Fortunately, the Society has developed rules and policies to guide the conduct of executives and other Society decision-makers, to ensure that the decisions they make are accountable first and foremost to the student body, and not to private interests. After all, student associations are not traditional corporations: their bottom line is not profit – their bottom line is the student experience and quality of service. In particular, SSMU has a Conflict of Interest Policy, and other financial management policies, that govern the kind of conduct that executives, and the society as a whole, must follow.

These codes of conduct underline the importance of objective and ethical decision-making in all matters of Society business. The first sentence of the Conflict of Interest Policy states that “the Students’ Society of McGill University has a responsibility to engage in respectful, ethical, and objective decision-making practices.” Furthermore, the same policy calls on decision-makers in the Society to fully disclose any possible conflicts of interest that may arise before further actions are taken: “In all cases, it is the responsibility of the individual to acknowledge their concern about a potential conflict of interest they may have before entering into a financial transaction or debate directly related to the making of a decision.” On both counts, SSMU President Zach Newburgh failed in his duty. Not only did he compromise his ability to objectively make decisions by working for jobbook.com, a company that had business interests in SSMU, he also intentionally avoided disclosing this conflict of interest to some of his co-executives, and to the Legislative Council.

The most distressing part of Newburgh’s actions is not that he necessarily profited from his business relations with jobbook.com. Rather, it’s that he made a conscious decision to use his title as the president and spokesperson of all McGill undergrads for the benefit of a private company, possibly for personal gain, and not in the interests of students. Newburgh defended his actions by saying that “it was in the best interests of students,” but it’s hard to believe how the interest of students was truly his priority when jobbook.com, and not students, stood to make big money from the work he did for them.

It’s clear that Newburgh failed to distinguish between his commitment to the Students’ Society he represents, and his commitment to his own interests, and a private one at that. This lapse in judgment is not unforgivable, but it does undermine the legitimacy and integrity of his mandate. Having said all this, it is only reasonable for the student body to expect public admission of fault and a resignation.

—

Sebastian Ronderos-Morgan is a U3 Political Science student and former VP External of SSMU (2009-2010). He can be reached at sebastian.ronderos-morgan@mail.mcgill.ca.

The post A failure of duty appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Evidently, the author knows how to strike lefties at their Achilles heel: undermine their moral superiority on questions of oppression and social justice and you leave them stunned, flat-footed and tongue-tied.

Hunziker shows off more rhetorical prowess with this query: “What is left-wing about advocating for an armed militia that murders civilians?” His answer is that leftists will support Hezbollah simply due to its “suitably anti-Western bent,” and furthermore “any crimes that it commits can be forgiven on the basis that Western hegemony is the root cause of anything bad that happens in the world.” And Hunziker keeps on going.

In the article’s conclusion, he pronounces that, “until we hear from [the QPIRG leaders] a full-throated commitment to the right of everyone to live in freedom, equality and peace – Israelis and Americans included – they are not entitled to carry the flag of social justice activism.” In case that wasn’t clear, Hunziker is insinuating that, beyond just supporting Hezbollah, the “leaders” of QPIRG likely oppose freedom, equality, and peace for Americans and Israelis.

Going for the jugular like that is impressive; I feel obliged to give him that much. But next time Hunziker should think twice before embarking on cavalier rants with offensive and outlandish claims about people he doesn’t know. Next time he should ask questions before licentiously speaking on behalf of “leftists” or “QPIRG leaders.”

Nonetheless, I do applaud him, because his shameless allegations give me no other choice than to come out with it. As a QPIRG board member, I’d like to finally make the confession conservatives, masked or otherwise, have all been waiting for: QPIRG and Tadamon! in fact… (drum roll) …DON’T support Hezbollah!

Surprised?

It’s true, Tadamon! has campaigned to de-list Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. But not because they support Hezbollah, its racism, or its militarism; nor do they advocate raising money in Canada for their military activities (despite what Hunziker would like to imply). If Hunziker cared to do some research, he’d have learned that  Tadamon!’s de-listing campaign – now defunct – was based in part on the views that the terror list is both diplomatically unhelpful and the source of racial profiling in Canada. Are these beliefs contentious? Yes. Does this mean QPIRG and Tadamon! support Hezbollah or apologize for their crimes? Nope. Not even close. Suggesting so is libellous and a bold-faced lie to McGill students.

