On February 10^th a group of students attended the SFPIRG’s Annual General Meeting in order to voice their concerns in regards to the grievous and downright arrogant contempt for transparency and the democratic process that the group is notorious for. Ironically a group that promotes the rhetoric of environmental and social justice, which claims to be non partisan, resorted to ad-hominem attacks and threats of violence when it became clear that the interests of their non elected board were challenged.

I would like to iterate, and deeply emphasize one point: I support your right to exist. While my political views are my own, I support political discourse and groups of like minded individuals to promote their agenda and further their causes. I strongly believe that the group which came to the AGM, which should be noted was a ideological motley crew, would echo my point. I would never engage in some pseudo-McCarthyist tactics to ostracize those who hold differing opinions; I might attack your beliefs but I would never attack you for having them.

That being said, what united this group that came to the SFPIRG’s AGM was the strong belief that something was rotten in our fare university. The SFPIRG is funded by the public purse, as such they are expected to abide by a set of standards that will ensure that there are no misappropriations of funds and the group is actually delivering on its mandate. The financial statement that was presented at the AGM would prove otherwise.

According to the financial documents presented at the AGM, the SFPIRG spent $130,233 in 2009 on salaries and benefits and $19,735 on “Office and Administration”. Despite this enormous expenditure, SFPIRG administrators could only give a ballpark figure of the number of students that actually use the services. Consider that many SFU programs are currently suffering financially in the current economic climate, and Department Student Unions, which thousands of students are currently involved in, get only $600 each semester in funding. The SFPIRG received $196,802 in student fees in 2009, $149,965 of which they spent on “Salaries and Benefits” and “Office and Administration”, which leaves a grand total of $46,387 to spend on the resources for students—of course, after subtracting the $11,313 they donate to social justice organizations completely unaffiliated with SFU, which leaves us with $35,524.

It is important to note that the SFPIRG attached a statement to their financial records stating that “We have not performed an audit or a review engagement in respect of these financial statements and, accordingly, we express no assurance thereon. Readers are cautioned that these statements may not be appropriate for their purposes.” SFPIRG states that this (along with an appointed as opposed to elected board of directors) is commonplace for “non-profit organizations”, apparently forgetting that the vast majority of non-profit organizations secure their funds through donation, not through student levies.

The SFPIRG often compares themselves to The Peak in terms of operational structure. However, at The Peak Publications Society undergoes a yearly audit to ensure that funds are not being fraudulently mismanaged or misappropriated.

At other AGMs (such as The Peak’s), Roberts Rules of Order are employed to ensure the meeting proceeds fairly and democratically. These rules are employed so the meetings have structure and are not run at the whims of the board and chair under the guise of “consensus”.

We’ve tried talking to you SFPIRG, as we are concerned about what you do with our money. However you don’t return our calls, and you answer our emails ambiguously. You hold board meetings, yet refuse to turn over the minutes (any other group on campus will do that upon request). And when we show up to your board meetings you engage in ad-hominem attacks and threaten us with violence. In fact, one of your supports went as far as to follow a student from the meeting to the bus stop and threatened with assault.

So what we want is, as you might put it, social change. Stop the dishonesty, and  conduct a forensic audit. Fire your overpaid staff members and replace them with students paid by a modest stipend. Promote social and environmental justice, and not the interests of your staff and non elected board members.

Just act honestly.

Regards,

Sam Reynolds

It was with great amusement that I read Sam Norris and Carolina Dubanik’s coverage of the SFPIRG AGM in the last issue of The Peak[SFPIRG may face loss of student levy March 1 2010]. The rather selective narrative they wove sought to discredit those who chose to voice dissent at the SFPIRG AGM by painting them as a cadre of conservatives. The authors of the piece wanted to portray those who demanded PIRG reform as ideological hacks, no worse than those they fought against.

Here lies the folly in the author’s disposition. There was no right wing conspiracy that was plotting against the PIRG. Those who showed up were of a variety of political stripes: While I would consider myself a Libertarian, and Jonathon Van Maren is a self-described social conservative, Robert Lutener, a vocal SFPIRG critic, is a former campaigner for Alberta’s provincial New Democrat Party. James Plett, who left the AGM disgusted at the contempt the SFPIRG showed for the democratic process, is a Liberal, while Alysia MacGrotty, who was also in attendance, is a Red Tory.

To the members of the group who tried to hold the SFPIRG to account at the AGM, their ideological differences were merely minute. They were united by the firm belief that a group funded by the public purse must adhere to generally accepted rules, they cannot simply as they please with student’s money.

However, the SFPIRG was not interested in dialogue. When the meeting adjourned SFPIRG supporters called security claiming that they were threatened in a bid to quell dissent. Later in the evening after the AGM concluded, Robert Lutener was followed to the bus stop by an SFPIRG supporter and was threatened with physical assault as well as promised that he would “never got [sic] a job in B.C” since this SFPIRG crony apparently knew the right people.

It is rather ironic that a group which claims to fight for social justice used threats of violence and organized slander against those who sought reform. Those who attended the SFPIRG’s AGM did so out of a disdain for waste and incompetence. They did so because they believed that a group which receives nearly $200,000 of student’s money a year should not spend $130,2330 on salaries/benefits, send $11,313 to unaffiliated social justice organizations, then spend the remaining $35,524 on a rotting compost pile, an alternative resource library, and a bicycle repair centre.

Futher Reading:

“Push for Democracy and Accountability a Right Wing Conspiracy”

“The Party at the PIRG” (a more accurate and in-depth account of what happened)

On Saturday, the American Conservative Union’s annual conference, the Conservative Political Action conference wrapped up. CPAC is the venue where the GOP’s platform and policies are moulded and shaped. As 2010 is a midterm year, there weren’t any presidential hopefuls vying for votes before primaries. The focus was on winning back the house, and the line up of speakers certainly reflected that.

Here are the first part of some of my thoughts and impressions from aspects of the event:

I’m not sure what the bigger surprise of the conference was, Dick Cheney dropping in for an unannounced speech or the roaring applause and ovation he received upon conclusion. For a party that is attempting to don the libertarian garb (and whose future depends on it), the thunderous welcome Cheney got seemed rather strange.

It was Bush and Cheney who signed into law the Patriot Act, the statue that the Campaign for Liberty crowd cite as the most dangerous intrusion of the state into civil liberties.  Bush & Co. were also responsible for the outrageous and reckless spending that placed America into a deep deficit long before current president Barack Huessein Obama was elected. Granted, Bush was elected into a recession which required tax cuts to restart the economy; 43 merely exacerbated the financial problems. It would be difficult to cast him as a ‘fiscal conservative’ by any stretch of the imagination.

Considering the administration’s invasion of civil liberties and somewhat reckless spending, it is curious why Cheney received such a warm welcome. If the Republicans are going to contrast themselves to the Obama administration, who was elected largely because they contrasted himself to the Bush administration, why would they welcome the man who, to some, epitomizes the worst aspects of the previous administration?

It could be a symbolic middle finger the Democrat establishment, who portrayed conservatives as the ‘great Satan’ during the Bush years. Or it could be a salute to an ex-politician who has gone on the offensive, saying whatever is on his mind, showing his true colours, as one last hurrah. While this could certainly be considered entertaining (political pornography?), it is damaging to a party trying to brand itself as a cadre of fiscal conservatives. Quite simply, the imagery of the chorus of cheers to the appearance of Cheney was poor – damaging to say the least.

While history may view the Bush administration in a slightly more positive light, the Republicans should attempt to distance themselves from their previous leader and move closer to the Romney or Paul fiscal conservative camp.