NSPIRG survives AGM challenge

Second verse, same as the first?

After failing to complete its annual general meeting on March 11 due to procedural debates over a number of controversial motions, the Dalhousie Student Union resumed proceedings Wednesday night in the McInnis Room with a fire-code-capacity crowd in attendance.

Though arguably a more civil affair this time around, little more was decided than the first attempt. Five hours after the scheduled start time – two of which were consumed by a ballot vote on the evening’s most contentious issue – the agenda still was not even close to complete. In the end, the only significant new business accomplished was a vote on the future of the Nova Scotia Public Interest Research Group (NSPIRG).

The non-profit social justice organization, which receives most of its funding from students, was being challenged with a motion that would have booted staff from their offices in the Student Union Building and brought forth a referendum to revoke its funding levy. After representatives from NSPIRG’s board and the DSU executive successfully put forward an amendment to strike most of the motion and leave only the referendum question, the assembly’s first attempt at voting by hand was so close that the chair agreed to a request for a ballot vote.

That process was complicated by a judicial board ruling days earlier allowing King’s students to attend as observers. With students needing to be ID’d before receiving ballots, voting dragged on over two hours, forcing the DSU executive to order the building open an hour longer than scheduled and leading most attendees to leave after casting their vote. The dedicated few that remained learned the result from chair Mat Brechtel shortly after 11:30 p.m. – by a razor-thin margin of 237-214, attendees voted against holding a referendum on NSPIRG’s funding.

“I think we learned that we have more support on campus than we realized,” says Asaf Rashid, NSPIRG campaigns coordinator, reflecting on the result. “It showed that when we were pushed into a defensive position that we were capable of mobilizing people, reaching out to students and answering their questions about NSPIRG.” He also believes that the motion’s opponents recognized how damaging a referendum fight would be to the organization’s ability to continue its environmental and social justice work.

The exhaustion of all available time at the AGM meant that no other business was discussed. Other motions originally scheduled for debate included a number of amendments to the DSU constitution, the revoking of the society policy and a series of motions put forward by an organization called Students Mobilizing Action on Campus (SMAC). It was these motions – which would have, among other things, committed the DSU to an anti-war agenda and challenged corporate advertising and contracts on campus – that instigated the firestorm over NSPIRG in the first place, as critics conflated the two organizations (both maintain that they are independent, but supportive, of one other).

“As per our Robert’s rules and our constitution any motions that do not get addressed before the end of a meeting immediately fall,” explained Mark Coffin, DSU vice president academic, in an e-mail to Dalnews. “Unlike the March 11th AGM, there was no resolution passed at the April 1st AGM to continue the agenda of the meeting should we run out of time. Should any member of the union wish to revisit any of the motions that have not yet been dealt with, they must submit them to the chair of council at least 24 hours in advance of the next general meeting.”

Current DSU president Courtney Larkin has indicated that she does not intend to call an AGM before the end of her term. Given that, it is highly unlikely that another AGM will take place until September at the earliest.

As to NSPIRG, it seems likely that last night’s vote was the end of a chapter instead of the end of the story. Ben Wedge, a first-year engineering student and one of the leading proponents of the “Stop NSPIRG” movement, is disappointed with how things played out but says that the fight over NSPIRG’s future is far from over.

“I think it’s a little upsetting that NSPIRG struck our motion to replace it with one of theirs, and then urged their members to vote against it,” he says of the amended question voted on by the assembly. That said, he adds, “The vote was very close…close enough that council should – and probably will – strike a referendum in the fall.”

Mr. Wedge is correct in that DSU council can sanction a referendum question independent of any AGM decision, but it would require a two-thirds majority to be put to the student body. Alternatively, a referendum can be brought forth by petition with signatures from 10 per cent of the union. Both sides of the debate pledge take a deep breath following the contentious AGM and regroup over the summer before determining next steps.