I know, I know – the nuanced difference between on the one hand supporting Hezbollah, and on the other opposing Canada’s diplomatic strategy regarding Hezbollah is probably too tricky for a doctoral student like Hunziker to wrap their head around…

The reality is probably much more sinister. Hunziker’s article shows how campus conservative opportunists are hijacking the very existence of nuanced political thought on the left in order to do what they do best: misrepresent, misrepresent, misrepresent.

Thanks, Hunziker, for illustrating to McGill students how fancy rhetoric can mask mendacious lines of reasoning.

—

Sebastian Ronderos-Morgan is a U3 Political Science, former VP External of SSMU, and a current member of the QPIRG Board of Directors. The views expressed here are his own. He can be reached at sebastian.ronderos-morgan@mail.mcgill.ca.

The post Confession of a member of the QPIRG board appeared first on The McGill Daily.

In some ways QPIRG and SSMU are similar. For example, both are student-funded and student-run; both operate as umbrellas for a variety of student and campus-community groups, giving them space, administrative support, and, most importantly, funding; both print planners at the beginning of the year…

However, I confess that my argument last year was rather reductive. In fact, QPIRG and SSMU are also quite different, notably with regards to their political objectives. SSMU is the student government and official representative of all downtown undergrads; it seeks to provide students with services and representation. QPIRG is a student-run public interest research group (PIRG) with a social and environmental justice and anti-oppression mandate. The PIRG “conducts research, education, and action on environmental and social justice issues at McGill University and in the Montreal community.”

QPIRG, and its working groups, play a vital role in campus-wide dialogue on issues that are underrepresented, be they related to class, queer people, people with disabilities, immigrants, ecological sustainability, et cetera. McGill students benefit from the opportunities to learn and share skills within QPIRG working groups, or to research in the alternative resource library. Student-run working groups have brought campus “Car-Free Day” (Greening McGill), urban agriculture programs (Campus Crops), a native studies journal (KANATA), panels at “Social Justice Days” (held in January), a speakers series on the Israel-Palestine conflict, awareness on aboriginal colonization and the situation of Filipino migrant workers in Canada… And the list can go on.

QPIRG provides a space dedicated to causes and people that are marginalized in our university and society at large. In short, QPIRG and the organizations it supports provide space for furthering critical discourse in our university – which ultimately enriches the educational and social experience of your years at McGill.

Confronting social injustice and environmental degradation are always highly contentious and difficult processes. There will always be heated debate and students that disagree with one another. Occasionally, I have disagreed with the methods and messages employed by QPIRG and some organizations within it. But I value the contributions that these groups have made to my university education outside of the classroom. I value the existence of events such as the speaker series “Culture Shock” (this year from October 4 to 15 – check the QPIRG and SSMU websites for details!) because they challenge my own perspectives and the positions forwarded by my professors and textbooks.

So, returning to the original question, how are the political objectives of SSMU and QPIRG different? SSMU is, by its nature and its democratic structure, a majoritarian organization: it functions like a union and must represent all students. QPIRG, as stated earlier, preserves space and funding for minorities and their causes. In other words, while SSMU’s raison d’être is to give voice and representation to the majority, QPIRG’s is to give voice and representation to the voiceless. When the voiceless are heard and when alternative causes have a place to flourish, you get more education for your money – and our university, hopefully, becomes a more just, sustainable, and tolerant place.

Sebastian Ronderos-Morgan is a former SSMU VP External, a current QPIRG’s board member, and a U3 Political Science student. The views expressed here are his own. Write him at sebastian.ronderos-morgan@mail.mcgill.ca.

The post More bang for your buck appeared first on The McGill Daily.

This is par for the course for the Parti Libéral du Québec (PLQ), responsible for a 300 per cent increase in university tuition since 1987. More tuition, less government funding, more tax cuts: that’s been the PLQ agenda. But the fact is that tuition increases over the past 23 years have not improved university funding. In fact, it’s been quite the opposite. Universities throughout Quebec are suffering the worst underfunding crisis in their history. What’s the source of this underfunding? Well, tax cuts have been a sexy way for governments to undermine their revenue sources, translating into a reduced ability to fund the education of our future workforce. And the fact is, the public looooves tax cuts because they feel good in the moment and their ramifications are not immediately obvious.

Our very own principal, heading the provincial principal’s conference – the Conférénce des recteurs et des principaux des universités du Québec – has defended tuition hikes for about as long as can be remembered. With a certain degree of success, too: tuition fees now go up by $50 per semester, every semester. Additionally, the McGill MBA program, if it is allowed, will charge students just under $30,000 a year starting next year. Now University of Laval’s principal is mulling over a so-called “self-funded tuition model” for its professional programs. The logic of tuition increases and privatization is contagious.

