There was no Grand Right Wing Conspiracy
by Sam on March 3, 2010
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)
3 comments
I don’t really want to get into it, but I’m pretty sure all compost piles rot. That’s what they do. It’s their sole purpose. So if theirs is rotting, they’re doing it right. Also, what’s wrong with a bicycle repair centre? I don’t own a bike (it was stolen by hooligans) but they are very popular in Vancouver and I frequently see insane people peddling up Burnaby Mountain. I once drove a friend’s bike down the mountain in my car to a bike repair shop as he had no other means to get it repaired. I’ve never visited their resource library so I can’t comment on it and whether it’s a waste of money but the other two things seem fairly useful, especially to the sort of folk that SFPIRG attracts. The salaries part seems to be the biggest piece of bullshit, but I have no idea about the details there so I will decline comment.
by MK on March 3, 2010 at 1:57 am #
“…those who demanded PIRG reform [are] ideological hacks, no worse than those they fought against.”
That about sums it up.
I’m no pro-PIRGer, but, let’s review of some of the actions of the “aspiring reformers”:
a) Blocked reforms that PIRG put forth.
b) Realized much too late that they needed two weeks to put forth motions… this implies bumbling disorganization driven by passion, as opposed to some sort of rational reformist action.
c) Campaigned in secrecy, employing words such as “coup d’etat”
d) Shouted out obscenities (Plett)
Don’t lay blame on Norris or Dubanik – they’ve been covering news without bias or prejudice for The Peak for awhile now. You guys, for the most part, clearly went about your cause the wrong way and have, as such, lost sympathy. It’s not the fault of spin; it’s the fault of an unaffected student body.
The truth has a sobering effect. And what you’re feeling right now is a hangover.
by Mo on March 3, 2010 at 12:33 pm #
Some points to counter B and C of your points:
I would estimate that half the PIRG people present at the meeting were not actually students, but “associate members” — people they pull off the street and give membership to. These associate members have the same voting rights as a regular member, despite the fact they are not students of our University.
The PIRG powers that be can simply stack a meeting full of these non-student members to ensure that they could power through any business at hand. Whats worse is that they called up their pals after the meeting had started to ensure that any group choosing to voice dissent would be outvoted.
If any other group on campus, like a DSU, tried to pull the same bullshit there would be hell to pay. Unfortunately for those who don’t like waste and corruption, SFPIRG can hide under the “rubric of social justice” and seemingly negate responsibility for their actions.
by Sam on March 3, 2010 at 3:37 pm #