The UNA runs our business via standing committees that must review materials before it is sent to the full board. This normally works fairly smoothly. However, this week our standing committees had to be cancelled due to a lack of quorum.
Two elected directors, (Laquin and Beyers) are out of the country at the moment and we knew well in advance that they would be absent. Unfortunately a UBC appointee sent in regrets at the last minute leading to us having to cancel the meetings as only elected directors Alexander, Zhou, and Menzies would have been in attendance. The appointed student director is named on the committee but in my two years on the board they have never attended the standing committees - the student reps almost always send their regrets or just don't turn up which increases the membership without providing any input of effort!
The standing committee of operations and of governance nominally have the elected directors (5) plus the student (1) and a UBC appointee (1) for a total of 7. That would mean quorum is 4.
It seems that we likely need to address the question of committee quorum as we do have two standing committees that have membership of two and three members. At the end of the day it is a shame that our work schedule for the Board has been deferred for a month. A slow and cumbersome process needs more attention and revisions to allow us to actually respond in a timely fashion to matters of concern.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Thursday, January 16, 2014
(published in the Campus resident, Jan. 21, 2014)
Last month Director Beyers opined in the Campus Resident that the UBC was rather like the Austro-Hungarian Empire and that as residents of the UNA we are like the former citizens of Vienna; somewhat privileged pets living in a gilded cage. In the same issue resident Jim Taylor and Director Zhou showered praise on our current from of government, yet added nothing that actually contradicted Director Beyer’s assessment of the lack of real, effective, local democracy in the University Neighbourhoods Area.
I essentially agree with Beyer’s comment on the lack of democracy here in the UNA. However, I think the more apt analogy is Pinochet’s Chile. Why? First, the Pinochet dictatorship used the façade of the rule of law to justify its actions (even as they summarily ignored the laws they enacted).
More to the point, however, was the way in which Pinochet’s government privatized much of Chile’s resources and used private corporations to develop key services. Chile under Pinochet piloted many of the economic measures that are now common: deregulation of the economy, transfer of state property to the private sector, the reduction of government services (except for enforcement agencies), and the transfer of the management of public services to the private sector.
A third parallel involves the systematic silencing of opposition. Under Pinochet’s rule opposition was silenced in a variety of ways. The most persistent forms involved silent pressure and constant threats against individual security. While one would be foolish to say the same thing exists here at UBC, there is a parallel form of silent pressure that is exerted: the often-mentioned ‘nuclear clause’ in the Neighbours Agreement (see section 15.3-5). The Neighbours Agreement between UBC and the UNA allows UBC to withdraw at almost any time if they feel the UNA is not acting appropriately. Lurking in the background is the constant threat that UBC will pull the plug. UBC, through its permanent appointed directors, is able to monitor elected Directors. Through a combination of paternalistic reminders and internal self-censorship, elected Directors are constantly aware that if they deviate from UBC’s plan the entire UNA edifice may be taken over and any semblance of autonomy removed.
An enhanced status quo, a la Jim Taylor, might improve some of the perks Director Beyer suggests UNA residents might enjoy. It is clear that under Pinochet a so-called economic miracle occurred that benefited large corporations. The trains ran on time and, as long as one was quiet, most people were able to live out their lives relatively unmolested by the state. I wonder though, is that really the type of society we want to live within? Are we really willing to give up democratic rights that people across our country and world have fought for? Just for a gilded cage of privilege?
I think not. The time is right to move forward on a full democratic reform of the UNA.