Since 2000, tuition (for Quebeckers and other Canadians) has been increasing by $50 a semester. But has $50 been enough to solve the university underfunding crisis? Of course not! The PLQ cynically announced a small sum in order to curtail opposition, because $50 doesn’t seem that bad. It could be worse, you might say. It is now obvious that the government betrayed our confidence: in 2007, the PLQ responded to opposition by implying that tuition increases would end by 2012, but with Courchesne’s announcement, it’s become clear that $50 a semester was just a warm-up for things to come.

The reality is that much more than $50 a semester per student is needed to address the underfunding crisis. Approximately 52 per cent of McGill funding comes from the provincial treasury; tuition makes up under 20 per cent. The logic that harvesting more from the shallow pockets of students will somehow save our universities is just plain false. Money raised through tuition increases over the past two decades has been inversely proportional to the reduction in government funding for postsecondary education. In other words, the more you pay, the more the government cuts.

Face it: students are being asked to finance tax cuts, albeit through elaborate manipulation. If that’s fine with you, don’t mind me and the entire student movement in Quebec opposing it with all our strength.

Join us in demanding a real solution to the postsecondary education underfunding crisis: a massive public investment in our infrastructures and professors.

Sebastian Ronderos-Morgan is SSMU VP (External). The views expressed here are his own. Write him at external@ssmu.mcgill.ca.

The post Take a hike, tuition hike! appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Though I clearly informed the reporter Eric Andrew-Gee that this event was not TaCEQ-organized, the sub-header displayed: “A handful of students respond at TaCEQ protest.” If the mistake was intentional, then I applaud The Daily’s opportunism in promoting visibility for the TaCEQ. However, the inaccuracy persists: the rally was organized by SSMU and the mobilization committee.

In the last paragraph, the article also implies that the turnout was a result of the last-minute planning of the rally. Andrew-Gee seemed to forget the timeline that had been explained to him. The decision to hold the rally and flyer had been made by the mobilization committee on the Monday, February 15, two business days after the news broke about impending tuition increases and one business day after student associations across Quebec decided to hold events throughout universities and CEGEPs. So, yes, the rally was organized at the last minute, but I never “concede[d] that students could have been given more notice,” given the shortness of time available.

Sebastian Ronderos-Morgan
SSMU VP (external affairs)

The post What is the long end of reporting accuracy? appeared first on The McGill Daily.

If only the pro-opt-outers weren’t too thick to realize that QPIRG is in fact a lot like SSMU. (Full disclosure: I am a SSMU executive.) QPIRG levies a fee from students, much like SSMU does, and then QPIRG allocates the money, in line with its policies, to different groups according to their needs and in the interest of diversifying student expression. SSMU does exactly the same thing.

Many people argue that QPIRG funds a number of fringe groups that people don’t know about and that are too radical for their moderate or right-wing tastes. Again, through the Club Fund, the Campus Life Fund, and other means, SSMU (read: student money) funds a wide variety of groups, many of which are also seen, by some, as fringe and radical. The fact is that SSMU and QPIRG fund both uncontentious groups (although Campus Crops has always raised my ire) and groups that are both contentious and don’t appeal to everyone. What more do you want out of student life? A university is a venue for diverse expression, as long as it is safe.

Brendan Steven’s ignorant column (“Opting out of QPIRG,” McGill Tribune, January 26) suggested that student groups should only receive money from students if they fundraise it themselves in hallways and on the streets. Now let’s apply that argument to his own Conservative McGill. This holier-than-thou club has been granted $750 of student money this academic year alone. They should give themselves a dose of their own medicine: they should spend days running around campus canvassing disinterested McGillians to give them a buck here and there. In order for Steven to avoid contradiction, I’d like to see cadres of blue-in-the face Harperites scampering around campus with buckets asking for money. What about bake sales with blue cookies that say “tax cuts” on them? How much time would their club members waste trying to raise money instead of engaging in activities that actually accentuate student life? Too bad all they seem to do with their time and their money is undermine groups like the Global AIDS Coalition’s access to funding.

