Issues of representation complicate recent forum meeting
Author unknown
It was good to see Kris Anderson’s report from the Forum meeting from February 18 in last week’s issue. It provided a chance for the rest of the student population, who do not regularly attend Forum meetings, to see some of what goes on in those chambers.
I am a geography student and I knew beforehand the issues that were being dealt with in that Forum meeting because my Geography Forum representative took the time to outline the issues over e-mail and then again in our weekly Geography Students Union meeting. As far as I know, Forum members are “student representatives”; the spokespeople for their departments. Two weeks ago in Forum, all members were required to vote whether new changes to the SFSS constitution should be put to a referendum in which all students could then vote on in the upcoming elections. It was not a vote to amend the constitution then and there, but merely a vote accepting the amendments as worded, so that the student population could then vote to accept or reject the proposed amendments.
The Canadian Studies representative, Jonathan Frate, voted against this motion; he voted against allowing the students that he is a representative for, to have their own vote on the referendum question. Jonathan seemed to have a problem with the wording and content of the amendments entrenching the Women’s Centre, Out on Campus and the Graduate Student Constituency within the constitution stating that the centres do not represent everyone. Unfortunately Jonathan, you haven’t seemed to notice that you too do not represent everyone, so why would you vote against this motion, and thus effectively shut “everyone” out of the decision making process? It is not up to you to decide whether these amendments should pass, it is up to the whole student body.
Stefan Misse