How long can we maintain the fiction of democratic structure in the UNA while still having appointment Directors?
The appointed Directors represent the narrow interests of the bodies that appoint, not the interests of community residents. Have any doubts? Read the Neighbours Agreement and the UNA By-law. It's clear that the UBC appointed Directors (there are two of them) are appointed to ensure UBC's specific interests (which is not the same thing as residents' interests) are maintained.
The BC Society's Act, however, states that all Directors of a society (which the UNA is) MUST represent the collective interests of the society's members. It seems to me that there is a serious contraction between the reasons given by UBC to appoint directors and the terms enacted by the BC Legislature. How can we fix this problem?
First, the appointed directors can immediately cease voting on all matters that come before the UNA. A policy of voice but no vote would be a reasonable half-step toward effective democratic self-governance.
Second, increase the number of elected resident directors for the fall 2014 election to expand and strengthen the democratic voice of resident electors.
Third, remove all appointed directors through a revision of the Neighbours Agreement ASAP!
It's time to end UBC's paternalism and remove all appointed UNA Directors.