If Conservative McGill and their allies are so damn incensed by the fact that students pay relatively small amounts of money to organizations that, later, redistribute smaller fractions of that sum to some groups that may not appeal to all students, then maybe they should put more effort into an “Opt-out of SSMU” campaign. Too bad you can’t opt-out of SSMU. After all, full-time students pay approximately $40 per semester to SSMU, money that is spread out to a diversity of groups. Or maybe Conservative McGill has enjoyed the $750 SSMU (read: your student fees) granted it to finance its campaign against student life, among other activities. (By the way, they’ve also flagrantly violated SSMU Council’s supermajority decision to suspend Choose Life’s club privileges by providing a table for the group at the Y intersection.)
I wish none of my money went to Conservative McGill, but it just so happens that in the interest of student life, pluralism, and their club’s budget, I pay my fees. Shame on you, Conservative McGill!
Sebastian Ronderos-Morgan is SSMU VP (External), but the views expressed here are his own. Bash Conservatives with him at external@ssmu.mcgill.ca.

The post Conservative McGill doth protest too much appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Regarding the review on my performance, I would like to correct The Daily in two places:
1) “TaCEQ, a new coalition formed by SSMU and four other student unions….” There are in fact only three other members of TaCEQ currently.

2) “Ronderos-Morgan has been working alongside Hélène Brisson of the Milton-Parc Citizens Committee to create a group that will periodically bring together SSMU, McGill, and the Citizens Committee.” This is inaccurate. While I have been working hard to bring these parties together, I have no idea what “group” The Daily refers to.

Unfortunately, more factual errors appeared in the reviews of the other executives.

I encourage The Daily to be more accurate with their reviews in the future.

Sebastian Ronderos-MorganVice-President External Affairs (SSMU)

The post MWM 4 RTS, accurate reporting appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Across Canada and Quebec, campus student unions like SSMU have traditionally sought outside association with other campus unions in order to more successfully press the government on vital student concerns. These concerns include legislation on fees (tuition or ancillary), university funding, and an assortment of other government programs and policies (or lack thereof) that address the quality and accessibility of our post-secondary education. The outcome: federative student organizations such as the Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec (FEUQ) and the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) have been formed to tackle these issues. These organizations are major players in the student movement.

So why is TaCEQ the right option for SSMU and, by extension, for McGill undergraduate students?
History lesson: after five years of membership, SSMU voted 74 per cent in favour of de-federation from FEUQ in the fall of 2006. Later that academic year, SSMU took out prospective membership with CFS. Within a year, SSMU was independent again. Both federations were characterized by cultural and institutional practices that did not square with SSMU.

Some of those practices: overly centralized executive power; unresponsiveness to member associations; policies that make it difficult to withdraw; partisan leanings.

Evidence to substantiate these claims could occupy pages and pages: just look in The Daily archives. Suffice it to say that we were not alone in these criticisms. Both federations have been blighted in recent years by an exodus of student unions citing similar reasons.

Some student unions would disagree with SSMU. That’s fine, as long as this view democratically reflects the will of their student membership. Despite its best efforts, SSMU was unable to enact many of the reform measures that would have brought the federations more in line with its values. This institutional paralysis and lack of responsiveness to its membership fundamentally undid the confidence that SSMU had in these federations.

Lacking suitable alternatives, SSMU likely would have stayed independent and, arguably, politically weak for some time. As mentioned, though, many similar-minded student unions in Quebec shared its reasons for disillusionment with the federations.

Consequently, four former FEUQ-affiliated student unions created a new vision for a formalized association: TaCEQ. The organization was born as a fresh attempt at remodelling the institutional culture and structure of – the very notion of – a coalition of student unions.

The member associations of TaCEQ, currently representing around 65,000 students in Quebec, agree that the best model for external representation is a formalized, decentralized, and voluntary coalition. This means a coalition that is member-driven: one that exists only as long as it serves the interests of each campus. Therefore, two founding principles of TaCEQ – entrenched in its bylaws – preserve an expedient exiting process and the right to dissent within the coalition.

The strength of this structure is its legitimacy, which must constantly be maintained. TaCEQ as an organization and its executives are forced to develop consensus and meet the expectations of its members, or rapidly face dismantlement.

To achieve this, TaCEQ holds bimonthly meetings where representatives from all member associations identify priorities for campaigns and strategies for pressuring the government and raising awareness on issues. Mandates are then delivered to the two-person executive to follow up on these dossiers, to act as spokespeople for the organization, and to coordinate initiatives with the member unions. The executive is constantly answerable to the unions that constitute TaCEQ.

Membership in TaCEQ provides SSMU with the best of both worlds: strength in numbers and the legitimacy of strong representation that comes with external association, as well as the ability to retain a dignified and independent voice, in order to better represent you, the undergraduates of McGill.

