The essence of a union

The recent controversy in the students’ union raises many questions, questions that go much deeper that the questionable actions of Ryan Dubois or past union scandals involving Scott Thomas and Austin Smith. To dismiss three scandals in three consecutive years as coincidence is a shallow explanation of the recent wave of union corruption. To have a trend of such infidelity, it must be more than merely personalities and individuals that make the union. Instead, it is my belief, that the recent wave of betrayal and contempt for students displayed by our elected and hired representatives is part of something much larger than three people; it is a systematic problem our union faces and is one that must be solved.
Under Scott Thomas’s administration in 2004-05, the students’ union took a new approach. They decided that the union’s main purpose was to generate activities in which students could take part. They moved away from lobbying and moved towards increased activities and campus activities. Following Thomas, the Smith administration in 2005-06 followed the same path. They stated their goal was increased activities for residence students, at the pit, and on campus in general. After the Smiths, this year’s union has continued the trend. They lost $11,000 on Frosh Week, spent oodles of money on The Pit – added a point of sale system and a new sound system – and took money away from many of the union’s services that they offer. Oh, and they got a pay raise (for what I am not sure).
Our union has undergone a slow metamorphosis from a powerful political force operating on behalf of students in 2000 to a glorified high school student council in 2007-08. Somewhere in this process, our student leaders lost sight of the union’s purpose and, as a result, the union failed to live up to its full potential and its members began to suffer. Somehow, this new direction of the students’ union attracted people less interested in the goals of the organization and more interested in self-advancement, self-aggrandizement and more willing to exploit loopholes and violate the spirit of the students’ union.
The Administrative Procedure and Policy Manual of the students’ union states that the spirit of the union:

The Students’ Union is a unique organization in that it is student driven and its leaders change year to year. These elections for new leaders are at the heart of our organization, that is to say, students serving students. We believe in the process that allows all students to participate in choosing who leads. If students form the central reason for the University College’s existence, it follows then, that students are the foundation of the Students’ Union.

The phrase “students serving students” penetrates to the heart of what our union is supposed to be. However, this passage also means students representing students, a group of elected and appointed representatives who provide a voice to the student body and bring their concerns to politicians and administrators or anyone else that can help. This passage also indicates that students, not the selfish interests of many of our more recent representatives, are the reason behind the union’s existence. This statement is clear; however, this year our union has set a precedent that violates the very spirit of the organization for which they work.
After spending a year dedicated to activities, pay raises, and cutting services, our SRC proved to be ineffective at ensuring the spirit of our union was upheld and that the students the represent were not betrayed. The SRC was put in place to operate as the union’s board of directors, the ultimate check and balance. However, they are effective as a check and balance only insofar as they are knowledgeable about the union’s by-laws and competent in their enforcement. The emergency meeting of the student representative council displayed their incompetence; one representative did not even know that students were allowed to watch the meetings.
The meeting focused on by-law 1.01, a by-law that has proved troublesome for some time. It reads:

Any student who is registered at the of Cape Breton University as a full-time, part-time, distance education, or correspondence student in any given academic year, including spring and summer sessions, is automatically a member of the Students' Union.

This by-law means that if someone registers for a second term course in September and none in the first term, they will be considered a member of the students’ union even for the term in which they will not be taking classes. This rubs people the wrong way since it ends up allowing people, like Mr. Dubois, to exploit the loophole created by by-law 1.01.
A lot of people have said the union should define membership based on the university’s definition of a student. This suggestion has proved to be unpalatable since it would mean that the university administration could de-register the union’s executive and effectively decapitate the leadership of the student body.
Some people have argued that membership should be contingent upon payment of union dues. However, union dues are combined with tuition fees and many people do not pay tuition fees until the end of September and some, for financial reasons, take longer to pay. This definition would result in two things: students who did not pay their union dues until the end of September would be without representation for a month and those that are having trouble paying their tuition fees, those who need the union’s help the most, would go without representation indefinitely. Such injustice is revolting in my eyes.
Alas, by-law 1.01 may be the best definition of a member of the union we have. The problem with such a by-law is that it requires thoughtfulness and an ability to weigh subtleties for it to be administered properly, things this SRC and union has proven they lack.
If the SRC showed the least bit of interest in serving their students and properly representing their constituents they would have asked Mr. Dubois questions at that emergency meeting. Instead, they turned it into a disgusting farce of an affair. If they had asked Mr. Dubois questions, they would have found out that even by his own definition of a union member, he was not a member of the union from September to December of 2007. If the SRC does not take immediate steps to rectify their mistake, they need to ask themselves why they are even bothering to call themselves representatives. In their current capacity, rubber stamp seems to be a more effective and accurate description of their role.
This complete failure by the union’s executive and the SRC to enforce their by-laws shows what happens when a union strays too far from its purpose and loses sight of the spirit of the union. Mr. Dubois must do the right thing: resign and pay back the wages he had no right to collect. If he refused, the SRC must show Mr. Dubois the door and demand that he return his wages.
This might begin to fix the problems created by the colossal failure of this impotent SRC.

Originally published in the Caper Times on January 24, 2008.