This is the second follow up post to "
The CFS is broken and can't be fixed." It will focus of the undemocratic structure of the CFS which serves to limit the ability of crtical members to make meaningful changes to the organization.
Here are the others:
- "The CFS is broken and can't be fixed"
- Influencing internal politics (follow up post part 1)
- General Meeting experience (follow up post part 3)
- CFS's questionable finances (follow up post part 4)
Undemocratic structure
On Friday
UVic Underground posted a rather deceptive infographic attempting to show that the CFS has a very democratic structure for its general meetings. The reality is that this graphic barely scratches the surface regarding the flaws and undemocratic nature of the CFS. Some in favour of CFS membership suggest that if the CFS is flawed, it can be fixed.
Student unions have made very strong attempts to reform the CFS the past few years but the flawed structure prevents this from happening. The CFS is structured in such a way to weed out any dissessting or critical voices, as you will see.
First let’s look at how you get a motion on a CFS general meeting agenda. You as a UVic student and individual member of the CFS cannot submit a motion to the CFS. To get a motion on the CFS agenda, you must convince the UVSS board that it is a good idea and have them submit it on your behalf. This is the first way critical voices may be silenced.
Perhaps you have a receptive and critical UVSS board as this year’s is and they submit a motion to a CFS General meeting on your behalf. Maybe you also desire to attend the general meeting. The UVSS generally only sends about five or six delegates to CFS general meetings. One of these is a staff member and one is a recommendation of NSU. It is rare for non board members to be selected to attend AGMs as delegates. It is also uncommon for a delegate to be selected who is known to be critical of the CFS. As a result the majority of a delegation sent to an AGM will not be critical of the organization.
Maybe you wanted to just simply attend a General Meeting as an observer. This shouldn't be an issue since you are a member of the CFS, right? Wrong. David Foster has
twice requested to attend CFS-BC General Meetings as an observer, but has been denied this right both times.
It is important to note that no matter how many delegates a student society sends to a CFS General Meeting, it
only receives one vote on any given motion. As critical voices aren’t generally sent to AGMs in the first place, this vote will likely be to maintain the status quo. It is also notable to mention that regardless of whether a student society has 4000 or 40 000 members, they still only get one vote at a general meeting. In this manner, a handful of small student societies can have far more influence than a larger student society like the UVSS.
During the opening plenary of CFS meetings, it is determined which committees will address each motion. It is in these committees that motions are debated and then recommendations about these motions are made for the closing plenary.
Before committee meetings begin, delegates meet in a series of caucuses (such as BC caucus, Women’s caucus etc) to select delegates from the caucus to sit on committees. If a delegate is not voted onto a committee, they may not speak at it. Not surprisingly, delegates with critical views of the CFS are not elected to committees.
In some recent General Meetings, delegates from the UVSS have been blocked from selection to committees. Thus
our delegates have not been allowed to speak in committees even when motions submitted by the UVSS are being debated. In this manner, the voices critical of the CFS are silenced in these committees and at General Meetings.
As
Gunn, McArthy and Irani state: “The national and provincial General Meetings are tightly controlled. During debates many of the strongest speakers in support of motions are CFS-loyal staff – and not the elected representatives.”
The structure of the CFS is such that any effort to reform the organization requires students to jump through a number of hoops to achieve this. Along the way there are a number of roadblocks that can prevent this reform from happening whether at the level of their own student society or while attending a General Meeting.
By my count, there are at least five major roadblocks that an average member critical of the CFS must pass through in order to have their voice heard and achieve change at a CFS General Meeting.
- Become a UVSS board member
- Be selected as a delegate to a CFS AGM
- Be selected by a caucus to represent that caucus in the applicable CFS committee
- Convince the CFS committee that your idea would be a positive change for the CFS and have it recommend the motion for adoption by the committee.
- Have the motion pass at the closing plenary of the General Meeting.
For most students with critical voices, merely succeeding at step one is a significant challenge. The UVSS board only has 16 elected positions. As you pass through the steps, the instances of succeeding become rarer and rarer. The CFS’s infographic brags that 93 motions were debated at General Meetings in 2010. A question to ask though is how many motions attempting meaningful reform of the organization actually pass? Next to none.
The CFS can claim that it is a democratic organization, however it is a
very controlled form of democracy that uses a number of mechanisms to ensure
critical voices are not heard. It is highly resistant to change resulting in the failure of a number of motions attempting to reform the organization failing in recent years.
As Gunn, McArthy and Irani assert:
The CFS is broken and can’t be fixed.