The post TaCEQ: a coalition of the willing appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The article reports that Councillor Joshua Abaki asked me, the VP External, about the 40 per cent portion of the TaCEQ’s expenses. It then says that “the number was a rough estimation that had been hashed out in consultation with other TaCEQ members….” This is a really important point that I don’t believe was explained clearly enough, either by myself at Council or by the reporter.

For the record, the TaCEQ members decided in July on an interim cost-sharing formula. This was used to cover the expenses that were external to those that could be absorbed by the capital and human resources of member associations, in the form of in-kind contributions. The major costs incurred over the course of the summer were due to acquiring letters patent and issuing of press releases. The total cost for SSMU amounted to $345.

Three important points to consider:
1) Expenditures where this cost-sharing formula is invoked will continue to be low.

2) The decision to temporarily establish a cost-sharing formula where SSMU covered 40 per cent of costs took into account a rough estimate of the capacities of the member associations to contribute financially.

3) This is an interim cost-sharing formula that will be reassessed this fall.

If anything is left confusing, please don’t hesitate to contact me at external@ssmu.mcgill.ca.

Sebastian Ronderos-Morgan
Vice President External Affairs (SSMU)

The post SSMUth talker appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Why? Because Bills 38 and 44 threaten university and CEGEP autonomy and internal democracy. Take note of article 4.0.3 of Bill 38 – it states that “at least 60 per cent of members of the board of directors must qualify as independent directors,” while only 25 per cent must come from the university community. What does this mean for universities and CEGEPs in Quebec? If the bills are passed by the National Assembly, postsecondary institutions in the province would have reduced independence in tailoring the structure of their boards of directors to their unique needs.

Worse still, the restrictive effects of the bills would unquestionably result in the reservation of fewer board seats for internal and, often, democratically-elected representatives: students, members of academic and non-academic staff, et cetera. In short, fewer seats on managing boards for professors, non-academic staff, alumni, and students will mean that these groups will have less of a say in the management and direction of their university. More seats will go to “independent” representatives, who come largely from the private sector to direct the affairs of our educational institutions.

Why is this wrong? Misguided philosophy and bad causation. What precipitated the birth of these bills? The real estate fiasco at UQAM, which came to light in 2007 and led to a government bail-out, in the region of $400 million. Some of the heads that rolled came from within the university community. Naturally, the provincial government reacted by saying “Never again!”

In keeping with the now entrenched ideology of the primacy of the private sector, the Ministry of Education convinced itself that businessmen and CEOs should be sent to the rescue. Apparently there’s nothing better than a shot of private sector business models to inoculate universities against the mismanagement of those klutzy eggheads. It’s almost as if the Ministry suspects that people with an actual stake in their postsecondary institutions are too blinded by their bias to be capable of properly counting numbers. Instead, the Ministry would like us to feel confident that businessmen never take risks. And we should also believe that businessmen will always have wholehearted concern for the well-being of institutions that they have little vested interest in.

If the Ministry had had the hindsight to properly review the events surrounding the UQAM real estate fiasco, they may well have noticed that abundant opposition to the imprudence of the real estate scheme came from within the university community. Students and employee unions from UQAM demonstrated and passed General Assembly motions against the projects. Unfortunately, the primary responsible party, ex-principal Roch Denis, had previously been a professor and union leader at UQAM, so the political elites in Quebec City drew the conclusion that decision-makers emanating from within universities could not be trusted.

In many respects, these bills are a result of the poor causation illustrated above. Now the Quebec postsecondary community is being forced into a corner. From student associations to university administrations to employees’ unions, there is widespread dissatisfaction with Bills 38 and 44. Given the general consensus that they must be seriously amended, if not outright rejected, you’d think that the Ministry would listen. And while the Ministry’s education committee is conducting consultative hearings, Minister Michelle Courchesne remains resolute in her conviction that these bills should pass into law. With a majority Liberal government in the National Assembly, she’ll probably get her way.

I ask all McGill students to inform themselves and mobilize to oppose these bills and support university autonomy and internal democracy.

A demonstration is being held on October 1 at 12:30 in Parc Émilie-Gamelin (near Berri-UQAM). If you have any questions or comments, write Sebastian Ronderos-Morgan (VP External Affairs of SSMU) at external@ssmu.mcgill.ca.

The post Just say no to Bills 38 and 44 appeared first on The McGill Daily.