreements have been violated, they can
still file a claim, even if in reality there was no violation of the
agreement.
9. Caucus has a discussion about holding a vote on a motion of no confidence
against the current SFSS president (among other things).
• The vote of no confidence itself doesn’t say anything,
but that the motion of no confidence shows that we don’t agree
with what they (the BoD) are doing and it puts pressure on them. The
letter that we’ll sent if we do pass a motion of no confidence
will say the things that we want to be done by the SFSS. If these requests
aren’t done, then we will take action (the grads withdrawing from
the SFSS and forming their own union like in other universities) (for
more details on the points see the letter sent out by Keith Tierney
on August 11, 2006). This would probably be done as part of a general
meeting by vote. We don’t know how it’s done, but that it’s
something that is being considered to be possibly done in future.
• Reason for voting for a motion of no confidence: it is not about
whether or not procedures were followed to our satisfaction, since we
don’t know the details of what happened. The point is that they
have not expressed any concern for the grad students, the reasons they
had appear baseless, and they did not handle the situation in a sensitive
manner.
• Reasons why we should vote against a motion of no confidence:
the majority of the BoD are young undergrads that were voted in, and
that they have been in consultation with a lawyer since the beginning.
They are not thinking about the health plan. They are in over their
heads, and that there is a lot of gossip going around. However, they
did everything following the lawyer’s advice. They are young,
there is no precedent for this incidence, and that they are acting as
best as they can under circumstances. We should give them the benefit
of the doubt
• Someone points out that there are two issues: 1) are they (the
BoD) doing the best they can, and 2) how heavy handed their tactics
were, and their extreme reactions to the problem. He would like to know
if both the issues are the same. We are voting on whether what they
are doing is okay.
10. Motion to have a no confidence vote.
• SFU Biology Graduate Caucus, are of the opinion that 1) the
SFSS Board of Directors has lost the ability to operate in a cohesive
manner or interface effectively with SFSS staff; 2) the current Board
of Directors has exercised poor leadership that has resulted in a widespread
loss of trust among the membership in the ability of the Board of Directors
to operate in a democratic manner; and 3) graduate students cannot be
confident that the SFSS is currently able to represent their interests.
Motioned by Suzanne Gray and seconded by Paul Mages, a motion of no
confidence will take place.
Carried
Amendment to send out a letter to the president should the caucus pass
a motion of no confidence. Motioned by Clea Moray and seconded by Keith
Tierney, the letter will be sent to SFSS president Shawn Hunsdale if
motion of no confidence is passed. Carried
• Members voted either 1) no confidence in the BoD, 2) confidence
in the BoD, or 3) abstained from voting.
Six members abstained from voting, and seventeen out of the twenty-three
members present voted that they had no confidence in the current SFSS
BoD.
Carried
11. Discussion of the letter that will be sent to the SFSS president.
• Letter was sent to biology graduate students via e-mail by Keith
Tierney on August 11, 2006.
Motioned by Simon Goring and seconded by Nicole Tunbridge, letter will
be discussed.
Carried
• The purpose of this letter was to make sure that the key points
of the letter were highlighted and that the letter says what we want
it to say, how we wanted to say it before it gets sent to Shawn Hunsdale.
• Overall, people were happy with the letter but felt that they
need to read it over again, and that some editing might be needed. Some
issues present in the letter have since been answered by Margo Dunnet
and Glyn Lewis in the meeting and have been taken out. However, the
issue of the cost of the lawyer, the length of the investigation, and
from where these funds are being obtained from will be further discussed.
Motion for the letter to be edited by Clea Moray and redistributed to
the caucus. Members will have 48h after the letter is sent to comment
and raise major issues in the letter. A revised copy with the appropriate
changes made will then be redistributed for final approval, before being
sent to Shawn Hunsdale. Members will once again have 48h to raise any
major changes. Motioned by Suzanne Gray and seconded by Paul Mages,
letter will be edited.
Carried
12. An announcement was made that we will be electing a Forum Representative
in two weeks time.
• The forum is a large body that will represent the different
graduate caucuses in the BoD.
• Motion to elect a forum representative, and send a forum representative
Motioned by Nell Hamilton and seconded by Keith Tierney, forum representative
will be elected.
Carried
• More information about the role of the forum and the responsibilities
and duties of the forum representative will be sent out by e-mail.
13. End of meeting.
Motioned by Paul Mages and seconded by Clea Moray,
Carried
• Meeting was adjourned.
