SSMU Council: just like McGill
Posted at 03:21PM on Apr 11, 2008 by web
During confidential session last night, SSMU Council voted 13-12 to accept a private vendor's proposal for room 103 in the Shatner building. Just like the McGill administration, it seems, SSMU Council doesn't trust students to run their own food services.
Today, after hearing the news, I suggested to a councilor that 13 of the councilor's colleagues were pricks. "About eight are pricks," the councilor corrected me. "Five are just idiots who will keep eating the bullshit they get shoveled." I assume "bullshit" refers to the Operations Committee report on renting out room 103, which heavily favours a private vendor and gives what many councilors consider inaccurate estimates of the cost of a student-run food service.
A number of councilors and concerned students had prepared an interesting counter-report that includes independent cost estimates, a number of Daily articles, and my suggestion earlier this week that SSMU consider rolling a student-run cafe and Gert's into one. The counter-report called for SSMU to do more research and consultation before making a decision. That's hardly an unreasonable idea, as there were valid concerns on both side of the debate. But it wasn't enough to sway your elected representatives, who are apparently more interested in imitating McGill than supporting student-run initiatives.
This was an extremely tight vote on an extremely divisive issue, and now Shatner is stuck with some overpriced coffee chain for the foreseeable future. SSMU completely failed to do proper consultation prior to this, and those councilors who supported a student-run cafe were simply asking for more time to investigate other options. That's what really galls me; not that SSMU councilors would so eagerly imitate their older siblings in James Admin, but that they would do so without even the barest trappings of transparency or accountability. A friend's Facebook status sums it up best: "god damn stupid fucking sham of a democracy go burn in hell."
Drew Nelles
Coordinating editor
The name of the corporate vendor should be released next week. Expect a news story online in the next few days.
About this blog:
The Board
A blog from The McGill Daily editorial board. Here you'll find news about Daily events, editors' musings, and other stuff you don't give a shit about.
Comments
derek wrote:
(I have posted a similar version of this comment in a couple places, so I'm sorry if some people find it redundant -- i'm simply very upset)
I just want to say one thing:
While I can't say I'm completely surprised that SSMU has continued it's long tradition of being utterly irrelevant, horribly bureaucratic, and severely lacking any understanding of what it means to BE A STUDENT, after looking at the history of students demanding student-run initiaives on campus and the strong support from many councilors, I (stupidly) thought SSMU's tiring traditions might actually pause for a moment.
Wow -- I was wrong.
This is so angering and it renews my dedication to working outside SSMU. It's obvious that no matter what a student population does, what it wants will not be respected and fulfilled by an institution like SSMU, masquerading as a democratic body.
Long live autonomous, independent groups on campus who actually make things happen and create alternatives on their own, according to their own terms and in true democratic spirit!
Seriously. Fuck this.
Apr 11 at 03:59 PM
Flag as inappropriate
Jonny wrote:
Derek,
Echo your sentiments wholeheartedly. My one question is: is it something inherint to "SSMU", as such that makes it useless? Or the total lack of progressive candidates running for council outside of Arts? We've seen this year that almost everything came down to a simple count of votes, and this issue was no different. We have seen the slow-but-positive results of electing progressive people to the executive, but without a progressive council, hands are still very much tied. There has never been a concerted effort to get progressives elected outside of Arts.
Apr 11 at 05:50 PM
Flag as inappropriate
Anthony wrote:
pain in the ass.
Apr 11 at 05:54 PM
Flag as inappropriate
James wrote:
While it's not so much that there are no "progressive" people outside of Arts, it's just that most people outside of Arts who take the time to get elected tend to place the practical about the idealistic, and want to focus their work on larger issues relevant to students, as opposed to who makes the food they buy in Shatner.
If you want your brand of change, go find a few Management/Science/Engineering students who sufficiently ideologically pure, and get them elected. That's how you fix things - not by blowvating on Facebook/blogs.
And Drew, while you've got every right to be angry and pouting about this, is quoting Fred Burrill's Facebook status really the best you can do?
Apr 11 at 08:08 PM
Flag as inappropriate
Byron Tau wrote:
Drew/Fred,
Don't you think its a tad self-righteous of you to presume to speak for the entire body politic in denouncing SSMU council as "unrepresentative" and "undemocratic"? Is the very essence of a properly functioning democratic system electing people to offices who make decisions? Do you actually have polling on the matter? Do you actually presume to speak for "student opinion"?
-Byron
Apr 11 at 09:29 PM
Flag as inappropriate
Corey wrote:
Hear Hear Byron!
As I've said on two of the Facebook notes on this issue, these people who claim that "McGill students want a student-run café" tend to forget that when they refer to students, they're actually referring to the extremely vocal but extremely small minority, embodied by graspé. The vast majority of McGill students, very simply, couldn't care less!
In addition, in all of the propaganda we've seen the last few weeks for a student-run operation, it seems that everyone has forgotten that EVERY SINGLE commercial venture SSMU has EVER tried to run has failed miserably. Sadies, the Brothel, Haven Books, Gerts. I fail to see why people insist that this one would be any different.
Apr 11 at 10:22 PM
Flag as inappropriate
derek wrote:
Byron,
I'm going to answer your question, even though it's not directed at me?
This is certainly NOT 'self-righteousness' -- a tried and true term used against people on the left.
I could accuse your assumtions of what 'properly functioning' democracy is as 'self-righteous'. But they aren't -- they are simply you being critical of some comments, never professing to say that you speak for everyone (you don't speak for me, and I think Drew and Fred would agree that this definition is not our vision of true democracy).
No where has anyone here claimed such omnipotent knowledge. People have only argued is that there has been, historically and in recent months, a huge and very real mandate given to SSMU (through the GA and referenda, both are ways to guage, through polling if you like, support for ideas).
This was their opportunity to honour that mandate, but ultimately chose not to.
Instead, we've been told maybe something will happen 'next time' -- we've all heard that one before...
love, d
Apr 11 at 10:29 PM
Flag as inappropriate
Fred wrote:
Wow. I'm such a gloryhound. In the media without even intending to be!
Apr 12 at 10:29 AM
Flag as inappropriate
Byron Tau wrote:
Yes, but you neglected to answer the question.
Apr 12 at 01:24 PM
Flag as inappropriate
Drew wrote:
Byron, please point out to me just where I declared that I "speak for 'student opinion.'" The point I've been stressing over and over again is that SSMU simply should have taken more time before making any decision on this controversial issue. People from across the political spectrum have decried SSMU's lack of consultation and transparency here. Why is it unreasonable to do a little more work before charging ahead?
And Corey, you have a sad and twisted view of democracy. Maybe the majority of students couldn't care less - but the majority of students don't vote in the exec elections or referenda, don't get involved with SSMU clubs, don't attend SSMU events, etc. If your point is that SSMU shouldn't do anything because the majority of students don't care, I wonder why you bothered getting involved with SSMU in the first place.
And James, Fred's Facebook status was hilarious. I couldn't NOT use it.
Apr 12 at 02:11 PM
Flag as inappropriate
Byron Tau wrote:
Your facebook status said that Council was unrepresentative -- implying that because they didn't make a decision you agreed with, they're shirking from their duties.
Apr 12 at 03:12 PM
Flag as inappropriate
Drew wrote:
Ah yes, my Facebook status is always where I express myself most sincerely and make carefully thought-out political statements.
Apr 12 at 04:29 PM
Flag as inappropriate
derek wrote:
Welcome to the 'post-9/11, increasingly globalized world-of-google', Drew -- you really must be more careful...
...Oh! how the world changes.
Apr 12 at 04:34 PM
Flag as inappropriate
Post a Comment